The average non-church going person and even church goers see the glut of English Bibles and often say, “There are different Bibles.” I’ve heard it dozens of times through the years. Is that true? Is there really more than one Bible? The answer is “no.” God inspired only one Bible, certain exact words, and then He also preserved one Bible with the same exact words in the same language in which they were written. The so-called existence of “many Bibles” undermines authority for the one and only Bible. Believing in one Bible doesn’t require an apology. That belief is a true one.
An Apology
Mark Ward just wrote the following:
One of my life’s long-term prayers is that someone of stature within KJV-Only circles will publicly apologize for promoting false doctrine.
Then he explained the reason:
Ultimately God only knows what moral culpability individuals bear for teaching things that aren’t true and thereby dividing the body of Christ. God only knows who is a victim and who is a perpetrator, or what proportions of perpetrator and victim a given person represents. But I just can’t imagine that all this untruth and division that’s been generated by KJV-Onlyism could occur without individual people sinning—sinning against the teaching of 1 Cor 14 that edification requires intelligibility, sinning against commands for unity and for sound doctrine, sinning against God’s providential opportunities for doing better study.
In part one, I examined Ward’s charge of division for which he prays for an apology. Above you can also see he charges men with not telling the truth. That I know of, I haven’t taught anything on this subject that isn’t true. No one has shown me one thing that I’ve said that is false, which is an important prerequisite for apologizing about saying something not true. That’s all I can say on that part as an answer to Mark Ward’s prayer. He’ll have to get more specific with me if he wants that particular apology. I’m a phone call away for any apology if he’s been praying for one.
Logic and Ambiguity
In recent days, Ward declared that KJVO leaders sin for having the KJV as their church Bible. For you reading, who don’t know much about Ward, this explains his use of 1 Corinthians 14. There is a kind of syllogism that with Ward gets this to the sin category for me and others. I’m trying to help you understand Ward’s thinking here. I’ve made his logic into a syllogism.
Major Premise: Knowing to do good and not doing good is sin.
Minor Premise: Edification is good and because unintelligibility prohibits edification, allowing or causing unintelligibility is not doing good.
Conclusion: Therefore, allowing or causing unintelligibility is sin.
I can agree with the soundness of the syllogism. What’s wrong? There’s an informal logical fallacy called, equivocation.
The equivocation fallacy refers to the use of an ambiguous word or phrase in more than one sense within the same argument. Because this change of meaning happens without warning, it renders the argument invalid or even misleading.
Intelligibility and unintelligibility of themselves are ambiguous. Like many other words and even concepts in scripture, someone can make them mean what he wants them to mean. A believer should define a word in scripture based on how the author uses it. Mark Ward defines intelligibility in a particular way that does not fit 1 Corinthians 14. Many people have explained that to him. I haven’t seen him listen on this and almost anything else. He has a bias toward his own thinking.
Language and 1 Corinthians 14
Paul portrayed a situation in 1 Corinthians 14 where someone spoke in an unknown language. People couldn’t understand it without a translator. Only with an accurate translation could someone understand a foreign language. The conclusion: stop speaking in an unknown or foreign language. There it is.
1 Corinthians 14 is in a three chapter section (12-14) on spiritual gifts. It especially deals with an abuse of the gift of tongues. The actual gift of tongues, as seen in Acts 2, means known languages. The point is understanding the language. Those chapters are not about semantical changes in the same language, but about reining in the abuse of tongues.
Semantic changes occur in the Bible itself and the Bible doesn’t sin when it does that or allows it. Words change in meaning as one reads through the Bible itself. Sometimes the progression of the biblical narrative results in some changes in meaning.
I’m not writing to protect semantic changes in an English translation of God’s perfectly preserved words. We want to know what those words mean and all the other ones too. 1 Corinthians 14 deals mainly with speaking in gibberish, that is, in a language that can’t be know at all. It’s not even a language. That doesn’t edify.
Real Concerns
Even if someone spoke an actual foreign language in a miraculous way, he wouldn’t edify the hearers if they didn’t know the language. That or unintelligible gibberish is the context of verse 9, when Paul says, “utter by the tongue words easy to be understood.” He is not talking about a word here and there of the same language as the hearers, which has endured a semantic change. Edification would still occur with that. I’m not saying it’s not a problem. It is. But it isn’t a sin.
Calling sin the continued endorsement of the King James Version as the English Bible for a church is such an exaggeration, so excessive, by Mark Ward, that it reminds me of the games Pharisees played with words, as recorded in the Gospels. It is blowing a concern way out of proportion.
I’ve written a lot about this through the years, but my bigger concern is a distortion of the gospel and perverted preaching. Many, many who use the King James Version for decades and longer have preached a false gospel and now for half a century at least have just used the King James. It’s not because of archaic words that they do this. They do it because of perverted theology and probably in many instances a lack of conversion. I hear almost nothing about that from Mark Ward. No. Even when he is with someone who massacres the true gospel, he says nothing as long as that person gives an inch on his false friend teaching.
More to Come
Just by way of anecdotal evidence I can say that Ward (and his arguments even if he as the source is unknown) is making big moves inside my IFB circles. Many are now claiming the KJV can’t be understood and just pretending the text issue isn’t that important. Also, inside my friend groups, Ward’s quizzes and the like have been mentioned multiple times.
I’ve observed in those taken by these arguments an attitude of “concern” that people won’t be able to understand the Bible while simultaneously downplaying any issues that could arise from the lack of certainty in having God’s words.
I’m thankful for your persistence here.
Thanks. Some may wonder why I’m dealing with this so much. I appreciate knowing what you’re saying is happening. I don’t have my ear to the rail like yourself.
Mark only seems interested in engaging with IFB people he thinks he can influence toward his agenda. He does not seem interested at all in dealing with you, Bro. Ross, Bro. Riddle, et al. I think this state of affairs reveals something about his motives. If Mark were sincere, as you’re steelmanning him, he would engage with someone who is qualified to push back on his paper-thin arguments and assertions. He won’t because he only stands to lose. That, I think, is telling.
Hi Benjamin,
Scripture teaches perfect preservation in the language in which the Bible was written. It is verbal plenary. We’re representing the biblical, historical position and Ward is attacking it. It matters regarding the faith and the authority of scripture. I’d be interested in Mark Ward steelmanning my position. I’ve never heard him accurately represent it. He would rather have people thinking we’re almost identical to Ruckman. He says things such as we’re dangerous and now sinning and proclaiming false doctrine. I don’t understand his position on unity and separation. I don’t understand how he draws these lines of who he talks to and doesn’t.
“Scripture teaches perfect preservation in the language in which the Bible was written. It is verbal plenary. We’re representing the biblical, historical position and Ward is attack”
You cannot find that preservation is based on the “original language” anywhere in the scriptures. You can presuppose that, imply that, but there is no such thing as “language preservation”, but rather “scripture preservation”. Whatever is scripture, it is obviously preserved, but more importantly inspired.
Also, you have no proof what the original language is for any of the books in the bible. There could be many places in the bible that the “original” was written or spoken in another language and then “translated” to Hebrew. It is true in the book of Genesis (Laban was a Syrian), Daniel (Syriac was spoken and written), Esther (Ahasuerus and Haman soke Persian) , Exodus (Pharaoh spoke Egyptian), etc.
How do you know, for example, that Matthew was not written in Hebrew or possibly Latin? How do you know that the book of Hebrews, which Paul wrote most or all of it, was not “originally” written in Hebrew? Same with the book of James. You have no proof that James or any of the apostles were proficient to write in Greek.
As I have said before, I have no problem in saying that there is a line of inspired manuscripts that have been preserved and that line led to the inspiration of the English words of the King James Bible. To say that the Holy Bible is not inspired is to say it is not scripture according to the definition given to it by the scriptures themselves.
Tom
Tom,
It seems ridiculous saying it, but the English NT was translated from the Greek. The Latin Vulgate was translated from the Greek. The German Bible was translated from the Greek, so too the Spanish and the French. You’re saying that the Greek also came from something, which is to say that from whatever it came from was lost. There is a scriptural basis to say that it was not lost. That isn’t preservation. It was kept.
In addition, the New Testament follows Greek grammar, syntax, and vocabulary, relies on nuances of the Greek language to convey meaning, and demonstrates linguistic subtleties that could only be expressed by the Greek. Many plays on words only work in the Greek, and they are plays on words. Early Christian writers quoted directly from the Greek like it was the original language. Koine Greek was spoken throughout the Roman empire at the time of the writing of the NT. The ancient handwritten copies of the NT are in Greek. There is no evidence of an original Hebrew or Aramaic NT.
I could say the same thing about the Hebrew. Hebrew was the original language, what Adam spoke as seen in the wordplay in Genesis 2 translated ‘bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.’ Moses wrote that under the inspiration of God. When you speak of the Hebrews in captivity, they had Hebrew names, and they were changed by the Babylonians.
I’m not expecting you to believe this, because generally you don’t believe anyone except yourself. That’s what I’ve witnessed here. I can’t remember a single time that you said you learned anything. You come here and only lecture everyone. You can show me how I’m wrong.
Again and again, you push your Ruckmanite position. I’ve already dealt with it, so this is all I’ll say on it.
Kent,
1> I never said that Greek, Hebrew even Latin were not inspired. I kept insisting that you do not need them anymore, for you now have an English text that is fully inspired by the inspired text it came from!
The Authorized Bible did not fall from heaven!
“I’m not expecting you to believe this, because generally you don’t believe anyone except yourself. That’s what I’ve witnessed here. I can’t remember a single time that you said you learned anything. You come here and only lecture everyone. You can show me how I’m wrong.”
Quit exaggerating and coming to erroneous conclusion. Of course I believe what I write or I would not write it. Do you not believe what you write?
I have not learned ANYTHING! Now, brother, that is a lie. I have learned much from you, but much less in this subject, because as I said, I do not agree with your presupposition. You begin from history and move to the King James. I begin from the English King James Bible that I read and believe (APART from unbiblical history) and work backwards to prove what is true today and what history that is not in the bible follows the biblical principles to prove whether it is true or not. That includes all manuscript evidence and biblical preservation. If it does not show that the King James Bible is the current inspired text. then the history is faulty, corrupt or froward.
You see, I did not get saved out of a “Greek text”. I got saved because of an English text that has led me into ALL truth. If I cannot understand all the nuances of manuscript evidence that led to that, who cares for “when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13).
So then Faith cometh by hearing and hearing cometh by the word of God (not the Hebrew or Greek word of God)!
I do not stand on dead texts that God has set aside (historical), but on the living text of the English bible that God is using, even now (living).
You and Ward fight the same battle, but from different perspectives. What is the correct Greek and Hebrew texts.
But, you nor Ward or many others ever teach what is FINAL AUTHORITY in all matters of faith and practice. I have that authority and teach it as such over all men whether saved (because it reads me when I read it) or lost.
The King James Bible through the manifestation of God by the Holy Ghost controls al that is going on in the universe today.
Tom
You could show me how I “lied” Tom by giving me one example where you did say something that you learned. You don’t have to do that, but there have been absolutely obvious things, even like what I’m writing here, that you could say, “Hmmmm, that sounds right, thanks.” I could do that with you too, but I’m arguing for why I don’t think I should argue with you. It takes a lot of time and goes nowhere.
I’ve said nothing about salvation through a Greek text. The doctrine of preservation is preserving what He inspired, which is scripture, the actual writings, written down by the human authors. They wrote in Greek. Saying we don’t even know what He wrote, that isn’t preservation. You are lumping me with Mark Ward. Mark Ward doesn’t believe in the preservation of every Word. He doesn’t believe it was preserved for hundreds of years. People are still searching for it. We are not even close to each other. This is where you parallel with him though, because both of you don’t believe we have the very words in the original languages, hence you must have it in English, re-inspired.
Individuals like Ward like to hear themselves talk. They get a degree and believe they know what they are talking about. All the “bible” degrees, including mine, have very little to do with the teaching and the learning of the bible, but much to do with all the external material written about the bible. They glorify man rather than God by making themselves “final authority” rather than the scriptures themselves.
If I was to start a college, all my subject matter, whether expository, topical, key aspects of God (Holiness, Sanctification, Justification, etc.) would be based strictly on the bible without any unnecessary reference to any work unless it enhances the teaching of the subject matter.
Tom