Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Starting today and going through the end of Monday, December 2nd all of our books are on sale for ~50% (some not quite 50% and others at or below 50%). You can find the links below. It will take a second for the prices to update on Amazon.

Blessings,

The Standard Sacred Text Team

• Then He Poked the Bear
• An Exegetical Grounding for a Standard Sacred Text
• A Theological Grounding for a Standard Sacred Text
• A Philosophical Grounding for a Standard Sacred Text

by Christopher Yetzer (Reposted with permission)

I’m weary of all the MW posts so I’m going to try to say everything at once and be done. I will discuss briefly some problems with the KJV survey followed by a summary of thoughts on the https://kjvfalsefriends.com/ website. I will not attack the man, but the content. I believe this can be helpful and clarifying.

Given that MW has declared that at the end of 2024 he will no longer be focusing on the topic of the KJV (although he has 2 books scheduled to be released in 2025 concerning the KJV) I thought it might be good to evaluate his ministry and apostleship over the last 6 years or so.

1. Let’s start with the obvious. There are difficulties in the KJV. Just as there are in every Bible. To say that the language of the KJV never causes difficulties to anyone would be to put your head in the sand. https://youtube.com/…/Ugkx_XSgreecildFLeeAiK3ZbsGra0n7… (if you doubt the understanding, just read Mark 4:16-17). Over a decade before Ward released his book from the pulpit in chapel our college president recommended the Defined KJV. I had a somewhat new Bible so I didn’t get one right away, but a few years later my wonderful wife gifted me a Defined KJV and since then it has been my standard Bible from which I do devotions.

2. Problems with the Survey:

A. It was not conducted by a neutral party, but created and conducted by someone who desired the results that he got.

B. I have not looked through all the results, but the ones I’ve seen demonstrate bias on the part of those doing the examination. For instance respondent 73 gives a very broad application of the entire verse for question 4 and is considered “Incorrect” when they didn’t even discuss the specific word. Many people responded to question 1 with a vague sense of the passage, not looking at the specific words, “A wife. And that is a female wife. It’s not man and man or woman and woman.” Just remember that the callers were not given multiple choice answers. They were just explaining things according to context and application in their own words on the spot.

C. It only focused on the KJV and did not ask similar questions of any other modern version (In Mark’s book on page 46 he uses “fell on his neck” as an example of a difficulty in comprehension in the KJV. However that same phrase is used twice in the ESV in Genesis.)

D. While the same word may be found in a clearer context, the words and contexts chosen were those which might be most vague.

E. We do not know all the people or the state that they were in while the survey was being conducted.

F. Pronouns: While we need to do better at teaching quick and easy methods for remembering the difference between pronouns (like the ones that start with a “t” have a single tip at the top and therefore are singular. The ones that start with a “y” have two tips at the top and are therefore plural.), this is something that was already somewhat archaic in 1611. “A careful study of the court records of the northern English city of Durham suggests that “you” had replaced “thou” as the normal form of address in spoken English by about 1575. The decision to use “thou” was a departure from the norm…” – [McGrath, Alister. “The Story of the King James Bible” in Translation That Openeth the Window.] This does not dismiss the challenge that these pronouns can cause, but it encourages us that this is not something which has become archaic in modern times; it was a purposeful feature of the translation. Ward and others will swallow the camel when it comes to terms like “Sheol” and yet strain at the gnat of “thee”. If Sheol (a non-English word Ward admits can and should be translated) should be permitted because of the theological difficulty of translating the original languages into English, than why cannot “thee” be permitted to provide a clearer sense of the original languages and the difficulties be acceptable?

G. Beyond the first section, the other questions are problematic. (It seems that maybe the answers are automatically mixed every time you take the quiz, so I cannot refer to them in number order).

Question #1. In the context of the passage 2 answers would be acceptable. The NET, Message and a few other modern Bibles use “companion”.

Question #2. In the context of the passage 3 answers may be understood. While some commentaries like Gill specifically deny this is talking about the Jews, Adam Clarke leaves this possibility open. Regarding this Barnes says, “It is often, however, in the New Testament, employed particularly to denote the flesh of animals; Heb, Mat_9:10; Mat_13:9; Rom_14:15, Rom_14:20; 1Co_8:8, 1Co_8:13. As it was animal food particularly which was forbidden under the Jewish code, and as the questions on this subject among Christians would relate to the same kinds of prohibition, it is probable that the word has the same limited signification here, and should be taken as meaning the same thing that the word “meat” does with us.” Barnes was no KJVonlyist, but he would have got this wrong according to the way it was conducted. The Living Bible translates “meat” here.

Question #3. Again all three answers could be acceptable. 2 Answers are both a specific task of the other one and seem to be at least one of the tasks required by the context of “rightly dividing the word of truth.” The MEV (which Mark recommends) still has this reading.

Question #4. Again if you are lame or walking limp, are you not hesitating or even possibly coming to an abrupt stop? 1645 Annotations describe, “A man that halts, now enclines his body one way, and now another.” The CSB and NIV actually translates this with “waver” and the NET with “paralyzed”

Question #5. Only 1 answer is viable and it is not the one Ward thinks it is. KJV translator Daniel Featly describes it as the perfect felicity of the soul, “For then they should enjoy no good nor comfort at all, neither here, nor hereafter, neither tmeporall, nor eternall. the ground of this arguments is this, that the perfect felicitie of the soule, and the immortalitie thereof, are by Gods order inseparable from the resurrection of the bodies, wherefore he that denies the one, overthrowes also the other.” One of the 1562 Italian Bibles reads, “we are the most unhappy of men”. These are internal feelings of the person, not external perspectives upon them. The MEV has “miserable” here just like the KJV.

Question #6. Two of the Answers are acceptable in the context, possibly even all 3. The NKJV and MEV both read just like the KJV and Ward recommends both of those as substitutes for the KJV.

Question #7. One Answer is the only correct option.

Question #8. One answer seems to be the best, but the other option which uses the word “share” is not entirely wrong.

Question #9. Only one answer is viable.

Question #10. Only one answer is viable, but you gotta love “Not defended”.

3. Nothing new. One of MW’s arguments is that the KJV is “NOW” too archaic and that he has done more than anyone else to help the KJV world. I honestly do not believe the KJV is any more archaic today than it was in the late 1800s. And yet even a century afterwards it was an effective tool in the lives of so many of our modern scholars and preachers. In 1850 J. Jameson published a little book called “A Glossary to the Obsolete and Unusual Words and Phrases of the Holy Scriptures, in the Authorized English Version.” In the preface Jameson says, “The object of this compilation is, in the first instance, to inform the young and ignorant as to the meaning of some good old words and expressions in the English Bible with which they may be unacquainted, and which will not be found in the common Dictionaries; as well as to point out those among them which have disappeared, or are gradually disappearing, however undeservedly, from general use. But it may not be without advantage also to the better informed, in bringing to their notice the energy, dignity, and emphatic meaning of many words and phrases of our own tongue, which are, unhappily, almost banished from the language of the educated classes, though in some cases retained by the common people.” This seemingly KJV onlyist of the mid 1800s continued, “It has been the opinion, variously expressed, of Selden, Walton, Pococke, Lowth, Whittaker, and many other very learned, wise, and pious men, that the last version of the Bible, not only far surpasses any other as a translation, but is the best existing standard of the English Language; it may be a point therefore for consideration by our public speakers and writers, whether it would not be well to revive the greater part of such of the good old words which have fallen into disuse as are to be found in that version, and which in all their force and beauty have no equals among those which have so wrongfully taken their places… The elegant and refined Mr. Mathias thus writes in one of his published letters, when referring to the works of our older divines, “It is the same with the language and style of the translation of the Bible as it stands at present. I never yet saw any new version or alteration of it which (though it might more fully explain the meaning of the original in some few instances) did not detract from the majesty and the simplicity of our great translation; which is, and will be, the standard of the English in its original strength, energy, and dignity.”

Jameson’s book is sort of the prototype of the OED. He mentions words and who currently uses them or if they are archaic. For instance with “Admiration” he says, “Obsolete as implying wonder, except among the common country people, with whom it is yet in frequent use.” For “Besom” he writes, “An Anglo-Saxon word, obsolete, except among working people.” MW’s work is nothing new. In fact I don’t think he has offered anything that was not already known. I truly believe he has done more harm than good.

4. https://kjvfalsefriends.com/ (I should note that the site is not complete and somewhat sloppy with wrong verse references and impartial information) I took the about 100 words from Ward’s site and tried to see what might be new or valuable from his work; what he might have added to the discussion. I believe I was as charitable as possible by using sources he recommends. As a word was eliminated I no longer checked for further information concerning it. I also used the verses he recommends on the site, except for maybe in the case of one or two where the site did not list all the verses (for example “meet”).

A. I first eliminated anything found in Jameson’s 1850 dictionary. These words have been difficult for some people for probably almost 2 centuries: Halt, Apt, Emulations, Meat, Careful, Spoil, Incontinent, Judgment, Honest, Overcharge, Prevent, Let, Conversation, Compass, Fair, Quick, Watchings, By and by, Bowels, Ghost, Fray, Quit, Host, Sodden, By Myself, Flowers, Offend, Entreat, Occupy, Wealth, Road, Press, Constantly, Lewd, Outlandish, People, Discover, Desire, Staggered, Heady, Pitiful, Swelling, Approved

B. Still common in British English: Corn, Want

C. Literal translation: Fell on his neck(ESV), Taxed, You

D. Has not suffered a semantic shift: Commend, Miserable, That, Corrupt, Moisture, Enlargement, In, Imagine, Condemn

E. Used in modern Bibles which Ward recommends (NKJV, MEV, SKJV, WEB, ESV, NET, LSB etc.): Remove (NKJV), Landmark (NKJV), Heresies (MEV, NKJV, SKJV), Cattle (LSB, NET, NASB), Necessities (WEB), Study (MEV), Counsel (MEV), Mansions (NKJV), rumor (MEV), peculiar (MEV), followers (MEV), Bruise (MEV), Brethren (RSVCE, NMB, NCB), Passengers (MEV), rage (CSB, ESV), Imaginations (MEV), issues (MEV)

F. Has not changed sense, just intensity: Ass, Bastard

G. Definition in modern American Heritage Dictionary (which Ward recommended on his first videos as a good source modern language) and not marked as Archaic: Variance, Convenient, Excess, Peculiar, Moderation, Suffer, Wait on

H. Marked as obsolete or archaic In 1913 OED. Most of these were also in lesser known KJV updates: Seditions (KJ21), Communicate(MKJV), Experience(SKJV, MKJV), Help meet(KJ21), Coasts(SKJV, MKJV), Which, Affect, Oppose themselves, Of Purpose, Creature(KJ21)

I. In lesser known KJV updates: Science(2)(KJ21) Etymology online dictionary says that the modern use was the more general use by the 19th century. So That(MKJV, KJ21).

Most all of those words (at least the ones we agree are less clear today) are in the Defined KJV (I did notice the slight nuance difference to sedition was not noted in the Defined). This is not promotion for the Defined KJV because it is presently unable to be purchased. I believe that we have the responsibility to teach and aid where and when we can (Just as Tyndale and others stated). I want to be like Jameson and “inform the young and ignorant as to the meaning of some good old words and expressions in the English Bible with which they may be unacquainted, and which will not be found in the common Dictionaries; as well as to point out those among them which have disappeared, or are gradually disappearing, however undeservedly, from general use.” Lord willing I will be a part of providing something free and complete to edify anyone who has difficulty reading the KJV.