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 said. 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.

The Visible Church

While searching for something else in the Henderson Times newspaper, I ran across this announcement of an upcoming debate in 1899. It was to be held at Harrold, Wilbarger County, Texas, starting May 15, 1899. Baptist vs. Church of Christ (Alexander Campbell Restoration movement). The way the topic was worded seemed a little different than many of these debate propositions were worded.

“The church with which I, _____, stand identified, known by my brethren as the _____, possesses all the Bible characteristics to entitle it to be regarded the visible church or kingdom of Jesus Christ.”

The Baptist debater, William C. Benson (1857-1929), was born in Tennessee, and preached at least in Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. At the time Benson was living in Wilbarger County. He was identified with the Landmark Missionary Baptists in Oklahoma in 1921. I have not further identified the Church of Christ debater, J. J. Humphrey. Perhaps he was brought in from elsewhere.

An editor of the Times added a cryptic note to the announcement in The Vernon Call, that according to the adherents in many denominations (“several thousand”) believe their church “is the visible church.” That was likely very true in 1899, but surprisingly not many today seem to think their own church represents the biblical visible church.

Henderson Weekly Times, Thursday, April 27, 1899, p. 2

“Sola Scriptura” “Solo Scriptura” “Nuda Scriptura”

“Sola Scriptura” “Solo Scriptura” “Nuda Scriptura” “Nada Scriptura”

What is Sola Scriptura? Sola Scriptura is a Latin phrase meaning “scripture alone.” It is a Christian bibliological doctrine. It means that the Bible is the sole source of authority (either explicitly or implicitly) for Christian faith and practice. If only the canonical Scriptures are completely inspired and the only encapsulation of all truth, then only the Scriptures are authoritative in a way nothing else is. “The scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice” has been a common way Baptists have stated their belief in the Bible.

On Facebook awhile back, Alexander Thomson wrote “there is a growing attempt to argue that ‘Sola Scriptura’ is not ‘Solo Scriptura; and that resort to Scripture-only proof is ‘Biblicism’.”

A cadre of evangelical theologians today like to contrast “Sola Scriptura” with phrases such as “Solo Scriptura” and “Nuda Scriptura” – or draw a hard line between only and alone (which, of course, are English synonyms). Some of them may merely be trying to correct radical errors of individualism.[i] Others, however, are watering down the strength of Sola Scriptura.[ii]

Jeremy D. Myers, a former pastor who would like to redeem Christians from their biblical faith and practice, defines “Solo Scriptura” thusly: “‘Solo’ Scriptura is the idea that we can learn all matters about faith and practice using the Bible alone, plus nothing else.”

Marty Foord, a lecturer at the Evangelical Theological College in Singapore tells us that “sola scriptura does not mean that the Bible is the only authority for believers.”

Canadian minister Lawson Murray expands the idea, claiming, “Protestant reformers made a distinction between the principles of ‘sola Scriptura’ (Scripture alone) and ‘nuda Scriptura’ (bare Scripture). ‘Sola Scriptura’ has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as the Christian’s supreme authority in all spiritual matters. ‘Nuda Scriptura’ is the idea that the Bible is the Christian’s only theological authority in all spiritual matters. The best transliteration for ‘nuda Scriptura today is ‘solo Scriptura’ (just me and my Bible).”[iii]

Greek Orthodox Archpriest Andrew Stephen Damick (who doesn’t believe in either sola or solo) piles on against the “Protestants,” writing, “Solo scriptura, it is argued, is what most Evangelicals would probably understand as their basic matrix of church authority—the Bible is above everything. Some might say that the Bible is the only authority in church life, while others might say it is the primary authority in church life, but it’s still over everything.” In the end he concludes, “this ‘sola’ vs. ‘solo’ business is really a distinction without a difference” and that “sola” is really “just a better-read version” of “solo.” I sort of agree, though I would change “better-read” to “more sophisticated.”[iv] After receiving a thoroughly “liberal” education, some want a more sophisticated way to explain Sola Scriptura. They elevate themselves above being so simple in belief as to receive the phrase from a children’s song, “the Bible tells me so.” (Cf. Matthew 18:1-4.)

Many “Protestants” now nuance the terminology. They may argue that the Bible is not the “only authority,” just the “supreme authority.” It is not the “sole authority,” but “an authority” (or “final authority”) above other “lesser” authorities.[v] 

We do not (and should not) reject the teaching of God’s people in his churches through the years, neither what someone has written in a commentary or theological book, nor how the Holy Spirit has led someone else to understand the passage – but we still stand on “Scripture alone,” “Only Scripture,” and/or any or whatever term means that the only authority for our faith and practice is found in the Bible. The book of Acts extols the virtues of the Bereans, who would not take the word of an apostle, if such word did not agree with Scripture (Acts 17:11). The Bible trumps every Roman pope and every little Baptist “pope.” It is above all of them, the one and only and final authority. We do not use the Scriptures as our “sole resource” – but it is the “sole recourse.” There is no higher court of appeal.

If we do not believe that the Scriptures, inspired by God, throughly furnishes us with all we need for every good work, including doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16-17), then we have gone over to the other side![vi]

Beware of the new nuancers. The nuancing of the term “Sola Scriptura” is an admission that the term is not “sufficient” and may even suggest that those nuancing the term do not really believe the Scriptures themselves are sufficient! In the end, the fight against “Sola Scriptura” or “Solo Scriptura” may leave us with “Nada Scriptura.”[vii]

---

[i] Radical individualism rejects the study and interpretation of the Bible from within the gathered church community and installs it in the “Lone Ranger” Christian – making such an one his own authority. Sola Scriptura includes interpreting the Scriptures in the church community as guided by the Holy Spirit. It does not make either the individual or the church supreme.
[ii] “Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNA structures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science.” I do not disagree with anything here by John McArthur, but I wonder why he found it necessary to write it. Which advocate of Sola Scriptura is arguing that we should go to the Bible to learn the rules of Chinese grammar, for example?
[iii] He did not cite any Reformer or Radical Reformer who used this term positively. I get the impression that it is primarily a new term to try to encapsulate an older idea. It does seem that Calvin may have at least once used “ex nudis scripturis” to describe depending on the scripture alone (Concerning Scandals, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978, p. 18). Anabaptist/Baptist leaders (if properly understood) might well be described as holding a sort of “Nuda Scriptura” view without appealing to such terminology (i.e., correctly understanding that “Sola Scriptura” demonstrates their belief). Additionally, the reason many of these teachers did not accept the traditions of the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches is not because they totally rejected any continuity of teaching the Bible. Rather it was because they rejected the Catholic and Orthodox as being part of that continuity; that is, they are not true churches in the New Testament sense.
[iv] This may be seen in those who argue for replacing “sola” with “prima.” Are they not tacitly admitting they do not even believe “Sola Scriptura” – or at least that they think “sola” and “solo” are equivalent terms.
[v] If it is the “final authority” then it is the “sole authority” – other things called authorities are not authorities, merely servants or helps.
[vi] Many “highly educated” students are coming out of Baptist and Protestant seminaries with the idea that the Bible itself does not teach Sola Scriptura. Consider the teaching and implications of these texts: Deuteronomy 12:32, Revelation 22:18-19, do not add to or take away from God’s word; Psalm 119:89, God’s word is settled, forever; Isaiah 8:20, for truth and light, we must speak according to the word; Mark 7:6-9, the traditions of men vs. the commandments of God; Romans 10:17, the word is foundational to our faith; 1 Corinthians 4:6, do not think above what is written; Galatians 1:8, there is only one gospel, not many; Ephesians 6:17, the word of God is the sword of the Spirit; 1 Thessalonians 5:21, we have the resource to prove all things and hold fast the truth; 2 Peter 1:3, we are given all things that pertain to life and godliness; Jude 3:5, the faith is once delivered; 1 John 4:1, the word necessary to try the spirits.
[vii] “Nothing Scripture,” that is, without any biblical authority. (Sorry for switching from Latin to Spanish. ... Not really.)

“Ellipsizing” in a point

“Baptists and the American Standard Version of the Bible” by Doug Kutilek was first published in As I See It, Volume 19, No. 3.[i] It has been republished at Sharper Iron, and Kutilek (on 16 Feb 2024) republished it to the Baptist History Preservation group on Facebook. Doug Kutilek is a very active anti-King James Onlyist promoter of modern versions.

This curious excerpt from his post obtained perhaps more notice and discussion than the rest of what he wrote about the ASV.

“In a book written around 1967, Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters, founder of Central Baptist Seminary of Minnesota and Pillsbury Baptist College, and widely recognized during his lifetime as a ‘Fundamentalist’s Fundamentalist,’ wrote:

“Honesty compels us to cite the 1901 American Revised as the best English Version of the original languages which places us in a position 290 years ahead of those who are still weighing the King James of 1611 for demerits.[ii] ... We know of no Fundamentalists ... that claim the King James as the best English translation. Those in the mainstream of Fundamentalism all claim the American Revised of 1901 as the best English translation.”[iii] The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise, pp. 192, 199.

The excerpt is curious in what it asserts and what it leaves out. The quote below includes a bit more material from before and after what Kutilek shared, plus a full sentence on page 199 without the ellipsis.

“One mark of scholarship at Central is that the Revised Standard Version of the Bible is never given praise or blame over the ‘straw man’ of the Authorized Version, either orally or in writing as some schools have delighted to do to impress people that they are up-to-date. Honesty compels us to cite the 1901 American Revised as the best English Version of the original languages which places us in a position 290 years ahead of those who are still weighing the King James of 1611 for demerits…We know of no Fundamentalists except the Carnell variety that claim the King James as the best English translation. Those in the mainstream of Fundamentalism all claim the American Revised of 1901 as the best English translation. We know of no competent scholar who would not rate it far above the Revised Standard Version, which Carnell quotes throughout his book.” The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise, pp. 192, 199.

By means of ellipsis (... three-dot punctuation to indicate material passed over, omission of words, admitting alteration of a direct quote), Doug Kutilek would have Richard Clearwaters say that no Fundamentalists thought the the KJV was better than the ASV. Additionally, Clearwaters himself creates some “plausible deniability” for his comment by later using the phrase “the mainstream of Fundamentalism,” thereby simply writing out of “the mainstream” those who disagree with him about the ASV!

However, we could take for example Philip Mauro. Mauro was a contributor to the original fundamentalist series The Fundamentals: A Testimony to The Truth. Surely one of that pedigree could not be written out of “the mainstream.” He wrote Which Version in 1924, defending the King James Version over and against the English and American revisions, as superior in underlying text, the quality of translation, as well as in its style and composition.

While Clearwaters touts the ASV as the Bible of “The” Fundamentalists, the editors of The Fundamentals: a Testimony, and particularly the author James M. Gray (then dean of Moody Bible Institute), criticizes the English Revised and ASV translation of 2 Timothy 3:16 – noting the superiority of the King James translation.

“As this verse is given somewhat differently in the Revised Version we dwell upon it a moment longer. It there reads, “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable,” and the caviller is disposed to say that therefore some scripture may be inspired and some may not be, and that the profitableness extends only to the former and not the latter.

“But aside from the fact that Paul would hardly be guilty of such a weak truism as that, it may be stated in reply first, that the King James rendering of the passage is not only the more consistent scripture, but the more consistent Greek. Several of the best Greek scholars of the period affirm this, including some of the revisers themselves who did not vote for the change.” The Fundamentals: a Testimony to the Truth, Volume II, R. A. Torrey, editor. Los Angeles, CA: BIOLA, 1917, pp. 16, 21[iv]

When Richard V. Clearwaters writes “the Carnell variety” of Fundamentalists, he means the type of Fundamentalist mentioned by Edward John Carnell, a Baptist preacher and president of Fuller Seminary, in his book The Case for Orthodox Theology. Clearwaters is not identifying Carnell as a Fundamentalist. Rather, in his book Carnell complained of Fundamentalists clinging to the King James Version, writing:

“The mentality of fundamentalism is dominated by ideological thinking. Ideological thinking is rigid, intolerant, and doctrinaire…The fundamentalists’ crusade against the Revised Standard Version illustrates the point. The fury did not stem from a scholarly conviction that the version offends Hebrew and Greek idioms, for ideological thinking operates on far simpler criteria. First, there were modernists on the translation committee, and modernists corrupt whatever they touch. It does not occur to fundamentalism that translation requires only personal honesty and competent scholarship. Secondly, the Revised Standard Version’s copyright is held by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ. If a fundamentalist used the new version, he might give aid and comfort to the National Council; and that, on his principles, would be sin. By the same token, of course, a fundamentalist could not even buy groceries from a modernist. But ideological thinking is never celebrated for its consistency.” The Case for Orthodox Theology (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1959), p. 114

“The intellectual stagnation of fundamentalism can easily be illustrated. Knowing little about the canons of lower criticism, and less about the relation between language and culture, the fundamentalist has no norm by which to classify the relative merits of Biblical translations. As a result, he identifies the Word of God with the seventeenth-century language forms of the King James Version. Since other versions sound unfamiliar to him, he concludes that someone is tampering with the Word of God.” The Case for Orthodox Theology, p. 120

So, Clearwaters is not trying to make an accurate historical statement, but rather a polemical point, to distance himself from the Fundamentalists that Carnell criticized – and in doing so to assert that the “true” Fundamentalists are those who do not hold such a position. Carnell knew better, Clearwaters knew better,[v] and we know better. Kutilek should know better. This claim cannot be considered a completely valid historical statement of the relationship of the Fundamentalists (or Baptists) to the King James Bible.

Ellipses serve a purpose. When we quote authors there is not usually room to reproduce everything they said. Brevity has its place. However, we should not “ellipsize” out the facts in order to make our point – most especially when that point contradicts the original source.[vi] Too many “Bible version arguers” of all stripes do just that. Let us resolve to do better!

---

[i] Probably published in March 2016, though I have not seen the year clearly given anywhere I have looked. As to Clearwaters’ book, The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise, it is hard to date as well. It is a mix of writings from various times. Chapter 12 was written in or after 1965, for at the time Blain Myron Cedarholm had served his 18 years as General Director of the Conservative Baptist Association (1947-1965; p. 180); it also mentions receiving a letter dated November 17, 1967 (Compromise, p. 184). So after 1967.
[ii] 290 is the number of years from the King James Bible of 1611 to the American Standard Version of 1901. This is a confusing comment, since Clearwaters and those in his orbit can only be ahead of others who are “still weighing the King James of 1611 for demerits” by the amount of time they began using the ASV to whenever this “still weighing” is occurring.
[iii] After this sentence Clearwaters writes, “We know of no competent scholar who would not rate it far above the Revised Standard Version, which Carnell quotes throughout his book.”

[iv] This is not to say that Gray consistently preferred the KJV above the ASV, but simply to show he did not think the ASV was always better. Gray acknowledged some Christians “who would be willing to retain the rendering of the Revised Version as being stronger than the King James” by introducing a word to make it say, “Every scripture (because) inspired of God is also profitable” (p. 16). Both J. M. Gray and L. W. Munhall take the position that translations are not inspired (p. 37).

[v] Thomas Cassidy, a former student and friend of Richard Clearwaters, in his praise of him included this telling statement: “Doc Clearwaters was my pastor and mentor while I was a member of Fourth Baptist and a student at Central Seminary. He was a truly great man. A bit flawed where his ego was concerned, but a great man nevertheless.” It is worth noting that Carnell’s position, against which Clearwaters argued, is the position of the modern text critic – that Bible “translation requires only personal honesty and competent scholarship.” The modern fundamentalist followers of Richard Clearwaters are, on this matter, closer in belief to Carnell than to Clearwaters, who held that “‘natural’ men who ‘receive not the things of the Spirit of God’ and hence totally unfit to translate or interpret what God has inspired” (Compromise, p. 199).

[vi] I also use ellipses (plural of ellipsis); most every one who quotes anyone does at some point. I am sad to say many King James Defenders use them ill-advisedly (see Getting It Right, for example). The wide distribution of material (books, tracts, etc.) has made it much easier to check original sources to see what had been left out of quotes. Many times we need to do so. It is worthwhile every time we have the sources to do so.

The Triquetra and the NKJV

Triquetra, noun. A triangular geometrical figure used as an ornamental design, especially one having three interlaced arcs.

The Thomas Nelson hardback New King James Version (NKJV) that I own does not have the symbol on the cover (as shown above), but rather it is moved inside to the cover page. It is my understanding that new NKJV Bibles no longer have the symbol.

“Title page logo: The triquetra (from a Latin word meaning ‘three-cornered’) is an ancient symbol for the Trinity. It comprises three interwoven arcs, distinct yet equal and inseparable, symbolizing that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct yet equal Persons and indivisibly One God.” (NKJV, 1982, p. ii)

Pastor Scott Ingram stirred up a lot of folks with a recent YouTube video, Why is there a Symbol on the NKJV Bible?

(starts about 2:34) “The source is a lady named Gail Riplinger…who many years ago wrote a book called New Age Bible Versions and many people found her book enlightening and have used it as a source for their studies on the differences in Bible translations. The image and the information about this that is frequently copied and pasted and repeated is from one of her tracts on the NKJV. At the beginning of this tract (called ‘The Death Certificate for the NKJV’) she gives us this information about the symbol that’s on the NKJV. She asserts the NKJV logo is the ancient symbol for the Pagan Trinity not the Christian Trinity…”

This symbol on the New King James Version (NKJV) has kindled much smoke and fire in the Bible versions debates, plenty of heat that generates little light. The tract of Gail Riplinger (mentioned by Ingram and illustrated above) is just one of many examples of the charge against the NKJV using a pagan symbol.

Truly Gail Riplinger has had oversized influence among some King James Bible supporters. However, some others claim that they have studied the issue for themselves and independently came to the same general conclusion as Riplinger, without having ever read her statement on the triquetra. I have no reason to doubt their honesty. NKJV supporters have pushed back against the charge. NKJV translator James D. Price has been particularly active, writing against the Death Sentence by Riplinger and even on The Triquetra itself.

Symbols created from figures such as loops, circles, squares, and triangles are inherently neutral. Therefore, a symbol represents what the user means for it to represent.[i] This, however, does not exclude its meaning different things to different people. The use and meaning according to more than one source can create confusion in the mind of persons seeing the symbol. Nevertheless, it is best to assume the editor/publishers of the NKJV used the triquetra symbol for the reason they claim, even if it has other associations. When this debate heats up, it clouds the real issue – what is the worth of the NKJV as a translation – and leads to more charges and countercharges.[ii]

If this were a ploy of Satan, for what reason would he and his minions place a pagan satanic symbol on a product he intends to market to conservative Christians? None I can think of. He is a more skilled deceiver than that (Revelation 12:9).

From www.theirishroadtrip.com

Do not take any thing I have written as a defense of the New King James Version. It is a poor substitute intended to supplant the King James Bible. There are reasons to object to it replacing the old King James Version. However, what is on its cover really is not one of them. This argument tends to appeal to emotion and superstition rather than biblical theology and sound reasoning. It obscures the real issues that should be dealt with concerning the NKJV.

The things that should be inspected and considered most, rather than some ternion ornamental design, are the meat of the translation itself:

• Some of the translators worked simultaneously on the New International Version, and
• The translators of the NKJV did not prefer the Greek text they were using, and
• There are some Critical Text preferences that creep into the readings, via either text or translation.

I can sum up my personal objections to the NKJV in three categories, “text issues,” “translation issues,” and “trust issues.”

---

[i] The Irish Road Trip and The Book of Kells provide some interesting thoughts on the triquetra.

[ii] This is not just a made-up possibility. For example, I have heard folks who dislike the old King James Bible claim that the 1611 printing of this translation has Rosicrucian & Masonic symbols in the art work. See also How many occult symbols can you find in the 1611 first edition of the King James Bible? There is an apparently new “conspiracy theory” that Scofield Reference Bibles use the circumpunct (ʘ) as a marker for some desperate clandestine purpose! (The Scofield notes are often deficient and unsound; we don’t have to look for something wrong in a neutral geometrical figure used to mark verses.)

George Elliott Jones: Author, Debater, Preacher

When I wrote about “Bible numerics,” I mentioned the book That Ye May Marvel, Or, The Significance of Bible Numbers (Jonesboro, AR: Sammons, 1953), written by George Elliott Jones (1889-1966). Jones was a prolific author and well-respected Baptist preacher in Arkansas.

I found The Teachings of Elder G. E. Jones on issuu, a site that turns PDFs into Flipbooks. Shayne Moses of Johnson City, Tennessee created the project. I am unsure of his connection to G. E. Jones. Concerning Brother Jones, Moses wrote:

George Elliott Jones was born July 12, 1889, in Morrilton, Arkansas, but spent most of his boyhood in Plumerville, Arkansas, and graduated from high school in that town. In 1914 he graduated from Ouachita Baptist College in Arkadelphia, Arkansas. He was ordained to the ministry in 1912. He pastored various churches in Arkansas and Missouri. He was engaged in over 400 revival meetings and Bible schools in 16 different states. For two years he was Bible teacher for young preachers in Missouri and for four years, he served in the same capacity in Arkansas. He was the author of 29 books and booklets. For 12 years he was writer of Sunday School lessons for Associational Baptists. For over 30 years he contributed articles for various Baptist papers.

The Bend Bulletin, Wednesday, June 29, 1949, page 4

G. E. Jones was the son of Dr. William Allen Jones and Mary Etta Adams. He married Loleta Faye Crotchett (1900–1999) in 1919, and they had at least 6 children (one of whom may still be living). G. E. and Faye are buried at the Elmwood Cemetery in Morrilton, Conway County, Arkansas.

Jefferson County Republican, Thursday, June 7, 1940, page 1

Books and Booklets by G. E. Jones, in alphabetical order:

The Kellar Library of the Baptist Missionary Association of America Seminary has 29 titles of George Elliott Jones. One is a posthumous reprint of an earlier book, with a revised title. In addition, I have a copy of A Written Scriptural Discussion between Eld. G. E. Jones and Eld. P. D. Ballard (published by Paul Dempsey Ballard, no date, but circa 1961).

• A Verse-By-Verse Commentary on Revelation, Little Rock, AR: Capitol Off-Set Printing, 1963
• Apostasy and Security, Morrilton, AR: G. E. Jones, n.d.
• Christ Revealed in the Tabernacle, Jonesboro, AR: Sammons Publishing, n.d.
• Freedom from the Law and Spiritual Growth, Morrilton, AR: Poindexter Printing, 1964
• God’s Election of Grace, Jonesboro, AR: Sammons Publishing, 1950
• God’s Everlasting Salvation Brings Everlasting Consolation, Morrilton, AR: Poindexter Printing, 1966
• Identified with Christ: a Book of Sermons, Morrilton, AR: Poindexter Printing, 1965
• Is There a Difference in the Churches? n.p., n.d.
• Jones-Wilhite Discussion on the Design of Baptism, Morrilton, AR: G. E. Jones, 1940
• Light on Revelation, Texarkana, TX/AR: Helms Printing, 1934
• Once for All: Sixteen Lessons, Morrilton, AR: G. E. Jones, 1957 (2nd edition)
• Seeing the Glory of God, n.p., n.d.
• Seven Links in the Chain of God’s Purpose, Morrilton, AR: Poindexter Printing, 1961
• That Ye May Marvel: or The Significance of Bible Numbers, Jonesboro, AR: Sammons Publishing, 1953
• The 1000 Years Reign of Christ: or, The Earth’s Great Jubilee, Little Rock, AR: Capitol Off-Set Printing, 1957
• The Earth’s Great Jubilee, Morrilton, AR: G. E. Jones, n.d.
• The First Resurrection, Morrilton, AR: G. E. Jones, n.d.
• The Gospel in Ruth, Morrilton, AR: Morrilton Democrat, n.d.
• The Millennial Issue, Texarkana, AR: Baptist Sunday School Committee, n.d.
• The Miracle of Divine Inspiration, Jonesboro, AR: Sammons Publishing, n.d.
• The Pattern, the Tabernacle, the Christ, Little Rock, AR: Baptist Publications, 1962 (Revision and Enlargement of Christ Revealed in the Tabernacle)
• The Pillar of Cloud and Fire, Morrilton, AR: G. E. Jones, n.d.
• The Tribe of Ishmael, Texarkana, TX/AR: Baptist Sunday School Committee, n.d.
• The Truth vs. Non-millennial Tradition, Morrilton, AR: G. E. Jones, n.d.
• The World System and the Social Gospel, Morrilton, AR: G. E. Jones, n.d.
• Things Which Must Shortly Come to Pass, Texarkana, TX/AR: Baptist Sunday School Committee, n.d.
• Twenty-six Doctrinal Lessons from the New Testament (A Study Course), Texarkana, TX/AR: Baptist Sunday School Committee, n.d.
• Twenty-six Doctrinal Lessons from the Old Testament (A Study Course), Texarkana, TX/AR: Baptist Sunday School Committee, n.d.
• Twenty-six New Testament Lessons, Little Rock, AR: Baptist Publishing House, 1977

Some Debates in which G. E. Jones Participated, in chronological order:

Debate opponent, Denomination, Date, Subject, Place, Source

• Henry Franklin Cates, Church of Christ, February 1922 (kingdom and apostasy) Bee Branch, Van Buren County, Arkansas, Christian Worker, March 9, 1922
• Albert Page Anderson, Church of God, July 1940 (miraculous gifts & eternal security) De Soto, Missouri, Jefferson County Republican, June 27, 1940
• Ernest Rosenthal Harper, Church of Christ, 1940, (apostasy, baptism, church) Chickalah, Arkansas, The Encyclopedia of Religious Debates, Volume 3, Thomas N. Thrasher, 2020; The Daily Ardmoreite, March 19, 1954
• Anderson Quincy Bridwell, Church of God, November 1941 (reign of Christ) Poplar Bluff, Missouri, Daily American Republic, October 17, 1941
• John Porter Wilhite, Church of Christ, 1945 (baptism, apostasy) Turley, Oklahoma, The Encyclopedia of Religious Debates, Volume 3, Thomas N. Thrasher, 2020
• Emory Lon Whitaker, Christian Church, circa 1945, written debate (apostasy, eternal security), The Encyclopedia of Religious Debates, Volume 3, Thomas N. Thrasher, 2020; Once For All by G. E. Jones; A Once-for-All Answer to “Once for All”, by E. L. Whitaker
• John Porter Wilhite, Church of Christ, May 1948, Turley, Oklahoma, The Encyclopedia of Religious Debates, Volume 3, Thomas N. Thrasher, 2020
• Paul Dempsey Ballard, Missionary Baptist, circa 1961, written debate (general judgment, millennium) 

Baptist Debate History

I have a printing of the Causey-Bridwell Debate, printed in 1978. The debate actually occurred 40 years earlier, in 1938 in Poplar Bluff, Missouri. Here is some newspaper material related to it.

Daily American Republic, Monday, January 17, 1938, p. 8

Faith and Victory, Vol. 14, No. 8, July 1939, p. 6

Daily American Republic, Monday, August 8, 1938, p. 8

The above newspaper article is referenced in an appendix to the debate. Causey says that Bridwell testified he has been healed of gallstones at an earlier time. Bridwell says the August 8th newspaper report was in error.

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 of 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.

The argument from consistency

“Consistency, thou art a jewel!” – Unknown, though often attributed to Shakespeare

“The essence of Christian maturity is to have a high tolerance for ambiguity.” – Fred Smith

“Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson[i]

Emerson, Fred Smith, and Faux Shakespeare may all be on to something! “Consistency, thou art jewel” is an oft-quoted proverb used to good effect.  On the other hand, we often misunderstand the argument from inconsistency, or the argument for consistency.

Consistent is an adjective, and means “agreeing or accordant, not self-contradictory.” Consistency is the noun form, referring to such non-contradictory agreement or logical coherence of a thing (thought) and its parts. Logical inconsistency refers to making arguments that are not internally consistent. In logic or debate a consistent argument does not contain or lead to any logical contradiction.

An OUP blog post says:

“A theory is inconsistent if we can prove a contradiction using basic logic and the principles of that theory.”

The proprietor of “The Logic of Science” blog writes:

“[Consistent reasoning] is a fundamental requirement of the law of non-contradiction. It is, therefore, vital to make sure that your views are internally consistent, and pointing out inconsistent arguments can be an extremely powerful debate tool (it’s actually among my favorites).”

Sometimes it is a too-powerful debate tool. Over the years, in discussions of religious topics (which I cannot bring to mind at the moment) I have seen debaters throw down the gauntlet of “inconsistency,” thinking they then might confidently walk away the winner. Sometimes their opponents and their hearers misunderstand and submissively agree. However, they may have only given proof of inconsistency, and not proof of which inconsistent position is wrong or whether neither or both might be.

A simple but extravagant example can illustrate the point. A person may invoke an unsound argument for a conclusion, even though the conclusion itself is true. An inconsistent argument is proof of an inconsistent argument. It does not necessarily mean the conclusion is false. One might argue, Joe Biden is a Democrat because the ocean is blue. Donald Trump is a Republican because a strawberry is red.  These arguments are obviously non sequitur (Latin, “it does not follow”). The ocean is blue and strawberries are red, though those premises have little or nothing to do with the conclusion (the colors are related). Nevertheless, despite the hapless argumentation, the conclusions are true. Joe Biden is a Democrat. Donald Trump is a Republican

Be careful and be sure. Don’t immediately admit that inconsistency is proof of an error of your part and point – just proof of inconsistency. If your argument is inconsistent but your conclusion true, develop a consistent argument. If your conclusion is false, find the truth! (Proverbs 23:23; John 8:32) The truth shall make you free.

---

[i] From the essay “Self-Reliance” by Ralph Waldo Emerson, a fuller quote is “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”