“Now the Church must hear Christ’s voice. Christ’s sheep will hear his voice, John 10:16. They will neither hear nor follow a stranger, ver. 5. Christ’s voice is not to be heard but in the Scriptures. Therefore other doctrine must not be received of the Church than is taught and delivered in the Scriptures. This directly impungeth the popish opinion of unwritten traditions which they bring in beside, yea contrary to the scriptures, which the they hold not to contain all things necessary to salvation. But the Apostle saith otherwise, that the Scriptures are able to make one wise unto salvation and to make the man of God perfectly prepared to every good work, 2 Timothy 3;15, 17. If perfect wisdom be found in the scriptures, what need is there of any other additions. Whatsoever is added to that which is perfect showeth a defect and is superfluous. Therefore Tertullian saith excellently, We need no curious invention after Christ, nor no inquisition after (of beside) the Gospel. If any will search further, he is like a wayfaring man without a guide in a desert country, and as a ship on the sea without a pilot. To leave the scripture is a way to error, not a stay from erring as he again worthily saith, They believe without Scripture, that they may believe against scripture.“

[Tertullian makes an interesting observation in the last quote. To believe without Scripture does not give the believer a neutral viewpoint, or an open-minded perspective, or a scholarly skeptical perspective in relation to the Scripture. Rather, to believe without Scripture sets them on a trajectory to “believe against scripture” or to oppose the content of Scripture. Again we see the Orthodox Reformation theme of the incompatibility and indeed the warfare between faith human or faith divine.]

Andrew Willet, A Treatise of Solomons Marriage (London: Imprinted by F.K. for Thomas Mann the elder and William Welby, and are to be sold at the Swanne in Pauls church-yard, 1612), 8-9.

Weiland passed away some years ago and so his YouTube channel is not being monitored/updated. Still, his content was and is in so many ways spot on. I am considering sharing all of his stuff here so that we can bring his material back into the light. In this video Weiland addresses what looks like a now old Dividing Line where James White voiced his disapproval of Theodore Letis’ Ecclesiastical Text.

I was recently invited to teach my mom’s Sunday School class while visiting her in Florida. At 67 I was the “spring chicken” Sunday, but we had a marvelous time together around the things of the Lord. As class started a young man that I learned later was 20 came in and sat down with us. It wasn’t exactly his age group for Sunday School but everyone is welcome.

Nearing the close of the Bible lesson taken from Hebrews 11;1, I was asked to say something about the Bible version issue. Not being my church, and knowing the hot button it can be, I hesitated at first and then gave a succinct overview of the current state of the debate concluding that the Church has always had a Standard Sacred Text from which to determine right and wrong and good and bad. It was a general statement, not at all, in my opinion prickly. This class wasn’t the proper venue for a longer response. Plus, it was time to depart.

Pretty sure I was in the clear, the young visitor to the class approached me to show me his brand new, still in the box with the advertising pamphlet on top, New Revised Standard Version. It wasn’t cheap. The new bible aroma wafted through the air as the top cover of the box was removed.

I was clear to say that I find value in all versions, because all the versions contain the Word of God, and to the extent that they properly translate the Hebrew and Greek apographa they have value. This of course would have included the brand spanking new NRSV. But this was not the young man’s problem with what I said. His problem was that I said the KJB was the standard by which all other English versions should be judged for accuracy. To say there was a standard that would provide a conclusion as to what is and is not God’s word was intolerable for him.

The brief exchange I had with him felt like nailing Jello to the wall. With no standard, there was no conclusive answer for anything and he liked it that way. Having gathered his elementary, eclectic apologetic from bits and pieces he discovered on the internet, it seemed his mission was to simply make sure no one had a standard for what is and is not the Bible.

I pointed to the box which said in large print New Revised Standard Version. Even the publishers that decide whether he has a bible to read based on sales figures see the importance of using the adjective “standard” for marketing purposes. What impressed me most was his unwavering, dogmatic confidence based on second-, third-, and fourth-hand online information while burying the testimony of the Holy Spirit through the word of God somewhere on the back 40. I said my confidence was in the testimony of the Holy Spirit through the word of God and that his confidence was in the mind of educated but fallen men and the ambivalence and fluidity of textual criticism; that what he was arguing would require a lifetime of study without concluding, followed by the expectation that everyone engage in this enterprise. Here at Standardsacredtext we argue that no technical training is necessary for every saint to know and understand God’s word. The alternative is claiming to reach the bottom of an abyss of changing data, thinking that you can get your arms around all the information, keep the true, discard the false, and finally decide inductively and empirically from the bottom-up what God Almighty, maker of heaven and earth has said.

It doesn’t matter if you have multiple Ph.D.’s or a sophomoric argument created by perusing online posts, to thoughtfully conceive of the notion that this so-called “science” has any intrinsic authority should immediately stop the conscientious inquirer in his or her tracks, draw them to their knees, and beg God for forgiveness of considering their ways His ways, and their thoughts His thoughts. Superbia is not the first of the seven deadly sins for no reason; it afflicts the uneducated and highly educated in the same fashion.

(Reposted with permission)

OVERVIEW

Kjvparallelbible is a website created and run by Mark Ward. The main portion of the site includes the text of the New Testament in two versions. The one on the left (or top if you are on a phone or smaller device) is the King James Version and the other is a hypothetical King James Version if it were translated from the modern Critical Text (Nestle-Aland 28th edition). There are a few other informational parts of the site, but the emphasis is on the comparison of the two texts. It should be noted that while Mark promotes and runs the site, the work of editing the KJV text (as far as I know) was not done by Mark himself and neither has he checked the work thoroughly. In the “about” section of the site a note says, “In 2021–2022, an editor was paid to go through the project looking for errors.” So while Ward didn’t do the work, he is the one promoting the site and responsible for its current state.

ITS PURPOSE

The site itself doesn’t give much information as to its purpose. The information it does give on the homepage is unclear or in some sense inaccurate.

“Among the 5,000+ Greek manuscripts of the New Testament that we still have, there are differences. But unless you read Greek, you cannot know for yourself what these differences are. You have to take someone else’s word for it. Until now.”

The first point of confusion is that the site does not attempt to translate all the variants in Greek manuscripts and neither does it translate any of the variants in the apparatus of the modern Critical Text. Therefore one still would not “know for yourself what these differences are” among the 5,000+ Greek manuscripts. Secondly, you are still taking “someone else’s word for it” by using a site prepared by someone else.

Next the homepage says, “Using the KJV Parallel Bible, English speakers can see for themselves the differences between the two major textual traditions. This site compares: Scrivener’s Textus Receptus, the Greek text underlying the KJV, and… the Critical Text, the Greek text underlying most modern Bible translations.” The site however does not seem to compare Scrivener to the Critical Text, but more the KJV to the ESV. There are places where the KJV does not read like a literal translation of Scrivener’s text and there are places where the ESV does not read like a literal translation of the NA28 Critical Text. When Scrivener assembled his text, he used Greek New Testaments which were printed previous to 1611 and the 1611 first printing of the KJV, but the KJV translators were not bound to just printed editions of the Greek New Testament. Also the modern KJV text has some variants compared to the 1611 printing. For example, at the end of Ephesians the 1611 KJV printing did not have “Amen” and so Scrivener (somewhat against his principles since it is found in all the printed Greek texts) left it out of his edition of the Textus Receptus. However KJVParallelBible keeps “Amen” like the modern form of the KJV and against Scrivener’s Textus Receptus. Another example is the word “knowing” in Matthew 9:4 where again KJVParallelBible follows the KJV against Scrivener. This contradiction can also be seen in the “about” section of the site where it says, “There are also differences between the TR and the CT that do not appear on this site because the King James supplies in italics the very word that, though absent from Scrivener’s TR, is present in the CT.” The writer there acknowledges that the KJV’s English is the basis and not Scrivener’s Greek. As for the comparison to the Critical Text, this too seems not to be entirely accurate. The translators of the ESV did not follow in every place the main text of the NA28. For instance in Mark 6:22 the ESV chose to go against the NA28 text and instead used a variant Greek reading. Mark’s site follows the ESV in the edited KJV column instead of the Critical Text (more on this later). So the site does not show “Scirvener’s Textus Receptus and… The Critical Text…” but instead seemingly attempts to compare the KJV against the ESV (something most English speakers should be able to do without taking someone else’s word for it by using this site).

Beyond just demonstrating differences or similarities between the KJV and the Critical Text, what is the principle motivation for the site? Robert Vaughn theorized “The site exists to show that there is not much difference between the texts behind the KJV and modern translations in order to lead readers to conclude they should change to a modern translation, and to show that there is enough difference between the texts in order to lead readers to conclude they should change to a modern translation.” This seems to agree with Ward’s ministry of being an apostle to the KJVO (https://youtube.com/…/Ugkx-Tc_KjjazCZhEBw_lK3HZCry…).

ERRORS

Besides the confusion in the promotional language of the site, there are clear errors in the text as it is presented. When I first saw the site I thought it might be a resource for quickly comparing modern translations which claim to have been translated from the TR. However, upon examination, I noticed that the text of what should have been Revelation 18 actually was the text of Revelation 19. In another case, Mark 5:13 was flipped; the KJV text was in the place of the Critical Text and vice versa. The same thing happened to Mark 9:33, as well as the whole chapters of Mark 13, Acts 11 and 17. I notified Mark about these errors and they have been corrected although my name doesn’t appear on the “volunteers” section of the site (all the better for the time being).

ERRORS WHICH REMAIN

While the above examples were corrected, Mark 5:42 remains flipped. The KJV reads “And they were astonished with a great astonishment” but the site adds to the KJV text “immediately” before “astonished” apparently from the Critical Text (or the ESV). I don’t know how many other examples like this might exist.

As previously mentioned, Mark 6:22 is not correct. The NA28 text reads “τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ Ἡρῳδιάδος” contrary to Scrivener’s “της θυγατρος αυτης της ηρωδιαδος”. The NET translates the critical text as, “his daughter Herodias”, but the ESV does not follow the text in the main body of the NA28 and reads more like the KJV. Luke 23:32 is another text which is not correctly notated, at least if one agrees with the translation given by Wallace’s NET Bible and the footnotes of the same “Two other criminals” (I told Mark about this latter example almost 2 years ago and it has not been changed yet, despite the site claiming, “Any errors will gladly be corrected if they are sent to the administrator, Mark Ward.”). Again the site follows the ESV instead of the NA28. Revelation 1:8 is still wrong even though Nick Sayers pointed it out on FB comments quite a while ago (“the beginning and the ending” should be removed from the Critical Text edition). There are other clear variants which are not properly marked, but it isn’t my job to edit the site.

Contrary to the normal process, in some places what should be the standard KJV text seems to have been changed to read more like a literal translation of Scrivener. In Mark 6:55 the site adds “there” to the end of the KJV text which apparently was taken from Scrivener. It also adds “her” before “hand” in Mark 1:31 like Scrivener. But in the “about” section of the site it says, “The specific edition of the KJV used on this site is the Authorized Version made available by Logos Bible Software.” Possibly those working on the text were not properly informed of the details of the project. As we noted above, the advertising is confusing and probably the creator wanted to kill two birds (the KJV and the TR) with one stone, but didn’t know how to accurately accomplish such a goal nor did he express such objectives to the editor/s.

I do not believe that Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 (as well as Luke 22:43-44 and 23:34) are presented honestly. I understand that the Critical Text has variants even within those passages, but they are in double brackets of which the introduction to the NA28 text says that they are, “early insertions in the textual tradition”. Those entire portions should be red and the variants within it possibly noted in a different color. I understand that it makes things slightly more complicated and messy, but these are important passages which should be honestly and clearly marked.

OVERSENSITIVITY

Another problem with the site is actually opposite of what is pointed out above. In some cases it might be overly sensitive. If one were to use the site literally (that is assuming that every variant is clearly and accurately marked) they would conclude that the NKJV often follows the Critical Text. For example in Hebrews 7:16 the KJV uses the word “carnal” while the site gives a Critical Text translation as “fleshly”. What does the NKJV read at that verse – “fleshly”. The same thing happens in 2 Corinthians 7:10 with “worketh” and “produceth”; John 12:4 “Then” and “But”; John 4:9 “which am”; and many other places. I understand that the differences at times are so minute that it is hard to demonstrate the variant, but sometimes the site is too sensitive for its own good or use.

CONCLUSION

In its current condition I’m not sure what value the site has. It is not accurate enough to show all the differences between the CT and the TR or KJV (forgiving for the moment the indecisive objective of the site). Yet it is too oversensitive to be used to make a quick comparison of translations which claim to have been translated by the TR. In the end I cannot recommend this site for any accurate use. I would suggest that the creator choose a clear objective, pass that on to a qualified editor and then check the text himself before promoting it.

I’ve been trying to get YouTube to help me split this interview up but every time I embed a section of video the timestamp is always off. So I thought I would share the whole interview with a few comments.

The topics covered are:
1.) Where does the Standard Sacred Text position fall among the other positions on the biblical text and translation?
2.) Is there value in doing textual criticism?
3.) Are scholars today of the same caliber as those of the Reformation?
4.) Are the manuscripts we have now fundamentally better than those had by the Church in the past.
4.) What kind of education did you have over the years?
5.) How do we get this message out?
6.) How does our position differ from other TR positions?
7.) What do we mean by Canon?
8.) What’s up with the AI Bible Argument?
9.) Why Plantinga and not Van Til?
10.) What is the role of the majority in making textual decisions?
11.) What is the relationship of exegesis, theology, and theological confessions?
12.) How do we account for true Christians holding to different versions?
13.) What are your thoughts on the Roman Catholics doing the work of biblical textual criticism and the Protestant Bible.
14.) What are your thoughts on your debate with James White?
15.) What were your debate preparations like and would you do it differently?
16.) If you were to debate JW again, would you challenge him on his views of Erasmus?
17.) Is the distinction between inerrant and infallible helpful?
18.) Is the KJV the standard sacred text of the English Speaking Community?
19.) What is your position on Ruckman type KJVO?
20.) What impact is Bart Ehrman having on the Church?
21.) Are there more KJV/TR people out there than we think?
22.) How should we disseminate these things we believe?
23.) What do you mean by “Poking the Bear”?
24.) What’s it like to do Bible Defense with your Dad?
25.) What would you do if you had 100,000,000 dollars?
26.) What are your thoughts on Mark Ward and his work?
27.) The cognitive dissonance of JW believing in the long ending of Mark based on evidence.
28.) 1984, belief in what is true, and what is the true reading?
29.) The Textual Confidence Collective and its categories.
30.) Thoughts on Westcott and Hort.

In this second segment of my recent discussion with Nick Sayer’s we compare the scholarship of the past with scholarship of the present. We also briefly address the state of the manuscript tradition now verses 400 years ago.

I was recently on Nick Sayer’s Revolution YouTube channel and I thought it would be profitable to break down the interview (it was almost 4 hours long) into smaller pieces over the course of the next several weeks.

In the following segment I was asked where I would locate the Standard Sacred Text position in the greater scope of Evangelical textual positions. Additionally, we interact with the current relationship of textual scholarship and biblical exegesis. Give it a watch and let us know your thoughts.

Blessings.

Today I was perusing Facebook and noticed that a couple of those men who often disagree with the Standard Sacred Text position were expressing their heartfelt joy and thankfulness in the wife of their youth. Praise the Lord for that and may their love remain strong as death itself. In a world where marriage is being maligned from every quarter we need to praise the Lord for our spouses at least as loud as those who seek to demean that blessed institution of marriage.

That said, it was interesting to me that these men referred to their beloved as “the most amazing woman in the world” and similar words of praise. But is she? I would disagree. MY WIFE is the “most amazing woman in the world!” They can’t both be the most amazing woman in the world. Are we to believe that men all over the western world who today proclaim the greatness of their respective wives are wrong? I don’t think so, but what makes them right?

A man’s amazing wife is amazing in very meaningful, personal, and soulish ways, ways that you cannot rob him of. And why? Because he has lived life with her. He has experience for better and for worse with her as well as for richer and for poorer. What is more, he and she are said to be one flesh in some mysterious union of two souls which is difficult to quantify, difficult to categorize but it is no less true. And what if someone were to come along and challenge the amazingness of this man’s wife?

One challenger says, “I have multiple wives and they are basically equally amazing. What is more, I can be married to each of them equally. Give up your One-Wife Onlyism and join us Multiple-Wife Only-ists!” Does the man with the amazing wife ditch his amazing wife for supposedly greener pastures? I would think not. Don’t forget that the man with the amazing wife has “the most amazing wife in the world”. Equally amazing wives cannot be the “most amazing” by definition.

Another challenger enters and proclaims the perceived foibles, errors, and faults of the man’s “most amazing wife”. “I could never marry a woman with that color hair,” he says, “or that laugh, or that smile, or that personality, or that height and on and on.” Perhaps this opponent says, “My wife is easier to read, that’s why I chose the wife I did. Your wife on the other hand is difficult to read. I can’t tell when she is serious and when she is joking. It’s time to get a new wife.” Does the man with the most amazing wife trade in his wife because some other guy doesn’t understand or doesn’t like the most amazing wife? I think not.

Yet another challenger claims that this man’s most amazing wife says things that the husband thinks he understands but in the end doesn’t. And the man with the most amazing wife agrees that this happens often. For example, the wife asks, “Do I look fat in this dress?” or “Do you like my new hairstyle?” On their face these questions seem to be asking style questions and could easily be understood as such, but if you fall for these false friends know that you are not alone. These questions are actually tests of how well the husband with the most amazing wife knows his wife, understands her, her motives, her language, the context of the questions, the husband’s capacity for truth telling, and the spirit in which it is told. Does the man with the most amazing wife trade in his wife for one with less false friends? Is it possible that all wives (even the most amazing one in the world) present false friends to their husbands? It seems so, but the challenger who loves to talk about false friends won’t take the time answer that question because he’s too busy cleaning up slanderous remarks in a video he made calling out other people’s supposed slander.

Dear reader I’m having a bit of fun here, but the truth is that words of God abide forever and as amazing as your wife is this Valentine’s Day neither you nor your marriage will abide forever. Nor has God promised to preserve you, your wife, or your marriage from the corruptions of men and the wastes of time. Your marriage is not inspired and neither are you nor is your wife. Marriages will pass away but God’s words will not.

Yet we are told time and time again that multiple versions (as opposed to multiple wives) is better than clinging to the Scripture of your youth, to the most amazing Scripture in all the world. We are told that our Scripture has errors and sounds funny, yet in some ways it is more home to us than the house we live in. We are told that our Bible has “false friends” as if that is grounds to sever our relationship to the most amazing Scripture in all the world.

I hope you can see why such claims and objections are laughable except perhaps for the discontented. If they won’t work in separating me from the most amazing woman in the world (which of course is MY wife), then why believe such claims and objections would separate Christ’s bride from each and every of the Bridegroom’s inspired and preserved words to His most amazing wife in all the world across the millennia of human history?