Part One     Part Two     Part Three

Most of what we believe occurs like the following.  One, we read the Bible with a grammatical, historical interpretation or hear right preaching of the Bible.  Two, we believe what we read or hear and that becomes our beliefs.  Three, we look for the fulfillment of scripture in the only world to live it, the real one here on earth.  Four, we apply the Bible by practicing it according to the right thinking of and about it.

In its context, the Bible teaches its own perfect preservation in the language in which it was written.  There really is no other kind of preservation in the Bible.  Something less than perfect is in fact not preservation.  If it is not the language in which God gave scripture, that’s not preserving what He gave.  He gave it in that language for a reason.  It would communicate what He wanted.

Preservation

Because scripture teaches the perfect preservation of this one Book and all of its individual Words, then we believe that.  Then we look for its fulfillment.  I am open to fulfillment of scripture that is not what I think, an alternative to it.  I have not heard anything close to an acceptable alternative.  The fulfillment I believe glove fits what I see in the Bible.  It happened like God said.  Sure, we’re missing some of the historical detail, but that’s normal in belief, which corresponds to faith is not by sight.

When I go to apply what I believe about the preservation of scripture, I can see that it is the Hebrew Masoretic for the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus for the New Testament, based on all the scriptural presuppositions.  What Mark Ward says does not move me, because he never starts with scriptural presuppositions, even in his rare 1 Corinthians 14 exegesis, which would apply only to translation anyway, not the doctrine of preservation.

The List Again

For easier reading and review, this series left off covering the following five points, concerns expressed for awhile by Mark Ward, for which he prays for an apology:

• One, they don’t sufficiently acknowledge archaic English in the King James Version, semantic changes, the worst of which Ward calls “false friends.”
• Two, they say God preserved every Word in the original language text, but they won’t point out the preserved printed edition of the Textus Receptus that represents that.
• Three, they keep using the King James Version, so making the Bible opaque to the average reader, even though modern versions from the same underlying text are available.
• Four, they won’t admit that church men have long recognized textual variants and acknowledged their existence.
• Five, the underlying text behind the King James Version didn’t exist in a single edition until Scrivener in the late 19th century, who himself didn’t support the Textus Receptus.

This is not Ward’s official list.  I’m making it his list from what I’ve read of him, and I’m now to number three.

Modern Versions of the Same Text as the King James Version Are Available

Ward concludes that unwillingness to embrace a modern version of the same text as the King James Version indicates some kind of deceit on the part of those who claim dependence on the underlying text of the King James Version.  If underlying text is really the issue, men can and should switch translation to a more readable or intelligible one.  Ward has a bit of a point here.  What’s with these men still using the King James Version with a hundred or more unintelligible English words?  He contends that using a definition list of the difficult words or marginal notes doesn’t cut it.

Misunderstood words is a problem for a translation.  When translators work at translating, they do have the audience in mind.  First, they try to translate exactly the meaning of the word and according to its usage in the context.  The King James translators did that, but some of the words now mean something different to a contemporary English audience or they mean almost nothing at all.

An Explanation of Translation

As a preacher of the Bible to English speaking people, I explain to my audience what the original author intended for either the Hebrew or the Greek.  Right now I’m preaching through three books:  Sunday morning, Matthew, Sunday night, Genesis, and Wednesday night, Revelation.  This is my second time in my life through Matthew, fourth through Genesis 1-12, and at least fifth through Revelation.  I’m going to give you just one sample from the texts I preached on Sunday in Genesis 3.  I talked about Genesis 3:8, which says this in the King James Version:

And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.

I mention just one word — the word “cool.”  Isn’t it cool that this is the first use of the word “cool” in the Bible?  So cool.  “Cool” translates the Hebrew, ruach, which is almost always “wind.”  It is also the Hebrew word that refers to the Holy Spirit.  It does.  So is “cool” the right translation of ruach?  Did the KJV translators get it wrong with “cool.”

Ruach

The word ruach comes with an article, so it is “the cool.”  It is not “a cool.”  It isn’t just any cool at this juncture in the early history of the world.  It refers to one particular time in the day when a breeze would blow through the Garden where Adam and Eve lived.  That breeze made the temperature more cool at a particular time that Moses’ audience and people living on earth, reading this, would understand.  The sun would set, which caused a breeze.  It’s not so much to communicate the temperature though as it did to describe a time Adam and Eve would meet with God.

Shouldn’t people know that “cool” was a breeze or a wind?  Is “cool” really better?  The NIV, ESV, NASB, and the NKJV all translate ruach here “cool,” even though it is a very exceptional translation.  Would an English reader, who doesn’t look at the Hebrew, know that “wind” was involved?  I would say, “No, they would not.”  They wouldn’t know that.  This happens a lot too and far more times in an English translation than a hundred times.  Is it is sin?  Of course not.

The word God inspired is ruach, which is also what He preserved.  That’s the major issue for me.  Every translation will still require digging to understand it.  I don’t think one hundred English words now with semantical changes change the dynamics enough to merit a new translation, especially in light of the glut of English translations.  I want to explain that, as I have many times before.

Weighing Reasons

As much as semantical changes might give a reason for another translation of the same underlying text of the King James Version, reasons also exist for not doing it.  Men weigh those reasons against each other.

One, the King James Version is a standard.

Two, churches accepted and accept the King James Version for centuries.

Three, the King James Version passed the test of time.

Four, it should not be easy to change the Bible.

Five, churches are familiar with the language of the King James Version and it becomes the lingua franca of a church.

Six, churches memorize the King James Version and a new translation would upend that to a large degree.

Seven, churches who believe in the underlying text of the King James Version would agree to do that among them or from their midst (not based on critical text supporters like Mark Ward goading them).

Eight, churches would need to cohere to a monumental task to provide a new standard.

A Conclusion

Having weighed reasons, I don’t believe King James Version churches are ready for a new translation or update.  I think I would know that as well as almost anyone.  The kind of talk I have in this piece is not something Mark Ward deals with.  What I’m saying is real.  It matters.  Ignoring it is unhelpful and even condescending.  It does not smack of Spirit control.

More to Come