If you know me at all you know that I am not, never have been, and never will be an advocate of KJV-Onlyism. The more I study the position the more I am tempted to completely dismiss dogmatic KJV-Onlyism as a schismatic and somewhat cultic position that is not so much a position as a condition. Dogmatic KJV-Onlyists such as Will Kinney (with whom I had a lengthy debate earlier this year) seem to confuse their simple ability to be stubborn as if it is a point in favor of their position.Dr. Mark Ward
But this past week I witnessed a position from the opposite camp – from a user of multiple modern versions based on the Nestle-Aland/UBS compilations of the New Testament – that is in its own way no less extreme. Dr. Mark Ward, an editor at Crossway known for his blog, his editorial work at Crossway, and his book Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible, in the course of a debate with Dr. Dan Haifley, stated, if I understand him correctly, that it is a sin to give a child a King James Bible. The footage is here (click the embedded link), following the 1:18:00 mark of the debate.
So far so good. Then Dr. Ward went on to say (following the 1:21:00 mark of the debate) "There comes a point at which it's so close to this ditch that actually it is a sin for a given Bible translation to be handed to children. I'm saying we've reached the point where there's a sufficient number of readability difficulties that it's time to turn away from the King James in institutional contexts. Would I say it's a sin to hand to your child? Here's what I'd say, quoting the King James: to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not to him it is sin."
He kept going, telling his audience, "Don't hand unintelligible words to your children," and "It's between you and God whether it's a sin or not, but don't do it."
To which I say: Ridiculous.
Most New Testaments include the book of Revelation. Give 100 twelve-year-olds copies of the book of the Apocalypse of Sant John and ask them to interpret chapter thirteen, (using the Contemporary English Version or the English Standard Version), without assistance from ecclesiastical authorities, all on their own, and I predict that you will get 100 different interpretations (I haven't tested this suspicion; readers are invited to test my theory) and lots of questions about the intelligibility of this piece of apocalyptic literature.
Mark Ward seems to have missed a fundamental point about the intelligibility of Scripture. No Scripture was ever written with the understanding that its readers would be in a literary and educational vacuum. Christians are instructed to worship together. Christians should consider the Scriptures together - a practice known in modern times as group Bible Study. The same person who affirmed that some things in the Pauline epistles are hard to understand (even for adults) also commanded his readers (in II Peter 3:18) to "Grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."
We are expected to mature. With maturity comes new understanding of what was once unintelligible. We are expected to fellowship together. We are expected to learn. We should progress beyond a childhood understanding of a melodious tortoise when reading Song of Solomon 2:12b ("the voice of the turtle is heard in our land"). The fact that children can read as children and misunderstand things does not render the King James Version full of shortcomings. The shortcoming is in the individual's level of comprehension - which is constantly changing.
Dr. Ward seems to think that the Bible should be translated so plainly that it is incapable of being misunderstood. Unfortunately such a translation has never existed and never will exist on earth.
Ask an American twelve-year-old to interpret Isaiah 10:9 (KJV: "Is not Calno as Carchemish? is not Hamath as Arpad? is not Samaria as Damascus?" ESV: "Is not Calno like Carchemish? Is not Hamath like Arpad? Is not Samaria like Damascus?") without resorting to a commentary. For that matter, ask a twenty-year-old American or Canadian to interpret the verse. I predict that 99 out of 100 will say "I do not understand this." Does such a lack of understanding reflect a flaw in the translation, or a lack of maturity in the individual interpreter? Surely the latter. And a lack of maturity, or the characteristic of being underinformed, is the real problem in what Mark Ward tries to frame as reasons not to use the KJV over and over and over.
In the real world people who are determined to understand the Bible will seek out resources like BibleRef and the Blue Letter Bible (with its collection of commentaries) and LEARN. Even in a fantasy realm in which children are incapable of becoming smarter and more literate and learning new things, it would not be remotely sinful to give a child a KJV, because it is better to have some truth than none of it.
I encourage Mark Ward: come out of your fantasyland in which children never grow up and are incapable of learning new things. Thomas Nelson Publishers disagrees with you. They publish a children's version of the KJV. Lo and behold Hendrickson Publishers also publish a Childrens KJV New Testament. Lifeway and Holman Bible Publishers also publishes a Kids KJV. There are even KJV Bibles marketed to be given to illiterate babies. The KJV Armor of God Bible is marketed with the claim that it is "perfect for ages 6-10." Is it sinful to give such Bibles? No. Dr. Ward, stop observing ignorance in action and concluding that ignorance must be accommodated. Say instead that ignorance must be reduced via learning.
For my part, although I prefer the New Testament in the EOB New Testament and the Evangelical Heritage Version and the New King James Bible and the World English Bible over the KJV New Testament, I would happily give the King James Bible to a child if the only other option was to give no Bible at all – which is a real scenario in some places. Exceptionally rare is the occasion when a Bible is given and the giver can perfectly foresee how accurately it will be interpreted.
The act of sharing a Bible in any English translation is an act of faith that God will use it to convey his message as the reader will continue to study and learn. Some sinful perversions masquerading as translations (such as the "Clear Word" and "The Passion Translation" and the Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation") are to be avoided by the flock of God, or else used only as examples of what translators should not do. The King James Version does not fall into that category. Dr. Ward, if James 3:10 implies that giving a KJV to a child is sinful because of a risk of misinterpretation, then giving a Bible – KJV, ESV, NIV, NRSV – to any immature person is sinful, because the element of risk remains. Stop being silly.
Paul told Timothy (in Second Timothy 4:15) that "from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures" (EHV). He seems to have regarded this as a good thing - not because he ever imagined that an infant's level of comprehension never changes, but because he trusted the Holy Spirit to work through the Scriptures to make Timothy wise unto salvation.