Mark Ward (6)

First sentence: Out of 100 Americans who pulled a Bible off a shelf today, 55 of them pulled down a King James Version. I feel fairly safe in saying that the King James is the only 1611 release still on any bestseller lists. All the same, 55 percent is only slightly more than half, and the trend line is clear--for it started near 100 percent. The English-speaking Christian church, which was once almost completely unified in using the KJV, is no longer unified around a particular Bible translation. Why? Because people say they can no longer understand it.

Does Mark Ward hate the King James Version? No. Does he 'hate' those who only read the King James? It doesn't sound like it. He sounds like it's his special mission to dialogue--respectfully, kindly--with those that do affirm this position. Does he 'hate' those who prefer to read the King James? No. He does not say absolutely never--under any circumstances--use this translation. He starts off the book by sharing what he does love, what he does appreciate about the King James Version of the Bible.

Mark Ward is advocating in his book that Christians NEED to be daily reading the Bible in a translation that they understand and comprehend. He is out to 'open eyes' and show perhaps what readers don't know they don't know. He talks of how language by its very nature becomes obsolete and archaic. How words can remain in use but their many shift dramatically. You can have translation for NOW that isn't OF now necessarily. He is not advocating for slang and catchphrases. But it is important that if you do take the time to look up a meaning for a word, that the word meaning is helpful because it is still being used. In other words, if even the dictionary cannot help you define a word because it hasn't been used in three hundred years--in that way, in that sense, with that meaning--then it's time to update your translation.

He does not engage directly with arguments commonly used in the King James Only movement. Though he has a YouTube channel that frequently does feature reactions and responses to those arguments.

He does not have a strong, firm opinion on ONE translation taking the place of the King James Bible. He doesn't believe that ONE translation is sufficiently 'helpful' in all the many, many, many areas needed. And certainly not for every single believer. Every situation, every circumstance, every reader has different needs and expectations.

Quotes (and my reactions, which I'll feature in brackets and probably another color text)

Who reads the Matthew Bible of 1537? Nobody I know of. And who misses it? Again, nobody I know of.
[I read the Matthew Bible of 1537 and it was awesome! I don't know that I miss it, but would I read it again? Probably. It was GREAT fun.]
The same pretty much goes for other classic English translations of the Scriptures: the Geneva Bible, the Coverdale Bible, the Bishop's Bible, and stretching back for a few more centuries--Wycliffe's translation.
[I read all of these except the Bishop's Bible. Yes, even Wycliffe...in modern spelling. It is an experience that I really LOVE to go back and revisit these historic translations.]

Traditional hymns--and traditional Bible translations--bind the generations together.
[YES.]

Parents who teach their kids the KJV rendition of the Lord's Prayer are tying one little string between them and our rich English Christian history--a history that has much to teach us. We can't keep all the strings. Some of them must or even should be cut. But let's at least be aware of what we're doing.
[Be intentional in other words. And wording matters, in my opinion.]

Bible translations succeed or fail based on Christian trust, because only a vanishingly small percentage of Bible readers can, and even fewer do, go through the laborious process of checking their English translations against the Greek and Hebrew.
[Essentially he states here and throughout that when Christians attack other translations, it can damage the trust that believers and unbelievers have for the Bible in general.]

I appeal directly to the 55 percent: Because you love the Lord, seek all the tools you can to understand his words, including contemporary English Bible translations. And because you love others, don't stand in their way when they want to use those tools themselves.
[His main point of the whole book. I don't disagree.]

All Bible-loving-and-reading Christians need to learn to see the value in all good Bible translations.
[Amen]

I want to change the paradigm we've all been assuming. Stop looking for the "best" English Bible. It doesn't exist. God never said it would. Take up the embarrassment of riches we now have. Make the best of our multi-translation situation, because it's a truly great problem to have.
[YES. I could never ever ever ever limit myself to just one, or even three or four translations. I have about six or seven FAVORITES.]… (altro)

Mark Ward, the editor of Bible Study Magazine and purveyor of Logos Bible software, has written an amuse-bouche of a book on the "use and misuse" of the venerable King James Bible (also known as the King James Version, the KJV, the Authorized [properly, Authorised] Version, and/or the AV). The gist of the book is that the KJV is too antiquated to be used in serious Bible study or worship. It's just too full of "false friend" words, antiquated words, 1600s punctuation (or lack thereof, especially quotation marks), and olden grammar. While still holding that most of the KJV is understandable and even poetic (Psalm 23 anybody?), its usefulness is waning as a tool of study and gone as a tool of mission and outreach. Ward, like me, grew up with the KJV, and he bemoans the fact that we went from all the English-speaking world having ONE translation to a whole bunch of competing translations. We're not reading the same Bible anymore. What do we lose from not having a common set of words to memorize, talk about, sermonize on, etc. Ward makes his case by discussing words, reading-levels, grammar, translation. He does this irenically, combating the more friendly and sane KJV-ers (while mentioning, but not attacking, those KJV-Only-ites who think the KJV is God-breathed Scripture that can't be changed, like the Koran in Arabic for Islam). He does mention (pp. 114-117) the difference between the Textus Receptus and the Nestle-Aland text (Novum Testamentum Graece), but he doesn't think the textual differences are too big or important to matter. He also says if you like the Textus Receptus, the Greek text from which the New Testament is translated, you should still read it in a more updated translation, like the New King James Version.

He makes a good case. I have lately been drawn to reading the NET Bible and the ESV, one for the notes, one for the translation. But, I have always read my KJV with my Young's, Strong's, and Vine's in hand, and, since the advent of the internet, good websites like the BlueLetterBible or BibleHub. I have numerous other translations I consult too. Logos sometimes too, though their interface can be clunky. So, no biggie to me, though the KJV is still a touchstone for me, my study encompasses more than that. Ward's book here offers ammunition for churches wishing to choose a new pew Bible and Sunday School standard.

But keep the KJV sometimes for it's poetry and impact on our culture. Imagine Linus in A Charlie Brown Christmas reciting the meaning of Christmas from the unpoetic mish-mash of the NIV or the paraphrased loquaciousness of The Message! God forbid!… (altro)