77 Changed Doctrines in Modern Bibles
- Thread starter Bible_Highlighter
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Doctrinal Changes in the NKJV:
Matthew 1:1 – “generation” changed to “genealogy.” (Note: This is the account of Joseph’s line, so this cannot be a genealogy of Jesus.)
Genesis 6:6 – “repent” altered in meaning to make God do something that is impossible.
2 Timothy 2:15 – “study” changed to “be diligent.”
Romans 1:20 – “Godhead” changed to “divine nature.” (Note: While it does mean “divine nature,” it is not as precise because the extended meaning can refer to the Trinity, especially today.)
Proverbs 19:18 – removes the truth of not holding back chastening if your child cries.
Proverbs 29:18 – “the people perish” changed to “the people cast off restraint.”
John 1:3 – “by Him” changed to “through Him.” (Note: This suggests that God the Father created things through Jesus when in reality it was Jesus who created all things.)
John 4:24 – “God is a Spirit” changed to “God is Spirit.” (New Age concept.)
1 Thessalonians 5:22 – “appearance of evil” changed to “form of evil.” (I have run into Christians who love to defend their celebration of Halloween or in looking evil.)
Titus 3:10 – “heretic” changed to “divisive man.” (Makes Jesus out to be a sinner.)
Hebrews 2:16 – weakens the doctrinal truth of Christ taking on flesh.
2 Corinthians 10:5 – “imaginations” changed to “arguments.”
1 Peter 1:7 – “trial” changed to “genuineness.”
Colossians 3:2 – “affection” changed to “mind.”
Isaiah 11:3 – removes “shall make him of quick understanding.”
Daniel 3:25 – footnoted to question “the Son of God.”
Proverbs 16:10 – “divine sentence” changed to “divination.” (New Age concept.)
2 Corinthians 4:2 – “dishonesty” changed to “shame.”
1 Timothy 6:10 – “all evil” changed to “all kinds of evil.”
Romans 3:25 – “faith in His blood” weakened.
1 John 3:16 – removes “of God” in the phrase “love of God.” (Which attacks the deity of Christ.) (Note: The NKJV translators did not follow the Beza Greek 1598 here like the KJV translators did.)
1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46, 2 Kings 23:7 – say “perverted persons” instead of “sodomites.”
....
Note: The revisers are Westcott and Hort.
Yet, when the first NKJV New Testament edition came out, they told the reader they were not going to subject the reader to Westcott and Hort's revision. However, they changed their tune later on with the full NKJV version.
Note 2: The Nestle and Aland Greek text is not much different from the Westcott and Hort 1881 Greek seeing they both have Vaticanus and Sinaiticus priority or primacy.
....
That seems at odds with the website of a well-known Christian bookshop here in the UK at https://www.eden.co.uk/blog/kjv-vs-nkjv-whats-the-difference-and-which-is-for-you-p1812538 which says:
"A Key Similarity: The Underlying Texts
This is a crucial point that many people miss.
Unlike most other modern translations (like the NIV or ESV), the NKJV was created as a direct update to the KJV based on the very same original language manuscripts."
You're right. The NKJV is based on the TR, same as the KJV. I've heard some people say the NKJV follows the Nestle-Aland Greek text in some passages, but that's simply not true. The NKJV translates some passages differently than the KJV, and sometimes this results in similarities to other modern versions; but that's a translation issue, not a textual one. People who have a problem with translation differences really are saying the KJV is infallible, and any variation from it is a corruption.
As has been said before, what is important is what the original Hebrew or Greek words mean, not what is in a particular English translation. Take, for example, 2 Timothy 2:15 and the word translated "study" in the KJV. You complain that the NKJV changes the doctrine taught in that verse by using the English "be diligent." The Greek word is spoudazo, and in 2 Peter 2:4, the KJV translates that same word as "be diligent":
2Pe 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent <4704> that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
As a second example, there is 2 Corinthians 4:2. You say the NKJV changes “dishonesty” to "shame." The Greek word appears 6 times in the New Testament, and in the other 5 places, the KJV translates it as "shame":
Lu 14:9 And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame <152> to take the lowest room.
Php 3:19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame <152>, who mind earthly things.)
Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame <152>, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Jude 1:13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame <152>; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
Re 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame <152> of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
Okay. Two things you are not understanding here, brother.
#1. As I said before, I am stating that the NKJV is based on the Textus Receptus PRIMARILY.
However, the NKJV does not always faithfully follow the Textus Receptus in a few small places, which you can confirm for yourself now with AI tools and looking at the Beza 1598 and comparing it with the Nestle and Aland Greek website, and looking at the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus Greek using Accordance software (Note: I provide these tools and links at the bottom page of my PDF at www.affectionsabove.com).
NKJV Departures from the Textus Receptus:
Source for screen-cap images:
http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/New_King_James_Version#Departures_from_the_Textus_Receptus
(Note: I provided the screen-caps because your average joe does not know how to navigate Nick Sayer's website, seeing he needs to overhaul his website seeing is 10,000 plus pages,, etcetera).
One of the biggest changes here on this list that attacks the deity of Jesus Christ with the NKJV departure from the Textus Receptus is 1 John 3:16. This morning, I just double checked the Greek in the Beza 1598 (which the KJV translators used), and I checked the Nestle and Aland Greek 28, and the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (which the NA 28 primarily follows). This is a textual difference that follows the Critical Text and not the TR and it has serious implications. 1 John 3:16 is talking about how Jesus laid down his life for us. So, when you remove the words "of God" in 1 John 3:16, from the phrase "love of God", it is a watering down of Christ deity. The NKJV removes "of God" which causes this change and the NKJV translators decided not to follow the Beza 1598 Greek, which the KJV translators primarily followed (except for 20 or so places, i.e. translatable differences).
1 John 3:16 Nestle–Aland 28 (Critical Text)
Ἐν τούτῳ ἐγνώκαμεν τὴν ἀγάπην [omitted]* ὅτι ἐκεῖνος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἔθηκεν·
καὶ ἡμεῖς ὀφείλομεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν τὰς ψυχὰς θεῖναι.
Note — τοῦ Θεοῦ (“of God”) is omitted in the Nestle–Aland Critical Text.
1 John 3:16 Codex Vaticanus (B)
ⲉⲛ ⲧⲟⲩⲧⲱ ⲉⲅⲛⲱⲕⲁⲙⲉⲛ ⲧⲏⲛ ⲁⲅⲁⲡⲏⲛ [omitted]* ⲟⲧⲓ ⲉⲕⲉⲓⲛⲟⲥ ⲩ̈ⲡⲉⲣ ⲏⲙⲱⲛ ⲧⲏⲛ ⲯⲩⲭⲏⲛ ⲁⲩⲧⲟⲩ ⲉⲑⲏⲕⲉⲛ·
ⲕⲁⲓ ⲏⲙⲉⲓⲥ ⲟⲫⲉⲓⲗⲟⲙⲉⲛ ⲩ̈ⲡⲉⲣ ⲧⲱ̅ ⲁⲇⲉⲗⲫⲱⲛ ⲧⲁⲥ ⲯⲩⲭⲁⲥ ⲑⲉⲓⲛⲁⲓ.
Note — τοῦ Θεοῦ (“of God”) = ⲙ̅ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ in Coptic. These are the words that should appear here but are omitted in Codex Vaticanus.
1 John 3:16 Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ)
ⲉⲛ ⲧⲟⲩⲧⲱ ⲉⲅⲛⲱⲕⲁⲙⲉⲛ ⲧⲏⲛ ⲁⲅⲁⲡⲏⲛ [omitted]* ⲟⲧⲓ ⲉⲕⲉⲓⲛⲟⲥ ⲩ̈ⲡⲉⲣ ⲏⲙⲱⲛ ⲧⲏⲛ ⲯⲩⲭⲏⲛ ⲁⲩⲧⲟⲩ ⲉⲑⲏⲕⲉⲛ·
ⲕⲁⲓ ⲏⲙⲉⲓⲥ ⲟⲫⲉⲓⲗⲟⲙⲉⲛ ⲩ̈ⲡⲉⲣ ⲧⲱ̅ ⲁⲇⲉⲗⲫⲱⲛ ⲧⲁⲥ ⲯⲩⲭⲁⲥ ⲑⲉⲓⲛⲁⲓ.
Note — τοῦ Θεοῦ (“of God”) = ⲙ̅ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ in Coptic. These are the words that should appear here but are omitted in Codex Sinaiticus.
1 John 3:16 Beza 1598 (Textus Receptus)
Ἐν τούτῳ ἐγνώκαμεν τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὅτι ἐκεῖνος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἔθηκεν·
καὶ ἡμεῖς ὀφείλομεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν τὰς ψυχὰς θεῖναι.
1 John 3:16 King James Version (KJV)
Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us:
and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
1 John 3:16 New King James Version (NKJV)
By this we know love [omitted]*, because He laid down His life for us.
And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
Note — τοῦ Θεοῦ (“of God”) is omitted in the NKJV, aligning it with the Critical Text and the Alexandrian manuscripts rather than the Beza 1598 / KJV reading.
Summary on 1 John 3:16:
- τοῦ Θεοῦ (“of God”) — Present only in Beza 1598 (Textus Receptus) and reflected in the KJV.
- Omitted in Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Nestle–Aland, and NKJV.
- In Coptic, “of God” = ⲙ̅ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ, showing exactly what should appear after “ⲁⲅⲁⲡⲏⲛ” in Codex B and ℵ.
#2. When I quoted the screen-cap of the NKJV and was commenting on it, my was to clarify that the word "revisers" was being used in context to get the reader to add or delete words from the Bible.
Let’s restate the quote in simpler terms (which comes from the NKJV Preface):
“We (NKJV editors) believe footnotes help readers think more. We also recognize that it’s easier for readers to delete something they think doesn’t belong, than to add something that was left out by the revisers (Westcott and Hort).”
The NKJV editors are effectively saying this:
- The Westcott and Hort revisers omitted many words, phrases, and even verses from the text (relative to the KJV/TR).
- Readers, they assume, are more likely to delete questionable additions than to insert missing words that previous revisers left out.
- By providing footnotes, the NKJV editors think they can help readers “decide” what belongs or not — even though that opens the door to private editing of the Word of God in practice.
In other words, the NKJV editors are telling the reader that they can add or delete from the Bible in comparison to what the NKJV writers have in their text, vs. comparing it to the Westcott and Hort English Revised Version.
....
Note: Some bad grammar in my previous post. Sorry about that.
Also, I wanted to highlight "of God" in bold only in the KJV.
The 5 minute window of editing is truly limiting here.
It needs to be changed to at least 20-25 minutes.
....
Also, I wanted to highlight "of God" in bold only in the KJV.
The 5 minute window of editing is truly limiting here.
It needs to be changed to at least 20-25 minutes.
....
So you are saying that the KJV translators with many of them knowing multiple languages and writing dictionaries in other languages and who can speak Hebrew and Greek since they were really young could not get this reading right?
Or are you pulling a Mark Ward tactic here and claiming that the word "study" did not mean hit the books like we understand it today?
In either case, you have sealed up the Word of God to the scholars or those who can know the original languages only.
This is similar to what the Catholics did with sealing up the Scriptures from the common man by speaking the Bible only in Latin (Note: Yes, they were harsh in the beginning by penalty of death in some cases, but this was not the case in later centuries).
While I believe we should look to the original languages, at the same time, God is interested in gathering the simple people.
God called men like fishermen, etcetera. Jesus did not call scribes or scholars involving the 12 disciples.
The problem with the phrase “Be diligent” (or “give diligence”), which is a modern rendering virtually unknown to English-speaking Christians for hundreds of years until Westcott and Hort’s 1881 revision, is that it sounds Catholic. It suggests that one must be diligent, performing good works, as the primary means of showing oneself approved unto God, rather than first resting in God’s grace. Certainly, believers are called to good works, and diligence in walking the narrow path is important, yet our foundation and rest must always begin with God’s grace. The King James reading, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God,” makes far greater sense. If a believer does not know God’s instructions for both faith and conduct, he can easily go astray. In modern Greek, σπουδάζω is commonly used to mean “I study” (for example, at a school, university, or in a specific subject), showing its continued link to disciplined learning. Scripture warns that “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6), reminding us that the pursuit of understanding is vital to a steadfast walk with the Lord.
You said:
The NKJV’s substitution of “shame” for “dishonesty” in 2 Corinthians 4:2 seriously weakens Paul’s warning. While αἰσχύνη (aischunē) can mean shame in general, the context here clearly refers to moral corruption, not embarrassment. Paul contrasts his sincerity with those who handle the word of God deceitfully—that is, those guilty of hidden deceit, not mere feelings of shame.
1. Contextual Harmony:
The KJV’s “dishonesty” perfectly fits the threefold pattern in the verse: dishonesty … craftiness … deceitfully. All describe moral falseness. Replacing “dishonesty” with “shame” breaks this logical parallel and dilutes the rebuke against deceitful teachers.
2. Moral Emphasis:
Paul’s concern is not that false teachers feel shame, but that they practice deceit. The NKJV’s reading blurs that ethical focus, reducing a charge of fraudulent handling of Scripture to a vague reference to emotion.
3. Historical Accuracy:
Earlier English Bibles—Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, and Bishops’—all use “dishonesty” or similar moral terms. The KJV continues this tradition. “Shame” was first introduced by modern revisers following the 1881 Westcott–Hort revision, showing a clear shift in tone.
In short, the KJV preserves the verse’s moral and doctrinal precision, while the NKJV’s change to “shame” obscures Paul’s warning against those who secretly pervert the Word of God.
....
@DavidLamb
Sorry about the bad grammar. I did not get enough time to edit.
For clarity, my #2 should have said:
#2. When I referenced the NKJV screenshot and offered my commentary, my purpose was to point out that the term “revisers” is used in a way that implies readers may alter the text by adding or deleting words from the Bible.
....
The NKJV has NU in its footnotes meaning the Nestle and Aland Critical Text and M for the Majority Text (which is not really a Majority Text because the printed Majority texts today are only about 300-600 Greek MSS, and not the 5,800 Majority). The NU (Nestle and Aland) is essentially the Westcott ahd Hort text because they both have Vaticanus and Sinaitcus primacy. This means that while the NKJV is primarily a Textus Receptus Bible, the footnotes help you to have an eclectic mindset in adding or deleting whatever you like from the Bible based on these footnotes. You get to have a Bible but only in your own mind, which differs from the mind of the other guy's Bible in his own mind. So you don't actually have a Bible printed between two covers that is your final word of authority. But the Bible warns against adding or taking away from His Word in Revelation. This is a major problem which has invaded the church in these last days.
....
I refute this in post #127. I provide a list from Textus-Receptus.com. But the big one is 1 John 3:16 with the removal of the word "of God" (which does not appear in the Critical Text or Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) but it is in the Beza 1598 Greek. You can confirm this for yourself using the tools and links I recommend at the bottom my PDF at www.affectionsabove.com.
But if that was not enough, they put footnotes saying NU in the NKJV to subtly push you to the Critical Text (i.e., the Nestle and Aland).
This is the proof that it is a bridge to the Modern Bibles.
....
Note: For clarity, I did not reference this image of the NKJV Preface to refer to the textual basis of the NKJV. The NKJV is primarily based on the Textus Receptus except in a few small places. I posted this image from the NKJV preface because the NKJV editors are telling you the reader that you can now have a modern day eclectic mindset in adding or deleting words based upon the Westcott and Hort Revised Edition (Which has been updated in a very small or minor way with the Nestle and Aland 28). So when you see a footnote like NU (meaning the Nestle and Aland and United Bible Societies text), you can add or delete words based on this text now. This then gives you the freedom to start moving over to the Critical Text or to favor the false Majority Text. The KJV reader who is not aware of this angle could be tricked to start adding or deleting words from God's Word. It's a subtle tactic to shift your thinking. The first NKJV said they were not going to expose you to the Westcott and Hort text, and now they got NU footnotes in the full edition to get you to think like a modern day textual critic who can now add or delete words from the Bible.
....
So, instead of just reading and believing the Bible, you can now cut and slash or add as you like from the Bible using the revisers (i.e., Westcott and Hort or the Modern Bible Movement's Critical Text - NA-28). This is what the NKJV preface is saying. So, it does not matter if you have an almost TR Bible with the NKJV, which is not a simple modernization of the KJV as they advertise. You can now even favor Critical Text readings inserted into the TR floating around in your mind as if that was the real Bible.
..
..
So, if you follow the NU or M footnotes in the NKJV, this Bible exists only in your own mind and will differ from those who think the same way. So there is no real standard. Everybody's got an eclectic shape shifting text that fits their preferences existing only in their own minds. How silly is that? It's madness. There was a time when a person preached the Bible and Christians said with 100% confidence and conviction, "Thus saith the Lord!"
....
....
Yes. my nkj has these footnotes. some saying "some texts say" this or that.
What is the difference between the notes in the NKJV and the notes in the original KJV?
The kjv doesnt have notes saying what "older texts" say.
1. Nature of KJV Marginal Notes
The 1611 KJV translators did include marginal notes, but these were:
- Translation helps—showing alternate ways a word or phrase could be understood in English.
- Cross-references—pointing to parallel passages.
- Clarifications—such as noting “Heb.” or “Gr.” to indicate the literal sense of a Hebrew or Greek word.
Example: In (Genesis 10:9), the margin says “Heb. before the Lord” — explaining the Hebrew phrasing.
They did not include critical notes questioning the text’s reliability, manuscript authority, or suggesting variant readings from other manuscripts.
2. Purpose and Tone
The KJV translators stated in their “Translators to the Reader” preface that their goal was to make “a good one better,” not to cast doubt on Scripture. They viewed the received Hebrew and Greek texts (Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus) as trustworthy and worked within that framework.
Their marginal notes were meant to clarify, not to undermine confidence in the text.
3. Contrast with Modern Bibles
By contrast, Modern Bibles (based on the Critical Text or eclectic texts like Nestle–Aland/UBS) often include notes such as:
- “Some manuscripts omit this verse.”
- “The oldest and best manuscripts read…”
- “Other ancient authorities say…”
They often reference manuscripts like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which the KJV translators did not use.
,,,,,