McWhorter, Ward, Tyndale, and a KJV Update

James McWhorter came on my radar when in 2003 I purchased and read his book, Doing Our Own Thing: The Degradation of Language and Music and Why We Should, Like, Care.  Since then, I have read many of his articles published online, referring to one, even in my post exactly a week ago.  As a black American linguist, McWhorter has considered and continued to explore the meaning and effects of the changes or even degeneracy of language and speech.  His honesty about the consequences for black people have led many on the left to regard him as a conservative, to require him to defend his blackness.  McWhorter labels himself a "cranky liberal" and he teaches at the left wing Columbia University in New York City.

On Monday, I referenced McWhorter on the use of "like" in contemporary speech.  He seemed to advocate the acceptance of its modern iteration as a typical evolution of language.  Anymore little to nothing seems to hold back the debasement of culture.  Employers won't have anyone left to hire if they won't accept the change.  Everywhere standards are dropping.  I saw McWhorter as a bit of a gatekeeper, perhaps this his "crankiness" a decelerator of the momentum toward extinction.

How much does slippage matter?  I have argued here and contend the scripture expects culture must remain equal with scripture.  We cannot revise the Bible down to where we've gone.  We instead have to conform ourselves to where the Bible is.  It matters.  This consideration intersects with Bible translation.

Not long ago, I contended with Mard Ward about the subject of updating the King James Version.  Ward is a Bob Jones University graduate, who works for Logos as a "pro," someone who explains how to get the best and most use out of the Logos computer programs.  What seems to be very front burner for Ward is correlating the English of bible translation to the most illiterate in America.  He suggests this the same intention of Tyndale with his translation into English in the 16th century -- as Tyndale desired every ploughboy to read the Bible in his own language, also too should every modern dropout and street gang member.

On January 24 of next year, Ward's new book, Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible, will become available to the public.  Ward won't even talk with you about Bible versions and translation itself except for modernizing language, excluding any conversation about the underlying text.  Last Tuesday, Slate, a very, very liberal online magazine, broadcast McWhorter's podcast, Lexicon Valley, where he interviewed Mark Ward about his new book.  McWhorter, himself rejecting the Bible as God's Word, gave his support to Ward's idea of changing the King James.

At this very moment, English speaking people are not at all prevented several various options of updates of the King James Version.  As many know, there are also numerous contemporary translations of the Bible from a different underlying text.  With that in mind, it has to be something different that Ward wants than providing an easier Bible for the child in a crumbling and failing inner city school.  That child has numerous options right this moment if someone wants to give that to him.  I'll have to await, purchase, and then read Ward's book to see if he tells us what his real point is.  Right now, it seems like someone standing next to a fully operational well and begging for water.

I can't talk to Ward about anything right now except how much I agree with him, even though I don't.  That spells impasse.  On the other hand, Ward reveres McWhorter, who not long ago wrote that "gay really is the new black."  McWhorter also argues for an update of Shakespeare, both Ward and he agreeing for something 90% Shakespeare so as not to lose the flavor of Shakespeare, but to provide accessibility.  Numerous new performances of Shakespeare already exist, including a recent Julius Caesar in Central Park, New York City, featuring the assassination of President Trump.

Postmodernists have already revised the history of the United States to scrub the gigantic biblical and God honoring parts.  Many are pulling down most of the statues and acting like that isn't Moses over the Supreme Court building or on the back wall of the chamber of Congress.  They are already in essence rewriting the Constitution to fit their progressive worldview.

The only goal I can see from Ward's crusade is for churches that like the King James Version, like ours, to lead in the changes Ward wishes them to adopt.  They first must agree that Ward is right, including his premise that he represents Tyndale.  I would be a more likely person among those he targets to consider what he asks, and I see Ward's premise as dishonest.  The ploughboy couldn't read Latin.  Tyndale wasn't updating the English.  Ploughboys needed a Bible in their own language and a printed one for their own hands, not something possessed only by religious authorities.  The King James translators borrowed heavily from Tyndale's translation into English.  The current translation is a 1769 update, the Benjamin Blayney edition.

A prime second premise of Ward is that he really, really cares about modern ploughboys, implicating the compassion of those who keep using the King James Version.  If he wishes to reach his goal, this will fail.  Perhaps the ploughboy Ward needs a contemporary primer, one that he can understand, to instruct his reaching of his goal.  He won't convince the deplorables by insulting them.

I see those who use the King James Version to be among the most evangelistic in the United States.  I don't see the modern language folk even evangelizing the poor kids in the inner city.  We do.  We go to every door preaching the gospel to them and the version I use hasn't hurt that cause one iota.  Our church has evangelized every door in multiple cities in very difficult areas or conditions with the King James Version.  I don't see the Ward-types doing this thing that he says he is an important basis for what he's calling for.

I don't know what John McWhorter knows about the King James Version, but I'm guessing he doesn't understand the underlying textual issues or the historical doctrine of preservation of scripture.  Ward doesn't want to talk about those.  The regular KJV church distrusts the establishment, the hierarchy, or academia.  The New King James Version is a recent example.  They say it is a New King James, but it is translated by men against the King James and not from the identical text.  It was a lie.

King James churches will need to see the need for an update and then lead it.   Bibles like the Defined King James, which provides definitions or explanations of hard to be understood out-of-use language in footnotes, says that they think about it.  However, those churches and their leaders must want the update, if it will occur.  They resist the men who don't acknowledge the true uniqueness of the King James Version.  When McWhorter asked Ward what the best translation was, he said, "All of them."  That kind of gobbledygook brings resistance from those asked to change.  They are skeptical also for many more reasons.

One, they don't like the cultural degradation that solicits a new translation.  They see that as contributing to further downgrade.  You reach a point that the receptor cultures can't embrace scripture.  Churches shouldn't accommodate them.

Two, they see urges to change as a reversal of the divine order.  God's Word changes us; we don't change His Word.  We are not in charge of God's Word, but God's Word is in charge of us.  Men easily adopt or adapt a translation for themselves.

Three, God is immutable and His Word doesn't change.  It shouldn't be easy to update, because it violates the principle of a standard or an authority.  If you don't like or prefer something, now you just change it.  The underlying text doesn't and shouldn't change or be changed.  The translation should reflect that.  Amending the Constitution of the United States requires a formidable process, but those who call for an update seem to think that it's something easily to be done.

Four, the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, not publishers, bible product professionals, colleges, universities, graduate schools, or seminaries.  Churches should decide.  That's where the impulse to update should start.  The same people should then be satisfied upon completion.  Right now I don't hear or see that impetus among those churches.  Whatever Ward sees, they don't see, and he isn't helping.  Someone who won't even talk with them and only talks at them is not someone whom they will listen to.  His book isn't for them.

Mark Ward writes for his own audience, who already doesn't use the King James Version.  It's ironic really.  It's just another book for those who want to bash the King James, whatever Ward may say to deny that.  I read reviews of Ward's interview, and the modern version people loved the interview.  They have already switched from the King James Version.  It would seem his target audience would be people like me and he offends people like me.  He turns them off.

There are other aspects about Ward that would turn off King James Version supporters, including the way he talks, his cadence, mannerisms, and style.  If you don't hear it, then don't expect to get it.  You can play dumb, but anyone can hear it, when he talks.  I guess that's impressive to a certain audience, and Ward is being invited to speak among fundamentalists right now in order to say that they approve.  It's not going to help reach that goal.  He isn't the right spokesman.  He isn't persuasive toward this cause.

Having John McWhorter have you, accept you, agree with you, and praise you won't gain any traction toward a King James Version update.  I like reading John McWhorter, but I know he doesn't understand the Bible.  He is an unbeliever.  His acceptance of Ward on this issue doesn't speak well of Ward and his take on the King James Version.  Ward will sell more books because of the interview.  I'm sure there was a spike in sales right away.  For those who will see through what Ward says he wants, it just brings further skepticism.  Ward doesn't speak for them.

There are many, many more pressing issues today than an update of the KJV.  I don't know that we live in a culture that could take that responsibility.  I don't know that we ever will.  Before we ever get agreement on those problems and their solution, an update of the KJV will not be entertained, no matter what Mark Ward or John McWhorter say about it.