Mark Ward, Waster of Words

Proverbs 18:9 He also that is slothful in his work is brother to him that is a great waster.

On the last day of the year 2024, Mark Ward worked tirelessly to build up his “false friend” count to 150. Perhaps he was also tired, rushed, and not as attentive as he should have been. Here is an example of how the Berean must be on the lookout concerning Ward’s teaching and technique. One of countdown words was the word “waster” used in Proverbs 18:9, meaning one who lays waste, or destroys, a destroyer. Not content to merely ravage “King James Onlyists,” he also threw the old commentators Matthew Henry and John Gill under the bus as well. Pulled forward, then backed over them for good measure. After building a large front porch about wasting food and such like, Mark says:

“But false friend 108 in Proverbs 18:9 tripped up people of the stature of Matthew Henry, John Gill, and a random KJV-Only pastor I found on SermonAudio. I just have to share this. Gill, John Gill the great commentator, he thought that the ‘great waster’ was ‘a prodigal man, who spends his substance in riotous living.’ Henry thought ‘great wasters’ were ‘wasters of their estates, who live above what they have, spend and give more than they can afford, and so, in effect, throw away what they have, and suffer it to run to waste.’ I believe that this interpretation really is just impossible.”

I’ll not try to account for the modern pastor in Ohio. He is alive and can fend for himself. However, I will stand up for the dead guys. What Mark failed to consider is that M. Henry and J. Gill knew as much as he knows (and probably much more) and yet applied the idea of “laying waste” to one who destroys what he has through riotous living. (Note that both Henry & Gill reference the prodigal.) There is overlapping sense of waste and destroy that Mark seems to miss. He shouldn’t have. If he had looked carefully at John Gill’s comments on Proverbs 18:9, he should have read that Gill very specifically mentions the destroyer, as well as mentioning something very close to the reference Mark gives from Martin Luther’s commentary on Galatians, of Paul as “a persecutor and waster of the church.”

v. 9. He also that is slothful in his work, &c.] Remiss in it; hangs down his hands, and does not care to make use of them, but neglects his business: Is brother to him that is a great waster: a prodigal man, who spends his substance in riotous living: the sluggard and the prodigal are brethren in iniquity; for, though they take different courses, they are both sinful, and issue in the same manner; both bring to poverty and want. Or, brother to a master that wastes p; a slothful servant and a wasteful master are near akin, and come into the same class and circumstances. Jarchi interprets it, “he that separateth from the law, though a disciple of a wise man, is a brother to Satan;” whose name is Apollyon, the waster and destroyer. A man that is slothful in spiritual things, though a professor of religion, and has a place in the house of God, is brother to him that is a waster and persecutor of it; see Matt. xii.30.

p לבעל משחית domino devaststionis, Gejerus; domino dissipanti, Mercerus.

Clearly John Gill was not “tripped up by a false friend.” He simply chose to interpret the manner of laying waste in a different way than Mark Ward. Regardless of what Mark believes about the word “waster” as a “false friend,” he did not apply honesty, clarity, and charity to what John Gill wrote. Bereans, always search to see whether what Mark says is so. Many of his listeners gobble up what he says because he is the first one to come along and say it is so. (Cf. Proverbs 18:17.)

By the way, always search to see whether what any of us say is so!

---

[i] Robert L. Alden, user of modern versions, professor of Old Testament, with a PhD from Hebrew Union College, says, “Shoddy workmanship in constructing something is tantamount to destroying it, says verse 9.” Proverbs: a Commentary on an Ancient Book of Timeless Advice. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983, page 139. If Alden missed the interpretation, it had nothing to do with Ward’s concept of “false friends.” Adam Clarke says, “A slothful man neglects his work, and the materials go to ruin: the waster, he destroys the materials. They are both destroyers.” The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary claims “waster” literally means “master of wasting, a prodigal.” The Septuagint interprets the “great waster” as one who ruins or plunders himself (λυμαινομένου ἑαυτόν). The Vulgate interprets similarly (sua opera dissipantis.). Though Mark knows words (just listen, he will tell you so), he often seems out of his league when it comes to careful hermeneutics. Maybe he is just trying too hard to find more false friends.

[ii] Some other resources from the 17th century.

Vers. 9. He also that is slothful in his work ] ...

Is brother to him that is a great waster] Est frater domini disperditionis, will as certainly come to poverty, as the greatest wast-good. A man dyes no lesse surely (though not so suddenly) of consumption, then of an apoplexy.

[Note: The beloved OED defines wast-good (waste-good) as “A spendthrift.”]

Page 215 of Solomonis Παναρετος, or A Commentary Upon the Books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, John Trapp. London: Printed for John Bellamie, 1650

𝖂𝖆𝖘𝖙𝖊𝖗 ] Any person, or thing that doth destroy, Isa. 54.19. A Prodigall, Spendthrift, Prov. 18.19.

𝖂𝖆𝖘𝖙𝖊𝖗 ] One that spends all, Prov. 18.9.

Page 710 of A Complete Christian Dictionary, Thomas Wilson, et al. London: E. Cotes, 1661

And a little on the Hebrew, in case someone thinks it will not bear the same connotation.

Hiphil.—

(2) [Prov. 28:24, and Prov. 18:9] a man of destruction, i.e. in chap. 28, act., a destroyer, a waster; but in chap. 18, pass., one who brings destruction on himself, one who wastes his own goods, a prodigal.

Page 816 of Gesenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, Wilhelm Gesenius (translated to English and edited by Samuel Predeaux Tregelles). London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1846

A Plaine and Familiar Exposition of the Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth Chapters of the Proverbs of Salomon, by John Dod and Robert Cleaver.

London: Roger Jackson, 1611, pp. 9-10

If there be any virtue

In the Facebook Textus Receptus Academy group, I pointed out a certain modus operandi that Mark Ward used in his video “Five False Friends Staring with ‘D’.” This is in the context of declaring a KJV word no longer means what it meant in 1611. I used “debate” to give the example. 

1. Define a word in a way that limits its range of meaning. Debate = a formal discussion on a particular topic...
2. Fail to include other definitions in the semantic range. Debate (1st definition in the modern Merriam-Webster online dictionary) = a contention by words or arguments. (Contention, one of the very words Mark said it “used to mean.”)
3. Declare you proved your point.
4. Easy peasy.

This is something that runs through his work (ergo, modus operandi). He did it on December 23 with the word “virtue” in the video “Virtue Went Out of Jesus?”[i]

1. Define a word in a way that limits its range of meaning. Virtue = behavior showing high moral standards....
2. Fail to include other definitions in the semantic range. Virtue (2nd definition in the modern Merriam-Webster online dictionary) = a beneficial quality or power of a thing. (Power, one of the very words Mark said it “used to mean.”)
3. Declare you proved your point. 

In the New Testament (King James Bible), the word “virtue” occurs seven times in six verses. Four times it carries a meaning and connotation of moral excellence (ἀρετή; Philippians 4:8; 2 Peter 1:3, 5). The other three times, where virtue carries a meaning and connotation of power, representing the Greek word δύναμις.

• Mark 5:30 And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes?
• Luke 6:19 And the whole multitude sought to touch him: for there went virtue out of him, and healed them all.
• Luke 8:46 And Jesus said, Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me.

In other places the King James translators translate the word δύναμις as power. I believe there are at least three reasons why they chose to use virtue instead of power in Mark 5:30, Luke 6:19, and Luke 8:46.

1. The translators did not tie themselves to uniformity of phrasing, and Greek words might vary in connotation. “…we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere) we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty.”
2. The translators followed the wording of the English Bibles that came before them. The Bishops, Geneva, 1557 Geneva NT, Great Bible, Taverner, Matthew, Coverdale, and Tyndale had “virtue” in these three texts of Scripture. The only exception is that Coverdale had “the power” in Mark 5:30).
3. The translators probably thought virtue carried some connotation useful to the context, such as “excellency” in connection with power, like the excellency of power inherent in Jesus as deity (see OED I.1, 1933, p. 238), or the effect of the power. Using “virtue” over and over in reference to the power of Jesus Christ versus the brazen serpent Ralph Robinson wrote, “Virtue doth really go forth from Christ to the Sin-bitten sinner, for the healing of him” and that “Christ excells the brazen Serpent in 11 particulars” (Christ All in All, 2nd edition, London: John Rothwell, 1660, p. 553).[ii]

One of Mark’s problems is that he thinks the “uppermost sense of” the word in a person’s mind governs the “meaning” of the word, and then sets out of prove that point in ways that often veer too far from consistently comprehensive inspection of sound words.[iii] We know that people (most all people) will normally travel to the first sense they know for a word to try to make sense of it. We deny that folks cannot and should not learn to interpret words in their context, and with much diligence.

---

[i] Mark did a modified version of his m.o. with the word “issue” in “Mr. Median Meets the Woman with the Issue of Blood.” If you check with discernment, you will see this kind of stuff occurs over and over.

1. Define a word in a way that limits its range of meaning. Issue = personal difficulties or problems....
2. Fail to include other definitions in the semantic range. Issue (4th definition in the modern Merriam-Webster online dictionary) = a discharge (as of blood) from the body. (Exactly the “issue” Mark is talking about in Leviticus 12:7 and Matthew 9:20. He eventually admits this one is slippery, but claims it is just too uncommon for modern folks to understand.)
3. Declare you proved your point.

[ii] Ralph Robinson was pastor of St. Mary Wolnoth in London. The sermon “Christe the true brazen Serpent” was preached in January of 1654. Robinson specifically mentions Luke 6:19 and 8:46 in the context quoted.  In his sermon A Sermon of Spirituall Life and Death, John Preston used power and virtue (virtue) as synonyms, but several times in a way that suggests he sees a slightly different range of meaning. (London: T. C., 1630, pp. 17-19; preached in November 1626). He also writes, “when Iron comes neere the Load-stone, there goes a virtue from the Load-stone that draws the Iron to it…” In A Christian Dictionary, Thomas Wilson gives as “No. 2” meaning of “Virtue” – Power and might, or the effect of power, Luke 8, 46. Vertue is gone out of me; that is, there is some healthfull effect wrought by my power.” (London: William Iaggad, 1622).
[iii] For example, in “Three False Friends in One Important Verse” (Psalm 2:1), Mark fails to engage with a New Testament verse that refers to the verse he is discussing. He is so focused on his “word study,” that he does not engage in “Bible study.” How can we maintain consistency as Bible believers and not do that. Additionally, when building his false friend case he goes back to find what the OED might say a word meant in 1611 (looking for a definition to confirm his point), but he seldom, if ever, looks for sermons or commentary from that period to see how a contemporary might interpret or understand the word in its biblical context. It seems that Mark stops searching when he finds what he hopes to find.

Beware of false prophets

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Matthew 7:15

Beware of false prophets who come to you in the name of the King James Bible, bearing new revelations never before seen or heard. One such “revelator” is Gary Rovarino. He is one of the founders of the King James Bible Museum in Phoenix, Arizona, which idea may initially put him in a position of general respect among defenders of the King James Bible. He advertises himself as “knowing and elaborating of the hidden-inner most workings of the revelations of God in the King James Bible.” Such hubris should be warning enough, though perhaps it is not for some weak believers struggling to support their continued use of the King James Bible. A “prophet” who can reveal “Never Before Seen REVELATION of John 3:16” is not a Bible prophet. Gary Rovarino is a “false friend” of the King James Bible. Beware. (Additionally, be aware that Gary Rovarino is also known as G. John Rov. He writes under that pen name.)

The biblical faith is a grounded and settled faith, truth established on a rock, openly taught and passed down from generation to generation. It does not require a false foundation from mysterious math that can only be rendered visible by a secret scholar seeking sickly sheep. Be a Berean!

Jude exhorts us to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (verse 3). Note that the biblical faith is a “once delivered” faith. “Never before seen” revelations of John 3:16 – or any other text – should be an immediate wake-up call for the Bible believer. Certainly, there are new things you and I will learn from the Bible, but that is not because they were never before seen or heard until some modern-day false prophet came along. It is things that we just have not noticed before but that have been there all along – in the open, and believed by others before us! 

The biblical faith is a passed-down faith. The apostles taught all things that Jesus commanded them (Matthew 28:19), and these truths have been taught in and by churches of the Lord Jesus Christ from that time to this day. A new thing not known before now is a false thing not taught to the apostles by Jesus and not passed down from the apostles through the churches. What Paul received, he also delivered (1 Corinthians 11:23; 15:1). The teachings were committed to faithful men who passed them on (2 Timothy 2). John declared what he had seen and heard (1 John 1:3, 5). Peter taught what he received, and put his hearers in remembrance of it (2 Peter 1:15-16). This nature of truth is consistently established in the New Testament, that the disciples passed on the faith once delivered to the saints. A deliverer of new things we should not bear with (2 Corinthians 11:4).

For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. Acts 20:20-31

Dispensational salvation: IFB and false gospel

Because of a common interest in supporting and defending the King James Bible, we sometimes “rub shoulders” with some folks who hold some pretty tainted tenets. While we agree on the King James Bible being the word of God and its use for English-speaking people, we disagree on some other very important issues. Some are important enough to require ecclesiastical separation, while recognizing those persons are still teachers of the truth of the gospel. Some are so rank that they incite marking and naming the persons as teaching soteriological doctrine outside the purview of orthodoxy.[i]

I am an independent Baptist, in the sense that our church is unaffiliated with any Baptist association, convention, or fellowship. I am a fundamental Baptist, in the sense that I agree with the doctrines that have traditionally been identified as the fundamentals of the Christian faith. If called on to identify myself beyond just “Baptist,” I prefer to say “old-time” Baptist, which will usually elicit the response, “What do you mean by that?” I do not identify myself as an Independent Fundamental Baptist.[ii] There are good people and churches who use that terminology, but there is also a lot of doctrine of putrid smell housed under that roof.

One of these putrid precepts seems to be most commonly identified as “dispensational salvation.”[iii] This is a false gospel that denies that only one way of Jesus Christ, a lamb slain from the foundation of the world (John 14:6; Acts 4:12: 1 Timothy 2:5; Revelation 13:8). In this post I will not spend time trying to prove the orthodox position, but will operate from that presupposition. The purpose of this post is to warn King James Bible defenders of the error of “dispensational salvation” and to name and warn against some of the promoters of it. No doubt there are many more. Be warned. Be careful. Naming and marking will doubtless be offensive to some, perhaps many, but the Bible is clear. Perverting the gospel of Christ is a damnable issue.

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:6-9

IFB purveyors of false gospels.

Peter Ruckman.

Peter S. Ruckman seems the ringleader of the bunch. Others may have taught such before him, but likely most of the living Independent Fundamental Baptist promoters of multiple salvations across multiple dispensations generally accept Ruckman and his views. Here are a couple of excerpts of his claptrap. I do not think more is necessary. It is unlikely anyone will deny he taught such heresy; his followers gladly rejoice in lauding him and in purveying his views. Here are three examples of the teaching of Ruckman.

“Those silly asses actually teach that salvation is the same in the Church Age, the Tribulation, the Millennium, and the Old Testament. You never met a more gullible, blind, deceived bunch of Bible-rejecting apostates in your life.” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, November 2001, p. 13)

“Whenever you hear any heretic say that ‘men are saved in the Old Testament by looking forward to the cross and after the New Testament by looking back at the cross,’ you are dealing either with a lazy preacher or a stupid preacher or a crooked, lying fool. (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, April 2004, p. 18)

“We have learned that before the law a man was saved by grace through faith, if his works showed he had faith. Under the Mosaic Law, a man was saved by grace through faith and works, if he was short on either item (faith or works) he could die in his sins and go to hell…Here, again, [i.e., during the Millennium] we will encounter salvation by Works, through Works, and ‘that of YOURSELVES’ for there is no ‘gift’ to it. (How to Teach Dispensational Truth, Pensacola: Bible Believers Press, 1996, pp. 60-61, 91)

I generally do not like to strike too harsh a tone on my blog, but dealing with the heretical views of Peter Ruckman requires it. “Answer a fool according to his folly…” (Proverbs 26:5). I must honestly say that I do not think Peter Ruckman was lazy or stupid – but I do think he was a crooked, lying fool, and worse – as well as a Bible-truth-rejecting apostate and a disqualified minister with two divorces and three marriages under his belt.

Other followers.

I initially thought to give sort of exhaustive quotations from those who hold this variant view. I decided that would become tedious and tiresome. Instead, I will give a few quotes and just identify others by linking to their writings. Be warned of these. These are not personal people problems, but biblical issues of a doctrinal nature.

Ken Blue.

“It will be obvious to the open mind and anointed eye that more than one gospel in found in Scripture. A right division of the Word of God is necessary in order to distinguish between these gospels and place them in their proper dispensations.” (Dispensational Salvation)

Robert Breaker.

“Are we going to follow Peter, or are we going to follow Paul. … We are supposed to follow Paul. … In Acts chapter 8, verse 36 [reads 36 and following] …Here we see a Gentile saved…He was saved by believing. So this Gentile was saved differently than these Jews back here in Acts chapter 2...

“You cannot say that people are saved the same in the Old Testament as the New Testament. It just does not work.” (Dispensational “Salvation”)

Gene Kim.

“Old Testament salvation is by faith and works. Christian salvation is by faith alone. Tribulation salvation is by faith and works. Millennium salvation is by works.” (Dispensational Salvation – God always gave salvation by faith alone … WRONG)

Andrew Sluder and Randy Keener.

“When we have people who fail to rightly divide the word of truth, they end up saying crazy things like ‘There is only one gospel that has ever been preached.’ Now folks, If you’ve seen my other videos, you’ve seen the fact that I believe that there are three Gospels laid out in the Scriptures.”

“We believe that a man today is saved by believing on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the payment for his sin – plus nothing, minus nothing. … We don’t even believe in repent of your sins … We do not believe that men were always saved by the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In fact, in the Old Testament there was a mixture of works and faith involve … (3 Gospels, Dispensational Salvation & Hyper-Dispensationalism)

Cody Watters.

“There are also verses in Revelation that make it clear that the Tribulation Saint is saved by faith and works.” (Dispensational Salvations)

Cody Zorn.

“You know why people say that people can lose their salvation here (pointing to the church age on his white board)? Because there’s people that can lose their salvation here (pointing to the tribulation on his white board). And there’s people that can lose their salvation back there (pointing to the Old Testament period on his white board). But we’re living in the day and time (pointing to the church age) where we don’t … we can’t lose what we didn’t work for.” (Starts about 1:05:50 in End Time Explained, Part 1)

Others who appear to promote this viewpoint include: Gary N. Alford, Jerry L. Holcomb, Bandi Arjuna Kiran Kumar, Vince Larue, Donald Thomas, David E. Walker, and probably any close follower of Peter Ruckman. If I have misidentified anyone, I will be glad to correct it.

Deflection.

One interesting idea I ran across is the “defense” of “dispensational salvation” on the grounds that the view does not affect anyone in the present – since these folks are preaching salvation by grace through faith without works in the present. This occurs both within and without those who hold the view, and is a strange way to support something one believes to be a major doctrinal truth.

Randy Keener, who holds dispensational salvation, sort of flippantly suggests it is a meaningless difference in the present “unless you have a time machine.” At about 16:15 “It doesn’t affect your salvation, our salvation, or anybody else’s salvation – unless you have a time machine – so don’t worry about it.” (3 Gospels, Dispensational Salvation & Hyper-Dispensationalism)

James Melton, who does not seem to hold the view himself, seemed to be okay with it, on the grounds that these people are currently preaching the right way of salvation. Melton writes, “Those who teach what you might call dispensational salvation do not teach anything wrong with the salvation plan today. I don’t know of anybody that differs—any fundamental Bible-believing Baptists that disagree with me on how one is to be saved today… Why does it really matter to you and I today how somebody got saved over 2,000 years ago?” (Understanding Dispensational Salvation)

Well, if nothing else, it matters that we rightly divide the word of truth and hold fast the faithful word as we have been taught.[iv] Additionally, to suggest multiple plans of salvation, even promoting dispensational views that include salvation by works and falling from grace, gives cover to those who hold that today. As Cody Zorn said, “You know why people say that people can lose their salvation here (pointing to the church age on his white board)? Because there’s people that can lose their salvation here (pointing to the tribulation on his white board). And there’s people that can lose their salvation back there (pointing to the Old Testament period on his white board).” To be fair, he goes on to say that we are living in a time where one cannot lose his salvation. Nevertheless, he made a clear excuse for those who get confused on it.

One salvation, Jesus Christ.

It seems to me that some King James Defenders may be “closing ranks” and not calling out this serious soteriological error because many (most? all?) who hold this view also defend the King James Bible. However, we need to not only be correct in our bibliology, but also in our soteriology, our ecclesiology, and so on.

There are not multiple gospels. There is one everlasting gospel created in the mind and purpose of God. It has been progressively revealed under various terms that refer to that one gospel, but it is one! If salvation could be accomplished by works in any generation (or dispensation), there was no need for Christ to die for that generation.

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. Acts 10:43

And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. Revelation 14:6-7

If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. 2 John, verses 10-11

Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? Galatians 4:16

---

[i] Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. It is biblical to “call names” when necessary. See “Is It Right: To Judge, To Expose Error, & To Call Names?” by E. L. Bynum.
[ii] In its natural and simple form, Christian fundamentalism emphasizes five fundamental points of faith (as clarified in the face of the rise of modernism and liberalism at the end of the 19th and beginning of 20th centuries): (1) the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures; (2) the deity of Jesus Christ; (3) the virgin birth of Jesus Christ; (4) the substitutionary blood atonement of Christ for sins; and (5) the physical resurrection and bodily return to Christ. I hold these five fundamentals, but “Fundamentalist” is not my preferred self-descriptor. I am a Bible-believing Baptist. (Baptist born. Baptist bred. When I die, I’ll be Baptist dead.) Many modern Fundamentalists are befuddled by schismatic soteriology, adrift on the sea of bad ecclesiology, while filled with fussy fighting factions full of a bad spirit.
[iii] “Dispensational salvation” is a teaching that people at different times in history (dispensations) have been given different ways to be saved. For example, saying that under the Old Testament law dispensation people had to keep the law (good works) in order to be saved, but under the New Testament church dispensation people are saved by grace through faith (without good works).
[iv] This view of accommodation seems to be somewhat rooted in a largely “semi-pelagian” view of salvation that has become diffused among Baptists who hold a general atonement position. This view, in the minds of many (though they may not vocalize it) holds not that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, but the power unto salvation is in how well they present the gospel and harangue those to whom they present it.

Not looking for answers

Many people are not looking for answers. Instead, they are looking for problems. Rather than being under biblical authority, they like being their own authority.

I wrote the above sentences a long time ago. Recently I ran across a vivid example of “not looking for answers” – Mark Ward’s “King James Bible Study Project.” In it he has 20 questions to evaluate “the current readability level of the King James Bible.” I have deliberately ignored Mark’s “test” or “survey” site until now, because I believe the test itself is designed to deceive (that is, collect answers merely to prove a point). To see what was going on, I clicked on the “Take the Survey Yourself” link. The first thing I found was this statement at the head of the page.

“King James Bible Study Project Survey

“This is a twenty-question survey that is sponsored by the Textual Confidence Collective and focused on the English of the King James Bible. Opponents of current pulpit use of the King James Bible argue that it is too hard to read. We are trying to evaluate whether or not KJV English is as difficult as those opponents believe. This survey should take less than twenty minutes. Your name will not be made public.”

Most of those of us engaged in the Bible versions debate will know who (and what) the “Textual Confidence Collective” is. However, the name will be mostly meaningless to others. Additionally, “confidence” probably will have a different connotation to the average person than its meaning in the name of the TCC. After identifying the sponsors, the site states a purpose: “Opponents of current pulpit use of the King James Bible argue that it is too hard to read. We are trying to evaluate whether or not KJV English is as difficult as those opponents believe.”

That statement tries to create the feeling of a neutral survey, but that attempt is disingenuous. If you know who is behind the survey – Mark Ward – then you will also know that (1) he is an opponent of current pulpit use of the King James Bible, and that (2) he is not really “trying to evaluate” something, but rather “trying to prove” what he already been saying for six or more years (that people should not use the King James Bible in institutional settings, and even should not give it to children to read).[i] He is “not looking for answers” but rather a tool to further his agenda.[ii]

---

[i] In one question in the survey, Mark references Proverbs 22:28 KJV, and asks, “What does it mean to ‘remove’ a landmark?” He gives four possible answers, only one of which he will allow could be correct: (1) To progress in a direction; (2) To change position, to move a short distance or in a certain direction; (3) Take (something) away or off from the position occupied; (4) I don’t know. In Mark’s mind “remove the ancient landmark” cannot mean “Take (something) away or off from the position occupied” and must only mean “To change position; to move a short distance or in a certain direction.” And yet this is a distinction with little difference, at least without a good bit of detailed discussion and explanation of what one means by it. To move something off the position occupied can be to change its position, to move it a short distance. If you move a boundary mark “a short distance,” you have moved it off the position occupied. The folks surveyed cannot read Mark’s mind, which he has closed to any objections, but they can know that these things could describe the same thing! In the survey itself it is not clear whether the answer “Take (something) away or off from the position occupied” implies to haul something off for miles & miles (to make it disappear, which it means in Mark’s mind) or to simply move it from the position occupied to a different location ten feet away. Such a survey question suggests to me that the surveyor did not really want to know if they people surveyed are understanding the meaning of “remove the landmark,” but rather “was not looking for answers.” Additionally if it were true that readers cannot understand “remove” in Proverbs 22:28 in the King James Bible, is it not also likely true that they cannot understand “remove” when it is used in the Common English Bible (2011), International Standard Version (1995-2014), Lexham English Bible (2012, by Logos, for whom Mark used to work), New American Bible Revised Edition (1970-2010), New King James Version (1982), New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (2021), and Revised Standard Version (1952-1971)?
[ii] Mark Ward has built a False Friends Restaurant chain and is selling franchises all over the world. There will be a time when Christian friends will find they are built of wood, hay, and stubble. I pray it may be sooner rather than later.

Pure Cambridge and Acts 11:12

The Pure Cambridge Edition is a nice and accurate printing of the King James Bible. This printing of the King James Bible can be found online, for example at Bible Protector PCE, KJVPCE.com, and Pure Cambridge Edition. However, some supporters set it up as the (one and only) correct printing of the King James Bible, against all others. According to Matthew Verschuur in “How to Know the Pure Cambridge Edition of the Bible,” a Pure Cambridge Edition of the KJV can be identified because it by its conformity to the following test in 12 places.

• 1. “or Sheba” not “and Sheba” in Joshua 19:2
• 2. “sin” not “sins” in 2 Chronicles 33:19
• 3. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Job 33:4
• 4. “whom ye” not “whom he” in Jeremiah 34:16
• 5. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Ezekiel 11:24
• 6. “flieth” not “fleeth” in Nahum 3:16
• 7. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Matthew 4:1
• 8. “further” not “farther” in Matthew 26:39
• 9. “bewrayeth” not “betrayeth” in Matthew 26:73
• 10. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Mark 1:12
• 11. “spirit” not “Spirit” in Acts 11:28
• 12. “spirit” not “Spirit” in 1 John 5:8

Verschuur also adds that the Concord Cambridge Edition has departures in the following areas, where the correct PCE text has (among other things) “rasor” instead of “razor” (Numbers 6:5, et al.), “inquire” instead of “enquire” (Genesis 24:57, et al.), “counseller” instead of “counsellor” (2 Samuel 15:12, et al.), “expences” instead of “expenses” (Ezra 6:4,8), “ancle” instead of “ankle” (Ezekiel 47:3; Acts 3:7), “Geba” rather than “Gaba” at Ezra 2:26, and lower case “spirit” at Acts 11:12, 28 and 1 John 5:8.

I have mentioned the test before in passing. Now let us look at it more directly. One of the identifiers of the Pure Cambridge Edition is the lower case “spirit” at Acts 11:12. Using this as a test case shows the arbitrary nature of choosing this printing as “the correct, perfect and final text of the King James Bible.”

• “And the spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting…” (Acts 11:12)

However, in this same edition the Spirit in Acts 10:19-20 who bids Peter go, doubting nothing, is capitalised “Spirit.”

• “While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.” (Acts 10:19-20)

The Spirit/spirit in Acts 11:12 is the selfsame Spirit/spirit in Acts 10:19-20. How can it be that it is correct to capitalise the word in Acts 10:19 and not capitalise it in Acts 11:28? If it is not wrong to capitalise “Spirit” in Acts 10:19, it cannot be wrong to capitalise it in Acts 11:12. Defenses of the distinction devolve into disconcerting disputations, of doubtful merit. If one will be led of the Spirit of truth rather than the spirit of defending a particular printing at all costs, this is easy to see.[i]

The problem with “PCE-ism” is not the Pure Cambridge printing itself, but rather the arbitrary induction of only one early inexactly-dated 1900s printing of the King James translation as “the” Bible. This subtly shifts the time-honored, God-given interpretation method of comparing Scripture with Scripture to a new-fangled method of interpretation based on one typography frozen in time.

This Cambridge printing of the King James Bible is clean, nicely done, and highly recommended. However, it is not the one and only final edition to the exclusion of all other King James Bibles. If your Bible has “Spirit” instead of “spirit” in Acts 11:12 (and 11:28) don’t throw it away! Continue to use it, with God’s blessings. It is the Spirit of God speaking in those places.[ii]

---

[i] This could also cause a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of who the Spirit is in Acts 11:28. However, be aware, it is the responsibility of the Bible reader to interpret based on context rather than English capitalisation, which has not always been (and may not now always be) standardized. For example the 1611 Barker printing has lower-case “s” in Acts 10:19, 11:12, and 11:28, the 1618 Norton & Bill printing has capital “S” in all three places, while the 1631 Barker printing has a lower-case “s” in 10:19 and capitalization in chapter 11. See also endnote 2. Note, however, that trying to find the best printing of the King James Bible is not immaterial. If the Bible is God’s word (it is), then we should want the best printing of it, with the least number of typographical errors, defects (smudges, page bleed-through, etc.), and so on. But we should not let it become a dogma inhering in the defense of the King James Bible.

[ii] It is well to note that the history of this (capital versus lowercase) is entrenched in the history of the English language, which has gone through many uses of and attempts to standardize the capitalization of words. See the 1611-1768 chart for some history of the printing of these verses in the King James Bible.

Thee, you, the resurrection, his resurrection

Acts 26:7b-8 ...For which hope’s sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?

This is one of those verses “you” might miss in a modern translation. Paul begins by addressing Agrippa directly (“thee,” singular, vs. 2-3), but expands to the entire audience (“you,” plural, v. 8; cf. 25:23-27) when he brings up belief in the resurrection of the dead.

“The word ‘you’ is here plural, signifying that Paul here changes from addressing Agrippa only, and here includes all the Jews present, including those Sadducees who denied the doctrine of the future general resurrection of the dead. Paul is leading up to the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus (v. 23).” Stephen Mills Reynolds, The Purified New Testament, p. 311

Stephen Mills Reynolds was an ordained Presbyterian minister who served on the New International Version Committee on Bible Translation. He also created his own New Testament, which might be considered sort of a “niche” Bible. It takes and promotes the position on the translation of “oinos” in the as grape juice. Reynolds was observant and noted the change in the number of the pronoun in this text. However, he also “ad-libbed” an interpretation, adding the Sadducees to the group gathered to hear Paul. The text only identifies Roman officials.

Acts 25:23 And on the morrow, when Agrippa was come, and Bernice, with great pomp, and was entered into the place of hearing, with the chief captains, and principal men of the city ... 26:30 And when he had thus spoken, the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them...

Three false friends

Psalm 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

On January 11, 2024, Mark Ward posted a so-called false friends video titled “Three False Friends in One Important Verse.” I ran across it around the first part of February, listened to it, and made a comment. It was a polite pointing out of his failure to engage the New Testament commentary concerning the verse under consideration, Psalm 2:1. I observed how the record indicates that the early church interprets “people” in this verse as the people of Israel.

In the video Mark claims that “rage,” “imagine,” and “people” are false friends in Psalm 2:1.[i] At about 7:04 he begins to discuss the word “people” and spends a lot of time on it. Mark goes into a long drawn-out explanation of why “people” is a false friend. He notes that the Hebrew word is plural while the English word people is singular. Then (using the Oxford English Dictionary, OED) he explains that this was common usage of that period of English – people is plural “peoples.”[ii] He further thinks this significantly impacts the interpretation of Psalm 2:1, that heathen and people(s) represent the nations, the Gentiles. With the so-called false friend he avers “some readers might think this is referring to the people of Israel.”

Enter the readers of the New Testament church at Jerusalem! Mark looks at several examples of the use of the word “people” – but fails to notice the one New Testament example in which the text is mentioned and interpreted.

First, at a Jerusalem Church prayer & praise meeting, they refer to this Psalm.

Act 4:25 who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?

Next they make some application of it.

Acts 4:26-27 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together...

See the ways they relate the understanding of it.

“For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate [kings & rulers], with the Gentiles [heathen, nations], and the people of Israel [people], were gathered together,” They understand “people” to be the people of Israel, just what Mark was afraid the “false friend” would lead people to think! Acts 4:27 [some versions, oddly in my estimation, translate this “peoples of Israel.”]

To the comments I made under his YouTube video, Mark replied:

“I really like this comment, Robert—very perceptive example. But I’m not yet sure what you think it’s proving. What conclusion are you coming to here about Psalm 2 or about the argument I made about ‘peoples’ from the OED?

“This does seem to be a place where ‘people’ is expected, not ‘peoples.’ And without native-speaker-level knowledge of Greek, I’m not sure what to make of the choice of λαοῖς. I’d want to look at some commentaries.”

I make four observations:

• 1. A discussion of the meaning of words in the Old Testament should take into consideration any inspired New Testament reference or references.
• 2. λαοὶ in Acts 4, verse 25 (specific reference to Psalm 2:1) and λαοῖς in verse 27 are plural. In number this agrees with the Hebrew in Psalm 2:1.
• 3. They identify the “people” (λαοῖς) with Israel (Ἰσραήλ). My understanding of Acts 4:25-28 teaches me to believe the “people” in Psalm 2:1 is Israel. The original language in both places (OT Hebrew & NT Greek) is plural, but it seems odd to say in English “the peoples of Israel” (even though one might call for it in a wooden literalness, I suppose).
• 4. Speaking of commentators, one commentator who speaks of “people” as Israel in both places is John Gill. (Psalm 2:1; Acts 4:25) “by ‘the people’ are meant the people of Israel” By the way, John Gill was very proficient in Hebrew (he was a leading Hebraist of his day).

Later, I noticed that I had failed to address his question about the OED. The long drawn out explanation from the OED is unnecessary if one simply acknowledges and addresses the NT reference in Acts 4:25-27. Mark needs the argument from the OED coupled with the plural interpretation to turn the word “people” in Psalm 2:1 into a so-called false friend. The NT reference to the verse questions his whole roughly ten-minute point. Obviously, that hinges on the interpretation of Acts 4:25-27 being correct.  However, I am not out on some rotten KJVO limb with this interpretation. In teaching through the book of Acts, I have found this to be the common understanding. Notice this one example:

“In the prayer of the church two matters of theological interest stand out. First, there is a ‘pesher’ treatment (cf. comments on 2:16) in which the groups enumerated in the psalm are equated with the various persons and groups involved in Jesus’ crucifixion…‘the nations’ with the Gentile authorities; and ‘the people’ with ‘the people of Israel.’” Richard Longenecker, Acts (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary with the New International Version), page 104

Mark put in a lot of work preparing for and making this video. He did not put in enough. Perhaps in his excitement to make a new false friend, he completely overlooked the facts that Psalm 2:1 is quoted and applied in the New Testament. Any work that proceeds without factoring that in is faulty and incomplete, falling short of its goal.

---

[i] Mark complained of modern translations such as CSB, ESV, MEV, NKJV (as well as LSB, NCB, OJB, TLB, WEB) continuing to use the word “rage.” A note in the NET Bible might help indicate the thinking that goes into modern translations keeping “rage.” Though NET went with “rebel” in Psalm 2, they kept “rage” in Acts 4:25, noting “The Greek word translated rage includes not only anger but opposition, both verbal and nonverbal.”

[ii] “the Hebrew here is plural people and yet the King James chose to render this word as a singular people there’s no textual variant in the Hebrew the ancient Greek Septuagint is plural too as is the Latin Vulgate … why would the King James and the Geneva Bible ... translate a plural word with a singular; there’s a reason, one based in language change just look at this the OED says that there was a time in English when the apparently singular word people could be used with plural agreement it meant Nations plural that’s just what we have in Psalm 2:1.” Not just way back when, but even today people is a collective noun. While it can be grammatically singular, it never refers to a single person, but rather persons collectively.

KJV1611-Only

In my journey within and studies of “King James Onlyism” I do not recall that I ever noticed that there is subgroup who advocates using only the 1611 edition of the King James Bible. Perhaps I had my head in the sand, or just was not paying close attention. Or, perhaps this group is relatively new.

This difference requires some explanation, since many, if not most, KJV defenders often make references to using the KJV 1611. This group, however, is KJVO/1611-Only. By that I mean that they advocate the actual use of the King James Bible as printed in 1611. I am not familiar enough to know that they advocate only the black-letter type (I don’t think so), but they advocate no changes in words, spelling, capitalization, punctuation, etc. For example, they include this disclaimer on the home page of their website, King James Bible 1611.

“If you find typographical errors on this website in the quotes from the 1611 AKJB, it is because this platform mistakenly auto-corrects, not recognizing Elizabethan spellings.”

The primary leaders of this group appear to be Reginald Jacob Block and John Doerr, of whom I know almost nothing. Brief bios appear on their site HERE. On the website, the advertisement for the book Authorized, the Real 1611 King James Bible (Reginald Jacob Block, John Doerr, 2019) states:

“Most Christians are unaware that the Bible called the KJV is not faithful to the Bible that King James authorized. In fact, the KJV is a product of the 1700s, and at best a revision of the real 1611 King James Bible. This book explains the differences.”

Block has a February 11, 2020 video – Authorized, the Real 1611 King James Bible – in which he discusses two of his books (Authorized, the Real 1611 King James Bible and Bible Corruption, Everything Matters). This provides some further insight into this viewpoint. At one point he mentions “the Bible that came off the press in 1611,” which is possibly the best expression clarifying what they are advocating. He also distinguishes his Bible as the “1611 AKJV” versus the “KJV” as the 1769 Blayney revision.

With advocating the 1611 printing of the King James Bible comes the inclusion of the Apocrypha. This subgroup believes that Bibles should contain the Apocrypha, but they distinguish it from the inspired canon.

“The 66 books (Old and New Testaments) of the 1611 Authorized King James Bible are perfect and correct…In their wisdom, the 47 translators placed the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments that we might understand the false doctrines of Mystery Babylon from which the church was delivered during the Reformation. It is not part of the canon of scripture and was never intended as such.”

For those unfamiliar with 1611 King James Bible orthography, see a scan of the 1611 Bible HERE.

Reg Block has at least four books on the Bible versions issue.

• Authorized, the Real 1611 King James Bible, Reginald Jacob Block, John Doerr, Seattle, WA: The Book Patch, 2019
• Bible Corruption, Everything Matters: Comparing NABRE, KJV, NKJV & NIV to the 1611 AKJB, Reginald Jacob Block, Seattle, WA: The Book Patch, 2019
• Is Your Bible The Word of God? Examine the Witnesses, Reginald Jacob Block, Seattle, WA: The Book Patch, 2022
• Modern Bible Translation Problems, Volumes I-VI (Series), Reginald Jacob Block, Seattle, WA: The Book Patch, 2016, 2023

I am not endorsing this position, but post merely as a matter of information. It is good to be aware of differing positions of advocacy of the King James Bible. Those who say “AV 1611” and such like may only mean they are KJV-Only (support and use a descendant edition of the Bible first printed in 1611), or they may mean they only use “the Bible that came off the press in 1611.”

King James Bible Pronouns, Updated Chart

You Again

Quoting two authors.

“It is true that Elizabethan English is more precise than modern English in its use of pronouns. Nevertheless I confess that, as a preacher, I would rather specify the exact meaning of the odd ambiguous pronoun now and then, than explain all the archaisms in the text of the KJV.” (Donald A. Carson, The King James Version Debate, p. 98)

On the one hand, men like Carson insist that a Bible must be translated so that the reader can understand without the assistance of a preacher. On the other hand, here Carson admits he is willing that the readers be left out of understanding certain places. He picks and chooses what he desires to explain and what he does not.

“How often does your inability to distinguish singular ‘you’ and plural ‘you’ trip you up in your daily English reading or conversation? Almost never. Context almost always distinguishes the two sufficiently...” (Mark Ward, Authorized, p. 100)

Carson calls this problem “the odd ambiguous pronoun now and then,” and Mark Ward tells us the indistinct “you” trips you up “almost never.” However, this is not the whole truth, and our experiences with modern English tell us otherwise.

Two brief points.

For a Bible study in 2021, I quickly put together a list of two dozen verses to illustrate how significant the ye/thee distinction can be. (See some of them Here.) Did Jesus tell Nicodemus you must be born again, or did he tell him you must be born again? Which is it? Rather than the “the odd ambiguous pronoun now and then,” there are hundreds of places in the Bible where the use of “you” for either second person singular or second person plural can make it difficult to understand the passage.

Our own practices belie the claim that the number of “you” is not a problem. We know instinctively that we need to make the distinction between singular and plural “you,” even though our modern language has betrayed us! We modern – yea, even educated – English speakers, despite what they teach otherwise in schools, have devised numerous ways to let our hearers know we mean “you plural” – y’all, you’uns, youse, and you lot, for examples.

These difficulties should not be brushed aside. They, like other interpretational difficulties, should be met and overcome through prayer and Bible study. Additionally, we who use the King James Bible have an interpretational tool built right into the text, when it comes to you and you.

Absent Acquaintances

I am more concerned about absent acquaintances than false friends. 

It seems that some have been kidnapped and held for ransom. Others have been murdered and buried in a shallow grave.

“Gipplinger” and the King James Bible

“Gipplinger” is a portmanteau or blended word for representing two “false friends” of the King James Version of the Bible – Gail Anne Riplinger and Samuel C. Gipp.

I do not know as much about Samuel Gipp as Gail Riplinger, and do not know either of them. Gipp appears to be a follower of Peter Ruckman, and lauds his “caustic delivery” and “abrasive preaching style.” He tends to say inflammatory things about King James Bible supporters who do not agree with him. For example, he writes, “A ‘TR Man’ gets his manuscripts from Antioch and his philosophy from Egypt” [i.e., accusing Textus Receptus supporters as having the same philosophy as supporters of modern versions] (The Answer Book, by Samuel Gipp, p. 57). When it comes to the translation of Acts 12:4, he concludes “pascha” here translated Easter must mean a pagan holiday. This view has caused much mischief.

If he was referring to the passover, the translation of “pascha” as “Easter” is incorrect. If he was indeed referring to the pagan holyday (holiday) Easter, then the King James Bible (1611) must truly be the very word and words of God for it is the only Bible in print today which has the correct reading. (The Answer Book, p. 5)

Gail Riplinger has written several books related to the Bible Versions Debate, the best known being New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist’s One World Religion. Describing New Age Bible Versions, Riplinger said, referring to “the Direct Hand of God” on her work, “...I hesitated to even put my name on the book. Consequently, I used G.A. Riplinger, which signifies to me, GOD AND RIPLINGER--God as author and Riplinger as secretary.” (almost, if not, claiming inspiration for herself! From The End Times and Victorious Living, January-February 1994, as quoted in The Problem With New Age Bible Versions, by David W. Cloud). An Advertisement of the 2020 edition of New Age Bible Versions states:

Each page opens a door exposing new version editors—in agreement with Luciferians, occultists, and New Age philosophy—in mental institutions, séance parlors, prison cells, and court rooms for heresy trials—and most shocking of all—denying that salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ. Seven have lost their ability to speak.

On the one hand, she may say some correct things in support of the King James translation. On the other hand, her wild claims, her three marriages and lies about them, exaggerations of her credentials (among other things) are major distractions from any valuable support she gives to the King James Bible. New Age Bible Versions goes deep into conspiracy theories and New Age theories. Many KJV supporters have learned (some the hard way) to distance themselves from Riplinger.

In my opinion, there is plenty of good material available supporting the King James Bible without having to resort to the works of Samuel Gipp and Gail A. Riplinger.

Biblical singular and plural you

In his book Authorized: the Use and Misuse of the King James Bible;, Mark Ward wrote a good deal about “false friends.” In this context, a “false friend,” loosely, is a word that you expect to mean something that it doesn’t.

I have never noticed any supporters of modern Bibles or detractors of the King James Version call out their own very false friend – the English second person pronoun “you.” Unlike some of the so-called false friends that appear randomly in the King James Bible, the false friend “you,” is repeatedly strewn throughout modern translations from front to back, from Genesis to Revelation.

As our English language “progressed,” where it once distinguished between second person singulars and plurals,[i] it devolved into a morass of “yous” which are indistinguishable. On the one hand some dismiss this as an irrelevant concern. As one man recently told me, “You can tell by the context.” While that may be true on occasion, in fact very often we cannot tell by context. Perhaps we can tell better in face-to-face conversations than when reading – but even then our own practices belie that claim. We modern English speakers, despite what they may teach us in school, have created numerous ways to let our hearers know we mean “you plural” – y’all, you’uns, youse, and you lot, for examples. We know instinctively that we need to make the distinction, even though our modern language has betrayed us.

So, when modern translations are made, they extend that betrayal to us once again. You, you, you, you, and we don’t know which you! Unlike my friend who brushed it off nonchalantly, Greek scholar Bill Mounce admits the problem. Writing about “You” and “You” - Singular or Plural he says, “I wish modern English had a different form for ‘you’ plural. It would solve some sticky translation problems.”[ii] In portraying this problem, Mounce provides an example from John 1:50-51 in the New International Version:

Jesus said, “You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You will see greater things than that.” He then added, “Very truly I tell you, you will see ‘heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on’ the Son of Man.” 

Speaking of a shift from second person singular to second person plural, he explains “There is no way you would pick that up from the English.”[iii]

Examples of verses

Below are some examples of verses where we lose the singular-plural second person distinction in modern language, but are noticeable in the King James translation. Take a look at these and see whether you have caught the distinctions before.[iv]

Exodus 3:12 And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain.

Exodus 4:15 And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do.

Exodus 29:42 This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord: where I will meet you, to speak there unto thee.

2 Samuel 7:23 And what one nation in the earth is like thy people, even like Israel, whom God went to redeem for a people to himself, and to make him a name, and to do for you great things and terrible, for thy land, before thy people, which thou redeemedst to thee from Egypt, from the nations and their gods?

Deuteronomy 6:14-15 Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you; (for the Lord thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the Lord thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.

Job 42:7 And it was so, that after the Lord had spoken these words unto Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.

Psalm 27:8 When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, Lord, will I seek.

Isaiah 7:11,14 Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above…Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Malachi 1:8 And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the Lord of hosts.

Matthew 26:40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?

Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Luke 22:31-32 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

John 1:50-51 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these. And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

1 Corinthians 8:9-12 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.

2 Timothy 4:22 The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen.

Titus 3:15 All that are with me salute thee. Greet them that love us in the faith. Grace be with you all. Amen.

Philemon 1:21-25 Having confidence in thy obedience I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt also do more than I say. But withal prepare me also a lodging: for I trust that through your prayers I shall be given unto you. There salute thee Epaphras, my fellowprisoner in Christ Jesus; Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellowlabourers. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.

A quick explanation of the “ye’s” and “thee’s”

There are ten second person pronouns used in the Early Modern English of the King James Version of the Bible.

The words beginning with “T” are second person singular:

• Thou = Nominative case (as in “Thou art”)
• Thee = Objective case (as in “to thee,” “of thee”)
• Thy = Possessive (usually used before a noun that begins with a consonant, as in “thy brother”)
• Thine = Possessive (usually used before a noun that begins with a vowel or vowel sound, as in “thine eyes”; or in place of a noun, as in “this is thine”)
• Thyself = Reflexive singular pronoun (used as the direct or indirect object of a verb or the object of a preposition)[v]

The words beginning with “Y” are second person plural:

• Ye = Nominative case (as in “Ye are”)
• You = Objective case (as in “to you,” “of you”)
• Your = Possessive determiner (used in front of a noun, as in “your generations”)
• Yours = Possessive pronoun (used in place of nouns, as in “all things are yours”)
• Yourselves = Reflexive plural pronoun (used as the direct or indirect object of a verb or the object of a preposition; or as an emphatic appositive, see Luke 13:28)[v]

---

[i] As do the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament, and even many modern languages. 

[ii] Like many who dismiss the possibility of English-speakers learning a bit about Early Modern English, Mounce quips, “I guess we all have to learn some Greek.” 

[iii] That is, the English of the NIV. The English of the KJV makes it clear (for those who understand the “thee” and “you” pronouns). “Jesus answered and said unto him [Nathanael], Because I said unto thee [singular], I saw thee [singular] under the fig tree, believest thou [singular]? Thou [singular] shalt see greater things than these. And he [Jesus] saith unto him [Nathanael], Verily, verily, I say unto you [plural], Hereafter ye [plural] shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.” 

[iv] Some examples have both “ye” and “thee” in them, while a few are examples of only one – but in a place where the number matters to the interpretation. What some decry as archaic (or obsolete) is really a great boon to Bible study.

[v] In modern English, this form is distinguished by “yourself” and “yourselves.”