Featured Great Book On King James Only by Mark Ward

I read it a little over a year ago, shortly after it came out. Even though he and I are on different sides of the fence re the KJV, I enjoyed the book. Authorized is short, well-written, and engaging. Mark treats the KJV with a respect often not found among writers promoting a move to another Bible version. Here is part of what I wrote in recommending it, with a little humor in mind.

• If you are KJVO on steroids, read the book. It won’t hurt you, and might provide some anti-biotic for what ails ya’.
• If you are KJVO regular, read the book. You need to be conversant in the arguments put forward for modern versions versus the King James Bible. It will sharpen your mind.
• If you are KJV-lite, before reading, take several doses of vitamins K, J, and B. After reading Ward’s book, follow up with several more doses of vitamins K, J, and B. If you don’t take my advice, then don’t let the door hit you on the backside on your way out.
• If you are anti-KJV, read the book. Ward’s respectful tone towards the KJV is an antidote you need for your bad attitude.

 

What do you mean by anti-KJV?

I oppose the KJV because I know at least 80% of the U.S. is not able to read it with understanding.

So, if you think I'm not respectful for not giving my money or time to hand out KJV as oppose to a readable Bible version, I disagree.

 

MartyF, I do not know you or have any idea of your position, your attitude, or your respect, except that this post does not give me a good impression of it. Rather than respond to David's post and question, you want to argue about the KJV.

 

Excuse me, but I was responding to your post where you said

You came out swinging and attacking others.

Now, I simply defended myself and my beliefs. I did not personally attack people like you did.

Don't attack other people if you don't want responses to your post. If you did this in error, just say you misspoke and did not intend to offend others.

 

No, I responded to David's question, told what I thought of the book, and pasted in what I thought was my somewhat-serious somewhat-humorous recommendation to folks to read the book. You weren't mentioned. You weren't attacked, other than the fact you apparently want to place yourself in the fourth category of folks to whom I recommended the book and then feel attacked. You placed yourself there, not me.

I certainly understand that you responded to my post. That was your choice. However, my post addressed the topic, while yours only addresses what you thought you saw in my post. Now my choice will be to respond no further off topic.

 

You're right. I was oblivious to the humorous undertones and for that I apologize. Had I not been so oblivious, I wouldn't have likely responded.

 

How would you define KJV-lite, please?

 

Half the doctrinal burden of KJVO

- no inspiration of the English translators
- willing to accept that other versions are the Bible
- able to read posts that use different translations without being offended​

But still enjoys the full cadence and literalness of the Original KJV​

Rob

 

Would you be kind enough to elaborate on your thoughts regarding "no inspiration of the English translators," please?

 

When we speak of inspiration we are speaking about the original autographs, it is the original writings that were “God-breathed”.
Translators do their best to approximate the text.
We judge translations by their fidelity to the original;

• are they faithful to the original?,
• are they trustworthy?,
• are they true?,
• do they accurately communicate the message of the original to their modern audience?

No translation is God-breathed; no translation is inspired in itself.
They draw their authority from the original.

Rob

 

Thank you for this. I didn't want to just assume that I knew what you meant by that!

 

Thanks. On reflection, I see cutting and pasting it out of its original context does leave those comments open to more different interpretations. In context, I was saying a wide range of folks could benefit, one way or another, from reading Authorized.

What Rob said.

BTW, David, thanks for the link to the book review. I first became acquainted with Mark Ward through his "KJV Quiz," which I think someone linked here at the Baptist Board. Oddly enough, after I reviewed his quiz, Mark reached out to me in correspondence. I found him to be an extremely knowledge and very likable person. Since then I also try to keep up with what he posts on his blog. Much of it is Bible related, but he touches on other issues as well.

 

You've piqued my interest! I'm most definitely going to have to check out that blog.

 

I have read it. It is a good book on archaic language in the KJV.

I would not consider it a comprehensive answer to a modern KJV-only theory.

 

Non-KJV-only advocates often show much more respect for the KJV than KJV-only advocates would show for other English Bible translations. Many non-KJV-only believers may read the KJV or at least accept it as what it actually is [a good overall translation of the Scriptures in the same sense or in the same way as the pre-1611 English Bibles and as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV].

Disagreeing with non-scriptural and erroneous human KJV-only reasoning would not be evidence of showing any disrespect to the KJV. Erroneous KJV-only reasoning attempts to assume and claim that the KJV is something that is merely assumed but not proven, and something that it is not.

 

I think you make some good, valid points regarding the matter at hand.

 

I don't think Mark would consider it that either, or even claim that is his purpose with the book. This probably summarizes his purpose well:

An Interview with Mark Ward