Mark Ward’s “Authorized” Lies: False Friends Part 2

Before you read this article, please read my introduction to the subject here.

Then, read part one, where we deal with the first group of supposed “false friends”: “unicorn“, “halt“, and “commendethhere.

Without further ado, we will look at the remaining four “false friends” that are used as examples by Mark Ward to try and make us stop using our King James Bible as our primary Bible.

I’ve thought about writing four or five paragraphs about how unbiblical it is to talk about “primary Bibles”, but I suppose I should forbear and just run head first into Ward’s examples.

So shall he sprinkle many nations

Isa 52:14,15 says, “As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

Ward thinks that the ESV is better because of the punctuation marks.  It reads, “As many were astonished at you— his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind— so shall he sprinkle many nations.  Kings shall shut their mouths because of him, for that which has not been told them they see, and that which they have not heard they understand.

You cannot make this up.  In a section of the book dedicated to “false friends,” Ward decides to include an example where he has a qualm with the punctuation of the King James text…


What more should we say about this?  He thinks that the dashes in the ESV make the text more understandable.  He claims that because of the KJB, he “misunderstood the thought flow” and that he “got lost in all the intervening verbiage”.  Ok, so what did he think it meant? What verbiage made him get lost?  He never said.  Then he claims “The ESV’s punctuation helped me understand the conjunction and keep the author’s intended thought flow.” But then, in typical fashion, he doesn’t define what it means.

There are NO “false friends” even by Ward’s bad definition in Isaiah 52:15 and even if there was a huge issue with the punctuation, no one knows what the problem was and how the ESV is superior.  I suppose, we’ll just have to take Ward’s word that there is an error in the KJV and that the ESV fixes everything.

Or we won’t.  This whole example is a mess.  So we will keep our King James Bibles and move on.


In Ephesians 5:4 it says, “Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

Ward is a little unclear in his verbiage again, but he tries to says this:

KJV meaning of “convenient“: suitable, appropriate, to or for a purpose, fitting.

Our meaning of “convenient“: Personally suitable or well-adapted to one’s easy action or performance of functions; favourable to one’s comfort, easy condition, or the saving of trouble; commodious.

Apparently, this messes everyone up and we don’t even know it.  (Sarcasm)  In reality, the context would tell any regular English speaker that “filthiness… foolish talking… (and) jesting” are more than just not “well-adapted to one’s easy action…”.  We can be sure of this from the context.

As stated before many times, there is nothing wrong with writing “fitting” in the margin.  But a better solution would be to keep reading.  If you do, you’ll end up seeing that “convenient” has many meanings in the King James Bible.  In Jer 40:4,5 it means “right”. In Mark 6:21, it means “well-timed”. In I Cor 16:12, it means “to have time”. And it means “without trouble or difficulty” in Mark. 14:11, Acts 24:25, and 1 Cor 16:12.  Why didn’t this come up in the discussion?

He also neglected to tell us that the King James translators knew that the Greek word could mean “be fit” and they translated the word that way in Colossians 3:18.  But because of certain reasons, they choose to write “convenient” instead.  He tries to act like he has no disdain for the choices of the King James translators.  But when you actually look into what he is saying, you clearly sees that he thinks they are wrong.

There is nothing wrong with taking your Bible pen and writing, “fitting or suitable” in the margin.  But don’t pretend the word means that in every occurrence in the KJB.  The English language doesn’t work that way.  Hebrew and Greek don’t work that way for that matter.

Whatever you do, don’t use this nit-picky issue as an excuse to read a modern perversion of the words of God that nobody believes is “given by inspiration of God“.

Wait On

Ward claims “We can’t make our decision about the KJV based on a statistical survey of how people respond emotionally to Elizabethan verbiage.”  And that is fine as along as we apply it both ways.  But apparently all that it takes to prove the KJB reading is not good is to find ONE “intelligent” person who gets confused on a passage.  If that is all it takes then use me as an example.  I get confused by passages all the time.  I have read the verse literally hundreds of times and I still get confused by parts of Genesis 1:1.  But it has nothing to do with translation errors as some might propose.

Bob Jones used to say, “No doubt the problem is with you.”  The reason that certain words and phrases even in the opening chapter of the Bible are confusing is ME. My understanding is limited.  I am simply not smart enough to get everything that is going on there.  The solution isn’t to get rid of the KJB.

So WITHOUT THAT IN MIND (notice I didn’t say “with that in mind”)  Ward uses one example of a person getting confused in Romans 12:6,7 which reads, “Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;“.

He found one person who thought that “wait on” was the same as “wait to”.  She thought that she should wait to minister instead of attending.  With this ONE piece of evidence, he proceeds to use this as an example for using other perverted bibles instead of the KJB.

He even admits that we still use the phrase in the KJB this way.  We talk about a waiter who is “waiting on” tables at a restaurant.  How can it be a “false friend”, even by his false definition, IF WE STILL USE THE PHRASE THIS WAY???????

As you can see, Ward’s examples are getting worse and worse.  On a positive note, it should be very easy to see that that case against the KJB is flimsy at best.


Ward concludes his list of “false friends” in Proverbs 22:28 which, in the KJB is, “Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.”  He sets up a ridiculous strawman and claims that “remove” today means, “taking away and disposing or hiding it” and that in 1611 the word simply meant “move”.

It sounds nice, but Ward is wrong.  The primary definition in 2020 of “remove” is, “take (something) away or off from the position occupied” or “to move”.  Ward simply ignores the primary definition and claims the secondary definition is the primary definition.  Sorry, friends.  This is simply a lie. 

In 2020, if you “remove…the ancient landmark“, you are moving it.  The word can mean “to get rid of completely” but what is meant by the verse is “move” in 1611 and 2020. So Ward’s attempt to prove that the word is a “false friend” is found to be incorrect once again.

But Ward doesn’t stop there.  He, not so subtly, pokes fun at people that would apply the verse to the Bible version issue.  In so doing, he proves he doesn’t know much Bible.  This is one of the greatest examples of how the use of multiple versions ALWAYS, 100 PERCENT OF THE TIME results in a huge LOSS of Biblical knowledge.  But notice how Ward has written a whole book trying to prove the opposite!

In our introductory article to this series, we pointed out the truths about and the connections between the church of Laodicea, the book of Judges, and the lack of the authority of a king (like a KING James Authorized Bible).  And I made the point that without a King James Bible, people like Ward are unable to find these great truths.

Just like the man with the “mote” in his eye pointing out the problems that the man with the “beam” has, Ward is making my point for me when he says that it is “sadly ironic” when people use Proverbs 22:28 in the discussion about Bible versions.  He implies that the verse has nothing to do with Bible versions, when it actually does.  Since he has made my point, I am thankful.

Bible believing preachers apply this text in a spiritual sense as is perfectly allowed in Bible preaching, even if Ward fails to grasp this basic point.  This would fit the “instruction in righteousness” in 2 Tim 3:16.  Without this spiritual application, there would be NO application to us today since we use electronic surveying equipment to map out property.  We can be sure that God has more than one application to the Old Testament teachings about landmarks.  Knowing this truth and combining it with the fact that “remove” meant and means “move”, we can look at how this verse applies to what Ward is doing with his little book.

The Bible is like a landmark.  The landmark was an authority that delineated ownership of the land.  In essence, the landmark meant “you own everything on that side and I own everything on this side.”  If there was an argument or dispute over the ownership of a particular piece of land, the dispute would be settled by looking at the landmarks.  After that the dispute was settled and one side was proven correct and the other was proven incorrect.

If a man was deceitful, he would take the landmark and move it a couple of feet.  No one is so stupid that he would get rid of it completely.  Then all the hope of winning the argument is lost because the standard is gone.  It would hurt your own position as well and in the end you might end up with less land because the authority is gone.  The logical thing to do (if you were a cheater) would be to move the landmark not get rid of it.

So this 100% fits what Ward is doing with his book.  Ward is not an atheist (like his buddy, McWhorter).  Ward is a Christian and believes in the Bible in a general sense.  So he is not claiming that the Bible is completely untrustworthy.  To make that claim would be like the man who would get rid of the ancient landmark.  Ward, to his credit, is not like that.

But his error is that he is moving or “removing” the landmark.  No wonder he likes to pretend that KJB preachers mean “get rid of” when they don’t.  THE VERSE IS AIMED AT HIM.  He is moving the landmark in direct opposition to Proverbs 22:28.  When Ward is done trying to talk people out of primarily using the KJB, you end up with a landmark that isn’t in the same place.  Can the dispute be settled?  For sure, not easily.  So today we have Calvinists with their ESV, JWs with their NWT, etc.  How do you prove that Calvinism is wrong with a bible that adds the word “sovereign” to the text like the NIV?  Be honest; it wouldn’t be easy.  How to you prove that Mary wasn’t a perpetual virgin to a Catholic, when the word “firstborn” is removed in Matt 1:25?  Be honest; it wouldn’t be easy.

It wouldn’t be easy, because the ancient landmark has been removed.  Just like the real estate scammer who moved the landmark rocks in the middle of the night.  When you mess with the authority, everything gets harder and out of whack.  This is what Ward has done.  And because he doesn’t know much Bible, he doesn’t know how much damage he has done.

What a fitting verse to end this subject on.  Don’t be Ward.  Use your King James Bible.  Believe it.  Preach and teach with it.

If you want to use another bible version, don’t use Ward’s list of “false friends” as your reason.



2 thoughts on “Mark Ward’s “Authorized” Lies: False Friends Part 2

  1. Hey it’s me again I did pick up that book recently and I just read that part. I do believe that he was talking about the dashes in Isaiaah 52:14, not 15.

    “14 As many were astonished at you—

    his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance,

    and his form beyond that of the children of mankind—

    15 so shall he sprinkle many nations.”

    I hate to say it but actually that did help me undersatnd it. [You don’t have to publish my comment.]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s