Another Video from Mark Ward

Mark Ward made another video about the underlying text of the NKJV, differing with the KJV.  He brought back the blog discussion he, some of his followers, and I had (see this, this, and this) in an original assertion that King James users make this claim, but they give zero evidence.  In the comment section, I started by giving five examples (that’s called giving evidence).  Mark argues with those, so I provided more, and this occurred until I gave 19 of them (no wonder people may not want to try to give their evidence).

I did not put a lot of work into looking for my 19 examples.  It did take awhile, however, to write the comments at his blog and argue with Ward (and some other men who assisted him) in his defense.  Ward finally relented and concluded that the two underlying texts were not identical.  So there we were.  Deep breath.  Go back to normal life.

Changing Tune

Now Ward changes his tune and he says he can defend all nineteen I showed (the video is here).  His treatment of me was about a third, a little less or more, of his video.  He takes a personal shot by saying that it’s the only time he’s ever seen me defer on anything (what’s the point of that?).  Ward spoke of four of the examples on which I deferred.  My listing of nineteen was not intended as a scholarly paper.  The examples convinced me the two texts (the ones behind each the NKJV and the KJV) were not identical.

Mark Ward doesn’t try very hard to use his resources to find the answer on the text underlying the NKJV from its translators.  He seems to favor burying his head in the sand and just trusting whatever the translators said, rejecting every other critic.  Many of those translators still live.  Why not just ask some of them?  Instead, someone such as myself must look up these examples for him to shoot down.

My Comments Blocked Under Bad Faith Video

Now when I comment on Ward’s video, he blocks my comments.  He cancels me, thereby keeping his false claims unrefuted.  He creates the bubble in which acolytes might abide in ignorance of the facts.  I’m not insulting him with comments, unless proving him wrong is an insult.

I thought everyone could see my comments, but I noticed I got zero thumbs-up from anyone.  Since I didn’t see this as possible, I logged in with a different account and found that none of my comments appeared to anyone.  Ward for sure has the right to block me.  However, he really should make it known he’s blocking my comments, and at least explain why he won’t allow them.  That would be Christian behavior.

Ward did not make an even-handed presentation with his latest video.  It was not a pursuit of the truth, but an attempt to buoy up his own indefensible position.  I would also call it a bad faith video, since the discussion is not about the use of variants from other TR editions.  Never ever have I taken that view of preservation, that God preserves the exact words from among all the TR editions.  He misrepresents me in that way.  I’ve explained all this in a recent series I did here.  I would assess that he doesn’t care if he represents his contestants correctly.

Underlying Text Different

The NKJV translators should have used the identical text as the KJV.  Not doing so is a form of false advertising in my opinion.  The NKJV publishers are fooling people into thinking that it’s the same as the KJV except with updated language.  It’s just not the case.  I still prefer the NKJV to almost every other modern version.  Of course I like it better than most.  It’s closer to the KJV than most modern versions.  But the translators went ahead and did this thing.  Ward should be upset at them, not at me.  He should give them the comeuppance they deserve instead of beating this dead horse with me and others.

Because of Mark Ward’s video, I again started looking for more differences, except this time in a more systematic fashion.  I did not do that to find my 19 examples, published in the comment section of his blog and repeated here on mine.  What I am doing now is beginning a series of posts in which I provide more evidence that the NKJV uses a different underlying text than the KJV.  I don’t mind if someone wants to argue with my conclusions, but I’m being careful with my observations.  I can only look at the two translations and then some textual evidence found in the United Bible Society Greek New Testament, the Greek text behind the KJV, Stephanus 1550, and even Robinson-Pierpoint “Majority Text” New Testament.  I’ve started to do that.

More Examples of Textual Variation Between NKJV and KJV

So far I looked only at Matthew 1-17, and I’ve found over ten examples of textual variation between the underlying Greek text of the NKJV and the KJV.  At this rate, I’m going to get far more than 19 for the whole New Testament.  Mark Ward now behaves as if there are three total differences, even though he’s never looked for differences.  He doesn’t care.

I don’t get Mark Ward.  It would take a list several pages long to explain.  He admits that he gets angry privately over all people like me, as if he is a persecuted saint.  His statements and attitude show that it’s more than private.  He rails on people who take my position and treats them like trash.  His followers in the comment section seem almost entirely clueless.  Almost none of them know what’s going on, and he’s happy to keep them in the dark.  Even though they don’t even understand, they still defend him rabidly.  He accepts many of their falsehoods, leaving them uncorrected — almost no push back against serial slanderers.

Mark Ward’s followers don’t understand even this NKJV text issue among many others, because he doesn’t represent properly those he opposes.  No one would know the real problem, because Mark Ward doesn’t tell them.  He caricatures his foes and knocks down strawmen.

With everything above being said, I want to end this post by beginning to give other example I’ve found of textual variation between the underlying text of the NKJV and the KJV.  Know this.  There is not published underlying text of the NKJV.  To find it, I’ve got to look probably like Scrivener had to cull printed editions and manuscripts to represent the text behind the KJV.  Ironic, huh?

Matthew 9:17

I’m only in Matthew, so look at Matthew 9:17, an example somewhere in the middle of my list.  Here is the quotation from the KJV first, the NKJV second, and the ESV third.

KJV — Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

NKJV — Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.

ESV — Neither is new wine put into old wineskins. If it is, the skins burst and the wine is spilled and the skins are destroyed. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved.

The NKJV and the ESV agree.  They both follow the Nestle-Aland 27th edition present-indicative-passive verb from apollumi, appolluntai.  The underlying text for the KJV is apolountai, future-indicative-middle from apollumi.  I would think Ward would find difficulty denying this example, because it follows his KJV parallel Bible online for Matthew 9:17.  Here in Matthew 9:17 the NKJV follows the critical text reading, not the TR.  Both Stephanus 1550 and Robinson-Pierpoint have the same verb as the underlying text of the KJV, seen in Scrivener’s text.

More to Come