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):

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.

___________

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 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.

         

 

  

Guest Christopher Yetzer: Is Mark Ward Listening?

Christopher Yetzer  

          Today I welcome a special guest to The Text of the Gospels:  KJV-defender Christopher Yetzer, who resides these days in Milan, Italy.  Now most of you know that I have never been, am not, and never will be a KJV-Onlyist, but while I am preparing a book review, I thought it worthwhile to give room for brother Christopher to share some thoughts regarding Mark Ward (Senior Editor for Digital Content at Logos Bible Study, host of the YouTube channel @markwardonwords, and author of Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible) - specifically regarding the impasse KJV-defenders have when discussing issues pertaining to the quality of some modern Bible versions and their underlying base-texts.
         Take it away, brother Christopher!
Yetzer:  Thanks James.  Readers of The Text of the Gospels, I have a question:  who isn’t listening to who?

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 “without the twisted ears of ideology blocking” his ability to understand? 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” (a three-hour video critique of Mark Ward's 34-minute video) 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 FB post asking people to contact him to let him know of the error.

Thankfully Mark got the message from a Patreon supporter and he made a correction below that video as well as corrected himself in a video about two months later (possibly he could have removed the previous video, but I’m sure it still generates income). Since he seemed to be listening, 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 (which is still important) Just to be clear that there are other issues being discussed by the pro-KJV side. The following are some examples of people from different theological perspectives critiquing the NKJV:

Bryan Ross

Jeff Riddle Nick Sayers (Mark Ward has reviewed part of Nick's website)

Helge Evensen

Robert Lee Vaughn and Peter Van Kleeck. Is Ward listening, or are his ears blocked by his own ideology?

While Ward raises high the flag of his apostleship (with the slogan "Edification Requires Intelligibility") he tramples on the Bibles and their editors (though ostensibly commending them).

The NKJV, for example, uses some non-English words and archaic words.

The literary stylist of the ESV (Leland Ryken) has argued against Ward’s use of Tyndale, stating, “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.” Is Ward listening, or are his ears blocked by his own ideology?

In Mark’s recent Video “Going on Offense for the NKJV” he made the claim that the KJV translation at Revelation 16:5 was “a guess based on zero evidence.” However this is not the case, and neither is the discussion anything new. Nick Sayers has written an entire book on this verse in 2019. Sayers’ website freely and quickly demonstrates that it was not a conjectural emendation. Sayers' page on Revelation 16:5 has been accessed 56,090 times as of this writing and yet Ward apparently hasn't seen it.

On the website Sayers demonstrates that Beza claimed to have a manuscript. (The fact that we do not have all manuscripts which were present in the 1500s is evidenced in that we also do not have two of Stephanus’ manuscripts for which we know various readings). Again: is Ward listening, or are his ears blocked by his own ideology?

Ward has announced that he served as the editor of an upcoming book, “King James Words You Don’t Know You Don’t Know”. Most likely it will include words like “commendeth” and “miserable” etc. A KJV translator himself described “miserable” (at 1 Corinthians 15:19) as being the perfect happiness of the soul. Mark on the other hand has his responsible modern lexicon which tells him otherwise. This is one of Mark Ward’s main problems. It appears again and again in his videos. See his recent video on the NKJV. Mark finds it hard to think outside the covers of his modern lexicons. He forces on those of the past the same definitions which he looks to today. Thus he comes to different conclusions than what was actually intended.

With the Genesis 4:25 example, the KJV translators, the Greek Old Testament translators, Jerome, Diodati, Rav Dario Disegni, and Dr. James Price (former executive editor of the NKJV Old Testament) oppose Mark Ward's opinion. Are they all wrong because they disagree with Ward’s modern responsible lexicon? Over four years ago we discussed many of these issues in the comments on his YouTube channel and yet nothing has changed! Is Ward listening, or are his ears blocked by his own ideology?

I must confess that I used to think that Ward said 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, Mark 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 Mark Ward from his Facebook page.

Did the two scholars featured on the site’s homepage evaluate its value and accuracy? Apparently not. When someone properly does, he gets 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? Mark Ward told me, “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.” In a video where Ward set up a straw man against Bryan Ross, Ward admitted that he only listened to some of Ross’ points on triple speed while doing yard work. 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. Again: is Mark Ward listening, or are his ears blocked by his own ideology?

Let’s be clear, we have heard your message. We just disagree. We disagree on the amount of difficulties that exist in the KJV. We disagree that 1 Corinthians 14 is contextually talking about Bible translating and that the KJV is a different language. We disagree with the notion that saying "Edification Requires Intelligibility" is an excuse to pretend that difficulties in modern translations don't exist. We disagree with the idea that another attempt to update the KJV would bring better unity and more authority to the text. We disagree with the claim that the only differences in the NKJV are the forms of English that were used. We disagree with the claim that the KJV was modern-sounding in 1611. We disagree with the idea that "a few differences" is the same thing as "minor differences." We disagree with the canon that dictates that the oldest extant reading is best. We disagree with Mark Ward's claim that his approach has not been engaged. We disagree with his methods of interpreting KJV words.

We have heard you, Mark Ward - and we respectfully disagree.