Mark Ward Giving 10 Reasons Against a Single Standard English Bible

... and sowing discord while charging KJV-Onlyists with sowing discord.

The more succinctly titled video “Do We Need a Standard English Bible?” is a response to an address by Lloyd Read at the West Coast Baptist College Spiritual Leadership Conference called “Readability of the Bible.”

Starting at about 8 minutes in the linked video, Mark gives “10 Quick Reasons Why We Shouldn’t Insist on a Single Standard English Bible.” Though he frames the title that way, a more proper title would have been “10 Quick Reasons Why We Shouldn’t Insist on the KJV being the Single Standard English Bible.” (Of course, he does not believe in any standard Bible.)

Some of the objections deserve a thoughtful response, and some are quite lame. For example, No. 10 “To insist that other churches adopt the same standard your church has implies an authoritative structure above that of the local church.” There are plenty of denominations that have hierarchies that tell the local churches what to do in all sorts of matters. Our church is an unaffiliated independent autonomous congregation. We congregationally choose to fellowship or not fellowship with any number of churches. No authoritative structure is needed or required.

1. God nowhere in Scripture says we have to have a standard Bible translation.

A ghosting, something almost everyone uses against what others believe to settle the debate and walk away – “God nowhere in Scripture says that.” (If Mark can tweak “false friends” to what he wants, I can tweak “ghosting” to mean what I want.)

If you’re looking for the prooftext that says “Thou shalt have one standard Bible translation,” then you’re done. Of course, very few theological questions are settled that way. Obviously, there is a standard. “For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.” “Let God be true, but every man a liar.” What God inspired (1 Timothy 3:16) is the standard. If so, then an accurate translation of what God has inspired also should be the standard.

Is there a standard canon? Most Protestants will argue so, against Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Marcionites, Mormons, and so on. Here most will probably agree. However, the canon is not just a list of 66 books that are the right books, but it includes the text of those books. The difference in text is where we differ. I believe the content of the Textus Receptus (TR) is “standard” against the content of the Critical Text (CT). If I am right (and I know some of you don’t think so, but bear with me)… if I am right, then a translation of the words of the TR is “standard” against a translation the words of the CT. Which translation of the TR then becomes the rub for some. Here is an intriguing thing. Almost no one who uses an English Bible thinks their translation is the standard, except those who use the KJV! Then, it seems the debate for a standard sacred English text comes down to a debate about the King James Bible. Is it not so? And the KJV is the standard to which most translations compare themselves? The KJV is what almost every English Bible either aspires to be or desires to replace. Is that not so?

Oddly, there is one body, and one Spirit, one hope of our calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all … and hundreds of English Bible translations, with perhaps at least dozens vying to be the standard sacred text. (I know at least 10 that use “Standard” in their names: American Standard Version, Christian Standard Bible, English Standard Version, Holman Christian Standard Bible, International Standard Version, Legacy Standard Bible, Literal Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, New Revised Standard Version, Revised Standard Version.)

We might also use Mark’s reason against his reason, “God nowhere in Scripture says we have to have multiple Bible translations…” and/or “God nowhere in Scripture says we have to have continuously updated Bible translations…” and/or … ad infinitum.

These are some things for his hearers and my readers to think about; things that Mark probably will not raise for you to think about.

A standard text promotes unity, and unity is a positive goal presented in the Bible. “…till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13). See also Psalm 133:1; John 17:21-23; 1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 4:3-6.

I submit that the King James Version is currently the only possible Bible on which we could unite as a standard. It is still the most popularly read Bible. It is the only English Bible generally considered an actual standard.

2. The KJV translators specifically deny that their translation was perfect or God-inspired.

Where is that? Mark said he’d be brief because he had addressed it elsewhere. So we’ll have to look elsewhere. However, in distinction to what Mark says, the translators did say that their translation was perfect in the sense of complete, that it could not be justly excepted against, and that they were making a more exact translation to replace the others that preceded it.

3. To say we have to have a standard and our favorite translation is it so get in line puts KJV-Onlyists in a group of awkward bedfellows: medieval and early modern Catholics.

A red herring, guilt by association, and attempting to poison the well. A doctrine is not judged by heretics who held something similarly, but by searching the scriptures whether these things are so.

4. To say we have to have a standard and the KJV is it puts you in tension with other languages’ Bibles.

I agree that this has not always been addressed properly, but that in itself does not deny the principle of a standard. Most people accept the idea of one standard in one language, though a few people try to make the KJV the standard for all languages.

5. To say we must have a standard and the KJV is it amounts to telling God he didn’t do things right, because he didn’t prepare any instructions for us on how to create or identify this standard.

6. To say we have to have a standard and it’s the KJV amounts to asking God to give us additional revelation beyond his word.

Numbers 5 and 6 basically the same argument, just stated differently, and are essentially included in No. 1. (See that answer above.)

7. To say that the KJV is the standard empirically leads to schools that don’t teach Greek, or teach it poorly.

Answering in the spirit and near letter of Mark’s No. 1, “God nowhere in Scripture says we have to have schools that teach Greek.” See how that works?

8. To say that the KJV is the standard introduces a point of division among Christians that doesn’t come from God.

“What exactly is the status of believers who read a different translation?...Does Read really think I’m not a Christian?...What exactly is our status? Are we disobeying? He is dividing from me, separating, over my choice of Bible translation. If his doctrine isn’t taught in Scripture, then this division shouldn’t be there; and the Bible has something to say about dividing Christ’s body unnecessarily.”

This from the guy who has written a book, blog articles, and journal articles against KJVO (and is writing another book and perhaps issuing a 2nd edition of his first book); does interviews, and has (as of 30 Sept 2023) 225 videos on YouTube mostly to do with Bible versionism, as well as another site which says “creating YouTube videos on Bible translation” of which one can become a member for up to $65/month (as of 30 Sept 2023). Ward conceived, designed, and organized the KJV Parallel Bible to show the differences and make comparisons in the Greek texts behind the KJV and modern English Bibles. He’s all over the place spreading his views. And I’m “dividing Christ’s body unnecessarily?” Nay but, O man, who art thou?

Interestingly, I have heard folks make almost the same arguments against Baptists “dividing Christ’s body unnecessarily” because of their view on baptism! As far as Read’s doctrine not being taught in Scripture, I am quite sure Read believes that it is. I certainly believe mine is, or, God being my helper, I would not hold my doctrine. Is Mark trying to set up some kind of authoritative structure in which he rather than I decides whether my doctrine is taught in Scripture? He doesn’t have to believe my doctrine, but he doesn’t get to decide whether I think the things I believe are scriptural.

There was a time (a very long time) when practically every English Christian was reading and believing the King James Bible. Then some come along and make a new translation, then another, and another, and another – and I, staying the course, am “dividing Christ’s body unnecessarily?” And they have no part in it? Pshaw.

Mark asks what is their status (those who use new translations), are they disobeying? Yes, I believe so. I am not one who believes there can not be any changes, updates to words and spelling, etc. It has been done a number of times since 1611, and could still be done. However, each new translation adds a new category of Bible users. Each becomes another case of “dividing Christ’s body unnecessarily” – and should be wrong by Mark’s own measuring stick. 

Mark also asks, “Does [Lloyd] Read really think I’m not a Christian?” I can’t speak for Read, but I have read quite a few folks on Facebook who think Mark is not. I do not agree, but it is not some wild anomaly to find Christians who think others who claim to be Christians are not Christians. I know Calvinists who think Arminians are not saved, and Arminians who think Calvinists are not saved. Many fundamentalists think Catholics are not saved, and surely, if Catholics really believe their own doctrine, must think many non-Catholics are not saved. The Campbellites think we Baptists are not saved, and we try to return the favor. Regardless, I think Mark is wrong, dead wrong, in what he believes about the Bible, and is dangerously wrong in what he is doing.

Honestly, Mark thinks we introduce a point of division that doesn’t come from God, but I suspect that he chooses and will choose to stay divided from KJV-Onlyists. He even advises folks to divide from their KJVO church. Sophistry much, Mark?

9. To say that we must have a standard and it’s the KJV turns a matter of local church prudence into a totem, a banner, a tribe.

Mark says he objects to tribalism, but having a standard sacred text – which he opposes – would actually promote unity and counter tribalism! A standard text promotes unity, and unity is a positive goal presented in the Bible. “…till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13). See also Psalm 133:1; John 17:21-23; 1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 4:3-6. The King James Version is the only possible Bible on which we could reasonably unite. It remains the most popularly read Bible. The only Bible that a majority of Christians consider standard is the King James Bible. Let those who oppose “tribalism” think on these things.

10. To insist that other churches adopt the same standard your church has implies an authoritative structure above that of the local church.

Numbers 9 and 10 are somewhat like two sides of a coin. We are divided into many “tribes,” denominationally. While that in itself is not a constructive condition, it is a fact. According to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity, there are more than 45,000 Christian denominations worldwide and more than 200 in the United States. While we need less tribalism rather than more, one more based on using a Bible that most all of the English-speaking tribes were already using before the explosion of new translations should not be all that noticeable. And surely some of the issues creating the more than 200 U.S. denominations (and then subdivisions within them) are more troubling than using the King James Bible only. But, then again, I guess Mark says he has been called as the apostle to KJVOs, so he has to fulfill his calling!!

And then there is the fact that there used to be basically only one English Bible for over 300 years (roughly 1640s to 1940s; the RV and ASV seem to have never been popularly accepted). The folks who use the King James Bible are not the ones who introduced the tribalism.

Mark’s number 10 assumes all tribes are somewhat like his tribe – congregationally governed. However, there are plenty of denominations that have “an authoritative structure above that of the local church” –  they have governing hierarchies that tell their local churches what to do in all sorts of matters (in some cases, including Bible versions). Mark’s argument cannot touch them. On the other hand, it does not touch congregationalism either! Our church is an unaffiliated independent autonomous Baptist congregation. We do not insist other churches do anything. We do not try to govern them. We simply congregationally choose who to fellowship or who to not fellowship, based on a number of spiritual and scriptural criteria. Other churches do as they wish and we do the same. If what they wish is biblically unacceptable to us, we simply and straightforwardly do not have fellowship with them. In most cases, we just “Let them alone.” No authoritative structure is needed or required.

Funny thing. Jeff Riddle and Christian McShaffrey were taken to task for words in the appendix of their book Why I Preach from the Received Text. They were charged with advising folks to leave their Critical Text churches and find a TR church. I wonder if any of these same folks will take Mark Ward to task for advising folks to leave their KJVO churches? He quite plainly states “…you need to leave.” Start about 22:37 in the video to get the context.

In reason No. 8 (starting about 15:33), Ward says KJV-Onlyists tend not to tackle this question head-on – then he goes on toward to end of the video to incite division and dividing from KJVO churches.

Says Mark, “I’m not [boasting]. I’m heartbroken every time I tell an assistant pastor who graduated from West Coast, ‘I’m sorry, brother, but out of respect to the clear but erroneous doctrinal commitments of your pastor, you just need to have a simple conversation with him in which you object to KJV-Onlyism by citing 1 Corinthians 14, and then you need to leave.”

There is something odd that Mark does, in sort of calling out someone as the only KJVO who can match him. As sort of the only one. Starts about 24:08.

“A final little comment. Joe Shakour was one of the panelists for the Q&A that followed Lloyd Read’s session. Joe is a sharp guy, and we’ve had some cordial private conversations. If there’s anyone in mainstream KJV-Onlyism who I think has the chops and the disposition to engage my thinking, it’s Joe.”

See also “Answering my Best Opponent,” at about 1:20.

“I get the sense with him, as with no one else ‘across the aisle’ from me that he has actually taken a lot of time to listen to me.”

However, though said like whoever is the only one, there’s always another one. For example, in this video when Mark says: “Joe is a sharp guy, and we’ve had some cordial private conversations. If there’s anyone in mainstream KJV-Onlyism who I think has the chops and the disposition to engage my thinking, it’s Joe.”

Contrasted to, “I get the sense with him, as with no one else ‘across the aisle’ from me that he has actually taken a lot of time to listen to me.” That, before banning this other brother from commenting at his YouTube channel!

I have heard Mark do this sort of thing several other times, but didn’t take the extra time to try to find more quotes. What’s up with that? Everybody can’t be his best opponent? Maybe he thinks this is someone he’s getting over to his side, then kicks him to the curb when he finds he isn’t coming? Then finds a new friend? I don’t know, I just find it weird. Anyone else ever noticed this?

And there is the silly Siri thing, starting about 20:26. I reply.

Mark: Siri, can’t people just use a dictionary to look up archaic and unfamiliar words in the KJV?

Siri: No. How are people supposed to look up words they don’t realize they’re misunderstanding?

Robert: If a person has a word and dictionary, they can look it up whether or not they realize they are misunderstanding it.

I hate to say it “out loud,” but I have come to the conclusion that there is a lot disingenuousness in what Mark says. (I didn’t originally think this way, and have fought coming to this conclusion.) “Nobody has answered me” is a tactic of claiming victory and does not describe the actual facts (because many have answered). At the least, this should be “many have tried to answer me, but uneffectively and I still think I’m right.”

Here is another claim I find disingenuous, and have called his attention to it in the online comments to this video:

Mark mentioned at about 23:58 that his next book, “KJV Words You Don’t Know You Don’t Know,” will “leave KJV-Onlyism” out of it. How so, if it is only about KJV words? Passive-aggressive Anti-King James Onlyism is still Anti-King James Onlyism. In fact, “leaving it out” by way of just not mentioning it seems to be disingenuous, when probably at least a plurality of Mark’s videos (likely many many more than that) somehow connect to the King James Bible and KJV-Onlyism. If he wants to “leave KJV-Onlyism” out of it, how about teaching about the very false friend “you” in modern Bibles as well? It is a word people often don’t know they don’t know (the essence of a false friend in Mark’s world). Because Mark is only focused on KJV-Onlyism? Don’t hold your breath.

Mark Ward has gained a large following online. The video focused on in this post has received 6450 views and almost 400 comments at the time I write this – many of which sound quite groupie-esque, even though they may be made by otherwise mature Christians. Perhaps Mark could do a U-turn, change course, and use his language skills to help people understand the King James Bible instead of as a cover to draw away disciples after himself. If not, I pray that God might mute his influence and his manner of teaching that leads Bible-believing Christians to doubt the Bibles they hold in their hands and read with their eyes.