The Arianism of Mark Ward Part 5

Conclusion

The translation choices made in modern versions of the Bible, particularly those based on the critical text, carry profound theological implications that go far beyond linguistic nuance. As we have explored in this article, the shift from traditional renderings to modern alternatives in passages like Proverbs 8:22, Micah 5:2, John 1:18, and 1 Timothy 3:16 introduces ambiguities that can unintentionally align with Arian theology, diminishing clear affirmations of Christ’s eternal deity and unique relationship with the Father. While proponents of modern translations, including Mark Ward, may argue that these changes reflect textual fidelity or linguistic precision, the logical consequences of these choices cannot be overlooked.

Each section has demonstrated how specific changes—whether they alter Christ’s Sonship, His eternality, or the affirmation of His incarnation—open the door to interpretations that the church has historically rejected as heretical. The traditional texts, such as the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Text, uphold doctrinal clarity that has supported orthodox beliefs for centuries. By deviating from these texts, modern translations introduce inconsistencies and contradictions that undermine the coherence of Scripture, ultimately making it easier to question foundational doctrines and allowing for nearly any interpretation to be justified.

The Principle of Explosion serves as a cautionary example: once logical contradictions are introduced, any conclusion—no matter how absurd—can be drawn from them. Just as we demonstrated that a contradiction could be used to “prove” that the moon is made of cheese, inconsistencies within the biblical text create interpretive instability, allowing for selective readings that can support even unorthodox or heretical positions. This potential for interpretive chaos highlights the need for consistency and clarity in the translation of Scripture, especially in passages central to Christian doctrine.

Ultimately, preserving traditional renderings is not about clinging to the past or resisting scholarly advancement; it is about maintaining a coherent and unified witness to the truth of Scripture. The historical texts have proven their doctrinal reliability and consistency over time, safeguarding core Christian beliefs. By adhering to these traditional texts, we honor the theological clarity that has defined orthodoxy and ensure that Scripture remains a reliable foundation for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. In an era where doctrinal ambiguity threatens to weaken the church’s witness, the choice of translation is as much a theological decision as it is a scholarly one, impacting how believers understand and defend the faith.

Appendix: Key Textual Variants in Modern Translations

This appendix provides a side-by-side comparison of several key verses discussed in the article. Each verse is presented in both the traditional rendering, based on the Textus Receptus or Masoretic Text, and the common renderings found in modern translations based on the critical text. By examining these variations, readers can observe how subtle changes in wording impact theological clarity, particularly regarding doctrines central to orthodox Christianity.

1. Proverbs 8:22 – The “Created Wisdom” Controversy

Theological Implication: The phrase “possessed me” in the traditional text supports the view that Wisdom, often interpreted as a type of Christ, is eternally coexistent with God. The modern rendering, “created me,” implies that Wisdom has a beginning, aligning with Arian interpretations that view Christ as a created being.

2. Micah 5:2 – From Everlasting or From Ancient Times?

Theological Implication: The phrase “from everlasting” in the traditional text clearly affirms Christ’s eternal nature. By contrast, “from ancient times” in modern translations suggests a historical rather than eternal origin, weakening the affirmation of Christ’s co-eternity with the Father.

3. John 1:18 – Only Begotten Son vs. Only Begotten God

Theological Implication: The traditional rendering “only begotten Son” emphasizes Christ’s unique Sonship and eternal relationship with the Father. The modern “only begotten God” introduces ambiguity, which has been historically used to suggest that Christ is distinct from the Father in essence, aligning with Unitarian and Arian perspectives.

4. 1 Timothy 3:16 – God Manifest in the Flesh

Theological Implication: The traditional rendering “God was manifest in the flesh” explicitly identifies Christ as God incarnate, supporting the doctrine of the incarnation. The modern “He was manifested in the flesh” removes the explicit identification of Christ as God, weakening the clarity of this affirmation of Christ’s deity.

5. Matthew 1:7-8, 10 – Genealogy Inconsistencies: Amon, Asaph, and Amos

Theological and Logical Implication: The KJV’s genealogy maintains consistency with the Old Testament record, listing “Amon” and “Asa” as ancestors of Christ. Modern translations, however, introduce “Asaph” and “Amos”—figures with no place in Christ’s genealogy—creating contradictions. Such inconsistencies can weaken the logical coherence of Scripture and invite interpretive instability, demonstrating the Principle of Explosion where one contradiction could lead to arbitrary conclusions.

Summary

This appendix illustrates that while these textual differences may appear minor, their theological impact is significant. The traditional renderings in the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text provide clear, unambiguous affirmations of doctrines central to the Christian faith, such as the deity, eternality, and incarnation of Christ. By contrast, the changes introduced by the critical text and reflected in modern translations often weaken or obscure these doctrines, potentially allowing for interpretations that have been historically rejected as heretical.

For those committed to preserving doctrinal clarity and consistency, these comparisons underscore the importance of carefully considering which texts and translations are used. The choice of text has far-reaching implications, not only for personal belief but for the church’s collective witness to the truth of Scripture.

ADDENDUM:  The Principle of Explosion

To demonstrate the Principle of Explosion, also known as ex falso quodlibet (from falsehood, anything follows), we can show how introducing a contradiction into a logical system allows us to “prove” any statement, no matter how absurd—such as “the moon is made of cheese.” Here’s how the demonstration would proceed in formal logic:

Assumptions

1. P: Some proposition is true.
2. ¬P: The same proposition is also false (a contradiction).

Steps in the Proof

1. Start with the contradiction: Assume both P (a statement) and ¬P (the negation of that statement) are true.
   • For example, let P be “the moon is not made of cheese.”
2. Introduce the statement we want to prove: Suppose we want to prove that the moon is made of cheese (let’s call this statement Q).
3. Apply a logical rule (disjunction introduction): In classical logic, if P is true, then the statement “P or Q” is also true.
   • Therefore, since we have P, we can conclude P ∨ Q (“the moon is not made of cheese, or the moon is made of cheese”).
4. Use the contradiction: Since ¬P is also true, we can eliminate P from our disjunction P ∨ Q, leaving us with Q (the moon is made of cheese).
5. Conclusion: We have derived Q (“the moon is made of cheese”) from our original contradiction.

Explanation of the Principle of Explosion

This demonstration illustrates that once a contradiction exists in a logical system (both P and ¬P are true), the system becomes unsound, allowing any statement to be “proven” as true, even if it has no relation to the original propositions.

In the context of Scripture, if contradictions or logical inconsistencies are introduced by changing key doctrinal passages, it can lead to interpretive chaos. Just as the contradiction P and ¬P allowed us to conclude the absurd statement that the moon is made of cheese, textual contradictions can allow for selective interpretations that support nearly any theological position, potentially undermining core doctrines and the coherence of Scripture. This is why maintaining consistency and avoiding contradictions in translation choices is crucial to preserving doctrinal integrity.

Application: Using Matthew 5:22 and Matthew 5:44 to Demonstrate Absurdity

To illustrate the logical inconsistencies introduced by adopting the critical text over the traditional text, we will apply the Principle of Explosion to show how these inconsistencies can lead to absurd conclusions. Specifically, we will “prove” that Mark Ward does not exist if the critical text is correct, using the textual variations in Matthew 5:22 and Matthew 5:44 as examples. This exercise highlights the dangers of allowing logical contradictions into the text of Scripture, demonstrating that once contradictions are accepted, any absurdity can be “proven.”

Key Textual Variations: Matthew 5:22 and 5:44

Matthew 5:22

• Traditional Text (KJV): “But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment…”
• Critical Text (Modern Translations): “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment…”

Theological Implication: The critical text omits “without a cause,” creating a potential contradiction with Ephesians 4:26, which permits righteous anger (“Be ye angry, and sin not”). This omission implies that all anger, whether justified or not, is sinful, introducing a logical inconsistency in Scripture’s teaching on anger.

Matthew 5:44

• Traditional Text (KJV): “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”
• Critical Text (Modern Translations): “But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

Theological Implication: The critical text removes “bless them that curse you” and “do good to them that hate you,” significantly truncating Jesus’ teaching. The omissions alter the emphasis and scope of the command, potentially introducing contradictions with passages like Romans 12:14, which exhorts believers to “bless them which persecute you.”

Logical Absurdity: Proving Mark Ward Doesn’t Exist

Using the contradictions introduced by the critical text, we can construct a reductio ad absurdum argument to “prove” the nonexistence of Mark Ward. This absurdity serves to underscore the logical chaos introduced by inconsistencies in the critical text.

Step 1: Establish Contradictions

1. Contradiction from Matthew 5:22:
   • If the critical text is correct, all anger (justified or not) is sinful, as the phrase “without a cause” is removed.
   • However, Scripture (e.g., Ephesians 4:26) allows for righteous anger, creating a contradiction within the Bible.
2. Contradiction from Matthew 5:44:
   • If the critical text is correct, Jesus’ teaching excludes the command to bless and do good to enemies, but other passages (e.g., Romans 12:14) explicitly include these instructions, creating another contradiction.

Step 2: Introduce the Proposition

Let us consider the proposition:

• P: Mark Ward exists.

Step 3: Use the Contradictions

From the contradictions in the critical text, both P (Mark Ward exists) and ¬P (Mark Ward does not exist) can logically follow. For instance:

1. If Scripture contains contradictions (as introduced by the critical text), its reliability is undermined.
2. If Scripture is unreliable, its statements about reality, including the existence of Mark Ward, are also unreliable.
3. Thus, we can assert ¬P (Mark Ward does not exist) based on the unreliability of Scripture.

Step 4: Apply the Principle of Explosion

• With both P (Mark Ward exists) and ¬P (Mark Ward does not exist) being true in this contradictory framework, we can now “prove” anything, including the absurdity that Mark Ward does not exist.

Step 5: Absurd Conclusion

By allowing contradictions into the text through the critical text, we have reached the absurd conclusion that Mark Ward, an actual person, does not exist.

Application to Doctrine and Translation

This exercise highlights the critical importance of consistency and coherence in Scripture. The traditional text avoids such contradictions, preserving a unified and logically sound witness to truth. By contrast, the critical text introduces contradictions that undermine the reliability of Scripture and, by extension, the doctrinal and theological truths derived from it.

Practical Implications:

• If the critical text is correct, logical inconsistencies allow for absurdities, such as proving the nonexistence of a real person like Mark Ward.
• Accepting contradictions in Scripture compromises its authority, as truth cannot coexist with falsehood.
• This underscores the necessity of adhering to the traditional text, which has been providentially preserved to maintain both theological integrity and logical consistency.

Conclusion: The argument that weakening one doctrinal passage does not matter because the doctrine is affirmed elsewhere fails when contradictions are introduced. Logical coherence is essential to the authority and reliability of Scripture. As demonstrated, adopting the critical text leads to absurdities that undermine the truth of Scripture and the faith it upholds.

Chris.Thomas

See Full Bio