A Next-World Bible

“Modern inerrantist evangelicals such as myself should adjust our expectations about the preservation of Scripture to what God actually did with the text of the Hebrew Bible rather than insisting on a level of jot-and-title perfection that God seems to have reserved for the next world.”

The comment above is by Mark Ward and is found in The Authority of the Septuagint (p. 181). What a strange view! It relegates the perfection of a trustworthy Bible to two times that it does no good for most Christians and churches; when it was hot off the press, so to speak, and when we all get to heaven. For now, we just have to make do with not knowing which words in the Bible are correct.

While we walk the pilgrim pathway,
Flaws oft overspread the Bible;
But when studying days are over,
Not an error, all perfect type!

When we all get to heaven,
What a day of rejoicing that will be!
When we have jot-and-tittle perfection
We’ll have the perfect Bible that we need!

Nah, I think I will keep my expectations for the high standard of God preserving his word, even if I do not have all the answers.

Yetzer to Boyce

Below is a response of Christopher Yetzer to Stephen Boyce (used by permission).

It is in response to Boyce’s video here. https://www.youtube.com/live/Y3jGB8X1Oss?si=MJU4KFSyPK85xJlT. I think there are 2 major errors which run through the entire video.

1. Boyce tries to set up the Puritans as an example Baptists should look to for their stance against the KJV. But Puritans at large did not disagree with the KJV. Recent studies into the printing, sales and the general book trade concerning Bibles in the early 1600s show “the sheer number of editions indicates strong demand to own a copy... If we put the rapid sale of the smaller formats of the King James bible against the slow and uneven dissemination of folio or church bibles, then it may well be that for many the new translation became familiar in the home before it was heard in church, and that its broad acceptance by 1640 owed as much to personal use as it did to hearing it in public worship.” [Fincham, Kenneth. “The King James Bible: Crown, Church and People.” in Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 2018. pp. 15-16.] From his study of sermons and quotations, Feingold concludes, “scholars and the reading public more widely began engaging seriously and approvingly with the KJV from the start.” [M Feingold (ed.), Labourers in the Vineyard of the Lord: Scholarship and the Making of the King James Version of the Bible. Scientific and Learned Cultures and Their Institutions, Brill, Leiden, p. 27.] Feingold, who is one of the most recent scholars to do work on this, says, “Puritan preachers did embrace what quickly became established as the better translation, irrespective of their sentiments regarding the Geneva notes.” He says the separatist John Traske commented, “the last Translation is followed, as that by the which the Writer hath often confessed, that he hath received more benefite, then by all the Expositors that ever hee read. And thou art desired withall to esteeme that translation highly, and make it one cause of heartie thanksgiving to God...” [Labourers in the Vineyard of the Lord page 24.] In that 1645 preface it says, “the people complained that they could not see into the sense of the Scripture so well as they formerly did by the Geneva Bibles because their spectacles of annotations were not fitted to the understanding of the new text, nor any others supplied in their stead.” It seems some of the lasting popularity of the Geneva was not the translation, but footnotes. Either way, we should correct our impressions of the immediate reception of the KJV to reflect the current data. How many Puritans can you quote who said they didn’t like it because it was high church? As a side point, the KJV was brought over with the Pilgrims on the Mayflower by John Alden. It is in the Pilgrim Hall Museum in Plymouth, MA. Look it up. That doesn’t mean that the Pilgrims overall agreed or defended it, but it does show that his history is not quite accurate.

2. He seems to be inserting doctrine into the translation. I have seen this erroneously done even in interpretation of the title page. He is trying to retroactively hijack terms and claim that they only pertain to Anglicans. I actually love telling people, “This Bible wasn’t translated by my guys for my perspective, it is simply accurate.” I think it is a stronger apologetic for dealing with this modern anti-God world.

Ghost: Tyndale used “goost” before the CoE ever separated from Rome. It is not an Anglican term (or at least is not allowed to be claimed only by them).

1 Corinthians 10:16 Communion: Diodati (who was not an Anglican) translated this as “communion” in 1607. Possibly you misunderstand the meaning of the word “communion” or are inserting your theology into the translation. It is the same Greek word translated “fellowship” in Acts 2:42 in the NET and the ESV. Communion is defined by Webster’s as “Fellowship”. The translation is accurate.

2 Corinthians 3:7 Ministration: The Geneva translation used “ministration of death”. If the Puritans loved the Geneva and hated the KJV because of these High-Church terms than I think you need to search for other terms to use as examples.

Hebrews 12:23 church of the firstborn: Again Diodati in Geneva in his 1607 Italian translation said “Church of the firstborn”. The KJV is not unique here and neither can it be highjacked as pertaining only to the Anglican church.

“want” NKJV and MEV continue to use that in Psalms 23.

Luke 19:44 visitation: Tyndale, Geneva and Diodati’s Italian all have “visitation”.

1 John 2:20 unction: Unction actually comes from the Latin, so if anything the Anglican’s would have to say it is a Catholic term not Anglican. But in this case Diodati’s 1607 Italian also used it. He was not Catholic nor Anglican.

1 Timothy 3:1 Bishop: The Word Study Dictionary says, “the public office of an overseer”. The KJV does not use italics in every instance. They generally held to a principle that if it was understood in the context than they left it in. Diodati in Geneva used “Bishop” and he was not an Anglican and did not even have “Bishops” in their church structure and he did not believe in Apostolic succession.

Acts 14:22 Confirmation: In Vulgate, Geneva, Diodati. Not Anglican.

Acts 2:38 Remission of sins: In Vulgate, Tyndale, Geneva, Diodati. Not Anglican.

Hebrews 8:2 Sanctuary: In Vulgate, Geneva and Diodati. Not Anglican.

Baptism: Tyndale used Baptism. It is also in pretty much every translation known to man. There is nothing wrong with the word. It is not owned by the Anglicans.

Notes.

---

Christopher Yetzer is a native Ohioan, a Baptist missionary preaching in Milan, Italy. In addition, he does excellent research and writes concerning the Traditional Texts and King James translation of the Bible. In 2022, Mark Ward dubbed Christopher Yetzer “my best opponent.” He was such a good opponent that Mark had to block Christopher from posting on his YouTube videos so that he would not have to take time to answer him – and Mark’s followers would not be able to see a clear presentation of an opposing viewpoint.

Stephen Boyce is an ex-Independent Fundamental Baptist turned Anglican. (Anglican at the time this took place; he has since become Roman Catholic.) Boyce has a YouTube program called “FACTS.” Boyce says, “The primary focus of this program is to cover historical and biblical content about the early church Fathers, the Apocryphal accounts, the biblical canon, textual criticism, and the scripture itself. The acronym “FACTS” derives from Fathers, Apocrypha, Canon, Text, Scripture. Despite the name, Boyce often plays fast and loose with the facts!

The relevant video is: The KJV Is Not A Good Translation For Baptists (Friday, November 15, 2024). The description of the episode runs thusly:

“In this episode, we delve into the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, examining why it may not be the ideal choice for Baptist believers. Though revered for its majestic language and historical influence, the KJV carries distinct ecclesiological and theological elements rooted in its high church Anglican origins. We explore how these aspects can conflict with Baptist principles of church governance, sacraments, and congregational independence. Join us as we unpack the historical context of the KJV, highlight theological nuances within its translation choices, and discuss why Baptists may find other translations more compatible with their beliefs and traditions.”

“I’m not interested in long theological debates on social media anymore.” Boyce cries and waves his hand.

Stephen claims he has been misrepresented. Stephen cries that his position has been butchered, strawmanned, and those doing so will “not take correction.” Notice, however, his premise is based on certain claims, such as “the KJV carries distinct ecclesiological and theological elements rooted in its high church Anglican origins…we unpack the historical context of the KJV, highlight theological nuances within its translation choices.” It is his job to prove his claims, and push back directly against those claims should be addressed, not waved off in an high-handed manner. Christopher Yetzer addressed every word that Boyce used to prove his high-church thesis, showing that these words are not unique to the KJV, as Boyce insinuates.

Stephen at 3:51: The language itself is very high church … Much of what we find early on in the publishing of the King James: it was not accepted in fact it was not taken in by a lot of the Puritans.

Stephen at 4:06: [Its high church] terminology comes into play and they go, we want the Geneva Bible instead; so the Geneva Bible actually became the predominant Bible used by most of the Puritans.

See also My Former DEBATE OPPONENT (Stephen Boyce) SWIMS THE TIBER.

“Warding Off” Confessional Bibliology

“Warding Off” Confessional Bibliology: A Reply to The Authority of the Septuagint

I subtitle this “A Reply to” rather than “A Review of” The Authority of the Septuagint. It contains some review, but I also make severe criticisms and strong complaints about the work, and focus on certain authors, traits, and chapters far above the others.

The Authority of the Septuagint: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Approaches was released by IVP Academic October 30, 2025.[i] Edited by Gregory R. Lanier and William A. Ross, they add contributions from ten other scholars: Levi Berntson, J. V. Fesko, Edmon L. Gallagher, Karen Jobes, Thomas Keene, Joshua McQuaid, James B. Prothro, Myrto Theocharous, Daniel Treier, and Mark Ward. (When I look at the list, the last name seems to be the “odd man out,” in several ways.)[ii] The contributors combine to create nine chapters (one an introduction by Lanier and Ross and one a summary by Theocharous), two excursuses, and an afterword. The bulk of the work is followed by an extensive bibliography, brief information about the contributors, a meager general index, as well as scripture and ancient text indices.

In the introduction, Lanier and Ross introduce their purpose, provide overviews for the coming chapters, and set up three interesting categories of test cases. The purpose of the book is to address the question of whether the Septuagint has any authority for churches today (and, if so, what is the nature of that authority). Up front they make it clear that voices at the far poles will be excluded – the Greek Orthodox because they hold the LXX as their definitive text, and any variety of Protestants who believe the LXX has no authority. Here, on page 2, they boldly conflate as one two different views that are not the same – exclusive use of the King James Bible and Confessional Bibliology. In this they will go from bad to worse. While the Greek Orthodox position will simply be ignored, the Confessional Bibliology position will not. The Greek Orthodox gets no place at the table, while the Confessional Bibliologist gets no place at the table and gets an entire “chapter” (excursus) attacking their position. Myrto Theocharous, in her summary, mildly rebukes the exclusion of the insights of “the Christian traditions of the East” (pp. 205-206, 232), but seems to generally accept as “gospel” the hatchet job on Confessional Bibliology.

The three categories of test cases (pp. 6-17) are (1) New Testament citations that align with the LXX against the Hebrew; (2) New Testament citations that align with the Hebrew against the LXX; and (3) New Testament citations that do not align with one another. These cases have interesting potential, but are not engaged by every contributor. I have not analyzed all the test cases, but one caught my eye – NT quotations of Genesis 2:24 (pp. 15-16). This example is presented as textual diversity or non-alignment of citations. One difference cited is the difference “of the verb for ‘cling’.” Matthew, in NA-28, has κολληθήσεται while Mark and Paul have προσκολληθήσεται. However, there is a variant here, a case where some MSS of Matthew have προσκολληθήσεται (compare NA-28 with TR and RP in Matthew 19:5).[iii] It does not exude confidence, whether the editors simply did not know this or chose not to mention this to their readers.

Chapter Six – but especially the two excursuses – appear designed to challenge and refute the Confessional Bibliology view of the Septuagint. Confessional Bibliology almost seems to be a burr under the saddles of the editors. On the one hand, they wish to sideline it as a view unworthy of notice, while on the other hand giving it prominent notice in their design to refute it! Berntson has a good historical overview of the Reformed view of the LXX, but, in my opinion, seems to overemphasize the minority views (pp. 113-137). In her summary, Theocharous, without drawing attention to Berntson, corrects this with her conclusion (Table 9.1, p. 232) by stating the consensus view of the Reformers and Early Scholastics was that the Hebrew text was authoritative and the LXX was not.

In his excursus “‘Kept Pure in All Ages’?” (pp. 138-146), J. V. Fesko fires a warning shot across the bow of Confessional Bibliology by addressing the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.8, which states (among other things) that “The Old Testament in Hebrew” is “Authenticall.”[iv] Without specifically mentioning it, Fesko reviews a primary point of Confessional Bibliology. When all is said and done, however, the shot misses its mark. The Westminster Confession still places authority in “The Old Testament in Hebrew” – the Old Testament in Hebrew, not the Old Testament in Greek!

The excursus by Mark Ward is titled “The Septuagint and Confessional Bibliology.”[v] Rather than have a proponent discuss their view and its relation to the Septuagint, the editors hired a hit man to write a hit piece. Ward is not a random scholar chosen to write about this subject, but an opponent who has prayed imprecatory prayers against Confessional Bibliology![vi] The excursus begins its excursion poorly and ends it badly. In violation of his promise to stop identifying Confessional Bibliology with IFB King James Bible “Onlyism,” he calls the two views “fraternal twins” (p. 169).[vii] For his schtick, Ward “reviews” the Reformation Bible Society Conference of 2024 (p. 170). He undertakes to summarize and reply to “the main confessional bibliology arguments levied against the use of the Septuagint.” He further misunderstands, since the conference focused on the Old Testament and the LXX, that Confessional Bibliology has found some new direction.[viii] Something is not new simply because it just dawned on him!

Ward falsely indicates that he is interacting with “the four key presenters at the Reformation Bible Society conference” (p. 170, fn 6).[ix] He includes three of the plenary lectures given at the Reformation Bible Society conference, but avoids the fourth. He knows he is misrepresenting the facts – and so does editor William Ross, who attended the conference. The four plenary lectures were: “What Exactly is the Septuagint?” by Russell Fuller; “How Did the Early Church Use the LXX?” by Jeffrey Riddle; “What was the Reformation Perspective on the LXX?” by David Kranendonk; and “Why Does the Septuagint Matter Today?” by Christian McShaffrey.[x] He avoids the fourth and replaces it by mentioning – and then dismissing – a short paper that was not particularly relevant to his cause (because it was a paper given in a breakout session).[xi] When Ward excludes one of the primary speakers at the conference he is reviewing, how can we have any confidence when he says things like, “none of the speakers reckon in any detail with…” (p. 173). How can the reader know this, when Ward refuses to present all the facts?

On page 173 Ward muddies the waters by implying that Confessional Bibliologists are tilting at windmills, then gives examples that show they are not, including citing the ESV preface concerning using the LXX (and other ancient versions) “to support a divergence from the Masoretic text” (p. 174). He further stirs the mud by saying that Confessional Bibliologists oppose use of the LXX (p. 176), as if the conference presenters do not know the difference between using the LXX to help understand Hebrew words and using it to emend the base text to reflect the reading of the LXX rather than the MT. Their opposition is not to use of the LXX or other early versions to help understand words and such like, but to the use of the LXX to change the Hebrew Masoretic text. Ward even points to examples where modern versions do just that, such as the NIV at Genesis 4:8.[xii] Who’s tilting at whom?

Perhaps Ward raises some questions that Confessional Bibliologists will need and want to answer, but the overall excursus runs off in the wrong direction, smattered with misrepresentations and falsehoods.

While excluding the Confessional Bibliologists from giving their viewpoint, the editors chose to have a Roman Catholic scholar give a Catholic viewpoint. James B. Prothro’s chapter “A Roman Catholic Approach” injects further questions about the authoritative canon (pp. 190-191), gives due deference to the deuterocanonicals (pp. 184, 187, 204), and even in an indirect way questions sola scriptura (pp. 193).[xiii] However, “A Roman Catholic Approach” fits the mold for which the editors were looking – a view between the poles that gives some authority to the LXX, rather than all or none (p. 2).[xiv] The book ends with Myrto Theocharous summarizing things, and Septuagint scholar Karen Jobes reflecting on the overall topic.[xv]

Straight talk, no excursus.

The Authority of the Septuagint contains a lot of information that I found interesting, educational, and even helpful, even though I disagree with the book’s aim and its conclusions. Nevertheless, to a greater degree, I found that The Authority of the Septuagint, like sheep and commentaries, went far astray. This is especially true in the choice to have Mark Ward – of all people – write the excursus on Confessional Bibliology. In his so-called review of the Confessional Bibliology book Why I Preach from the Received Text, Mark Ward ended with an imprecatory prayer against Confessional Bibliology, “I pray that its days will be few.” On his blogpost “Breaking My Two-Year Silence on Confessional Bibliology,” Ward professed to disliking leading proponents of Confessional Bibliology.[xvi] Yet Lanier and Ross chose this man to run off and on about Confessional Bibliology.[xvii] They obviously knew that Ward was an opponent of the position. Ross, in fact, was a guest on the podcast when Ward “broke his silence.”[xviii] Ross also attended the very Reformation Bible Society conference that Ward misrepresented in his excursus! He knew better. The editors could not have not known that Ward misrepresented parts of the conference, dislikes leading proponents of the position, and desires that the Confessional Bibliology position should be destroyed! I find their choice of Mark Ward to write about Confessional Bibliology in their book to be misguided, reprehensible, and unsuitable for a book foisted on the public as “academic.”

In their “Preface,” Lanier and Ross say that a project like this could easily “go off the rails” (p. vii).[xix] I believe it did. This book will stand as a perpetual stain on the reputation, honesty, and decency of its editors, as well as a question mark on the quality of oversight and care put into the materials published by InterVarsity Press/IVP Academic.

Endnotes.

---

[i] https://www.ivpress.com/the-authority-of-the-septuagint
[ii] The information about contributors says that Mark Ward “serves as editor for Crossway Publishers.” Ward was not an editor with Crossway when the book was published in 2025. He was only there from May to November in 2024. However, he probably was in that position at the time he contributed the excursus. https://byfaithweunderstand.com/c-v/ | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wewxfs5gE9Q
[iii] For example, κολληθήσεται appears in B D W Θ 078; προσκολληθήσεται appears in א C L Z f¹ 33.
[iv] Authentical = original, genuine, trustworthy, reliable.
[v] He also includes this “chapter” on his YouTube channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w2hkulghmI
[vi]  https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2022/07/24/review-why-i-preach-from-the-received-text/ “I am dismayed that the tiny Confessional Bibliology movement has gathered enough strength to publish it. I pray that its days will be few.”
[vii] http://www.jeffriddle.net/2022/07/wm-243-responding-to-another-comment-by.html I was one of several individuals – including Dane Jöhannson, Dwayne Green, and Tim Berg – who advised and asked Mark to stop calling Confessional Bibliology “KJV-Onlyism” – to which he agreed, writing, “I have prayerfully considered their appeals and yours, and I have decided to stop using that label” for Confessional Bibliology. However, he did not stop.
[viii] This is another instance showing that Ward misunderstands Confessional Bibliology and is not qualified to lecture or write about it. First, it implies that Ward is not familiar with the OT views of the Reformers and the Protestant Scholastics. Westminster 1.8 (as well as the Savoy and 1689 London Confessions) is a touchstone of the Confessional Bibliology movement, and clearly includes the Old Testament in Hebrew as one of the two confessional texts. Additionally, this is addressed in Why I Preach from the Received Text (e.g., pp. 15-17), which Mark Ward reviewed as soon as it was available in July 2022. To address Confessional Bibliology’s position on the Old Testament as if it were some new thing suggests either pretense or incompetence.
[ix] Ward again misrepresents that he is discussing the “four main presenters” on page 178.
[x] https://www.textandtranslation.org/videos-2024-reformation-bible-society-conference/
[xi] Not that there was anything wrong with this short paper, just that it is misrepresented by Ward as if it were one of the plenary lectures. Short papers in breakout sessions are usually situated somewhat more peripherally to the main topic than the plenary lectures. Ward knows how conferences work in this regard.
[xii] The ESV adds from the LXX to the text of Psalm 145:13, and this book notes other places where the LXX “corrects” the Hebrew.
[xiii] Prothro provides a “fraternal twin” to Daniel Wallace’s “gift that keeps on giving.” Prothro writes: “At the same time, it is not as though we do not have God’s Word unless we have a perfect Bible. Given the textual evidence, it would be difficult in most cases to know that we had such a Bible even if we did” (p. 190).
[xiv] …there must be some option between these two poles…” Another interesting thing about the inclusion of a Roman Catholic view: Many modern Protestants and evangelicals sound closer to the Roman Catholics who were debating the Protestant Scholastics and further from the view of men like John Owen and Francis Turretin. Greogry Lanier describes Prothro as “one of our Cambridge buddies who is now Roman Catholic.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69JlFGgO7g4
[xv] It was my impression that Myrto Theocharous is not all that familiar with Confessional Bibliology and assumed that Ward was shooting straight.
[xvi] https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2024/09/26/breaking-my-two-year-silence-on-confessional-bibliology/
[xvii] Gregory Lanier has also exhibited personal distaste for representatives of Confessional Bibliology. He has described them as “grumpy Protestants who really don't like what we’re doing.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69JlFGgO7g4

[xviii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wozfw14b4n8
[xix] There is an interesting “fraternal twinship” between “go off the rails” and “excursus.” The latter comes from Latin excurrere, “to run out of.”

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.

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.

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.

A Pastor’s Response to Mark Ward’s KJV Readability Survey

A Pastor’s Response to Mark Ward’s KJV Readability Survey -- “I was randomly called to participate in a King James Bible readability survey by Mark Ward. This is my experience, results, and reaction to this, ‘gotcha’ survey.”

“If people are struggling to determine singular and plural with a consistent rule that allows you to precisely know if the words are singular or plural, how does it help to go to a version that does away with the precision?” -- David Townsley

Mark Ward loves to hammer on the word “halt” in I King 18:21. That anti-KJV quiz (at least the early one that I saw) offers four choices for its meaning: pause, limp, stop, and vacillate. Those who answer “vacillate” rather than “limp” get it wrong. Of course that is Mark’s goal, for he will not allow that the other answer is actually contextually correct, certainly within the range of understanding of even most modern translation users who are reading that verse in its context.

The NIV translates this question as “How long will you waver between two opinions?” (According to Merriam-Webster, the meaning of waver is to vacillate irresolutely between choices!) The NET Bible has “How long are you going to be paralyzed by indecision?” It has in the footnote “In context this idiomatic expression refers to indecision rather than physical disability.”

This is just one example of how Mark Ward’s KJV Readability Survey is not a genuine survey to test a theory or for discovery of information, but rather that it is designed in such a way as to prove his previously-reached conclusion. It is the same kind of thing done with political polls to skew results in a certain direction.

“A little bit on unbelief does not ever lead to true belief; it only leads to more unbelief.” -- David Townsley

Is Giving Children the King James Bible a Sin?

In a recent debate, the ubiquitous anti-KJVO apologist Mark Ward asserted that the King James Bible should not be given to children. 

“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.’”

Some people have tried to defend Mark by saying that he “misspoke.” I am not aware that Mark has said he misspoke. Regardless, this is not an isolated statement. He recently said much the same in an interview with Scott Ingram. He also is pretty clear about the sin issue in his book Authorized. He says that using the King James Bible “for most situations…using the KJV violates Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 14” (Authorized: the Use and Misuse of the King James Bible, p. 137). And what is disobedience to God’s instructions through an inspired apostle, if not sin? I do not believe Mark misspoke. If he has, he needs to clearly and flatly, without caveats and calculations, say that using the KJV and giving the KJV to others to use IS NOT a sin.

Even folks who are not supporters generally of the King James Bible recoiled from such a claim. One of those folks is James Snapp Jr. In a recent blog post he brought out several points against what Mark said. I found one particularly intriguing contradiction of Mark’s claim that I had not thought about previously. It is this – even the practice of Bible publishers disagrees with Mark’s assertion about not giving a KJV to children.

“Mark Ward: … Thomas Nelson Publishers disagrees with you. They publish a children’s version of the KJV. Lo and behold Hendrickson Publishers also publish a Children’s KJV New Testament. Lifeway and Holman Bible Publishers also publishes a Kids KJV. There are even KJV Bibles marketed to be given to illiterate babies. The KJV Armor of God Bible is marketed with the claim that it is ‘perfect for ages 6-10.’ Is it sinful to give such Bibles? No.”

I suppose one could argue that these publishers are merely creating those Bibles in order to make more money. However, I think it would be hypocritical for Mark himself to make such an argument, since he has been making a living in the Bible publishing industry.

Since I wrote the above, Mark has added a new video to his repertoire, Continuing the Conversation, in which Mark is supposed to clarify his statement about giving the King James Bible to children. You can listen yourself to see what you can find about it.

And now there is another video, Mark interviewed by Dwayne Green in Its SINFUL to give a KJV to a CHILD? | Debate Retrospective with Mark Ward. As best I can understand, these are clarifications that ultimately fail to clarify. Mark even said, “There’s my slight sort of clarification that really isn’t.”