Mark Ward talks about his upcoming book -- Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible

To me, the strongest argument against KJV for English Bible is the vernacular argument. It is a real problem when the version of the Bible that you use is unreadable and not understandable for so many people. You can say all you want that they should make the effort, but we shouldn’t make it so hard for them either.

Mark will be one our speakers at the FBFI annual conference at FBC Troy this coming June 10-12 along with Mark Snoeberger, Steve Thomas, Kevin Bauder, Mark Brock, Mike Riley, Mark Minnick, Dave Saxon, Larry Oates, Matt Postiff, Josh Crockett, Jim Tillotson, Ken Endean, Kevin Schaal, Bob Jones III, et. al.

Theme will be on the “Generation to Come”. Mark does a fine job on this interview and addresses a critical issue.

Thanks Pastor Harding. I’m looking forward to being at the conference representing our FBFI Chaplains. Thanks for hosting.

Is Ward actually going to speak on this issue, and advocate abandoning the KJV in personal and public use, because of the vernacular issue? If so, I’d appreciate a livestream of the audience’s reactions, instead of Ward’s presentation.

Mark will be addressing a host of issues regarding the next generation including translations. Kevin Bauder will be addressing the benefits and cautions of new translations.

That’s good to hear! I’m a odd guy; I really like the RSV and the NEB.

I am very happy you’re addressing this critical issue, despite opposition you know you’ll get from some folks in your constituency. I don’t envy the presenters - they’ll have to walk a very, very fine line in their presentations!

“To me, the strongest argument against KJV for English Bible is the vernacular argument.”

I have used the vernacular argument before in the discussion of Bible versions. It is why no one uses original editions of the Wycliffe Bible, the Tyndale Bible, the Geneva Bible or even the 1611 KJV. Spellings like ‘fonne’ for son, ‘daies’ for days and so on make these works, historical treasures that they are, unworkable for modern usage. But even the later updates of the KJV, including the extensively updated 1769 edition contain translation choices no longer relevant or even accurate to inform the English reader the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew.

Furthermore, brave men of faith suffered torture and death to insure the common man would have the Bible in his own language—vocabulary used in every day communication. So if I were to lay the burden of outdated 250 year-old English upon modern English speakers, I would be committing an error similar to the one committed by the enemies of those brave men—hiding God’s truth behind the mask of foreign language. Granted, moderns can glean something from 1769 English, whereas dark-age Europeans unfamiliar with Latin were totally in the dark. But of the two camps, I want to be on the side of those shining the brightest light of God’s Word into the darkness of secular society, and not on the side of those placing an artificial mask over God’s Word thereby hindering its light.

I own a modern copy of Tyndale’s 1534 NT, with updated spelling. I really like it. In many places, his translation is superior to the KJV. For example, “winebibber” (KJV, Mt 11:19) is “drunkard” for Tyndale.

My favorite Bible for personal reading is the 1599 Geneva, primarily because I love the English language of those days. (Run-a-gate for renegade is a good description.) I like it but I wouldn’t preach/teach from it because it isn’t written in the language of the people to whom I speak.

I’ve always wondered how many KJV users who aren’t KJVO would like to use another translation but are concerned with fallout.

…to listen because it intro’d with guitar music. :^)

Seriously, it’s first of all nice that Slate hosted Ward. Not what I expected.

Regarding the language issue, I would argue that the remoteness of Jacobean language is both the reason to use the KJV (or 1599 Geneva), and also the reason not to. It is the reason not to use it because people need to understand the Scriptures; it is the reason to use it because approaching the Scriptures in a second language is incredibly helpful in learning to present it not only in a second or third language, but in your first language. I think the podcast gets at this a touch as well, at least obliquely.

Bert said: it is the reason to use it because approaching the Scriptures in a second language is incredibly helpful in learning to present it not only in a second or third language, but in your first language.

Sometimes little things like the differences between 2nd person singular and plural. etc.

….it’s probably even better for your second language to be something like Latin, German, Spanish, or French—way different and with even more complicated grammar and such—but in a world where we decide that our Bible translations need to be updated every 20 years or so, there appears to be a HUGE need for people to learn English dialects not their own.

(and caveat on that; it seems that most of the “problem” in understanding 20 year old documents is claimed by the kids scoring in the 95th percentile on college admissions scores and going to Ivy League schools, so we ought to take these claims with the Dead Sea or the Great Salt Lake….)