Authorized (Mark Ward)

[Northern Crofter]

In recent years I have seen some assert that "private interpretation" in 2 Pet. 1:20 means an interpretation that differs from that of the Church, and that one has no right to differ from the decisions of synods, from the confessions of the Church, etc.
However, the phrasing of v. 21, "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," makes clear that a "private interpretation" is an interpretation that differs from the divine intent of the Holy Spirit, who is the original author.
Peter does not say "no Scripture is of private interpretation, for the Church interprets it," but "no Scripture is of private interpretation... but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
The idea that private interpretations are those which differ from the accepted doctrine of the Church is a Roman Catholic doctrine, which would lead to the conclusion that men like Martin Luther and other Reformers had no right to stand up to the false teachings of their day.

Agreed. My point was that we must judge new discoveries against what we already have using the principle of 2 Peter that I believe you have correctly explained (Calvin is very good on this verse, too). That does not mean a church's courts cannot be involved in deciding in cases of controversy, including the text of Scripture. There is both freedom of conscience and church authority. You may privately interpret Scripture to allow Arianism, for example, but you cannot go about trying to preach or teach it without consequence. The Church has the authority to declare something a heresy. Like Luther and Calvin, you can challenge it until they kick you out if you believe they are in error.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

Agreed. My point was that we must judge new discoveries against what we already have using the principle of 2 Peter that I believe you have correctly explained (Calvin is very good on this verse, too). That does not mean a church's courts cannot be involved in deciding in cases of controversy, including the text of Scripture. There is both freedom of conscience and church authority. You may privately interpret Scripture to allow Arianism, for example, but you cannot go about trying to preach or teach it without consequence. The Church has the authority to declare something a heresy. Like Luther and Calvin, you can challenge it until they kick you out if you believe they are in error.

Fair enough.
As the Confession says, "It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of His church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in His Word."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

One of Mark Noll's recent books, America's book, has a long discussion about how enduring the KJV is. A lot of the words that are in common parlance are from Tyndale that found their way into the KJV when they performed their translation work.

I hink that there was a time in the language of the nation when the KJV as a translation was important. I'm certainly not against it now for those who prefer it, but we find ourselves more as strangers and aliens to the culture rather than the Scriptures permeating even the speeches of congressman or ministers as they once did.

I think there is a hidden conclusion that, if the KJV once served as a bond of language, then English speaking Christians are expected to continue to use it for their Churches, family, and children. I don't share that assumption anymore than I think the Puritans ought to have never abandoned the Geneva Bible as the KJV slowly replaced it.

I think the important thing is that Chhurches and families are being established in the Word. I don't despise those who use the KJV for this purpose, but we don't "accidentally" prefer the ESV as it is the common translation in our corner of the Christian Church at large. Arguments about whether it should have never gained that use aside, it is what it is.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Who is arguing that there aren't difficulties with the KJV? But what it comes down to, as I have said, is that there is not a suitable alternative translation for those of us who hold to the TR. So until there is minor issues such as obsolete meanings of words isn't going to change our minds.

Hopefully me chiming in doesn’t result in friendly fire, as I am KJVSP+ (strongly preferred). Big TR fan as well. What do you think of Tolle Lege’s 1599 Geneva? I don’t like that it’s copy written, but I love having the reformer’s notes..

 

[Northern Crofter]

Hopefully me chiming in doesn’t result in friendly fire, as I am KJVSP+ (strongly preferred). Big TR fan as well. What do you think of Tolle Lege’s 1599 Geneva? I don’t like that it’s copy written, but I love having the reformer’s notes..

I am GSP+

 

[JimmyH]

So a forum member here posted a link to a discussion on YouTube which introduced me to Mark Ward some time ago. I made a comment on his video and he liked it and replied. It was apropos to the 'false friends' topic.

 

[YT&Reformed]

My greatest issue with this work is Ward's rhetorical style. Generally speaking, he follows this format:
1. Anecdote
2. Applies anecdote to broader group
3. Concludes argument based on his anecdotal experience
This is a great rhetorical strategy, but I'm not sure it actually gives the reader an accurate picture of the discussion related to the KJV. For every person Ward references who can't read the KJV, somebody can find an example of one who can. This points to the reality that comprehensibility is not the main reason people read Bibles, especially those who consider themselves students of the Scriptures. People that desire to involve themselves in study and even those who simply read the Bible casually are going to encounter new words in just about every translation, even the NIV (e.g. ephod, myrtles, offal, vaunts, etc.) Ward builds the case that our Bibles should be near-perfectly comprehensible from the very first read, while neglecting to point out that every Christian is going to have to learn new words regardless of which translation they have in their hands. I think most people will agree that the KJV requires reaching deeper into this department, but the claim he makes that the KJV is incomprehensible is confounding, especially since many of his videos are dedicated to actually explaining what words mean in the KJV and how they are comprehensible. I have been a harsh critic of Ward, largely because I do not appreciate how his rhetorical strategies come off as disingenuous. The central component of the debate does not appear to be comprehensibility, but rather the underlying textual discussion. As a final point, and to offer my own anecdote into the record, every person I have read the KJV to who was of Ward's opinion has been surprised at just how easy it was to understand. And that is one my chief complaints with Ward, whether intentional or not, he gives the impression that opening the KJV is akin to opening Beowulf of Chaucer. The reality is, most people with a high school education and even lower will not struggle terribly through the English text of the KJV.

 

[RamistThomist]

My greatest issue with this work is Ward's rhetorical style. Generally speaking, he follows this format:
1. Anecdote
2. Applies anecdote to broader group
3. Concludes argument based on his anecdotal experience
This is a great rhetorical strategy, but I'm not sure it actually gives the reader an accurate picture of the discussion related to the KJV. For every person Ward references who can't read the KJV, somebody can find an example of one who can. This points to the reality that comprehensibility is not the main reason people read Bibles, especially those who consider themselves students of the Scriptures. People that desire to involve themselves in study and even those who simply read the Bible casually are going to encounter new words in just about every translation, even the NIV (e.g. ephod, myrtles, offal, vaunts, etc.) Ward builds the case that our Bibles should be near-perfectly comprehensible from the very first read, while neglecting to point out that every Christian is going to have to learn new words regardless of which translation they have in their hands. I think most people will agree that the KJV requires reaching deeper into this department, but the claim he makes that the KJV is incomprehensible is confounding, especially since many of his videos are dedicated to actually explaining what words mean in the KJV and how they are comprehensible. I have been a harsh critic of Ward, largely because I do not appreciate how his rhetorical strategies come off as disingenuous. The central component of the debate does not appear to be comprehensibility, but rather the underlying textual discussion. As a final point, and to offer my own anecdote into the record, every person I have read the KJV to who was of Ward's opinion has been surprised at just how easy it was to understand. And that is one my chief complaints with Ward, whether intentional or not, he gives the impression that opening the KJV is akin to opening Beowulf of Chaucer. The reality is, most people with a high school education and even lower will not struggle terribly through the English text of the KJV.

The book isn't all anecdotes, as he engages in other argumentation. The problem isn't that some people can read the KJV and some can't. Rather, the idea, among others, that it is on a 5th grade reading level is a category mistake. Reading levels are moving targets.

 

[iainduguid]

One of the biggest problems that Ward points out is that of "False friends": so the issue is not simply that people can't understand the KJV, but that often they think that they can but misunderstand it unknowingly, because of changes in the meaning of the English language. This is much harder to combat than unknown vocabulary, which will be an issue in every Bible.

 

[YT&Reformed]

The book isn't all anecdotes, as he engages in other argumentation. The problem isn't that some people can read the KJV and some can't. Rather, the idea, among others, that it is on a 5th grade reading level is a category mistake. Reading levels are moving targets.

Right, as a general strategy, this is how he argues in the book. I agree that reading levels are a moving target, Ward even points out that these aren't the best metrics to judge the comprehensibility of the Bible. I agree with this. As a parent, I hope I do my job well enough for my progeny to have the wit to read not only the KJV, but the puritans. This is one of the points that Pastor Beeke makes, that reading the KJV opens one to the world of the Puritans. I assume we are all fans of the Puritans here, right? If the question is about the difficulty of the KJV, it seems it is more productive to produce better readers, not easier Bibles.

 

[YT&Reformed]

One of the biggest problems that Ward points out is that of "False friends": so the issue is not simply that people can't understand the KJV, but that often they think that they can but misunderstand it unknowingly, because of changes in the meaning of the English language. This is much harder to combat than unknown vocabulary, which will be an issue in every Bible.

I can understand that "False Friends" can be an issue, but it is an issue with a remedy. It is simply a matter of reading comprehension, and there aren't any false friends that can't be understood. In fact, Ward has done great work in identifying and clarifying just about every one of them. In many cases, context clues dispel any confusion that a "False Friend" creates. I am not convinced that this is a huge issue.

 

[RamistThomist]

I can understand that "False Friends" can be an issue, but it is an issue with a remedy. It is simply a matter of reading comprehension, and there aren't any false friends that can't be understood. In fact, Ward has done great work in identifying and clarifying just about every one of them. In many cases, context clues dispel any confusion that a "False Friend" creates. I am not convinced that this is a huge issue.

A simple reading of the KJV would not reveal that these are false friends. I have a great understanding of 17th century English, well, as good as anyone else, and I would have incorrectly understood what Paul meant by saying filthiness is not convenient.

 

[YT&Reformed]

I have a great understanding of 17th century English, well, as good as anyone else, and I would have incorrectly understood what Paul meant by saying filthiness is not convenient.

Which is it? Do you have a great understanding of 17th century English or would you have incorrectly understood what Paul meant? I do not believe these two can be true at once.

 

[RamistThomist]

Which is it? Do you have a great understanding of 17th century English or would you have incorrectly understood what Paul meant? I do not believe these two can be true at once.

I think they can be both true. Although I am reading 17th century English, I am still a 21st century person. The natural reading, unless I have reason to think otherwise, is that convenient means x (even though in 1611 it meant y).

 

[YT&Reformed]

I think they can be both true. Although I am reading 17th century English, I am still a 21st century person. The natural reading, unless I have reason to think otherwise, is that convenient means x (even though in 1611 it meant y).

I would assume, based on my limited interaction with you, that your faculties are perfectly suited to acquainting yourself with the English of the KJV. I wouldn't reduce yourself to simply being "a 21st century person". You are a Christian who concerns himself with study, which puts you in the camp of people I would find even more capable than the average person. I suspect you would do just fine if you gave it a shot. There is a plethora of resources, including those published by Mark Ward, which would make the task easy for you. In fact, being familiar with Ward's work puts you ahead of curve to look out for the limited number of tricky passages. Just my two cents, but I think you'd do just fine.

 

[RamistThomist]

I would assume, based on my limited interaction with you, that your faculties are perfectly suited to acquainting yourself with the English of the KJV. I wouldn't reduce yourself to simply being "a 21st century person". You are a Christian who concerns himself with study, which puts you in the camp of people I would find even more capable than the average person. I suspect you would do just fine if you gave it a shot. There is a plethora of resources, including those published by Mark Ward, which would make the task easy for you. In fact, being familiar with Ward's work puts you ahead of curve to look out for the limited number of tricky passages. Just my two cents, but I think you'd do just fine.

Thank you. In a normal reading situation, not having a reason to think otherwise, I would have read convenient as the way it means today, That is what a false friend means.

 

[YT&Reformed]

Thank you. In a normal reading situation, not having a reason to think otherwise, I would have read convenient as the way it means today, That is what a false friend means.

I think this is a really great point. When we are reading the Bible, I do not think we see ourselves as reading normally. We are ready to experience theological language, and we put our minds and hearts in a different place than if we were reading the Illiad, or 12 Rules for Life, or whichever novel you are concerning yourself with. As Reformed men, we have trained ourselves to go to God's Word for something other than a "normal reading situation". This obviously doesn't make us magically aware of "False Friends," but it does pre-dispose us to actually consuming every jot and tittle. I am not of the opinion that "False Friends" are not real, but I am of the thought that these can be learned in totum. Mark Ward has demonstrated this really well, and has provided a decent resource in documenting these difficulties. After a few reads of the KJV and being aware of these words, I think it reasonable to understand that they are just added to one's vocabulary in the same way we add a word like "propitiation".

 

[Logan]

My question is always why should learning nuances of Elizabethan English be a pre-requisite for feeding on God's word? It's an unnecessary additional (and artificial) barrier that only gets larger each year. At what point will that become not worthwhile to surmount? Never? I say this as someone who is quite familiar with and admires the KJV and regularly reads the Puritans.

But I also say it as someone who doesn't have the expectation that everyone should need to be just like me.

 

[YT&Reformed]

My question is always why should learning nuances of Elizabethan English be a pre-requisite for feeding on God's word? It's an unnecessary additional (and artificial) barrier that only gets larger each year. At what point will that become not worthwhile to surmount? Never? I say this as someone who is quite familiar with and admires the KJV and regularly reads the Puritans.

But I also say it as someone who doesn't have the expectation that everyone should need to be just like me.

I for one am not in favor of the Twitter Vernacular Bible. Produce better readers, not easier Bibles. Christians used to take pride in being educated.

 

[Ulster Fry]

Why do the options have to be KJV or Twitter?

 

[Polanus1561]

I use the KJV, but love a contemporary translation that uses the same language as the voice in my head to rebuke and exhort me. There is something about that.

 

[YT&Reformed]

I use the KJV, but love a contemporary translation that uses the same language as the voice in my head to rebuke and exhort me. There is something about that.

I use the king's English to pray and to exhort myself lol

 

[Logan]

I for one am not in favor of the Twitter Vernacular Bible. Produce better readers, not easier Bibles. Christians used to take pride in being educated.

Can you see that rather than answering the question, you posed a straw man? Literally no one here would be in favor of a Bible like you're posing.

You're also begging the question. You've assumed that the KJV is the only viable option and therefore the solution is to educate everyone in the nuances of Elizabethan English. This is a good example of why the conversation on this topic never moves forward.

I'll pose this question again, which I've asked repeatedly over the years and never seen a satisfactory answer to: can you ever envision a point at which the language of the KJV will become too much of an obstacle and it should be replaced, updated, etc.? If yes, what is your criteria for when you know we've reached that point? If not, then isn't that an issue where it has essentially become the new Latin Vulgate?

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

I for one am not in favor of the Twitter Vernacular Bible. Produce better readers, not easier Bibles. Christians used to take pride in being educated.

False dilemma, Taylor. Hi by the way.

The options are not "The good old King James" or else Twitterspeak.

 

[Polanus1561]

Everyone in the global church of Christ is reading their bible today in contemporary language (broad brush but I believe it mostly true). Which fits Jesus speaking to people in the contemporary language of that day.

Again, love the KJV but why are 21st century English speaking folks to be the minority of the global church in history to read the bible in non-contemporary language?

 

[Logan]

Yes, we can and should strive to educate Christians, but it seems to me that time is better spent educating on the contents of Scripture rather than the nuances of a particular 400 year old translation of Scripture (although yes, absolutely there are tradeoffs to moving away from it). The KJV translators' preface to the reader specifically highlighted that the purpose of translating Scripture was to also be for the unlearned, the uneducated:

"...The godly-learned were not content to have the Scriptures in the language which themselves understood, Greek and Latin...but also for the behoof and edifying of the unlearned which hungered and thirsted after righteousness, and had souls to be saved as well as they, they provided translations into the vulgar for their countrymen..."

Everything has tradeoffs. There are good reasons for sticking with the KJV, but there are also definite detriments. Both should be acknowledged. And at some point the detriments outweigh the benefits. That should also be acknowledged and identified.

I had a friend who was a new Christian and was really trying hard, but really struggling to read the KJV. A Reformed, KJV advocate's response to him relating his struggles was literally "my 6-year old daughter can read it just fine." That lack of even trying to understand or sympathize with the difficulty some people have (i.e., "you just need to get over it"), is a big part of my concern. The difficulty does exist, whether you think it should or should not. Now what do we do about it? If the expectation is that the only viable (or best) option is it simply be surmounted, why? And why are the alternative options unacceptable?

 

[YT&Reformed]

False dilemma, Taylor. Hi by the way.

The options are not "The good old King James" or else Twitterspeak.

Hi! Good seeing you here.
The options or not that...yet!

 

[YT&Reformed]

Yes, we can and should strive to educate Christians, but it seems to me that time is better spent educating on the contents of Scripture rather than the nuances of a particular 400 year old translation of Scripture (although yes, absolutely there are tradeoffs to moving away from it). The KJV translators' preface to the reader specifically highlighted that the purpose of translating Scripture was to also be for the unlearned, the uneducated:

"...The godly-learned were not content to have the Scriptures in the language which themselves understood, Greek and Latin...but also for the behoof and edifying of the unlearned which hungered and thirsted after righteousness, and had souls to be saved as well as they, they provided translations into the vulgar for their countrymen..."

Everything has tradeoffs. There are good reasons for sticking with the KJV, but there are also definite detriments. Both should be acknowledged. And at some point the detriments outweigh the benefits. That should also be acknowledged and identified.

I had a friend who was a new Christian and was really trying hard, but really struggling to read the KJV. A Reformed, KJV advocate's response to him relating his struggles was literally "my 6-year old daughter can read it just fine." That lack of even trying to understand or sympathize with the difficulty some people have (i.e., "you just need to get over it"), is a big part of my concern. The difficulty does exist, whether you think it should or should not. Now what do we do about it? If the expectation is that the only viable (or best) option is it simply be surmounted, why? And why are the alternative options unacceptable?

I think it mighty important to educate Christians on the contents as well! My opinion is that the tradeoffs are not worth it, which is why my family reads the KJV. I'll advocate for it as long as I'm able. My main point is that it's really not as difficult as people make it out to be. Typically it's people who haven't cracked a page of it that are its greatest opponents.

 

[YT&Reformed]

Everyone in the global church of Christ is reading their bible today in contemporary language (broad brush but I believe it mostly true). Which fits Jesus speaking to people in the contemporary language of that day.

Again, love the KJV but why are 21st century English speaking folks to be the minority of the global church in history to read the bible in non-contemporary language?

Based on our data, the majority of Bible readers haven't thrown away their KJV just yet! Also, the KJV is "contemporary"

 

[JP Wallace]

I for one am not in favor of the Twitter Vernacular Bible. Produce better readers, not easier Bibles. Christians used to take pride in being educated.

Yes, but.

It is interesting to note that throughout the history of the Church, God has in fact it seems not really taken that position. The apostles spread the Gospel throughout their "reachable" world using the Greek language, the lingua franca of the day - they did not tell their converts, learn Hebrew. In the reformation and even before that with Tyndale and Wycliffe, they did not take that approach either even when Rome was taking that approach in relation to the Latin Vulgate - their attitude was learn Latin. The Reformers said rather to their ministers learn Hebrew and Greek so that you translate it into French, German, English, Scots etc.

Surely all of us want the tribes in the Amazon to have the Bible in their own language if that is achieveable before Christ returns. Why is English the only language we are not permitted to make as fully understandable as possible while remaining faithful to the original texts? Why must we say "learn to read better?"