KJV Supporters Ask: Who Isn't Listening to Whom?

Although to my way of thinking, dogmatic KJV-Onlyism is more akin to a mental condition than a scientifically tenable Bibliological position.  It's important to keep the lines of communication open with KJV-Onlyists.  Following up on my critique of Mark Ward's approach to the KJV last year, let's listen to what KJV advocate Christopher Yetzer had to say back in August 2024, now that Mark Ward has pledged to turn his attention to topics other than the KJV.
     Christopher wrote the following (edited and condensed in the interest of brevity):

Mark Ward

In a recent video Mark Ward complained that he wanted “to see a King James only defender listen hard to my viewpoint the way I’ve listened to theirs”. But who is the one who isn’t listening? Has Ward not been heard or is he just not listening to the response? Is it possible that it is Ward who is not listening? I will demonstrate that the opposite side has listened and responded. It is Ward who is not listening.

After I saw some of Nick Sayers’ review of Mark’s video titled “Is the NKJV Truly Based on the TR” I wrote to Mark on June 27, 2024 to let him know about an error he had made in the video. Doubting he would respond I made a Facebook post asking people to contact him to let him know of the error. Mark made a correction below that video as well as corrected himself in a video about two months later.

I sent him a list of several faults I see in the NKJV (that is for another post). None of my complaints were addressed in the new video. Ward acts as if the only difference between the NKJV and the KJV is the style of English. Just to be clear that there are other issues being discussed by the KJV side, here are some examples of people from different theological perspectives critiquing the NKJV: Bryan Ross - Jeff Riddle - Nick Sayers. Or consider Helge Evensen's article or many blog-posts by Robert Lee Vaughn or posts by Peter Van Kleeck .

Ward trampled on the Bibles and their editors which he promotes. The NKJV, for example, uses non-English words and archaic words. Leland Ryken, the literary stylist of the ESV, argued against Ward’s use of Tyndale, “The statement about the plowboy is not a comment about Tyndale’s preferred style for an English Bible. It is not a designation of teenage farm boys as a target audience for a niche Bible. Those misconceptions are the projections of modern partisans for a colloquial and simplified English Bible.”

I honestly must confess that I used to think that Ward would say things like “Nobody has answered me regarding my….” as a sort of self-flattering signal to his supporters that nobody could respond to his arguments. But now I really think he is just not listening. After I replied to his YouTube videos, Ward blocked me from commenting on his page in 2021. Last year I tried to post a critique of the many problems with the Parallel KJV website, only to be blocked by Ward from his Face Book page.

Did the two scholars featured on the site’s homepage evaluate its value and accuracy? Apparently not. However, when someone properly does, they get blocked for mentioning its faults. One of Ward’s video editors, Jonathan Burris, also blocked me from being able to leave any comment on his site. Does that sound like something someone would do who wants to listen to the other side? You would think I am some sort of vile expletive spilling troll, but instead Ward said, “I have blocked you from commenting on my videos. That doesn't erase past comments, as I understand it. I have enjoyed some of our exchanges, and I want them to be available to others in the future who look at my videos.”

I understand we are all busy but Ward expects that academic deans and chancellors will listen to his videos and change their language on the TR, all the while his own calling is limited to doing prep work while taking care of the yard.

Let’s be clear: we have heard your message, Mark. We just disagree. We disagree on the amount of difficulties that exist in the KJV. We disagree that "Edification Requires Intelligibility" gives a pass to difficulties in modern translations. We disagree that another attempt at updating the KJV would bring better unity and more authority to the text. We disagree that the only differences in the NKJV are the forms of English that were used. We disagree that the KJV was modern in 1611. We disagree that few differences is the same thing as minor differences. We disagree that oldest is best. We disagree that you have not been responded to. We disagree in your methods of interpreting KJV words. We have heard you and we respectfully disagree.

___________

John 13:2 - When's Suppertime?

“It’s a Frankentext.” That’s one of the objections made against the UBS/Nestle-Aland compilation:  in hundreds of verses, if the UBS compilation is correct, no scribe of any extant manuscript anywhere preserved the original contents.  The Tyndale House GNT’s form of John 13:2 agrees with 03 except for its minor orthographic reading δίπνου.  

 

John 13:2 is a case in point.  In Swanson’s volume on the Gospel of John the UBS compilation stands alone, the exact array of the 16 words in the UBS/N-A compilation is not found in any extant witness.  The Tyndale House GNT’s form of John 13:2 agrees with 03 except for its minor orthographic reading δίπνου.  Let’s walk through the verse just to get the lay of the land.

 

Byz : UBS

 

καὶ : καὶ

δείπνου : δείπνου

γενομένου : γινομένου

τοῦ : τοῦ

διαβόλου : διαβόλου

ηδη : ηδη

βεβληκότος : βεβληκότος

εἰς : εἰς

τὴν : τὴν

καρδίαν :  καρδίαν

Ἰούδα : Ἰούδα                         ἳνα                              

Σίμωνος : Σίμωνος                  παραδοι

Ἰσκαριώτου :                           αὐτὸν

ἳνα :                                         Ἰούδας

αὐτὸν :                                     Σίμωνος

παραδω :                                 Ἰσκαριώτης

 

Aside from the transposition at the end of the verse, γενομενου versus γινομενου near the beginning separates the Byzantine Text from the Alexandrian Text – did the footwashing occur while supper was taking place or when supper had ended?   The majority of popular English versions favors “during supper” –

 

KJV, NKJV:  “supper being ended”

MEV:  “supper being concluded.” 

ASV, AMP, EOB, ESV, NASB, NRSV, WEB:  “during supper”

NIV:  “The evening meal was in progress”

CSB:  “time for supper”

CEV:  “before the evening meal started”

Rheims:  “when supper was done”

EHV: “By the time the supper took place”

NLT: “It was time for supper”

It was not my goal today to settle this textual contest - Jordan Shollenbarger is looking into it, and may share his finding in a future post.  I just wanted to bring the variation, and the varying English echoes, to your attention.