Diligently Seeking Media

I had multiple (no one) people (literally nobody) ask for my thoughts (no one did) on the topic, so here it is. (This is all coming from the perspective of a 23-year-old, conservative, Baptist, KJV-only Bible teacher at a local church)

If you haven’t listened to the debate, you may be bored by this blog post. It is primarily a point-by-point breakdown of my thoughts on their arguments. I will not spend much time defining terms or words that are used. I encourage you to listen to the entire 2-hour debate (Click on this link) before reading on. The video was edited and updated while writing this post, so many of the timestamps I have included will not match up properly on the YouTube video. But the links will still take you to the correct places to see them make their arguments in their own words. I’ll also refrain from commenting much on their question-and-answer segment to each other and primarily focus on their opening statements because I believe this is where the debate was won and lost. 

I’ll break this post into three sections: I. My Thoughts on Dan Haifley’s Arguments; II. My Thoughts on Mark Wards Arguments III. My Closing Thoughts.

1. My Thoughts on Dan Haifleys Arguments

I must begin by saying that as someone who grew up under the banner of the KJV, I am very familiar with plenty of the KJV-only arguments. I am also very familiar with some pretty shallow arguments that are made in support of the KJV. I enjoy studying the topic, and while I’m still learning, I have found many good reasons to use the KJV and many wrong reasons. Because of all this, I will likely be more critical of Mr. Haifley’s comments because I understand his perspective better than Mr. Wards. 

Pros: 

My favorite argument by Mr. Haifley in his opening statement was when he mentioned (33:46) Tyndale’s reasoning for translating a word to “thee” instead of “you.”  The strongest argument for the KJV is that even when it was first written, it wasn’t entirely “readable.” For starters, the “common plowboy” was illiterate. Secondly, this “Elizabethan” English was made popular by the King James Translators. So, the KJV was not in “standard English” and wasn’t supposed to be. It was supposed to be an accurate and faithful translation of God’s Word into English from manuscripts in several different languages. Of course, the version will have minor nuances in phrases here and there because of translation work, and that’s ok. The important thing that must not be overlooked is that God’s Word is available to English-speaking people and can be trusted—a truth many modern versions can not attest to. 

Similarly, he states (39:16), “We don’t dumb down the literature to the culture; we teach the culture how to read the literature.” This should have been something he kept returning to all night long. Instead of compromising on the truths of the Word of God, we should focus on expanding our knowledge of the most accurate translation for English-speaking people. He’s correct; no one has ever gotten smarter because they made tests easier. Likewise, we will not “grow” if we compromise on the accuracy of truth in favor of “readability.”

His country music point (41:52) was extremely silly, but deep within the crevices of his goofy illustration, there lies a seed of truth. Mr. Haifley claims that the culture more widely accepts the KJV and is, therefore, the Bible standard. And, again, while this is goofy, he is correct in that the common man has widely accepted and used the KJV even though modern versions have been available. Why is that? I would argue it is because of the majesty of the KJV. No translation compares to the beautiful language and poetry used within the book. The “common plowboy” could pick up the book, read it, and recognize its authority and great power, even in just the wording. But more recently, this has not been the case. As our culture has moved to modern versions, we have also seen a move in our culture away from having a shared understanding of who God is. In no way am I blaming a God-illiterate generation on modern versions, but I am implying that they have dawned the doors of the 21st century hand-in-hand. 

As he closed his opening statement, Mr. Haifley commented (44:12) on the Bishops who translated the RV and even used their comments to bolster support for the KJV. In some cases, the translators of these modern versions recognized how short their translations fell compared to the KJV. Many modern-day theologians try to prop up their arguments by claiming the superiority of these modern versions but fail to realize that the translators of these modern versions would disagree. 

Cons:

His general unpreparedness did not instill confidence. In his opening statement, he was constantly flipping through his notes, didn’t have a good grasp of the available time, and used too much time to start with a joke. His constant “uh’s” and “um’s” made it seem like he didn’t know what he was talking about and gave weak arguments to boot. 

I am not using hyperbole when I say my jaw dropped when I first heard Mr. Haifleys opening statement. “The Bible never, never says that all of the Word of God should be understandable to all the people that read it.” (28:27). Surely you can see how this is not a strong opening statement? It was brilliant of Mark Ward to return to this and use it against him later in the debate because it undermined Mr. Haifley’s argument for the KJV. When the debate topic is “Is the KJV readable?” and your response is “It’s not supposed to be.” All I can do is look down in shame. We want all men to know the truths of the Word of God, so why would we hold that “God doesn’t want all of His words to be understood by all people.”? He pulled the rug out of under his feet within the first 5 minutes of the night, and it only went downhill from there. 

Of course, I agree with Mr. Haifley’s Biblical sentiments when he mentions (29:55) 1 Corinthians 2:13,14 and John 14:26 about the Spirit teaching us. But I think Mr. Haifley is confusing spiritual concepts (Like spirit indwelling, strength in Christ, the prophecies regarding Jesus, etc.) with just general knowledge. I don’t believe the Ethiopian Eunuch needed Phillip to guide him in knowing grammatical terms but rather in knowing who the man was being spoken of in the prophet Isaiah. That being said, I think there does need to be teaching and guidance done by pastors on how to decipher complicated wording in many epistles and throughout the Bible. But that’s because a general understanding of Biblical truths needs to be understood before you can have spiritual knowledge. Nicodemus understood birth (general knowledge) but couldn’t understand being born again (spiritual truth). So, the argument is whether or not we can even have a general understanding of God’s Word through the KJV. Mr. Haifley goes on a tangent about how the Spirit leads us into all truth. Well, yes, spiritually speaking, but how can we know what the Spirit is leading us into if we can’t gain understanding from the text?

In the middle of his opening statement, Mr. Haifley argues (32:26) that the most important part of Scripture is the Gospel (which I agree wholeheartedly), and once the reader has learned that, the Spirit will teach him the “other stuff.” Again, the only problem is that this undermines the entire KJVO position and is based on the false premise I mentioned in the previous paragraph. If the Gospel is the only part of the Bible that needs to be “readable,“ why not use any version? Indeed, the entire Gospel message can be found in almost all modern versions, regardless of how corrupt. Then, after you’re saved, you can “study” enough of the Greek and Hebrew to learn what God has to say. It’s not a satisfying argument for KJV readers and non-KJV readers alike.

2. My Thoughts on Mark Ward’s Arguments 

I won’t approach Mr. Ward’s arguments like I did Mr. Haifleys because I disagree with Mr. Wards’ stance and feel it would be unfair to look at his arguments as “good” or “bad.” Instead, I will just comment on things I disagreed with or agreed with about his arguments. 

Most of my “pros” for Mr. Ward consist of his mannerisms and debate technique. He approached the debate very respectfully but also very intellectually. He either knew what he was talking about or pretended to know (And did an excellent job at it). He explained (46:35) very succinctly his position and why he believed it. He wasted no time addressing anything Mr. Haifley had said, and that’s because he had other plans— and, frankly, it wasn’t worth his time. 

His usage (50:31) of the principle in 1 Corinthians 14 should generally be agreed upon and was very wise. He argued that without understanding, there could be no edification. And again, that is true, for if we cannot understand, how can we edify? So, I agree with his premise but disagree with his conclusion. The illustration he used about Latin/Jewish phrases and KJV words is not an apples-to-apples comparison. These simple phrases or words can be easily taught, and then you have understanding. And so, while I agree with the principle in 1 Corinthians 14, I think he overhypes his position because, in a few minutes, understanding (or might I say “interpretation”) can be given. Mr. Ward then taught the entire audience what specific phrases in the KJV meant, successfully giving them an understanding of God’s Word. I imagine Mr. Ward would agree that this is easier than teaching them to understand Latin, Greek, Hebrew, or even to interpret tongues. 

He argues (52:09) that not all words or phrases in the Bible can be defined by a modern dictionary. And many KJVO pastors would readily agree with him. That is why there is great encouragement to use the Websters 1828. Because it readily gives us a proper understanding of, as Mr. Ward would say, “archaic words.” But beyond a dictionary, I feel this argument is insufficient because of the internal proof that can be used against it. I’m speaking of the fact that the KJV provides many definitions within the text that teach what words mean. For example, Mr. Ward provides the word “halt” found in 1 Kings 18:21 as a false friend and describes that it does not mean the same thing now that it did in 1611 when it was translated. There is an easy fix to this problem. On two specific occasions inside your KJV, you can find where the Bible uses the word “halt,” and it provides ample understanding through its context. In Matthew 18:18, Jesus gives the dissertation that if your hand or foot offends you, you should cut it off because it is better for you to enter into life “halt” or “maimed.” This verse alone shows us that the word “halt” implies “limp.” However, upon closer examination, in Genesis 32:31, we find that Jacob was “halting upon his thigh” after he wrested with God all night. Again, this was all done internally and did not require me to go to Greek or a dictionary to find out. What I did have to do was have someone teach me how to read and interpret my KJV, which is a task that we should be spending far more time on rather than trying to update the KJV. 

Mr. Ward strikes (53:43) hard and critically using “False friends.” If you are familiar with this, I am sure you can admit that there have been instances where you have learned the true meaning of a word found in your KJV, as I have, from him. For that, I am grateful for Mr. Ward’s teaching. But, as I mentioned earlier, this quick and straightforward lesson has now helped me understand my Bible more and did not require a new updated version. So, while his live quiz results were very telling, and I must give him props, I was very impressed with his boldness in doing that; he undermines his argument by providing understanding to the listeners of words in the KJV. Ultimately, he proves that these words are not “archaic” or “unreadable,” but we just need to spend time learning and teaching these phrases. I cannot wait until he finishes his list of 100 “false friends” and gives us an understanding of those phrases too.

He explains (53:49) that he wants to avoid focusing on textual criticism and instead discuss the translation of the KJV. This is a highly intellectual move by Mr. Ward because it emphasizes the oldness of the KJV rather than the corrupt texts being used for modern versions. I don’t know Mr. Ward’s intentions and would not like to assume anything he believes. But, when focusing solely on one translation’s readability, of course, you can provide many examples. This is true for any version, as Mr. Haifley even gave examples of hard-to-understand words in the NKJV. Regardless, It was a losing argument for Mr. Haifley to begin with.

Mr. Ward’s big question (1:00:04) is, “How are people supposed to look up King James words they do not realize they’re misunderstanding?” I think a very simple answer that might satisfy some but not others is to use discernment. I love studying my King James Bible, and honestly, I have stumbled upon phrases and words that, quite frankly, because of the context, don’t make sense. So, I pray about it, walk away from it, and return later when I have a deeper understanding of the subject to better understand why it was translated that way. While I can agree that in our limited understanding as men, we won’t be able to catch all of the “false friends” in the KJV, I don’t think this is as big of an argument as Mark Ward makes it to be. Again, as Mr. Haifley pointed out in the debate, I’d rather deal with words that are hard to understand rather than have missing verses or corrupt translations. 

Mr. Ward, I believe, as Mr. Haifley briefly said, was overzealous in his findings of “false friends.” (1:15:54). Many of these can be refuted by merely understanding the passage’s context. Of course, the word will be misunderstood by taking it solely away from the surrounding words, leaving it abandoned to preying lions. The word “desired” has one implication, and the phrase “he desired Phillip that he would come up and sit with him” has another. This is because of context. Nothing is lost, by the way, in this translation. Everyone understands that the Ethiopian Eunuch is asking Phillip to come into the chariot and explain the Scripture. So, while being correct, Mark Ward’s argument on “false friends” is not as striking as he thinks it is. When you hyper-fixate upon these words, the argument seems convincing, but when you look at the text, you understand that his arguments are not as strong as he perceives them to be.

3. My Closing Comments

If you have read this far, I appreciate your patience in sticking through my biased opinions. Please do me a favor and continue reading as I make some concluding statements that might give you insight into where I stand. 

As much as I was not insanely impressed with his performance, I genuinely appreciate Mr. Haifley’s stand for truth and his attempt to defend the position that I hold so dear. 

And as much as I disagree with Mr. Ward’s conclusion on the matter, as far as I can tell, he seems to show a genuine desire for modern-day readers to understand their Bible. And that is something that I can completely sympathize with. However, I cannot agree with his conclusion.

Ultimately, I wish many things went differently with the debate, but what can you do? I enjoyed listening to both sides of the argument and look forward to the good (or maybe bad) that will come from it. I will still stand tall with the KJV as the perfect Word of God for English, and at the end of the day, I love my fellow KJV brothers. But, at times, it is a lot like being a Cleveland Browns fan: Regardless of how bad they did last Sunday, you’ll still cheer for them next Sunday. 

If I could quote The Inspirations, I believe “God’s Word will stand against the raging tide of those who criticize and work their evil plan.” I have great peace in knowing that God has said He will preserve His word for all generations. Therefore, I do not fret about “losing truth” as it has always been and will always be available. God, not men, is in control of truth, and if it has been preserved for thousands of years, it will be preserved until heaven and earth pass away. 

~ Written by Micah Rice.