Answering Mark Ward’s Last Attack on Preservation of Scripture (part three)
In the last portion of the Mark Ward video to which I’ve referred in this series, he gives his view of the preservation of scripture. It has similarities to Adam in the Garden of Eden after the Fall in Genesis 3:12:
The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
For me to summarize, Ward’s view is that by his observation, God didn’t seem to choose to preserve His Word perfectly. Furthermore, since that’s what he observes God to have done, then that’s also the correct view of preservation of scripture. All those preservation passages in scripture then must conform to the observation and experience. He put it this way (I include this quote again, which was already in part one):
Now I told the pastor who sent me some of these examples that I don’t enjoy having to point out these difficulties and complexities. But let me build another bridge of trust, the one that I myself use all the time in my Bible study travels. Who gave us the situation in which we have incredible well preserved copies of the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament, but there are numerous minor uncertainties and difficulties? Who gave us a world in which perfect translation between languages is impossible?
Who inspired the New Testament apostles to quote a Greek translation of the Old Testament rather than make new and doubtless perfect translations of the Hebrew? (And by the way I draw that last question directly from the King James Translators and their preface.) Who chose not to give us inspired translators, yeah, even a pope to give the best translation in each language his official imprimatur, the seal of divine approval?
Ward Continues
Who gave us a Bible that comes in two very different languages, Hebrew and Greek, and actually Aramaic, three, and would therefore require translation in the first place? Who gave us a Bible over the course of 1500 years instead of all at once? Who chose to commit His precious Word to fragile papyrus and sheepskin?
Who gave us the excellent but not perfect situation we’re in? But who told us that one day the perfect would come that we would know even as also we are known? I think you know the answer to my not so rhetorical questions. God did all of these things, and He is good. He is my refuge even when I don’t understand His choices.
Difficulties and Complexities
Ward sees “difficulties and complexities” and he forms his viewpoint based upon those. It is like a creationist saying, “The carbon dating method and the distance light travels from far away stars are difficult and complex for a young earth view.” What is going to be the basis of your faith? Faith is not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7). Yet, Ward bases his view on observation and experience. I would surmise that he knows he’s doing this, and that’s what bothers him the most about my and others critique of him.
Mark Ward points to circumstances that are a bridge too far for his faith. This is why I often refer to Abraham and Romans 4:20 on this issue:
He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God.
Uncertainties
Ward does stagger at the promise of God. These circumstances, his lying eyes, cause him to stagger and then not believe. He lists off his reasoning for not believing. It starts with minor uncertainties and difficulties as a generality. Then, he ticks off the detail in staccato-like fashion, essentially blaming this uncertainty and difficulty on God:
- God gave us a world where a perfect translation is impossible.
- God inspired apostles to quote the Greek Septuagint for the New Testament rather than provide a perfect translation from the Hebrew to the Greek.
- Ward here says that the King James Translators in their preface agreed with his assessment that this is what the apostles did in the New Testament.
- God didn’t form and ordain a pope-like supernatural figure that would give a perfect translation of the Bible into everyone’s language.
- God gave the Bible in three different languages, guaranteeing the need of a translation.
- God used several different human authors to write the Bible spanning fifteen hundred years.
- Ward doesn’t explain what barrier this causes, but he seems to infer that this is another reality that implies the impossibility of a perfect Bible.
- God had his human authors use easily deteriorating writing materials like papyrus and sheepskin to certify that the originals and its copies would not last, becoming impossible again to preserve.
- God gave man an excellent but not perfect situation.
Odd Exegesis and Experience
Ward applies 1 Corinthians 13:10 to the above list, saying that the perfect is still to come, not here yet, which fits the imperfect circumstances and situation. I’ve never heard either this interpretation or application of 1 Corinthians 13:10. Ward is saying that this verse upends the idea of a perfect Bible for today. This is more odd exegesis from Ward. He’s saying, that which is perfect, which includes a perfect Bible, won’t come until we see Jesus Christ face to face. Part of seeing through a glass darkly in this Ward exposition is seeing by means of less than perfect scripture until the believer’s glorification.
Mark Ward ends by admitting his view of preservation, that God planned and then performed many imperfect acts. He made it so we would have a somewhat ruined Bible. Yes, that was God’s plan. How do we know that? Observation. Experience. Also, I would add, opinion. It’s a way that seems right to Mark Ward at least, because I haven’t read that explanation from anyone else. I’d be glad for him to point this view out to me from the Bible or from church history. Know the following: I don’t agree with him.
Assessment of God
I think that others are with Mark Ward on his assessment of God. They just might not say it out loud. It’s an inside voice that became Mark Ward’s outside voice. God said He would preserve every Word of scripture. He could have preserved every Word. But He didn’t. Bill Maher says abortion is murder and he’s fine with that. Ward says God didn’t preserve a perfect Bible and he’s fine with that too.
Apparently at least according to Mark Ward’s explanation, it was God’s intent that we don’t have a perfect text of scripture, based on the above list of reasons. Ward doesn’t have to understand why God didn’t actually preserve every Word. God must not have done that, but it’s not going to shake him, because God is his refuge.
The Knowledge of Refuge and Preservation
Neither do I have any doubt that God is my refuge. I believe that from scripture. It isn’t something I take from experience or observation. I believe God is my refuge because He says He is my refuge. A lot goes along with that, but that is why I would say God is my refuge. It’s because God says in HIs Word that He is my refuge.
For Ward, he can’t say God preserves His word perfectly. Scripture says that, but his experience and his observation betray him. He will say God is His refuge. What basis does He have for that though? It’s a good explanation, but how does he know it with certainty? He trusts what God says. May Mark Ward and others like him trust God on the perfect preservation of scripture.
Answering Mark Ward’s Last Attack on Preservation of Scripture (part two)
Modern Textual Criticism
In a recent video, Mark Ward again attacked the biblical and historical position on the preservation of scripture. He’ll surely have or find people who will support him. They use modern versions and many of them don’t understand the issue. He helps them stay in the dark on this. Ward says that we, who he calls the advocates of his MT/TR story, cause division with true believers. Division comes from a later, novel bibliology that contradicts the already established and believed position. When someone changes a biblical position, the right way is showing how that the former position rests on wrong or no exegesis. This isn’t what occurred.
What did occur was that modern textual criticism arose out of German rationalism. Modern textual criticism in its roots traces back to German rationalism, particularly in the 18th and 19th centuries. A shift in theological thought characterized this period, where scholars began to apply rationalistic principles to biblical texts, leading to a more critical approach to scripture.
German Rationalism
German rationalism emerged as a philosophical movement that emphasized reason and empirical evidence over biblical exposition and theology. This intellectual climate encouraged scholars to scrutinize manuscripts of scripture with the same critical lens applied to other historical documents. The movement sought to understand the Bible not merely as a sacred text but as a collection of writings subject to human authorship and historical context.
The principles of German rationalism significantly influenced early textual critics such as Johann Griesbach, who is often regarded as one of the pioneers in this field. Griesbach’s work involved analyzing biblical manuscripts using methods that reflected rationalist thinking, which included questioning historical belief about divine inspiration and preservation of scripture. His approach laid the groundwork for subsequent textual critics like B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, who further developed these ideas in their own critical editions of the New Testament.
Continued Assessment of Mark Ward’s Attack
Perfect or Accurate Translation
Ward slants the MT/TR position to attempt to make it look like a joke and it’s advocates a bunch of clowns. Then when he does it, he doesn’t allow anyone to come and correct his statements. He next says that MT/TR supporters believe the King James Version (KJV) translators saved the Bible from Satanic counterfeits by making a “perfect translation” of “perfect Hebrew and Greek texts.” I’ve never called the KJV a “perfect translation.” The only time “perfect translation” occurs in my voluminous writings is when quoting and criticizing Peter Ruckman. Besides that, I wrote this:
God doesn’t ever promise a perfect translation. Turretin, like me, believes that preservation occurs in the original languages because that is what Scripture teaches.
This is the only usage by me for “perfect translation.” I use the language “accurate translation,” because I believe they could have translated the same Hebrew and Greek texts differently. Most of the other MT/TR men would say the same as I.
Perfect Hebrew and Greek Texts
Ward also gets the “perfect Hebrew and Greek texts” wrong. Mark Ward already knows this. He caricatures our position to try to make it look silly. That is mainly what he is doing. The MT/TR position expresses the doctrine of perfect preservation of scripture, but doesn’t say that all the preserved words are either in one manuscript (text) or even printed edition. The words are instead preserved and available to every generation of believer. God did perfectly preserve the text of scripture and providentially provided a settled text by means of the same method of canonicity, the inward testimony or witness of the Holy Spirit through the church.
True churches received God’s Words. They agreed on them. This is a position taken from biblical presuppositions. Just like churches agreed on Books, they agreed upon Words. What I’m describing is the historical and biblical way of knowing what are the Words of God. What I just described doesn’t sound as stupid as how Mark Ward characterized this part of his fabrication of a story.
Satanic Corruption
One thing Ward gets right is “spotting” the Satanic corruptions in other Bibles. If you have a settled text based on God’s promises, then whatever differs from it is a corruption. Two different words can’t both be right. The text of scripture isn’t a multiple choice question. If we are to live by every Word, then we must possess every Word. It’s true that I believe that Satan wants to confuse through the offering of all these different “Bibles” and presenting hundreds of variations of text as possible. This doesn’t fit scriptural presuppositions and it affects the authority of scripture.
Story of Ruckmanism
The second story Ward tells is his story of Ruckmanism. Many times Mark Ward has called Ruckmanism more consistent than the MT/TR position. Maybe he believes that, but it seems possible he says it to get under the skin of MT/TR people. Ruckmanism doesn’t operate with scriptural presuppositions unless one considers an allegorical or very subjective interpretation of passages, which read into the Bible, to be scriptural. Ward says that Ruckmanities originated their position as a reaction to lack of manuscript support in the MT/TR.
Peter Ruckman was born in 1921. Ruckmanism came to and from him no earlier than then 1940s. His view of the superiority of the King James Version arose from his presupposition that it was advanced revelation from God. No one held that belief until Ruckman. Peter Ruckman wrote in The Christian Handbook of Biblical Scholarship:
The King James Bible was ‘given by inspiration of God.’
Ruckman invented the position and then defended it by spiritualizing or allegorizing certain passages, reading into them his viewpoint on the King James Version. Ruckmanism did not come from his view of the inferiority of the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament as a further iteration of that.
Ruckman’s Position
Since Ruckman believed God reinspired the King James Version, he rejected all other versions. Even if they had the same textual basis as the King James Version, he would repudiate them. To him, the English words were equal to the original manuscripts of scripture. That view did not proceed from disagreement about underlying textual differences. Ruckman denied the preservation of scripture through original language manuscripts and editions.
Several times, Ward says the Ruckman story is the inspiration of the translator “to recover the right reading.” That’s false. Ruckman did not believe, as Ward says in his Ruckman story, that the textual choices and translation choices of the King James Version were perfect. To Ruckman and his followers, God didn’t inspire the right reading. No, God inspired the English itself. It wasn’t that Ruckman didn’t like the textual choices of Erasmus or that he relied on the Latin Vulgate. Based on his presuppositions, he took a novel double inspiration position.
Support of the Majority of Manuscripts
Unlike the critical text, which has support of either a small minority of manuscripts or none at all, the majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts support almost the entirety of the Textus Receptus. Only in very few places does the Textus Receptus have support of few extant Greek manuscripts, even though there is large extant Latin evidence in those few places. In one place, one word has no extant manuscript evidence. However, that does not mean no manuscript support. TR editions are printed copies from sometimes a non extant manuscript. It is preservation of scripture.
Not all the manuscripts relied upon by Theodore Beza survived the religious wars in Europe. In one place where critical text advocates say he did conjectural emendation, he writes in Latin that he had the support of one Greek manuscript too. I believe in preservation in the original languages. However, people like Mark Ward are hypocritical in this, because they themselves support the best texts in many places rely on a translation. His and their Septuagint view says that Jesus Himself quoted from the Septuagint.
More to Come
Answering Mark Ward’s Last Attack on Preservation of Scripture
Mark Ward summarized almost all of his views on the issue of the preservation of scripture towards the end of his most recent video (here next is a transcript):
Stories?
King James Onlyists in my experience tend to tell themselves one of two neat and tidy stories: a Masoretic Text/TR story or a Ruckmanite story. The MT/TR story goes like this. Once upon a time God inspired the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament and He promised in Psalm 12 and Matthew 5 to preserve them perfectly down to the jot and tittle. Satan came along and produced counterfeits of the Greek New Testament, but thankfully the King James Version translators perfectly translated the perfect Hebrew and Greek texts once and for all. And it’s easy to spot the terrible Satanic corruptions in other Bibles.
When difficulties and inconsistencies are pointed out, however, in this MT/TR story, as I’ve done in this video, it tends to turn into the Ruckmanite story, which goes like this. Once upon a time God gave special blessings to the King James Translators so that all of their textual choices and all of their translation choices were perfect. If there are a few places in the King James that have no textual support in the Greek or the Hebrew manuscripts, that’s okay because God inspired the King James Translators to choose the right reading. If there are a few places in the King James Version where the translators actually followed readings taken from Erasmus that were translated from the Vulgate, that’s okay because God inspired the King James translators to recover the right reading.
The Ward Viewpoint
Now I told the pastor who sent me some of these examples that I don’t enjoy having to point out these difficulties and complexities. But let me build another bridge of trust, the one that I myself use all the time in my Bible study travels. Who gave us the situation in which we have incredible well preserved copies of the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament, but there are numerous minor uncertainties and difficulties? Who gave us a world in which perfect translation between languages is impossible?
Who inspired the New Testament apostles to quote a Greek translation of the Old Testament rather than make new and doubtless perfect translations of the Hebrew? (And by the way I draw that last question directly from the King James Translators and their preface.) Who chose not to give us inspired translators, yeah, even a pope to give the best translation in each language his official imprimatur, the seal of divine approval?
Who gave us a Bible that comes in two very different languages, Hebrew and Greek, and actually Aramaic, three, and would therefore require translation in the first place? Who gave us a Bible over the course of 1500 years instead of all at once? Who chose to commit His precious Word to fragile papyrus and sheepskin?
Who gave us the excellent but not perfect situation we’re in? But who told us that one day the perfect would come that we would know even as also we are known? I think you know the answer to my not so rhetorical questions. God did all of these things, and He is good. He is my refuge even when I don’t understand His choices.
Overall Observations and Criticisms of Ward’s Statements
Ward’s little speech makes it easier to deal with what he thinks and says. First, I have some overall observations or criticisms. One, Ward caricatures and misrepresents especially the MT/TR position, and even gets wrong how Ruckmanism arose. He’s not telling the truth. Why do his followers give him a pass on this?
Two, Ward lumps the MT/TR people together with the Ruckmanites. I don’t know if he thinks this, or just conveniently tells it as a story. Either way, it is false. The MT/TR position arises from scripture like he says (albeit in a mocking way), but it also mirrors historic Christian doctrine as seen in creeds, confessions, and many other writings. His view did not exist among professing believers until the 19th century. This has been established, but Mark Ward and others like him just ignore it for a lie of a story. I will return to this point later.
Three, do consider that Mark Ward uses the word “story” to describe MT/TR people. Ward knows what words mean and he knows that the popular usage of “story” today is fiction. Notice then when he starts talking about his view, he calls it a “bridge of trust” and a “situation.” He doesn’t call that another story, a third story as the first two are stories.
Ward on Truth Serum
It seems to me that Ward has “lost it.” His primary target essentially rejects what he says, and he’s lost it, perhaps because of that. And then because he’s lost it, he did something I have not seen him do. I’m not saying he’s never done it, but I’ve never seen it myself. Mark Ward takes truth serum. He plainly states his viewpoint as I’ve never heard him. Ward acknowledges a lack of perfection of the Bible, based not on scriptural doctrine but on his experience. His stark confession reminds me of two examples.
In the last year, I saw a clip of Bill Maher in which he says that all pro-choice people know abortion is murder. He said he knows abortion is murder and he is fine with that. Maher’s two guest sat with jaws dropping at the sheer admission. In one sense, I can respect Maher because at least he tells the truth about his position on abortion. Another popular figure, Bernie Sanders, just comes out and in an obvious way supports socialism. He states his leftist positions without hiding them. Mark Ward does the same in this latest video like no other time.
I think it is important that someone hear what Ward says and understands what’s wrong with it. This is a teaching moment for a true bibliology. Ward admits what a big chunk of his side thinks. It is akin to neo-orthodoxy, not a biblical position. When Bart Ehrman came to this realization, it turned him apostate, which is a danger. I’m going to go through the above paragraphs by Ward and give a scriptural, truthful analysis to it. He’s wrong in so many ways.
First, what’s wrong with Ward’s MT/TR story?
“Neat and Tidy”
Mark Ward mocks the idea of a “neat and tidy” position. Don’t miss that. He would have his audience believe that the truth is not so neat and tidy. To him this is worth mocking with his articulation. The neatness and tidiness of the MT/TR position is that, one, God said He would preserve every Word He inspired and, two, He did it. That is neat and tidy. Modern version onlyists, critical text supporters are in a never-ending quest to improve the text of scripture. God didn’t preserve it perfectly — it’s really disorderly and messy. If you won’t embrace that, Ward will mock you for it.
“Tells Themselves”
Ward says that MT/TR people tell themselves a story. It’s as if they are repeating this story as a mantra, abracadabra and suddenly it will be true, because they keep telling it to themselves. It’s like spinning a talisman in one’s pocket or a lucky rabbit’s foot. “Just keep telling yourself.” He’s the nice guy regularly using this type of derogatory style. Yet, he won’t allow his opposition to comment on his constant youtube presentations on the subject. It gives the impression that everyone agrees. Just because someone tells himself something doesn’t make it true. When God says it, it is true.
“Once Upon a Time”
“Once upon a time” again is a reference to make believe or fantasy. It’s like opening up Cinderella as an actual book of history. He equates the truth with something that is a fable. Ward treats historical and scriptural doctrine like it is a fable.
It is difficult to separate some of what Mark Ward says from other of what he says. He bunches inspiration of scripture into his storybook mode. Is that a story too? I don’t think he means to do that, but it is the net result of this style of criticism he employs. Inspiration is supernatural. Our reason for believing inspiration is the inspired Bible itself. I believe Ward accepts this, but the attacks on inspiration from the neo-orthodox are the same as those on preservation. They question the veracity of inspiration based on so-called external evidence and reject the biblical teaching on inspiration.
Scriptural Presuppositions
Ward is correct that MT/TR folk presuppose perfect preservation based upon preservation passages in scripture. This wasn’t odd through Christian history and yet it is now, because of the attack on the doctrine mainly in the last thirty or so years. Ward is part of this attack. I’m using him here as a representative. He cherry picks two chapters for the simplicity of his storybook, Psalm 12 and Matthew 5. There are numbers of passages that teach preservation, as many or more than teach inspiration. This is presuppositionalism. We presuppose God fulfilled what He said. What’s wrong with that?
Is the teaching of preservation a story as in a storybook? True Christians have long believed it. The doctrine of the perfect preservation of scripture comes from the Bible. I and others didn’t invent this. Many people in the pews of churches believe this too. They see it in the Bible and it is not buttressed only by Psalm 12 and Matthew 5. There are many others (some of which we exposed in our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them).
Ward himself recently started taking on scripture to support his doctrine of “edification requires intelligibility,” teaching it on a level unprecedented in the history of biblical doctrine. People like myself and others support his notion, even if we question his reliance on 1 Corinthians 14, a passage on using the known language of the congregation rather than gibberish. In other words, it’s a stretch to make so much of that principle due to even fifty to one hundred of his “false friends.”
Satan Counterfeiting
Next Ward says that MT/TR people assert that Satan took on the strategy of counterfeiting the MT/TR. Nope. Not true. Satan attacks scripture, yes. You see that in classic passages like Genesis 3 and Matthew 4. It’s also something seen in 2 Peter 3, where false teachers wrest the scripture. Also, Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians 2, that false teachers spread a false epistle with teaching contradictory to his, feigning as though it was from him.
MT/TR people like myself would agree that the attack by Satan starts by attacking the doctrine of preservation. Satan also wants people to be unsure, have doubt, about the perfection of scripture. This takes away from authority. Rather than a settled text, it is a disorderly and messy one that is uncertain. Mark Ward calls this confidence. It is a relative term, meaning something like 95% to 98%, what I like to say is less pure than tide detergent.
More to Come
Utilitarianism As The Only Moral Law That Matters
What Standard?
As you look around the world in which we live, you may wonder the basis for moral choices. Why rampant abortion? Why pervasive foul language of the worst sort? How are all music types now acceptable? What is the basis for same sex marriage? How could ninety percent of teenagers justify their premarital sex?
Churches function in an all-new manner too based upon different guidelines. What changed? Dress standards have gone by the wayside. Everything is more casual, immodest, and worldly. Church activities and even worship orient more around worldly allure and entertainment. Service times decrease. Members are far less faithful than ever.
Sam Bankman-Fried Case Study
This week in the Washington Post Michael Lewis, who has a future book coming on the same subject, wrote an article entitled, “Sam Bankman-Fried, a personal verdict: A few thoughts on how Americans thought about the crypto trial of the century.” He introduced one portion of the trial testimony transcript with this paragraph:
Caroline explained to the jury how the crypto lenders had asked her for a quick and dirty picture of Alameda Research’s finances. And how, on June 18, on Sam’s instructions, she cooked up eight different balance sheets of varying degrees of dishonesty and presented them to Sam, who selected the least honest of the bunch to show his lenders.
Caroline referred to Caroline Ellison, the CEO of Alameda Research, the trading firm affiliated with Sam Bankman-Fried’s cryptocurrency exchange FTX. She pleaded guilty to fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy charges for her role in the crimes committed. She said in her testimony:
Q. In the course of working with the defendant, did he talk to you about the ethics of lying and stealing? A. Yeah. He said that he was a utilitarian, and he believed that the ways that people tried to justify rules like don’t lie and don’t steal within utilitarianism didn’t work, and he thought that the only moral rule that mattered was doing whatever would maximize utility — so essentially trying to create the greatest good for the greatest number of people or beings.
Utilitarianism
‘Creating the greatest good for the greatest number of people’ in not the ethic of utilitarianism, so he’s misrepresented it. His view of the world though, I believe, is very common. It might be mainstream. People are going to live for their best life now. And what they mean by that is the historical understanding of utility, which relates more to maximizing happiness and pleasure while minimizing pain and unhappiness.
Utility is not in and of itself goodness. The good thing is not inherently good, but good based on what brings the most immediate pleasure. It corresponds to a rejection of God and moral absolutes. What gives the maximum number of people pleasure and happiness is in accordance with conventional wisdom.
What pleasure did a maximum number derive from Bankman-Fried? He used his swindled money to donate to Democrat causes across the United States. His money helped put Democrats in office. Bankman-Fried himself was the beneficiary short-term of utility and emblematic of what anyone could receive without biblical morality.
A Comparison
Among many similar reasons, people miss church because of a sports league that brings pleasure and happiness. They work on Sundays because the money pays for pleasure and happiness. Children lie to their parents because the truth would freak them out. That would prohibit pleasure and happiness all around. The act of evangelism brings animosity and ridicule. How could those two things bring someone pleasure and happiness?
Five hundred years into Christ’s kingdom or one million years into the eternal state, the recipient will live in utter and indescribable bliss. I would call that pleasure and happiness too. For the short seventy to one hundred year life in this age, sacrifice brings joy, deep-seated fulfillment, or an inner calm of the soul. Paul said the short term suffering is not compared to the eternal weight of glory. This is living by faith. Faith overcomes the delusion of utilitarianism.
The New King James Version Does Not Come From the Same Text as the King James Version
In recent days at his youtube channel, Mark Ward again compared the New King James Version (NKJV) with the King James Version (KJV). This goes back a few years, when Ward wrote a blog post that said that the NKJV and the KJV came from an identical Greek New Testament text. In the comment section, I started giving him examples of differences, five at a time. I provided these examples after he made his claim. His claim did not come from his own personal research. After continuing to give examples about five at a time, that showed his claim was wrong, Ward admitted that the two texts were not the same in at least six places.
Systematic Search
The standard as to whether the NKJV and KJV are different, however, is not the few differences that I found in the little time after Ward made his claim. Ward speaks about the differences as though there were just six that really don’t matter much to the meaning of the text. He does not mention that he did not find these variations himself. He also treats those six like they represent all of the differences. It’s just not true though. I hardly looked for examples and found the few ones that I sent him without any systematic search.
Since Mark Ward won’t stop misrepresenting the issue of the differences between the text underlying the NKJV and the KJV, I decided to start a more systematic search in my spare time. I began in Matthew 1 to start chapter by chapter through the New Testament, and I’m to the fifth chapter of Mark So, this is just Matthew — one gospel — and then Mark 1-5. That doesn’t mean that I found every example, because I don’t have a copy of the text for the NKJV. Perhaps one doesn’t exist.
If someone were trying to study and teach from the NKJV and use the original languages, what text would he use for that study? I’m asserting there is none. It doesn’t come from the same text as the KJV so an underlying text of the NKJV, that same as that translation, is not available. That’s a tough one, wouldn’t you say?
Examples
To find my examples, I had to look at the two translations and compare them. When I saw differences, then I went to the Greek text to see if these differences were the result of a different text. Again, Mark Ward didn’t do this work. He doesn’t look for these examples. How does someone report something like fact that he doesn’t even know? All of the examples to which Mark refers came from my finding them for him.
Without further adieu, below are the most recent examples I found of differences between the underlying text of the NKJV and the KJV [CT=Critical Text, TR=Textus Receptus].
Matthew
- 1:18—KJV, TR, ”as,” gar versus NKJV, CT, no “as,” no gar
- 7:9-10—KJV, TR, “if he ask,” aorist versus NKJV, CT, “if he asks,” future
- 9:17—KJV, TR, “perish,” future middle versus NKJV, CT, “are ruined,” present passive
- 9:22—NKJV, CT, strepho, versus KJV, TR, “turned him about”epistrepho, “turned around”
- 10:19—KJV, TR, “shall speak,” future versus NKJV, CT, “should speak,” subjunctive
- 13:36—NKJV, CT, “explain,” diasapheo versus KJV, TR, “declare,” phrazo
- 16:17—KJV, TR, kai, “and” versus NKJV, CT, no kai, no “and” to start verse
- 18:6—KJV, TR, epi, about,” versus NKJV, CT, peri, “around”
- 19:5—KJV, TR, proskalleo, “shall cleave” versus NKJV, CT, “be joined,” kalleo
- 20:20—KJV, TR, ”of,” para, versus NKJV, CT, apo, “from”
- 21:25—KJV, TR, para, “with” versus NKJV, CT, en, “among”
- 22:10—KJV, TR, hosous, “as many as” versus NKJV, CT, hous, “whom”
- 23:34—KJV, TR, kai, “and” versus NKJV, CT, eliminates kai, no “and”
- 27:3—KJV, TR, apestrephe, “brought again” versus NKJV, CT, apostrepho, ”brought back”
Mark
- 1:16—KJV, TR, de, “now” versus NKJV, CT, kai, “and”
- 2:15—KJV, TR, to, “that” versus NKJV, CT, no to, no “that”
- 2:21—KJV, TR, kai, “also” versus NKJV, CT, no kai, no “also”
- 4:18—KJV, TR, no eisin, “they are” versus NKJV, CT, eisin, “they are” (in italics but in so doing accrediting the CT)
- 5:6—KJV, TR, de, “but” versus NKJV, CT, no de, no “but”
These are nineteen more examples after looking at about one and a third New Testament books. I don’t want to keep searching for these. Rather, I would wish for the other side to defer and just admit that the NKJV translators did not use the same text. In other words, I don’t want them to keep challenging this assertion. The NKJV is not the NKJV. It would come from the same text as the KJV, one would assume, if it were a “New” King James Version. The NKJV comes from a less different text than most modern versions, but it does come from a different text.
Why Does It Matter?
Why does any of this matter? It isn’t a translational issue in this case, but one of the underlying text. This is presuppositional. God promised to preserve every Word. If that’s true, which it is, then this relates to the doctrine of preservation of scripture. Mark Ward and others act like they don’t even understand it. They rarely to never mention it.
In a recent video on this same issue, Mark Ward went on the offensive against the King James Version. It wasn’t a new attack. This is the point. Textual critics say one short phrase in Revelation 16:5 wasn’t in any known manuscript, but was instead a conjectural emendation by Beza (read about this issue here). It is not a phrase that appears in a majority of presently preserved Greek manuscripts. I carefully wrote that last sentence, because a translation of the Latin of Beza doesn’t say it was a conjectural emendation, but instead he wrote:
Therefore, I am not able to doubt but that the true reading should be as I have restored it from an ancient manuscript [hand-written] codex of good faith, truly ο εσομενος.
Men like myself and others with our presuppositions from scripture believe this is what Beza did, not conjectural emendation.
A problem that Ward would not mention in his offensive against the King James Version is that almost all modern versions, ones that he supports, come from a minority of the manuscripts. Not only that, but in hundreds of lines of text in the underlying text of the modern versions there is zero manuscript evidence. They have no manuscript support. Yet, Ward and many, many others, who deny the biblical and historical doctrine of preservation, have no problem advocating most for those modern versions that translate that text.
****************************************
Addendum
I don’t plan on continuing to keep looking up more examples. It wasn’t as those examples did not present themselves as I looked. This makes the point of variations in the textual basis between the NKJV and the KJV. What made this tough is that the NKJV translators said, no differences, and yet there are.
If you trusted the translators, then you didn’t know the differences. Perhaps you never checked. Yes, there’s a difficulty sometimes in deciding translational differences. I tried to find the ones where the differences would or could reflect a difference in the text. A variant needed to exist for me to use the example. It’s easy to come later and defend it as a translational choice, but there is a there, there. If you want to criticize, you could try to do that, and I could just keep looking for more too. This is something perhaps you haven’t done, that is, look on your own.
If you haven’t looked on your own, maybe you could do that, if it matters to you. As I’ve said in the past, for a long time, I assumed the NKJV used Scrivener’s, the same text as the KJV in other words. Then I read someone who said, no, so then I began looking a little and agreed that it wasn’t the same. You really shouldn’t have it both ways, that is, a first way where you say there is no difference. And then you have a second way, where when someone looks up examples and you attack the person doing that. That is having it both ways. It isn’t honest.
Natural Laws Don’t Cause Origins or Existence
Natural Laws
When you look at the world and space around it, you are not seeing the result of natural laws. The natural laws, such as the law of gravity, do not explain the origin of the universe. When one football player flies out of bounds after a collision with another, a natural law did not cause that. The second player caused the first one to move out of bounds. You could say that a defender forced him out. Natural laws didn’t bring about the event.
Force, as one player forcing another out of bounds, expresses Newton’s second law of motion, which says:
The acceleration of an object depends on the mass of the object and the amount of force applied.
Something applies force and it isn’t a law itself that does it. Newton’s law, a natural law, explains the force, but it isn’t what sent the offensive out of bounds. Someone pushed him. The law explaining the momentum that carried a football out of bounds didn’t make him quickly and explosively leave the playing field.
Category Error
Before nature existed, the laws of nature did not exist. Laws explain how nature operates, not what caused it to get here. In his 2010 book The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking wrote that the universe can and will create itself from nothing because of the existence of laws like gravity. He said:
Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.
In an accurate way, people call this mistake, a “category error.” It is my normal practice to attempt to give someone the benefit of the doubt. According to 1 Corinthians 13:7, this is ‘hoping all things.’ However, it is very hard to believe that these men really do think that the universe arose from laws that depend on an already existent universe. Space and matter precede natural laws. No one should believe or advocate for this deluded concept declared by Stephen Hawking. It is so bad, this idea that laws actually do things, that it really should be a laughing-stock.
God the Cause for Everything
Every year, people fall from high elevation and die from hitting the ground below. The news does not report that the law of gravity caused their death. Again, there is a law of gravity, but the law itself doesn’t cause anything.
God both caused and sustains space, matter, and energy. The laws that explain their function themselves proceed from His intelligence and design. Assigning their cause to laws is just a futile attempt to eliminate God and man’s accountability and obligation to Him.
AI Friday: Who Won the Thomas Ross/James White KJV Debate?
Again, I asked AI the question of the title of today’s post, and here was it’s answer.
The debate between Thomas Ross and James White regarding the superiority of the King James Version (KJV) versus the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB) was marked by a clear division in perspectives on textual criticism and translation philosophy.
Debate Overview
Participants and Positions:
James White affirmed that the LSB, based on modern textual criticism and the Nestle-Aland Greek text, is superior to the KJV, which relies on the Textus Receptus.
Thomas Ross denied this claim, arguing for the KJV’s superiority based on its textual basis and historical usage within Protestant traditions.
Key Arguments:
James White argued that modern translations like the LSB are more accurate due to advances in textual criticism and manuscript discoveries.
Thomas Ross countered by emphasizing the preservation of Scripture as understood by KJV advocates, asserting that the KJV translators intended their work to be seen as superior to all previous translations.
Critical Points Raised:
Ross highlighted that White failed to provide substantial evidence from primary sources regarding what KJV translators would support today.
He also pointed out that many of White’s claims about modern translations undermining key doctrines were not substantiated with adequate historical context or documentation.
Conclusion Drawn from Reviews:
Post-debate analyses from various observers suggest that while both sides presented compelling arguments, Ross’s emphasis on historical fidelity and doctrinal integrity resonated strongly with those who hold traditional views of Scripture preservation.
Overall Assessment:
The debate did not yield a definitive “winner” in a traditional sense; however, many proponents of KJV-only perspectives believe that Thomas Ross effectively defended his position against James White’s assertions.
In summary, while both debaters presented their cases passionately, many observers lean towards viewing Thomas Ross as having won the debate, particularly among those who advocate for KJV-only positions.
***********************
I asked AI why Thomas Ross won the debate with James White and it concluded:
In summary, Thomas Ross won the debate against James White due to his strong argumentation on textual preservation, effective use of Scripture, engaging presentation style, ability to address counterarguments effectively, appeal to historical context, and connection with the audience’s values regarding traditional biblical texts.
Gaslighting
What Gaslighting Is
Today a word we are hearing very often, one that I never heard as I grew up, is “gaslighting.” As I looked to see if I had ever used the word in any of the written material of this blog site, I found none. People use the term all the time and in a popular manner, but it has a psychological meaning. Psychology Today defined it:
Gaslighting is an insidious form of manipulation and psychological control. Victims of gaslighting are deliberately and systematically fed false information that leads them to question what they know to be true, often about themselves. They may end up doubting their memory, their perception, and even their sanity.
I see and hear gaslighting all the time from the political left. It includes a blatant form of lying, that requires people to believe something demonstrably untrue.
Merriam-Webster named “gaslighting” its word of the year for 2023 because it said it was a pervasive term that shaped interactions and was relevant to our current social climate. The dictionary defines gaslighting as “the act or practice of grossly misleading someone, especially for one’s own advantage.” In the previous year of 2022, lookups for the word “gaslighting” occurred 1740% more than the previous year according to Merriam-Webster online.
If I were to sum up the concept of gaslighting in the clearest way possible, it is that gaslighting requires obedience to a lie. It’s not just lying, but requiring obedience to that lie. It says something different happened than what many, witnesses, even every witness, plainly see. Nevertheless, you must stand and nod your head “yes” to the gaslighter or face some form of retribution.
Examples and History of Gaslighting
The entire left gaslit the country on the condition of President Biden. Now it again gaslights the whole United States by giving a particular false impression about Vice President Harris. The left did this in 2016 with the Russian collusion hoax, saying that then President Trump was a Russian agent. For decades the so-called scientific community gaslit everyone with the theory of evolution, that then turned into the science of evolution, even though it isn’t scientific. Egalitarianism, that men and women are equal in authority and that they can fulfill each other’s roles, is also gaslighting.
Apparently the word “gaslight” arose from a 1938 British play, called “Gaslight.” Someone wrote the plot:
Set among London’s elite during the Victorian era, it portrays a seemingly genteel husband using lies and manipulation to isolate his heiress wife and persuade her that she is mentally unwell so that he can steal from her.
In scripture, the Pharisees gaslit the entire nation Israel with their teaching, leaving the people of Israel wallowing in spiritual darkness. The level of deceit in the world today, I would assess, is at an all time high with maybe the exception of the days of Noah. Everywhere you look, those in positions of authority spread bold-faced lies about the most important subjects.
A Challenge
It’s easy today for professing Christians to concern themselves deeply with government and elections, but the biggest ongoing gaslighting occurs concerning the Bible. False religion and false teachers gaslight billions with falsehoods and lies.
Even though Satan wants to destroy the Bible, a part of that larger strategy is destroying the truth itself. The gaslighting everywhere results in deceit on a mass scale. Men become apathetic toward the truth in this world scale flurry of lies. People give up, cutting through the lies seeming not to be worth the effort. They see the sheer difficulty of penetrating the fog of deceit as a legitimate excuse to hedge against future judgment. No one could be accountable to believe with so many lies everywhere. And yet that too is a lie, even a bigger one.
Gaslighting right now happens at epic proportions. It’s as if the gaslighters are attempting to top one another with the sheer audacity. It is a high level of disrespect to the targets or audience of the gaslighting, that they think that it will work at this scale. They have good reason to think they’ll fool people, because it’s working.
Spiritual Combat, Highlighting Satan’s Pincer Movement
A Military Maneuver
Military leaders have studied the Bible to understand war or battle strategy. Very many times, God makes military allusions in scripture. Almost since the beginning of time, a war exists. The Apostle Paul calls for soldiers and he himself fights a good fight. What strategy does Satan use?
In his art of war, Satan often uses what armed forces call a “pincer movement.” It is like it sounds if you understand getting pinched. My dad would pinch me in church when I fell asleep, so I understand the threat and possible pain of a pinching. The pincer movement is a military maneuver where an opposing army attacks simultaneously on what experts call, “both flanks.”
In 1943, General George Patton led the U.S. 7th Army in a pincer movement against Messina, Sicily, as part of the Allies’ attempt to trap Axis forces before they could retreat to the Italian mainland. The pincer movement involved the British 8th Army moving up the southeast coast of the island, while the U.S. 7th Army moved east across the north coast. During the American Revolutionary War, the British used a pincer movement, also known as a “double envelopment,” in several battles to isolate New England from the rest of the colonies and gain control of the Hudson River Valley.
Satan’s Pincer Movements
How does Satan use a pincer movement to attack a believer on both flanks? On one flank, he attacks with a force of persecution or punishment. Satan threatens the believer to succumb to his pressure of persecution.
As the believer looks at the flank of persecution and moves away from it, Satan lures the same believer with the allurements of the flesh. He feels justified gratifying his flesh because of the poor treatment he experiences. You can see these two working in tandem in different places in scripture.
Anyone in the world of Noah saw what he endured as a preacher of righteousness. At the same time “the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair” (Genesis 6:2). Those are the very two pincers of lust and persecution.
Satan brought the pressure against Israel from Pharoah with his harsh treatment of those people before the Exodus. He made their work harder by not providing straw for brick making. Israel also craved for the leeks, garlic, and onions that they had in Egypt.
Overall, the merchants of Babylon in Revelation 18:15 prospered through Babylon’s luxury under the leadership of the Satanic Antichrist. On the other hand, he makes war against and starves those who are against him in Revelation 13.
The Defeat of the Satanic Strategy
God uses many different examples in the Bible of Satan using the pincer movement in his war against God. Paul speaks in 2 Corinthians 12:11 of not being ignorant of Satan’s devices. Satan employs a strategic approach often likened to a military pincer movement in his ongoing conflict against God and humanity. This tactic involves attacking from two flanks simultaneously, creating pressure that can overwhelm and confuse the target.
The flank of persecution and the other of lust are not the only pincers he uses. Sometimes he couples lust with the intellectual onslaught of false teachers. Other times one side are those false teachers and on the other are the personal conflicts with believers either inside or outside the church. Very often Satan fights his war on two fronts just like the United States faced both the Japanese and the Germans on two different ones in World War 2.
Like all war and battle against Satan, believers must recognize what Satan does. They should engage in prayer and put on the armor of God (Ephesians 6:10-18). Believers can also find support and relief from their brothers in the church (Hebrews 10:24-25). They should focus on the Bible, the Lord Jesus Christ, and their future of eternal rewards that awaits them.
AI Friday: “Did God Perfectly Preserve Every Word of the Bible?”
I asked Artificial Intelligence this question: “Did God perfectly preserve every word of the Bible?” It answered with the following.
Understanding the Doctrine of Preservation
The doctrine of preservation is a crucial aspect of Christian theology, which asserts that God has perfectly preserved every word of the Bible. This doctrine is rooted in the Bible itself, which provides numerous assurances of God’s sovereignty over His Word.
The Importance of Preservation
The preservation of Scripture is essential for the Christian faith, as it ensures that the Bible remains a reliable and authoritative source of truth. If God’s Word has not been perfectly preserved, then its authority and reliability are compromised. The Bible’s authority is only as great as our confidence in its reliability.
God’s Promises of Preservation
The Bible contains numerous promises of God’s preservation of His Word. For example, in Psalm 12:6-7, God declares, “The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.” Similarly, in Matthew 24:35, Jesus affirms, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”
The Extent of Preservation
The Bible teaches that God has preserved not only the general ideas or thoughts of Scripture but also every individual word. In Matthew 5:18, Jesus emphasizes the importance of every jot and tittle of God’s Word, stating, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
Conclusion
God has perfectly preserved every word of the Bible. This doctrine is rooted in the Bible’s own promises and assurances of God’s sovereignty over His Word. The preservation of Scripture is essential for the Christian faith, ensuring that the Bible remains a reliable and authoritative source of truth.
Recent Comments