Home » Posts tagged 'Mark Ward' (Page 3)
Tag Archives: Mark Ward
Further Details in Psalm 12:6-7 Elucidating the Preservation of God’s Words
In recent days, speaking of the last twenty years, men have used much ink and spoken many words to debunk a doctrine of the perfect preservation of Words of God in Psalm 12:6-7. Commentators through history have interpreted Psalm 12:6-7 as a promise of the preservation of the poor and needy, mentioned in Psalm 12:5. Modern critical text advocates strive to back or ensure that interpretation against a teaching of preservation of words. With this conversation occurring or continuing, more evidence arises for the preservation of words viewpoint.
I haven’t heard anything new to contribute to the preservation of the poor and needy, except for possibly one new point. Critical text proponents like Mark Ward say the same old, same old. Some of his audience didn’t know his arguments, but they aren’t new. With that being said, this is an argument from Ward I have never heard. I didn’t know about it until recently reading him in the comment section at youtube.
Not Perfect Preservation?
Ward says that the present application of perfect preservation from Psalm 12:6-7 arose out of the King James Only movement of the twentieth century. He knows that men taught preservation of words from Psalm 12:6-7, such as Matthew Poole, just that none of them, including Poole, he is saying, took that as perfect preservation. I had not heard anyone ever make that particular point. It seems like a raising of the bar on expectations in the language of the commentators. Is Ward implying that when men wrote that Psalm 12:6-7 promises the preservation of the Words of God, that they were saying that God was promising less than perfect preservation? And is that even preservation?
I’ve used this illustration before, but let’s say that you had a jar with 100 marbles in it. Twenty years later, you still have the jar, and someone wants to purchase it. You guarantee that you preserved the marbles in the jar. The customer counts them and there are 98, not 100. Did you preserve the marbles in the jar? Is that the plain meaning of preservation of marbles?
Ward is implying that 93 to 98 marbles is still the preservation of the marbles. Preservation of the marbles doesn’t mean 100 out of 100, because 93 to 98 is still preservation. Is that what you think? I don’t think of losing marbles as preserving them. That is not preserving them. You’ve preserved some of them, so preservation occurred, but you can’t say you preserved them, speaking of the marbles in the original jar.
When Jesus said that no man shall pluck “them” out of his hand (John 10:28), with similar understanding of preservation, you could take that as no man shall pluck 93 to 98 percent of them out of his hand. He didn’t say “all of them” after all. If God promised to keep or preserve the poor and needy, to be consistent, when Ward says Psalm 12:7 promises to keep the poor and needy, that means not all of the poor and needy, just some of them. It’s not perfect preservation of the poor and needy. Myself and others might call that betraying plain meaning of language.
Hebrew Singular Masculine Pronominal Suffix in Psalm 12:7
Besides that above argument, a new one that rose out of a challenge to Ward about his representation of the history of Psalm 12:6-7 commentary, I have read none. I have heard the argument Ward makes from the King James translators notation about the second “them” in Psalm 12:7. It translates the singular masculine suffix. Ward says that necessitates poor and needy, because “words” aren’t a “him.” “Words” aren’t a “she” either, even though the gender of “words” is feminine.
Every Hebrew word is masculine or feminine, because there is no neuter in the Hebrew. Someone might call this a dumb argument, that a masculine suffix must refer to people. What do we do with all the things or objects in the Old Testament? What kind of pronominal suffix are we going to use for all those non-neuter words?
This pronoun point revolves around this comment in the margins of the original King James translation by the translators: “Heb. Him, i.e., every one of them.” They are correct. They are noting that a masculine singular suffix in the Hebrew is “him” in the English. Then they explain with the comment why they translated this “them”: “every one of them.” The singular meant, they are saying, “every one of them,” speaking of whatever antecedent “him,” “everyone of them,” or “them” refers to.
Psalm 12:7 reads: “Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” The verse is not saying twice, “Thou shalt keep them” and “Thou shalt keep them,” or, “Thou shalt preserve them” and “Thou shalt preserve them.” No, it is making two statements with a nuance of difference: “Thou shalt keep them” and “thou shalt preserve every one of them.” They are not saying the English should be, “him,” but that the English should be, “every one of them.” On Part 4 of The Textual Confidence Collective series (starting at about 5:48), Mark Ward begins speaking with a kind of glee in his voice and says these exact words:
And it’s really interesting here, one of the tip offs to sort of the interpretive question here comes in the note that is actually in the margin of the King James, even in this TBS edition. For that second “them,” “thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them” (and I’m convinced this is where the word preservation starts to get used by the King James only or textual absolutist movements), it says in the margins, the Hebrew is actually, “him,” that is, “every one of them.” And if the Hebrew is actually “him,” that is, every one of them,” every one of them must not be “the words,” because words are not him and her. Words are things. Words are it. Therefore, it must be in the view of the King James translators, that second pronoun, must be pointing back to the antecedent we find in verse 5: “For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.” So the words of the Lord here are not the Bible. They are these immediate words, “I’m going to protect the poor, uh, who are oppressed.”
This is coming from a PhD from Bob Jones University, and other PhDs or PhD candidates sit there and say nothing, when he makes these foot-in-the-mouth statements with a kind of giggling glee. Why? They don’t even look like they disagree. Zero pronominal suffixes in the entire Old Testament are an “it,” because there is no neuter pronominal suffix. There are no neuter Hebrew nouns to which to refer. The King James translators would have been laughing on Ward’s interpretation of them.
Timothy Berg writes about this at his blog (and Ward has concurred many times):
Understand what has taken place here with these two lines. The translators had to either choose, “them” and so maintain the number of the original, but lose the gender, or choose “him” and maintain the gender of the original but lose the number. The meaning in both cases is a plural group of multiple “hims,” employing first the plural then the singular in keeping with the psalmist’s pattern. But there is no form “hims” in English, so every translator must lose something of the original text in translating it into English. The point to note here though is that they clearly understood the referent of the singular suffix as being back to the alternating singular and plural in verses one and five, being a reference to the people. This is surely self-evident to anyone reading the passage in its context, and abundantly evident to anyone who reads the original translators notes (and even more so when they realize the origin of this particular note in the Bishop’s base text). If we had only continued to print these notes, and listened to the KJV translators themselves, so much bad interpretation could have been avoided. Maintaining today that the phrase is a promise to preserve God’s words in the KJV is to utterly disagree with what the translators themselves intended to convey, which, in a text now being adduced as support for their infallibility, seems odd at best.
These men say this proves that “them” by the King James translators could never refer to “words” in verse 6. That very much misunderstands gender in the Hebrew. Berg is saying that “him” must mean people, because a “him” must be people in the Hebrew. Remember, this is a masculine suffix with “preserve,” that the translators translated “preserve them.”
How would you go about proving the point that Berg and Ward are making in their assessment of a comment by the KJV translators? I would look at similar examples with gender through the Old Testament to see if that’s true. They are saying that a masculine suffix must always refer to a person, because a masculine is a person. This is their representation of original languages. Again, they don’t take that from anything the KJV translators wrote. This is their own personal call.
Berg or Ward do not reference one Hebrew grammar or syntax to make that point. They do not show you several examples to evince the truth of this argument. They speak as those having authority on the Hebrew language. As Johnny Cochran famously called the prosecution of the OJ Simpson trial, it is a “rush to judgment.” These are men eager to have something mean something that doesn’t mean something. They don’t even know it means something. I think they could assume that they have an audience of their own tribe ready to accept their own bias. This is today called “confirmation bias,” where they rush to confirm their own bias.
Let’s open our Bibles to the first chapter of the Bible, the book of Genesis, and Genesis 1:16-17:
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.
God made lights. God “set them.” “Them” refers to the lights, wouldn’t you agree? A masculine refers to “lights.” This does not correspond exactly to Psalm 12:6-7, but it does in the argument that Ward and Berg are making. A masculine must refer to a person.
Turning to Psalms, Psalm 18:14 says:
Yea, he sent out his arrows, and scattered them; and he shot out lightnings, and discomfited them.
“Arrows” is masculine too, but it is plural. He scattered the masculine arrows.
A better example is Job 39:14-15:
14 Which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in dust, 15 And forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them.
“Eggs” is plural. “Them” in “crush them” is a third person feminine suffix. In other words, “crush her,” but it is “crush every one of them.” “Eggs” and “them” are both feminine.
Just as a gender sample, the same kind of construction in Psalm 12:6-7 and in Psalm 119 is found elsewhere, such as Leviticus 20:8:
And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you.
“Statutes” is feminine and “them” is masculine. Again, a masculine pronoun refers to a thing, which is also feminine. The same is in Leviticus 22:31:
Therefore shall ye keep my commandments, and do them: I am the LORD.
Commandments is feminine and them is masculine.
The same is in Numbers 15:39. Also, Nehemiah 1:9:
But if ye turn unto me, and keep my commandments, and do them.
Commandments is feminine and them is masculine. In Ezekiel 37:24, “statutes” is feminine and “them” is masculine.
I’m not going to keep going with this argument, but you can see that Berg and Ward are wrong on the Hebrew of this. I’ve already written many times that gender is nullified by Hebrew grammar as an argument for the “poor and needy.” Because of that, we should go to the nearest antecedent rule, which is “words.” Ward himself said the examples were clear in Psalm 119 of purposeful gender discord, so he relents there. He says it isn’t in Psalm 12:6-7, but that’s only because he chooses to ignore the nearest antecedent, which is clear.
This Generation
Psalm 12:7 says, “Lord. . . . shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” The two different viewpoints also take the last part of the verse in two ways. The preserve-the-poor-and-needy position says that “from this generation” is a physical separation from the attacks of the wicked. The preserve-the-words position says that “from this generation” is a linear chronological separation from the present moment and on into eternity.
The Hebrew preposition translated “from” in the English has a root meaning of separation. Preserve-the-words takes the normal, plain meaning of the Hebrew dur, generation, which is a period, speaking of this present time. This language of time is echoed in the Old (Isaiah 59:21) and the New Testaments (Mt 5:18, 24:35) in other preservation passages. This is the regular usage of this Hebrew construction, translated, “from this generation for ever.”
Preserve-the-poor-and-needy takes an exceptional usage. I see generation used of the wicked, but it is always accompanied by “evil” as in “evil generation” (Dt 1:35), “generation that had done evil” (Num 32:13), or “crooked generation” (Dt 32:5). When meaning “evil generation,” it is accompanied by these types of descriptors.
Every time you read the words, “from generation” (eleven times), it is a linear chronological separation from this present moment into the future. If it was something other than that in Psalm 12:7, then it is the only time in the entire Old Testament, or an entirely exceptional usage. Normally we call this eisegesis of scripture, because it doesn’t consider all the usages of this construction contradicting it. Timothy Berg does this in his Psalm 12 article.
Synonymous Parallelism
The poetry in Psalm 12:7 is parallelism and in particular “synonymous parallelism.” The second part of the parallelism repeats a variation of what the first part expresses. If this is synonymous parallelism, which is how it reads in Psalm 12:7, then both parts must refer to the same antecedent. It expresses the same truth in two different ways. “Thou shalt keep them . . . . thou shalt preserve them.”
I talked about this parallelism in the last post, that it teaches plenary and then verbal preservation of the Words of God. I want to give a heads up to the mention of “synonymous parallelism” to Jeff Riddle in his Word Magazine podcast on youtube. He talked about this and may have also given credit to Peter Van Kleeck, Sr. at the Standard Sacred Text blog.
The Biblical Presuppositions for the Critical Text that Underlie the Modern Versions, Pt. 2
Modern textual criticism advocates and contemporary version proponents have fractured churches and caused division between professing Christians over the last one hundred fifty years. They brought the new and different view, a modernist one, in the 19th century to undo the one already received. English churches used the King James Version, believed in the perfect preservation of the original language text, and in the doctrine of the preservation of scripture. Starting with academia and especially influenced by German rationalism, doubt took hold and grew through the professors of seminaries to their students and into churches.
Through history certain men have come along who provoke even greater division that invokes a bigger response. They undermine faith in the authority of the Word of God. My writing arises in answer to men who attack scriptural and historical bibliology, whether it be Ruckmanites or critical text supporters. I would rather consider doctrines and biblical subjects other than this one, such as the gospel, but Satan uses both witting and unwitting subjects to attack God’s Word.
I rarely hear a gracious style or tone from multiple version onlyists. They mock, jeer, speak in condescension, misrepresent without retraction, roll their eyes, vent out with anger, employ heavy sarcasm, and shun. They use these tactics constantly. At the same time, they talk about the poor behavior of their opponents without ceasing in the vein of calling Republicans “fascists” in the political arena.
It continues to be my experience that modern critical text and English version defenders never begin with biblical presuppositions for their position. They say the Bible says nothing about the “how” of preservation, when the entire Bible records the how. Perfect preservationists of the standard sacred, ecclesiastical, traditional, or confessional text view elucidate the how in many essays, papers, and podcasts. The “how” leads to the received text of both the Old and the New Testaments.
Men calling themselves The Textual Confidence Collective become the latest iteration of naturalist influence on the text of scripture. As part of their profession of delivering people from their contention of a dangerous extreme of textual absolutism, they attempt to undo the historical, exegetical teaching of verses on preservation. They address Psalm 12:6-7, Matthew 5:18, 4:4, and 24:35, concluding that these four verses at the most imply preservation of scripture and in an unspecific way. It is a superficial and incomplete representation that runs against historic and plain meaning of these texts.
Our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, covers all four of the above references, each in their context. No textus receptus advocate would say that any single one of these verses alone buttresses the doctrine of preservation. The doctrine does not rise or fall on one verse. Many times I notice that men such as those of The Textual Confidence Collective treat each verse as though it is the one verse supporting the biblical and historical doctrine of preservation. If they can undermine the teaching of preservation in one verse, the doctrine falls. The Bible contains a wealth of fortification for the doctrine of perfect preservation of scripture, equal or greater even than its teaching on verbal plenary inspiration.
For all of the following passages, I’m not going to exegete them all again, when that’s done in our book in a very suitable, proficient manner. I’ve referred to them many times here at What Is Truth. I will make comments that address the attacks of others.
Psalm 12:6-7 (Also See Here, Here, and Here)
Thomas Strouse wrote our chapter on Psalm 12:6-7. Yes, the title of our book came from those verses, “Thou Shalt Keep Them.” Mark Ward rejects that “words” in verse 6 is the referent of “them” in verse 7. “Them” in “Thou shalt keep them,” he says, is not “Thou shalt keep ‘words,'” but “Thou shalt keep ‘the poor and needy'” of verse 5. If you look at commentaries, they go both ways. Commentaries often differ on interpretation of passages.
Some say “words” and some say “poor and needy” as the antecedent of “them” in verse 7. In a strategy to see if commentaries provide a historical, biblical theology, it’s best as historians to find the original commentaries to which other later writers referred. Ward doesn’t do that. He leaves out the earliest references in the history of interpretation, such as one attributed to Jerome by Luther and those by two preeminent Hebrew scholars Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089-1164) and David Kimshi (c. 1160-1235). In his commentary, John Gill refers to Ibn Ezra’s explanation.
John Gill makes an error with the Hebrew, supporting his point with the fallacious gender discord argument. Scripture uses masculine pronouns to refer to feminine “words,” when the words of God. Gill doesn’t seem to know that, so he misses it. This construction in the Hebrew scriptures is a rule more than the exception. I can happily say that Ward at least barely refers to this point that I’ve never heard from another critical text proponent. I can’t believe these men still don’t know this. Ward should park on it, and he doesn’t. It’s rich exegesis when someone opens to Psalm 119 to find repeated examples. Ward points only to arguments he thinks will favor a no-preservation-of-words viewpoint. This strategy will not persuade those on the opposite side as him, if that is even his purpose.
God uses masculine pronouns to refer to feminine words, when they are the “words of God.” A reader could and should understand the singular to point out the preservation of individual words of God. It’s not assumed that “him,” a masculine, must refer to people. That’s not how the Hebrew language works, and it is either ignorant or deceptive on the part of Ward and others to say it. They also refer to a notation from the KJV translators as if they’re making that point, when that’s sheer speculation. Ward says in mocking tones that a masculine pronoun, “him,” cannot refer to words. It’s a Hebrew rule. Masculine pronouns refer to words. I’m sure Ward knows that “she” can refer to a ship. Everyone knows that a ship isn’t a woman! Come on men! Please.
The “poor” and “needy” are both plural so someone still has a problem of a lack of agreement in number. A masculine singular suffix, however, coupled with a previous masculine plural suffix provides two points of preservation. God will keep all of His Words, plenary preservation, and He will preserve each of them, verbal preservation.
Neither does Ward mention once a rule of proximity. Proximity guides the antecedents of pronouns. Pronouns normally refer to the closest antecedent. It’s an exception not to do so. If gender discord is the rule when referring to God’s Words, then someone should look for the closest antecedent, which is words. That’s how the verses read to, which is why believers and Hebrew scholars from the medieval period celebrate the promise of God’s keeping and preserving His Words.
I don’t doubt that Psalm 12 teaches the preservation of God’s people. We should believe God would keep His people, because we can trust His Words. The chapter contrasts the untrustworthiness of man’s words versus the trustworthiness of God’s. If God can’t keep His Words and doesn’t, how do we trust that He would keep His people?
God’s people believe and have believed that His Word teaches perfect preservation. It’s not an ordinary book. It is supernatural. God’s Word endures. It is in character different than man’s words. Why do men like those of The Textual Confidence Collective labor to cause doubt in this biblical teaching? They do it to conform to their naturalistic presuppositions in their trajectory of modernism, where truth must conform to man’s reason. You should not join them in their journey toward uncertainty.
When I write the word, “modernism,” I’m not attempting to take a cruel shot at men who do believe in the deity of Christ and justification by grace through faith. I’m saying that they swallowed among other lies those spawned by the modernists of the 19th century.
More to Come
Mark Ward: KJVO “Sinful Anger,” the “Evasion” of the Confessional Bibliologians, and Success
Mark Ward wrote, Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible, which I read. He’s taken on a goal of dissuading people from the King James Version to use a modern version of the Bible. He also has a podcast to which someone alerted me when he mentioned Thomas Ross and me. I checked back again there this last week and he did one called, “Is My Work Working?” In it, he said he received three types of reactions to his work.
KJV “SINFUL ANGER”
Ward said he received more than 100 times praise than anything else. The next most reaction he said was “sinful anger” from KJV Onlyists. Last, he received the least, helpful criticism from opposition.
Critical text proponents very often use KJVO behavior as an argument. It does not add or take away from Ward’s position. Ward reads his examples of “sinful anger,” and well more than half didn’t sound angry to me. They disagreed with him.
My observation is that critical text advocates do not have better conduct. They disagree in a harsh manner and with ridicule. Ward himself uses more subtle mockery, sometimes in sarcastic tones. It just shouldn’t come as a point of argument. Many in the comment section of his podcast use sinful anger. Ward does not correct them or point out their sinful anger. It seems like Ward likes it when it points the other direction.
In these moments, Ward talks about his own anger. He finds it difficult not to be angry with these men. Why even mention it? Just don’t talk about it at all. Deal with the issue at hand. I’m not justifying actions of Ruckmanite types. They’re wrong too. Both sides are wrong. This is an actual argument though of critical text supporters — how they are treated. It comes up again and again, because they bring it up.
“EVASION” OF THE CONFESSIONAL BIBLIOLOGIANS
Ward says that few to almost none answer a main argument of his book, which he’s developed further since it’s publication. They don’t concede to his “false friends” with appropriate seriousness. He says they don’t think about false friends. He provides now 50 examples of these that appear many times in the King James Version. He includes the confessional bibliologians in this, which would be someone who believes in the superiority of the Textus Receptus of the New Testament. Their position might be perfect preservationism, Textus Receptus, confessional bibliology, or ecclesiastical text. He used the confessional title, referring to men like Jeff Riddle.
I’ve answered him in depth. Ward is just wrong. Hopefully calling him wrong isn’t considered sinful anger. “He said I was wrong!!” King James Version supporters all over buy Bible For Today’s Defined King James Version. It provides the meaning of those words in the margin. Lists of these from King James Version proponents are all over the internet, and books have been written by KJV authors (the one linked published in 1994) on the subject.
Ward says that every time he brings that up to Textus Receptus men, they sweep it away like it doesn’t matter, then turn the conversation to textual criticism. That’s a very simplistic way of himself swatting away the Textus Receptus advocate. They turn to textual criticism because the critical text and the Textus Receptus are 7% different. Many words differ. That matters more. It also denies the biblical doctrine of preservation.
The members of churches where men preach the KJV hear words explained. Sure, some KJV churches rarely preach the Bible. Talk about that. Where men preach expositional sermons from the KJV, relying on study of the original languages, they explain words to their people. They care. I have been one of those and the KJV doesn’t hurt our church in any way. Personally I read the KJV Bible twice last year and this year I’m on pace for one Old Testament and two New Testament.
SUCCESS
Is success how much praise one receives for what he does? Is that the measurement? That is a very dangerous standard of success. That is what Ward uses as his standard in his video. In Jeremiah 45:5, God told Baruch: “And seekest thou great things for thyself? seek them not.” We don’t succeed when we receive praise. We succeed when we are faithful to what God said, whether we’re praised or not. Seeking for praise is discouraged in scripture. Many faithful Bible preachers received far more harsh treatment than Ward. It’s not even close.
True success is finding what God says and doing it. It’s not success to turn a church away from the King James Version to a modern version, even if Ward supports that outcome.
Yes and Then No, the Bible with Mark Ward (part two)
Earlier this week, I wrote part one concerning two separate videos posted by Mark Ward. The second one I saw first, and since my name was mentioned, I answered. He cherry-picks quotes without context. Ward made what he thought was a good argument against the Textus Receptus.
In part one, I said “yes” to his assessment of IFB preaching. I didn’t agree, as he concluded, that a correction to preaching was the biggest step for IFB. A distorted gospel, I believe, is of greater import, something unmentioned by Ward.
NO
Bob Jones Seminary (BJU) invited Ward to teach on problems with the Textus Receptus (received text, TR), the Greek text behind the New Testament (NT) of the King James Version (KJV) and all the other Reformation Era English versions. It was also the basis for all the other language versions of the Bible. There is only one Bible, and subsequent to the invention of the printing press, we know the TR was the Bible of true believers for four centuries. Unless the Bible can change, it’s still the Bible.
Ward accepted the invitation from BJU, despite his own commitment against arguing textual criticism with anyone who disagrees with him. For him to debate, his opposition must agree with his innovative, non-historical or exegetical application of 1 Corinthians 14:9. It’s the only presupposition that I have heard Ward claim from scripture on this issue.
Critical text supporters, a new and totally different approach to the Bible in all of history, oppose scriptural presuppositions. They require sola scientia to determine the Bible. Modern textual criticism, what is all of textual criticism even though men like Ward attempt to reconstruct what believing men did from 1500 to 1800, arose with modernism. Everything must subject itself to human reason, including the Bible.
In his lecture, Ward used F. H. A. Scrivener to argue against Scrivener’s New Testament, giving the former an alias Henry Ambrose, his two middle names, to argue against Scrivener himself. It is an obvious sort of mockery of those who use the NT, assuming they don’t know history. The idea behind it is that Scrivener didn’t even like his Greek NT.
What did Scrivener do? He collated the Greek text behind the KJV NT from TR editions, and then printed the text underlying the NT of the KJV. It was an academic exercise for him, not one out of love for the TR. Scrivener was on the committee to produce the Revised Version.
The Greek Words of the New Testament
Did the words of that New Testament exist before Scrivener’s NT? Yes. Very often (and you can google it with my name to find out) I’ll say, “Men translated from something.” For centuries, they did.
The words of Scrivener were available in print before Scrivener. Scrivener knew this too, as the differences between the various TR editions are listed in the Scrivener’s Annotated New Testament, a leather bound one of which I own. Ward says there are massive numbers of differences between the TR editions. That’s not true.
Like Ward’s pitting Scrivener on Scrivener and the KJV translators against the KJV translation, claiming massive variants between TR editions is but a rhetorical device to propagandize listeners. The device entertains supporters, but I can’t see it persuading anyone new. It’s insulting.
When you compare Sinaiticus with Vaticanus, there you see massive differences, enough that Dean Burgon wrote, “It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two MSS differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree.” There are over 3,000 variations between the two main critical manuscripts in the gospels alone. That is a massive amount. Moslem Koran apologists enjoy these critical text materials to attack the authority of the Bible. It is their favorite apologetic device, what I heard from every Moslem I confront at a door in evangelism.
There are 190 differences between Beza 1598 and Scrivener’s. Scrivener’s is essentially Beza 1598. Many of those variations are spelling, accents, and breathing marks. As a preemptive shot, I know that all those fit into an application of jots and tittles. We know that, but we also know where the text of the King James Version came from and we know that text was available for centuries. God preserved that text of the NT. Believers received it and used it.
Men Translated from Something
When you read John Owen, what Greek text was he reading? He had one. Ward says there wasn’t a text until Scrivener. Wrong. What text did John Gill use? What text did Jonathan Edwards use? They relied on an original language text. What text did John Flavel and Stephen Charnock use? They all used a Greek text of the New Testament.
16th through 19th century Bible preachers and scholars refer to their Greek New Testament. Matthew Henry when writing commentary on the New Testament refers to a printed Greek New Testament. He also writes concerning those leaving out 1 John 5:7: “Some may be so faulty, as I have an old printed Greek Testament so full of errata, that one would think no critic would establish a various lection thereupon.”
The Greek words of the New Testament were available. Saints believed they had them and they were the TR. This reverse engineering, accusation of Ruckmanism, is disinformation by Ward and others.
The Assessment of Scrivener and the Which TR Question
Ward uses the assessment of Scrivener and the preface of the KJV translators as support for continued changes of the Greek text. This is disingenuous. The translators did not argue anywhere in the preface for an update of the underlying text. They said the translation, not the text, could be updated. That argument does not fit in a session on the Greek text, except to fool the ignorant.
Just because Scrivener collated the Greek words behind the KJV doesn’t mean that he becomes the authority on the doctrine of preservation any more than the translators of the KJV. It grasps at straws. I haven’t heard Scrivener used as a source of support for the Textus Receptus any time ever. I don’t quote him. If there is a critique, it should be on whether Scrivener’s text does represent the underlying text of the KJV, and if it does, it serves its purpose.
I have written on the “Which TR question” already many times, the most used argument by those in the debate for the critical text. It’s also a reason why we didn’t answer that question in our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them. If we addressed it, that would have been all anyone talked about. We say, deal with the passages on preservation first. We get our position from scripture.
I digress for one moment. Ward talks and acts as if no one has heard, which TR, and no one has ever answered it. Not only has that question been answered many times, but Ward himself has been answered. He said only Peter Van Kleeck had answered, which he did with a paper available online. Vincent Krivda did also.
The position I and others take isn’t that God would preserve His Words in Scrivener’s. The position is that all the Words are preserved and available to every generation of Christian. That’s why we support the Textus Receptus.
Ward never explains why men point to Scrivener’s. I have answered that question many times, but he doesn’t state the answer. He stated only the position of Peter Van Kleeck, because he had a clever comeback concerning sanctification. But even that misrepresented what Van Kleeck wrote.
The position I take, which fits also the position of John Owen, I call the canonicity argument. I have a whole chapter in TSKT on that argument. I’ve written about it many times here, going back almost two decades.
If pinned to the wall, and I must answer which TR edition, I say Scrivener’s, but it doesn’t even relate to my belief on the doctrine. What I believe is that all of God’s Words in the language in which they were written have been available to every generation of believer. I don’t argue that they were all available in one manuscript (hand-written copy) that made its way down through history. The Bible doesn’t promise that.
Scriptural Presuppositions or Not?
The critical text position, that Ward takes, cannot be defended from scripture. The position that I take arises from what scripture teaches. It’s the same position as believed by the authors of the Westminster Confession, London Baptist Confession, and every other confession. That is accepted and promoted by those in his associations.
Ward doesn’t even believe the historical doctrine of preservation. Textual variations sunk that for him, much like it did Bart Ehrman. Ward changed his presupposition not based upon scripture, but based upon what he thought he could see. It isn’t by faith that he understands this issue.
Some news out of Ward’s speech is that he doesn’t believe that God preserved every word of the Bible. He says he believes the “preponderance of the manuscripts” view. I call it “the buried text view.” Supporters speculate the exact text exists somewhere, a major reason why Daniel Wallace continues looking. That is not preservation.
“The manuscripts” are an ambiguous, sort of chimera to their supporters. They don’t think they have them yet, so how could there be the preponderance of anything yet? That view, the one supported by two books by BJU authors, From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man and God’s Word in Our Hands, they themselves do not believe. Ward walked it back during his speech too. They don’t really believe it. It’s a hypothetical to them. Men of the two above books don’t believe at least that they possess the Hebrew words of 1 Samuel 13:1 in any existing manuscript. At present, like a Ruckmanite, they correct the Hebrew text with a Greek translation.
In the comment section of the above first video, Ward counsels someone in the comment section to use a modern translation from the TR, such the NKJV. The NKJV, Ward knows, doesn’t come from the TR. There are variations from the TR used in the NKJV, a concession that Ward made in a post in his comment section after being shown 20-25 examples. He wrote this:
First the concession: I am compelled to acknowledge that the NKJV does not use “*precisely* the same Greek New Testament” text as the one underlying the KJV NT.
He could not find 2 John 1:7 of the NKJV in any TR edition. Does it matter? It does, especially a translation that calls itself the NEW King James Version. The translators did not use the same text as the KJV used, however Ward wants to represent that. I would happily debate him on the subject. I’m sure Thomas Ross would.
Mark Ward has committed not to debate on the text behind the KJV. He is committed now to taking shots from afar, leaving the safe shores of vernacular translation to hit on the text. Even though he says the variations do not affect the message of the Bible, he continues to argue against the text behind the King James Version.
Yes and Then No, the Bible with Mark Ward (Part One)
My last post of last week, the shell game with Bible words, if you followed the links, referred to a session Mark Ward did at Bob Jones Seminary, where he did refer to Thomas Ross and myself. Someone sent that to me, and in my path to watching it, I became curious in another of his videos. I’ll deal with both here. One I essentially agreed with, and the other, no.
******************
Chronologically, Mark Ward first made a podcast from his greenhouse about attending an IFB meeting close to where he lived. An IFB pastor invited him because R. B. Ouellette was going to preach on the King James issue. He didn’t say which church this was. It was surely revivalist in the Hyles/Sword realm. Ward started out ready to deal with KJVOnlyism, but it turned into something else. Here’s the podcast.
Ward traveled to a special meeting at a revivalist IFB church to interact with KJVO. Based upon a heads-up from its pastor, he expected something promoting KJVO. Ward reported much he liked about the service all the way up to the Ouellette sermon. Ouellette opened to Job 31:35-36 to defend KJVO. A plain reading of Job 31 does not appear to do that.
Ward and Ouellette both graduated from Bob Jones University. In his criticism, Ward distinguished between using the Bible for what a man wants to say and preaching what the Bible does say. By his account, Ouellette did the former. He was not a herald, who delivers the Word of the King. Ward titled his podcast, “The Biggest Step the IFB Needs to Take.” He treats IFB with generosity, more than what I would. Instead of the KJVO issue, he found a “preaching” one instead.
YES
Bad Preaching
I wrote, “Yes,” in this title. I agree with the criticism of this typical, popular IFB preaching. If IFB apparently cares for the perfection of its Bible, then preach the Bible. Its leaders very often preach like Ward described. He reported loud “Amens” shouted all around, which supported a message that twisted the Word of God. Ward exposed a reason for someone to separate from IFB churches and men. I say “Yes” to Ward. I agree with him.
What causes a man to preach like Ouellette? It’s not that he is unable to preach the Bible. Why would he settle for something entirely not what the passage says? Underlying doctrinal problems exist especially regarding the Holy Spirit. Keswick theology, second blessing theology, or revivalism, all similar error but with a nuance of difference, affect preaching.
Many IFB believe the preacher becomes a vessel for a message from the Holy Spirit. They believe that through the Holy Spirit God gives the preacher something others can’t even see in a text. This is called “preaching.” God uses “preaching,” but by that they don’t mean the Bible. The Bible is used, but the preaching is something unique. They trust the man of God has been given something they haven’t ever seen and can’t see.
However, I dispute preaching as the biggest step for IFB. It isn’t the “I” (independent) or the “B” (Baptist) in IFB that’s the problem. “F” for Fundamentalism is at the root of the problem. Actual preaching of the Bible isn’t a fundamental of fundamentalism. In general, IFB does not confront bad preaching. It allows it and even encourages it. If someone spiritualizes or allegorizes a passage and reads something into a text, it doesn’t bring condemnation. However, the biggest step for fundamentalism isn’t its preaching.
False Gospel
Fundamentalism is rife with a corrupted gospel. Ward commended the evangelism of IFB. What is the evangelism of IFB? Look all over the internet at the gospel presentations. Most IFB removes biblical repentance and the Lordship of Christ. Let’s say Ouellette rejected KJVO and started using the ESV, or even just the NKJV. Would he become acceptable to Ward, reaching his primary goal? Ouellette argues against repentance as necessary for salvation (I write here, here, and here). When you read doctrinal statements and the plans of salvation of those churches most associated with Ouellette, they’re the same.
A few years ago, James White participated in an interview with Steven Anderson. In White’s many criticisms of Anderson, he never mentions his false gospel. Anderson hosts an anti-repentance website. Anderson is worse than Ouellette, but both fall short of a biblical gospel. As White ignores Anderson’s gospel, Ward does Ouellette’s. This diverges from the often stated emphasis of evangelicals, the gospel of first importance. The version issue stokes greater heat than the gospel does.
Some IFB churches preach a true gospel even as some preach biblical sermons. Yet, a false gospel subverts IFB unrelated to the version of the Bible it uses. Years ago IFB allowed and even promoted the introduction and then acceptance of a false doctrine of salvation. I am happy Ward noticed the bad preaching of Ouellette, but his focus harms his ability to see the biggest IFB problem. Ward doesn’t mention the wrong gospel.
Recent Comments