Monthly Archives: August 2026

Editorial, General, Review

Ward gone wrong

INTERPRETATION MATTERS

Christianity is in a war of Bible interpretation. Arminians and Calvinists can use the KJB and come to different views. Futurists, Historicists and Preterists can use the KJB and come to different views. There’s battles over all kinds of things. Yet these people can all use the KJB.

The KJB isn’t the problem. It isn’t a problem of what Bible version, the problem is actually interpretation. Now, a modern Bible version can be a small part of the issue, and it cannot be minimised that the people who want to doubt the end of Mark or the woman caught in adultery or 1 John 5:7 are putting themselves into a weaker position. But that’s not the biggest issue here.

There is a bigger difference between the KJB and other translations. That’s where conceptual differences occur on a much more significant level. Translation has a great effect on interpretation. But it is ultimately an issue of what God’s words are said to mean.

WRONG DOCTRINES

A bunch of wrong doctrines have historical roots, but today, wrong interpretations are rooted in wrong translations and most especially backed up by wrong interpretations.

We have to understand that the Scripture is God’s message to mankind. It’s less about God giving specific messages to an individual in the Bible, and more about what God wants the whole Church to know.

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
2 Peter 1:20, 21

The Scripture is primarily written on two levels, the natural writer writing to the original audience, and secondly, the Holy Ghost writing to the entire Church.

Because God is the author, we see that while there might be a natural and plain reading, there are often deeper spiritual meanings. This is the difference between what we might call the primary and plain reading or interpretation, and the deeper spiritual sense.

Just look at what Paul said about oxen treading out the corn, that while it shows care for livestock, it really was written primarily with the spiritual meaning, that labourers in the gospel ought to be rewarded.

At the same time, this does not mean that the Bible could just mean anything, or everything. The meanings are particular, known to God, and to be known to us.

THE WAR AND THE IMPOSITION OF MODERNISM

Today, the Devil is not using physical persecution to kill Christians in the Western world. He is using doubt and confusion about the Bible to destroy people’s faith.

Modernism, broadly, comes from a godless way of thinking about the world, as if there is no God. That way, instead of having the Holy Ghost interpret, you have to look to records of how men interpreted, and worse, you have to go to the lexicons and modernistic ways of interpreting as though God couldn’t possibly have a correct English Bible translation, and as though God couldn’t possibly have Christians today gaining right understanding, even though He promised that we shall know the truth.

The biggest and easiest way to pervert the meaning of the Bible is through all this talk about the Greek. Most wrong doctrines and wrong ideas today will be because people will say “the Greek here really means blah blah” and they will try to introduce a shift in ideas by talking about what the original languages really mean in light of the apparent culture of Bible times. The funny thing is that what they say the culture of Bible times is seems to be different from what the Bible actually teaches.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say there was a little door in the gate of a city and you had to unpack a camel to get it through the door. But this will be what people will say, meaning something ridiculous like, that you have to get rid of all your money and possessions before you can get into the Kingdom of God. There is no such teaching anywhere in the Bible, but that’s how they will interpret a certain passage.

MODERNIST HERMENEUTICS

Modernist hermeneutics are the way in which modern people (e.g. theologians, Calvinist intellectuals and in-crowders) interpret the Bible. They basically have a method. It goes like this: assume God doesn’t exist and you have to look at the words (grammar, style of writing and the contextual flow) and put them into the historical isagogic of who wrote to whom when (i.e. the historical context) and then cross a “principlizing bridge” which takes from the ancient era (another language, another culture, another time and another place) and brings the Scripture to some sort of sense and relevance that we can understand, learn from and apply today.

Notice in that method it isn’t about believing a doctrine of rightly understanding the Scripture as though God really can bring us to understand, but instead is all about some human science and art of interpreting.

MARK WARD IS A CHIEF ATTACKER

Mark Ward is writing a book to try to make out as if the language of the Bible doesn’t seem to mean what it seems to say. That there is something more and beyond the good old King James Bible.

I can only imagine the tripping ropes of inflexible thinking that it takes to argue that language has meaning beyond mere alleged “literal” meanings. No doubt, Ward will sufficiently cause us to doubt every normal statement made in English to then make out as if we cannot just take the King James Bible, which he will slur as belonging to a distant century, has added layers of difficulty.

This is a blatant lie, but one pushed by the mafia of modernist hermeneutics.

We all know that language can be non-literal and words can be contextual. But we shouldn’t be reading the Bible with mere natural, God-free logic. Language is not just some secular science, it’s a divine gift that needs to be practiced in light of its author. English as we know it (especially in the Bible) is not the product of a series of happenstance accidents but is divinely designed.

THE TRUTH IN ENGLISH

Mark Ward and others like him hold that the full truth cannot be in English. No, they see English as just a reflection, a bad reflection, of the real, deeply mystical (it seems) truth in the original languages. God inspired in Hebrew and Greek and somehow these languages are more holy. Also, modernism (you know that belief that there isn’t really an interventionary God), says that you can’t actually get the full meaning from the originals into English. (And that’s if they know what it really means in the original languages!)

HOW MEANINGS OF WORDS ARE CONTROLLED

Like the Newspeak Dictionary in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, there is a special lexicon that tells the modernist what a word might mean. This is a lexicon called BDAG, which was made by modernists who use a method as though God is not in control of languages or that God can actually communicate truth to common Christians.

No! You have to go through these special hierophant authorities, and BDAG was made to give an extensive list of words from Greek, and then guesses as to their meanings. Out of these different options of meanings, a modern day user (peddler) of Greek can then choose which meaning he (or “she” if your name is Faith Womack) thinks best fits the context at a certain place. These meanings come from a variety of eras and sources, so it’s by no means restricted to Christian texts. Furthermore BDAG is the letters of the surnames of the men who made the work.

Bauer = Higher Critic, Liberal, Historical-Critical, big “M” Modernist
Danker = Moderate, Higher Critic, big “M” Modernist
Arndt = Secular-backed, conservative, evangelical, small “m” modernist
Gingrich = Neutral scholar, centrist, small “m” modernist

WHAT IS WARD’S WAR ON WORDS REALLY ABOUT?

What could possibly motivate a financially struggling man like Mark Ward, but the promise of funds for his work in reverence to his higher masters. His higher masters being certain leaders in the entire industry of impositional interpretation.

You see, Christians must be told that they CANNOT be allowed to safely interpret Scripture for themselves, because they couldn’t possibly be led by the Spirit of God. What they need (apparently) is good advice, good tools which means buying stuff and listening to guides like Mark Ward.

There’s a whole industry of products that exist that are said to be needed. These products include paying for the privilege of attending their institutions of higher learning. By “their” I mean both sides of the Christian industry, the got-at Pentecostal ones as much as the got-at Reformed ones. The intellectual mafia might sit like a curia in the intellectual side of Christianity (Baptists, Presbyterians and Reformed), but is just as much at work through the cognate world of Pentecostalism and Charismaticism. Everywhere where it is taught that the “Greek” really means something other than what the Bible says, they are there.

BUT, HE PROTESTETH

Mark Ward will say he is not at war with the King James Bible and “loves” it, even though this entire exercise is specifically designed to fight the meanings of words in the King James Bible.

They will say that they are not Liberal/Modernist/Higher Critics, even though everything they have is like the evangelical-friendly version of the same sources. Mark Ward is a small “m” modernist, which is a dangerous leaven in Christianity.

They will say that you can use the tools for free so you don’t need to spend a dollar getting “educated” by “hermeneutics”. That’s called voluntary subjection where one puts themselves on a low level and denies that the Holy Ghost practically leads into truth.

18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
Colossians 2:18

THE REAL ANSWER

There is a mighty doctrine of the Scripture that says that we can know. We can attain. We can understand. We can access all necessary wisdom.

This blows up the entire library of books of hermeneutics, every lexicon and all the books about choosing the right Bible translation for your fleshly desires.

Believers should align to the truth, not listen to Mark Ward’s classifications of “common Bible study errors”.

But, an objector may say, “every Christian is interpreting for themselves” and “there are so many doctrinal disagreements” and “there are so many varieties and subsects of Protestantism today”.

Here is the answer. If all Christians align with the Holy Ghost’s interpreting they are going to be interpreting for themselves rightly. If Christians align with the truth of the Holy Ghost’s leading and teaching in their proper study of relying on King James Bible English words, then we will align to the standards of the truth, not multiplicity of doctrines. If we look to Jesus and think after God, then I am sure we will align to sound doctrine.

28 That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.
Isaiah 44:28

The building of Jerusalem is by a Spirit-led people being actually Spirit-led, and the foundation to the temple is the true Scripture, the actual truth of the Scripture clearly known at the basis of a proper Church movement in the Earth.

And now you will see how the modernist approach disallows this interpretation because they both disbelieve it and have a method to not make the Scripture say or be understood to mean this thing.

Editorial

Another attack falls flat — part 2

Rick Norris (logos1560) is known for his attack on the King James Bible, especially by his bringing up of different editions and the variations within them.

Of course, there is an easy answer to this, but Norris doesn’t want an answer, he wants to make out as if it is all chaos.

Norris also is deceptive in how he presents facts. For example, he rightly indicates that various Cambridge printed KJVs from after the year 1900 follow changes made in the 1873 Edition. That 1873 Edition is Scrivener’s, but it is only a relative few of Scrivener’s changes that are accepted. In fact, the changes that are accepted are largely corrections back to the 1611 Edition, although some work in apostrophes is also accepted from Scrivener.

What Norris does not tell is the evidence that the Victorian Cambridge text was edited with some drawing on Scrivener’s book (rather than his edition) but also is a unique work on its own (e.g. Ezra 2:26 “Geba” was not drawn from Scrivener).

Norris looks at the editorial history, giving his own lists of variations, and drawing on David Norton and Lawrence Vance. He obviously likes the work of modernist David Norton, who only mentions the changes within Cambridge printings in the 20th century in passing with little detail, but also he likes Lawrence Vance because he wants to create a wedge between those who uphold the KJB.

Norris’ word lists are extensive and accurate, and Vance’s work is extremely good. Norris of course does not adhere to any KJV as being “accurate” in that he harbours views against the KJB’s text and translation in places. Norris has ideological reasons to prefer the Geneva and Tyndale over the KJB, which is based on a small-minded opinion regarding a particular Puritan view.

Vance, on the other hand, is a real gentleman and scholar, and his position is that he points to a current Cameo Reference text as the apparently providentially supplied standard. Vance’s preference differs from the critical form Pure Cambridge Edition in a few places (there are PCEs that have these things).

Genesis 41:56 “and” instead of “And”

1 Chron. 2:55 “Hammath” instead of “Hemath”

1 Chron. 13:5 “Hamath” instead of “Hemath”

Amos 6:14 “Hamath” instead of “Hemath”

These are Vance’s differences to the PCE:

Acts 11:12 “Spirit” instead of “spirit”

Acts 11:28 “Spirit” instead of “spirit”

1 John 5:8 “Spirit” instead of “spirit”

Norris has falsely said, “Matthew Verschuur does not actually demonstrate that the edition of the KJV that he compiled and calls the ‘pure’ one…”

The problem for Norris is that the Pure Cambridge Edition has been printed from 1911, so it cannot be something that I “compiled”. There are many editions from multiple publishers which present the PCE.

Regarding the 12 tests to determine the PCE, Norris claims, “Twelve individual renderings in an entire KJV edition are not enough to determine which edition is better or more accurate.”

Norris has missed the point. The 12 points are not meant to be the definitive proofs of an edition being the best, they are just identifying markers of the PCE as compared to other editions, which taken collectively, identify that a text is a PCE.

Here are some good quotes from Norris:

“KJV defender Laurence Vance wrote: ‘There are 750 differences between the 1769 Blayney edition of the Authorized Version and modern King James Bibles: 461 Old Testament and 189 New Testament’ (Text of the KJB, p. 220). KJV-only author Matthew Verschuur asserted: ‘One of the most enduring myths regarding the King James Bible is that the common and standard edition in use in the 20th and 21st centuries is the 1769 Edition’ (Vintage Bibles, p. 47).”

At least Norris looked at my book!

Editorial

Another attack falls flat — part 1

Anti-KJV crusader, Rick Norris (logos1560), has somewhere on the internet gleefully quoted from the mistaken Bryan Ross in his view on the Pure Cambridge Edition.

Instead of recognising the historical reality of the PCE, made by Anglicans, printed by Cambridge, from probably 1910/1911, Norris wants to weave a story of doubt and error.

Norris always will side with anything that is against the KJB or against the PCE. He attacked D. A. Waite, treating the earnest man as if he were a fuddy-duddy in his views on the KJB. Norris was able to use data to outshine Waite’s admittedly amateurish research, and attacked him ungraciously because he is always compelled against the KJB. And when scholar David Daniell wrote something against the KJB, Norris would be there clapping and agreeing in a heartbeat.

So when Bryan Ross mistakenly (and I suspect deliberately) tried to make out as if the PCE was my own invention and a Pentecostal conspiracy, of course Norris leapt on this with characteristic spitefulness, repeating every error he could cast his eyes upon.

For example, I said you can identity a PCE as opposed to another edition by seeing that the PCE aligns to a set of 12 tests. Ross mistakenly said that these were places which were “Pentecostal”, when in fact, these tests were drawn from Baptist sources.

There is nothing more “Pentecostal” for having “spirit” rather than “Spirit”, when Pentecostals certainly would have tended to prefer “Spirit”. So, it is obviously a nonsense that was invented as a slur rather than reality.

Furthermore, Norris quotes Ross saying that in my 2013 draft Guide to the PCE I didn’t identify “by year, publisher, printer, or edition code” the first PCE.

Well, this is rather misleading, especially since we have 100 years of copies. The first printer and publisher was John Clay and Cambridge, which is blatantly obvious. They didn’t use edition codes then like now (for example, ISBNs were not in use back then). And as for a year date, I said circa 1900, and circa 1900s. In fact, at this time, the earliest known printing is from 1911.

Norris accuses me of not saying a specific year date, but shouldn’t he really accuse Cambridge University Press themselves for not knowing? Why blame me when I am doing the research that CUP have not done. In other words, Norris and Ross bend so far to say something bad, that no one knowing something is apparently my fault. I’m the one who has discovered the 1911 copy, which is the earliest known copy of the Lectern Bible (quarto size).

Norris also quotes Ross, in a grand deception, claiming that “Verschuur himself acknowledges that no single printed Bible contained the exact PCE text, and that the uniform PCE had to be constructed by comparing many inconsistent ‘vintage’ printings.”

Does Norris deny that a specific editing of the Cambridge KJV took place early in the 20th century? Does Norris deny that there is a Bible with the date 1911? Does Norris deny that the PCE existed before I was born? Does Norris deny that millions of copies of this Edition was printed in many editions over the years?

Weirdly, Norris has written his own book against the PCE in which he attacks me (rather than it), and seems to know that it is a 20th century Cambridge Edition. Funny how he is more willing to quote someone’s accusation than what he knows scientifically.

So he knows the reality but he is willing to repeat an error because it serves his purpose of rejecting the KJB and its supporters by apparently any means necessary. Lying is okay, it seems, because the ends (destroying the idea that the KJB is perfect) allows and justifies any means to accomplish his purpose. Deception, propaganda and twisting the narrative are in.

Norris then gives Ross’ claim that I made the PCE.

Does Norris ignore that the PCE editing is consistent and persistent throughout a century of editions, so that at about 50 key places, the same things are seen, which differ to the Victorian Cambridge (and Oxford Editions?)

I am sure that Norris knows, as has also been shown in Lawrence Vance’s work, that there is a definite set of editorial differences. David Norton indicates some, and of course they know I have listed it all extensively.

So it is untrue that there are “inconsistent” vintage printings, there are just some very slight minor variations, in very few places. But all of these show the same editorial work, so they are the same Edition, which is to say, they are all examples of the Pure Cambridge Edition.

Norris is gloatingly quoting Ross because he will say that every PCE printing size is different. How different? Let me explain. The same Edition is found in many copies over many years, so it isn’t about having a “first printing” when in fact what is needed is a last presentation, like a critical edition. And the differences? A mere few things like hyphen here or whether it is “and” or “And” there. It’s like three little things here or there.

That’s what the text provided on the Bible Protector website does. It gives the Edition of the 20th century that began perhaps in 1911. But as an electronic text it also is free from any internal errors, like a misplaced full stop or something, which can happen in electronic texts (just as in historical printings).

Let’s be honest, the supposed inconsistency in PCE printings by Cambridge is greatly exaggerated. CUP in fact is a careful, reputable publisher. In comparing the PCE on the Bible Protector website with a 1927 Cambridge Cameo Refs (which is also PCE), there is only one variation, at Genesis 41:56, apart from a known accidental typographical defect of Cambridge’s failure to print the final stop at the very end of the Book of Mark. The PCE copy on my website doesn’t have any issues, so it should be used for a standard copy.

Rick Norris knows of scores of variations with other printings of the KJB, and should know better than to give an alleged Pentecostal conspiracy about the PCE. There is no conspiracy, the PCE is for all the Body of Christ, including believing Pentecostals.