Random comments re Mark Ward and the King James Bible

After his debate with Dan Haifley, Mark Ward made a few stabs at “clarifying” his debate answer to Haifley about not giving children a King James Bible – by which either he meant or has been interpreted by others to mean that giving a King James Bible to a child is a sin. If accurately copied from the transcript and properly tweaked by listening to the audio, here is what Mark said:

“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.’”

In the original quote itself Mark seems to be “hedging his bets,” and has also done so in some of his “clarifications,” in my opinion. In a recent discussion on Dwyane Green’s channel, Mark was understood by one listener to mean the following. He writes,

“Here’s how I took his comment:

“‘If you, like me, believe the KJV has reached the point of not being sufficiently intelligible for your child’s reading...and yet you give it to them, to you it is sin (because you know better).’

“So if one doesn’t agree with his premise about readability, then he’s NOT saying to that one it’s sin.”

I think that is a “charitable” interpretation of what Mark said. It would be a sin for Mark to give a KJV to a child, because he “knows better.” It would not be a sin for me to give a KJV to a child, since I don’t know any better. Is that a fair interpretation of how he uses James 4:17?

Then that raises the question whether that is even a proper interpretation and understanding of James 4:17. “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” [Or for the modern reader who doesn’t understand James 4:17 - “So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin” (ESV). “So suppose someone knows the good deeds they should do. But suppose they don’t do them. By not doing these good deeds, they sin.” (NIrV).]

Is not this instruction about sinning by omission – omitting or failing to do the good one knows to do? Giving someone a Bible – regardless of what version one gives – is an act, is it not? It is not an omission. It seems that Mark’s use of James 4:17 here makes sin much more subjective than what James actually writes.

Here is a transcription from about 5:38 to 6:10 in the second of Mark’s video interviews with Dwayne Green about the debate. Mark says:

“I’m opposed to exclusive use of the King James in general by anyone. I think at the very least you ought to have the liberty in your conscience to read other translations. I really don’t want to lay the burden on someone’s conscience to require them to use a modern translation even though I just said I don’t think it should be used exclusively. I do back off of saying that would be some kind of sin. I mean there must be millions – I don’t know, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dear older saints who’ve grown up with the King James who do understand it sufficiently well…”

In light of the recent flare-up over whether it is a sin to give a child a King James Bible, there is this interesting comment: “I do back off of saying that would be some kind of sin.” I suppose “back off” might be taken one of two ways. The most common way to take it, I think, is that he is abandoning that position, retreating from what he had previously sad. However, it might possibly mean to stop short of saying it, as in “I oppose the exclusive use of the King James, but stop short of saying that exclusive use is a sin.” I think Mark realized in reference to his making it a liberty of conscience issue, he needs to allow the liberty of conscience for those who want to exclusively read one translation.

On his opposition to the use of the King James Bible, I believe:

• Ward’s approach can be arrogant. He often implies only he is smart enough to know the answer.
• Ward’s method can be misleading. For example, his King James Quiz is defective in several regards, especially that it seems to try to direct a respondent to a wrong answer, so as to prove his point. Also there are no control questions.
• Ward’s interpretations can be inaccurate. He skews some definitions in his tests so that the range of meaning, not only in the translated word, but the original language word as well, is lost. His continual hammering on “halt” is an excellent example of this.
• Ward’s excess is unwise, and can start a chipping away at people’s faith in the Scriptures.

A somewhat peripheral general observation from me, on the multiplication of many different translations, and the continuing revision of the already multiplied ones:

If we would be faithful obeying “teach the generation following” (Deuteronomy 6:6-7; Psalm 48:13; 2 Timothy 2:2), there would not be a need for an every-generation update of the Bible.