Followers

Tuesday, October 29, 2024

Mark Ward and His Ridiculous Claim about the KJV

          

Dr. Mark Ward
 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.


            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.   

   
            Mark Ward stated "The King James should be revised or replaced in institutional settings like this pulpit, like Scripture memory curriculums, like Bible colleges, like revivals, even the signage outside your church."

           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 TestamentLifeway 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.





         

 


  

19 comments:

Christopher Yetzer said...

Thank you for standing with logical reason on this point!

David said...

Respectfully, while I agree that Mark Ward may have overstated his point, I believe that you've also misinterpreted his position. He has stated explicitly and repeatedly that the KJV is not unintelligible. He has also stated repeatedly that he himself read and understood much of the Christian faith from his use of the KJV as a child. He has also stated repeatedly that there are things that are difficult to understand in the Scriptures and that teachers and study will always be necessary.

So, it seems false to characterize or even try to reduce his position to the idea that every Bible translation should be so clear as to preclude any need for study, commentary, or teaching, or so that it is "incapable of being misunderstood." That's simply not his position, based on his own repeated statements.

His position, in its broadest sense, is that it is unhelpful at best and harmful at worst to insist on the use of a Bible that is translated into the English of 1611. That is a position that is fully compatible with their being difficulties in Scripture - including difficult words. The simple fact that we are meant to mature in our understanding of Scripture as we age in no way validates adding the *unnecessary* step of having to mature in our understanding of older forms of English. Understanding older forms of English is not a bad thing in itself, but it's both unnecessary and unhelpful to add that hurdle to the present difficulties of Scripture when perfectly acceptable translations into contemporary English are readily available.

While I do not know what his response would be to your pushback, I believe he would clarify that it is wrong to insist that a child use an archaic translation when contemporary translations are available. Whether or not it is wrong *in itself* to give a KJV to a child might be a different question. Perhaps he will clarify that himself.

James Snapp Jr said...

<< He has stated explicitly and repeatedly that the KJV is not unintelligible. He has also stated repeatedly that he himself read and understood much of the Christian faith from his use of the KJV as a child. >>

And those two things are a bit contradictory. For the latter to be true the KJV must have been adequately comprehensible to convey the core message of the Christian faith.

Inasmuch as Timothy received the Septuagint (with its multiple defects) as an infant, likewise infants today can receive the KJV within their benefactors committing a sin.

Mark has been invited to engage.

Caleb said...

The question "Is giving a child the KJV a sin?" is a pointy way of asking "Are you saying the KJV is fully unintelligible?"

Giving your child only the Vulgate would be wrong. Ward has **always** said that the KJV is **not** as unintelligible as the Vulgate; that the KJV is not fully unintelligible.

It becomes less wise to give your child only the KJV as its readability decreases due to language change. (You conflated content and medium in your post, but Ward carefully and constantly distinguishes these two.) At some point, it does (will) become a sin. This is a conscience issue, but God is not silent here. We should train our consciences with the Bible principle found in 1 Corinthians 14.

David said...

I'm not sure if you misread my comment, or maybe I'm misreading what you mean by "those two things," but he has stated explicitly that the KJV is *not* unintelligible. That is, it *is* intelligible, to at least the degree that he can discern the core message of the Christian faith. This is what he believes. It is therefore not accurate to characterize his position as something else - that the KJV is unintelligible or some such thing. It strikes me that every point you make is fully compatible with believing that one should not put someone, particularly a child, in a situation where their access to God's word is through the English of 1611 when options exist that are in their own dialect.

But yes, I will leave it to Mark to engage further if he so chooses! It seems you are largely on the same side of that broader fence he is dealing with, anyway.

Christian Mc said...

This is a not a new position for Dr. Ward. Here’s a quote from his 2018 "Authorized" book: “Children and new converts should not be given copies of the KJV. Paul said no to that option when he tied intelligible words to edification in 1 Corinthians 14.” (Logos digital edition, 120)

Caleb said...

Right - glad you can see that this isn't new. The question's formulation—not Dr. Ward's response—is driving the current consternation.

Christian Mc said...

Then again, his words, “Don’t do it” is an imperative and when framed in the context of James 4:17 it becomes a very strong insinuation.

Caleb said...

"So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin."

If (because) you do not know (accept/agree) that it is right to give children modern English Bible translations, then I think your side's argument should be along those lines.

Argue that the KJV is sufficiently readable; that was the topic of the debate.
Argue that 1 Corinthians 14 can't be applied to Bible translation.
Argue that the taurine levels of 17th century Britain's drinking water empowered the KJV translators with a hyper-focus that we haven't been able to reproduce. ;)

Those are difficult fronts for your side to engage. This children/sin topic is a convenient—though I don't assume intentional—distraction.

Christian Mc said...

OK…

#1, The KJV is sufficiently intelligible because Dr. Ward admits that it was sufficient to save and sanctify him at an early age.

#2, 1 Corinthians 14 is about speaking in an “unknown tongue” during church meetings, so its proper application should probably be limited to that.

Very cute on #3, but I will argue this instead: Any one of the KJV translators was more fluent in the biblical languages than Dr. Ward.

hefin said...

To be honest I was slightly taken aback by Mark's comment in the context of the debate, and wouldn't naturally have chosen, myself, to put it the way he did.

However, as one of his detractors pointed out and also I now see one of his robust-but-fairly-friendly critics has also pointed out in the comments here, Mark is stating something he said in Authorized.

I've never read the book before but I happen to have a copy and so went to the sections the critics directed us to (p 120 and thereabouts).

It is clear from the context that Mark's actual target are those who insist on the *exclusive* use of the KJV. Hence the remark should be interpreted in that light. Implicit is that translations other than the KJV are being at the very least minimised or sidelined.

Where I may possibly still part company with almost most in this discussion is that I think framing it in terms of sin etc. maybe oversimplifying the teaching of the apostles. Much apostolic instruction should be understood as much as or more in terms of 'wisdom wrought by the Spirit' and which the apostles wish to form in their readers.

I'd say that it is at the very least unwise to restrict access to clearer renderings where they are available.

Mark it seems to me is quite right in saying that the clear teaching of 1 Corinthians 14 prioritises the intelligible truth over unintelligible truth. This was a staple of Reformation, Reformed and Post-Reformation theologians (see the Miles Smith - who is saying something quite representative of Church of England theology as can be seen in the extensive discussions over the liturgy in the vernacular; and see also the English post-Reformation Reformed confessions WCF 1.8 and LCF 1.8 which appeal explicitly to 1 Cor 14 and only 1 Cor 14 as the basis for intelligible translations).

Dwayne Green said...

Take #2 a step further, how Paul implies that there is, indeed, a time and a place to speak in an unknown tongue! You're welcome to the Pentecostal side of the isle, there's room for you :P

Caleb said...

Pastor McShaffrey, I appreciate your style of arguing; you don't dodge. It's refreshing. :)

In reverse order:

Thankfully both the KJV translators and Dr. Ward agree (#3) that the principle of intelligibility from 1 Corinthians 14 has legitimate application beyond the gift of tongues (#2) (Hi Dwayne!).

Regarding #1, you and I have different standards for what is sufficiently intelligible. By your standard the 1611 wasn't necessary because it clarifies the the gospel over neither the Bishop's Bible nor the Geneva Bible. Why, even the Vulgate has Jesus' name and the word "salvation" plainly enough.

But now we're a bit afield from Pastor Snapp's topic. I really am open to hearing more developed thoughts from your side about readability, but the two points above aren't convincing for me. I'll read any response you write here, but I'm thinking that the comment section of a blog post on an unrelated (I say distracting) topic probably isn't the place to go further.

I pray your weekend worship is fruitful!

Christian Mc said...

Very funny Dwayne. Likewise, there is always room for you in the First Presbyterian Church of Decency and Order.

Christian Mc said...

Caleb, I would be happy to engage further on this topic and agree that this might not be the best place.

Maybe someone should propose a definition of “Sufficient Intelligibility” in Bible translation. That would probably be a good place to start.

chungteng1972 said...

Amen Amen Amen

Andrew said...

James, thanks for this article. The approach of patience and good faith discussion I believe will go a long way in a topic like this.

First of all, I do not agree with the idea that the Authorized translation is anywhere near unintelligible. In fact, it was the spread of standard Bible versions in English (and other languages), like this one, as well as Tyndale's translation – and its subsequent influence – that helped, in the first place, to cement the form of English that we speak now. The dictionaries that were written subsequently took the Authorized version as a source of word definitions, including Noah Webster and Samuel Johnson's dictionary in Britain in 1755. Johnson's dictionary may have also spurred on the 1762 and 1769 revisions of the KJV in turn.

Anyone who is growing is in the process of learning the meanings of words. Our translation is no different, really. This whole topic of controversy seems to be nothing more than a distraction that has little to do with the real issues, but I do think that since it was raised by someone else, this is a good article and discussion to have, just in case they really want to push this further. Who knows, maybe not. It's still interesting to see the different ways that are employed/thought of as being potential ways to undermine this translation of the Bible, which is why it seems to have specifically come under attack in this way. I will also point out that if studying the somewhat lofty or elevated language in the KJV translation (which is also used by some other translations, as I understand) is a help toward anyone to prevent the decay of this modern world from sinking into their thought process, that is also a good thing. As an example of this, most of the world takes the Lord's name in vain now, but the Bible teaches you not to do that. It's not being "out of touch" to have a Bible that teaches you to be different from the world in this and other ways. I do not think conforming oneself to the world is what Paul would have advocated. Consequently, I certainly don't think it is a sin to give someone a Bible that isn't going to teach them how to perfectly conform to the world and all of its thought processes. It is perfectly fine to think slightly differently from the modern world. Sometimes people call that being "sheltered," or that it will hurt their "social life," and thus be bad for them, but I don't think that always has to be a bad thing. I disagree on that implicit point of the argument every time I've heard it, as well.

Of course, the most important point was already made at one point (in the end of this article), which is that in addition to an accurate and correct Bible which we study and God has provided for us, we need the Holy Spirit to be with us to guide us, like it says in John 16:13. This is necessary in order to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints. This is why I think letting a child read through Scriptures, in the knowledge that, if they are a child of God, it will be a continual process of learning, line by line, precept upon precept, but with God there with them to guide them, that it makes sense to give it to them. And my rhetorical question is: without God, which of any of us would still have guidance. It wouldn't matter which language you speak if you did not have God to interpret and to teach, as we learn in 1 Cor. 2:13 and 1 John 2:27, 1 John 5:10, etc. Also Matthew 23:8, Luke 24:45.

Jason0047 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jason0047 said...

Mark Ward holds a Ph.D. in New Testament Interpretation from Bob Jones University. However, he is a prime example of someone who attends Bible college but fails to learn anything noteworthy beyond attacking the Bible. Using online tools to translate Greek and Hebrew and examining the context in English, I can easily refute his claims. Historical evidence reveals that the false Critical Text redefinitions of certain Greek words arose after Westcott and Hort initiated their Critical Text movement. Ward is no different from the Revisers who sought to change God’s Word because they disliked its message.

In a recent video, Mark referred to the phrase "the apple of his eye" as a "false friend." Essentially, he is implying that he is smarter than the combined expertise of the KJV translators, many of whom were intimately familiar with biblical languages. His attacks on the Bible are absurd, and I struggle to understand how anyone can take him seriously unless they are firmly committed to undermining the Bible that has stood the test of time for hundreds of years. Mark's approach is likely to lead many to lose their faith in God and trust no Bible at all, or to trust themselves to create a "Choose Your Own Adventure Bible," where they become the ultimate authority instead of God. Furthermore, Mark avoids addressing textual issues because he knows the challenges they present. His approach lacks fairness.

Side Note:

Mark’s comment about giving a KJV to a child being a sin is utterly irrational. He misapplies 1 Corinthians 14, which is about not understanding a single word—in fact, ZERO words—when no interpreter is present. Mark himself admits that many words in the KJV are understandable, making his use of 1 Corinthians 14 an abuse of Scripture. This highlights his lack of ability to read and understand the Bible plainly. I say this with love for Mark as a brother in Christ, but I must urge him to repent of his attacks on the Bible. It is a very serious matter to undermine God’s Word, and I pray he will recognize his error on this matter and repent.