When Words Fail the Word

[Anthony Pritchard]

When Words Fail the Word

The Erosion of Language and the Crisis of Translation​

Letters From The Edge © A.K. Pritchard

To Benjamin, Son Of My Right Hand

Son,

There was a time when English stood as a worthy vessel for truth, when grammar, tone, and vocabulary worked in harmony to carry weighty thoughts without distortion or dilution. From the rugged Old English, through the richness of Middle English, the tongue matured into its finest articulation during the late sixteenth century, a moment when Scripture, literature, and scholarship converged to form language with backbone.

At its height, English was not merely a cultural achievement, but a providential instrument, mature, precise, and capacious enough to receive the Word of God in translation without loss. It was not a language reaching for comprehension, but one refined and ready: “The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times” (Psalm 12:6). In that moment, English bore the Scriptures with fidelity, not approximation.

This was no accident of history. The translators of the Authorized Version, men steeped in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and the classical forms of English, labored not to innovate, but to preserve. They compared their work diligently with earlier English renderings, especially the pioneering labors of William Tyndale, whose direct translation from the original tongues laid the foundation for all that followed. Their aim was not novelty, but faithfulness. And by God’s providence, they succeeded: the result was a translation that preserved the inspiration of the original text, fully intact, in a language equal to its majesty.

For the promise of God is not only inspiration, but preservation: “Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever” (Psalm 12:7). The faithful words He gave are not relics but living speech, preserved, entrusted, and capable of being accurately known. Yet such preservation demands a language equal to the task. The English of the King James translators, of Tyndale and Cranmer, was forged for this burden. It did not dilute the Word, it delivered it.

From that golden height, however, a descent began. Modern English, sleek but hollowed, carries in its bloodstream the symptoms of linguistic entropy: blurred definitions, fractured syntax, eroded cadence. What once elevated the soul now stumbles over slogans. And as words degenerate, so too does our capacity to name, to judge, to discern. The very tools required to faithfully transmit sacred truth have grown dull.

This is no academic grief. When a language loses precision, translations become approximations. Paraphrase stands where exegesis once stood. The Word, infallible in the original tongue, becomes vulnerable in ours, not because it has changed, but because we have. A culture that prizes ambiguity over meaning cannot long hold the line between inspiration and interpretation.

What’s at stake is not merely fidelity to Scripture, but fidelity to Truth itself. The erosion of language is not neutral; it is an assault on clarity, on authority, and ultimately on Christ, who is the Word. And when words fail the Word, the Churches must not remain silent. They must labor, deliberately, unapologetically, to preserve the dignity of thought and the sanctity of language, lest truth be lost to the fog of clever vagueness.

Colophon

A work composed in reverence for the Word, in defense of language, and in gratitude for the fathers who bore truth faithfully. Written and prepared by A. K. Pritchard, in the conviction that words still matter, and that the Scriptures remain pure, preserved, and sufficient. I am not writing to stir anything. I am writing for the ones who still care about truth, language, Scripture, and the weight of words. Set forth for the strengthening of those who love clarity, cherish truth, and refuse the erosion of meaning.

Lingua maturata, Scriptura servata - A matured tongue, a preserved Scripture.

All my love,

Dad

~Tony

© A.K. Pritchard 1979 -

Free to use with proper attribution.

 

[Logos1560]

When Words Fail the Word

The Erosion of Language and the Crisis of Translation​

. It was not a language reaching for comprehension, but one refined and ready: “The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times” (Psalm 12:6). In that moment, English bore the Scriptures with fidelity, not approximation.

And by God’s providence, they succeeded: the result was a translation that preserved the inspiration of the original text, fully intact, in a language equal to its majesty.

For the promise of God is not only inspiration, but preservation: “Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever” (Psalm 12:7). The faithful words He gave are not relics but living speech, preserved, entrusted, and capable of being accurately known. Yet such preservation demands a language equal to the task. The English of the King James translators, of Tyndale and Cranmer, was forged for this burden. It did not dilute the Word, it delivered it.

The very tools required to faithfully transmit sacred truth have grown dull.

When a language loses precision, translations become approximations. Paraphrase stands where exegesis once stood.

You fail to prove your imprecise, generalized assertions to be true. You seem to ignore or dodge certain facts that would be problems for your unproven overgeneralized assertions. You do not prove that the KJV gives a faithful, accurate rendering of every original-language word of Scripture. The KJV does not preserve every original-language word of Scripture by giving an English word/rendering for each and every one. The KJV omits giving any English words for many original language words of Scripture. The KJV has some paraphrasing and many dynamic equivalent renderings. The Church of England makers of the KJV changed some renderings in the pre-1611 English Bibles to make them more favorable to Church of England episcopal church government views, revealing Episcopal or Anglican bias.

How does the KJV preserve and keep fully intact the inspiration of those original-language words of Scripture for which it gives no English rendering/word?

In at least some places, one of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision were more faithful, more precise, clearer, or more accurate than the KJV is. Present post-1900 KJV editions add over 190 whole English words that were not found in the original 1611 edition. The Scriptures do not teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England priests/men in 1611.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You fail to prove your imprecise, generalized assertions to be true. You seem to ignore or dodge certain facts that would be problems for your unproven overgeneralized assertions.

Logos, I need to state plainly that I am being falsely accused. You are attacking a position I never stated. I did not claim that the KJV renders every original language word exactly, nor that it contains no interpretive decisions. Those are assertions you have assigned to me, not statements I made.

The KJV is a formal equivalence translation, not a paraphrase, and it does not employ dynamic equivalence as a translation philosophy. My point was not about that exactness, but about the linguistic environment in which the KJV was produced. It was an English capable of carrying Scripture with greater precision than modern English allows.

My thesis is about the erosion of language and the impact that erosion has on faithful translation. If you would like to engage that specific argument, I am glad to continue the discussion. But I cannot defend claims I never made.

 

[Logos1560]

Logos, I need to state plainly that I am being falsely accused.

You do not demonstrate that you are supposedly being falsely accused. My points soundly address assertions in what you yourself wrote. Your broad-sweeping generalized assertions may imply and suggest more than you intended. My sound point is that you do not actually prove what you assert to be true.

I did not claim that the KJV is a paraphrase, but the truth remains that the KJV has some renderings that can be soundly considered paraphrases. You do not prove the linguistic environment in which the KJV was produced to be perfect or to be superior to that in all other time periods. There are scholars who would likely disagree with your opinions.

You do not clearly demonstrate that the KJV carries Scripture with greater precision than present-day standard English allows. Present English Bibles can be just as precise and accurate in presenting the original-language words of Scripture in English as the KJV is. I do not agree with the opinion that the Scriptures cannot be translated accurately in present-day English.

In his introduction to a modern-spelling edition of Tyndale's New Testament, David Daniell noted: "When James I gave his Bible revisers the huge
Bishops' Bible as their foundation, which meant that the Vulgate-based Rheims version would be attractive to them, he ensured that a wash of Latinity would be spread over Tyndale's English. The result, and we must assume, the intention, was to create a safer distance between the Scriptures and the people. Though in the general working vocabulary there were more Latinate terms in use by 1611, Latin words and constructions have, as they had then, the ring of Establishment authority, which is not the same as the Koine Greek that Tyndale was translating for the first time" (p. xxiv).

David Daniell wrote: "For King James to lay down as the foundation of his new version the most Latinate of recent indigenous Bibles was unfortunate indeed, and destroyed the chance of the new version being in the best modern English" (p. xiii). David Daniell pointed out: “Those scholars were tied by having, at the King’s command, to base their work on the ill-done, backward-looking, heavily Latinate Bishops’ Bible of 1568 partly because it had no marginal notes” (William Tyndale, p. 344). David Daniell also observed: "Appeal to Latin, so characteristic of the Authorised Version, tends to flatten differences, and make one special kind of language for everything, something a little antiquated, a little removed, and feeling therefore, for the New Testament, rather artificially holy" (p. 139).

David Lawton asserted: “The style of the King James Bible was meant to align the reading of the Bible with the worship of the Church of England; and its slightly old-fashioned language was meant to express the great antiquity of that Church” (Faith, p. 81). In an introduction to an Oxford World’s Classics edition of the KJV, Robert Carroll and Stephen Prickett wrote: “Unlike Tyndale, who had translated the koine Greek of the New Testament into a direct and forceful contemporary vernacular, the language of the new translation [the KJV] was often deliberately archaic and Latinized” (p. xxviii).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You do not demonstrate that you are supposedly being falsely accused. My points soundly address assertions in what you yourself wrote. Your broad-sweeping generalized assertions may imply and suggest more than you intended. My sound point is that you do not actually prove what you assert to be true.

I did not claim that the KJV is a paraphrase, but the truth remains that the KJV has some renderings that can be soundly considered paraphrases. You do not prove the linguistic environment in which the KJV was produced to be perfect or to be superior to that in all other time periods. There are scholars who would likely disagree with your opinions.

You do not clearly demonstrate that the KJV carries Scripture with greater precision than present-day standard English allows. Present English Bibles can be just as precise and accurate in presenting the original-language words of Scripture in English as the KJV is. I do not agree with the opinion that the Scriptures cannot be translated accurately in present-day English.

In his introduction to a modern-spelling edition of Tyndale's New Testament, David Daniell noted: "When James I gave his Bible revisers the huge
Bishops' Bible as their foundation, which meant that the Vulgate-based Rheims version would be attractive to them, he ensured that a wash of Latinity would be spread over Tyndale's English. The result, and we must assume, the intention, was to create a safer distance between the Scriptures and the people. Though in the general working vocabulary there were more Latinate terms in use by 1611, Latin words and constructions have, as they had then, the ring of Establishment authority, which is not the same as the Koine Greek that Tyndale was translating for the first time" (p. xxiv).

David Daniell wrote: "For King James to lay down as the foundation of his new version the most Latinate of recent indigenous Bibles was unfortunate indeed, and destroyed the chance of the new version being in the best modern English" (p. xiii). David Daniell pointed out: “Those scholars were tied by having, at the King’s command, to base their work on the ill-done, backward-looking, heavily Latinate Bishops’ Bible of 1568 partly because it had no marginal notes” (William Tyndale, p. 344). David Daniell also observed: "Appeal to Latin, so characteristic of the Authorised Version, tends to flatten differences, and make one special kind of language for everything, something a little antiquated, a little removed, and feeling therefore, for the New Testament, rather artificially holy" (p. 139).

David Lawton asserted: “The style of the King James Bible was meant to align the reading of the Bible with the worship of the Church of England; and its slightly old-fashioned language was meant to express the great antiquity of that Church” (Faith, p. 81). In an introduction to an Oxford World’s Classics edition of the KJV, Robert Carroll and Stephen Prickett wrote: “Unlike Tyndale, who had translated the koine Greek of the New Testament into a direct and forceful contemporary vernacular, the language of the new translation [the KJV] was often deliberately archaic and Latinized” (p. xxviii).

Logos, let me state my position plainly so there is no misunderstanding. I believe, without reservation, that God has preserved His Word exactly as He promised in Psalm 12:7. I believe the Majority Text is the preserved text, and that by that same providence the King James Bible is a, not the only but a, perfectly preserved translation of that text. That is my conviction.


My point about language is simple. The English of the early modern period possessed structures, capacities, and precision that have been eroded in present-day English. Because of that erosion, present English cannot carry the same level of accuracy without loss, paraphrase, or flattening. That is not a claim about translators. It is a claim about language itself.


You are free to disagree with that conviction, but disagreement does not make it unproven. Nor does it justify assigning claims to me that I have not made. I have not argued that the KJV translators were perfect, nor that they were free from bias, nor that every rendering is word-for-word. I have argued that God preserved His Word, that He did so through the Majority Text, and that the KJV stands within that preservation.


My position rests on preservation, not on human scholarship. Psalm 12:7 is the foundation. The linguistic environment of the early 1600s is the vessel. The erosion of language is the challenge. And the conviction that God kept His promise is the conclusion.

That is the argument I am making. Nothing more, and nothing less.

 

[Logos1560]

My position rests on preservation, not on human scholarship. Psalm 12:7 is the foundation. The linguistic environment of the early 1600s is the vessel. The erosion of language is the challenge. And the conviction that God kept His promise is the conclusion.

That is the argument I am making. Nothing more, and nothing less.

While you may not be KJV-only, you are making some of the same arguments that some KJV-only advocates make. Psalm 12:7 is the foundation for some or many KJV-only advocates. Many KJV-only authors use a "purified seven times" argument or a purification process arguments that ends with the KJV being the claimed to be final purification. Your claim about the English language is one of the arguments used by some KJV-only advocates. Your argument is part of the unproven case for the KJV that KJV-only advocates try to make for their KJV-only view. I did not say that you claimed that the KJV is perfect.

I believe in the preservation of the Scriptures. I believe that God has kept all His promises concerning His words. However, the Scriptures do not teach that preservation is bound or limited to the KJV or teach that no post-1611 English Bible can be the word of God translated into English.

The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are.

 

[Logos1560]

You are free to disagree with that conviction, but disagreement does not make it unproven.

It is the fact that you do not prove your assertions to be true that makes them unproven. You do not meet the burden of proof for all your assertions. Any assertions that are not proven to be true are unproven.

I did not claim that disagreeing with them makes them unproven. You do not prove that the Scriptures translated into present-day standard English cannot be accurate English translations in the same sense as the KJV with its late 1500's to 1610 English.

 

[Logos1560]

The KJV could be considered as much (if not more) an extensive updating and revision of the trusted and loved Geneva Bible and of the Bishops’ Bible as the NKJV is of the KJV.

Hundreds and even thousands of differences could be noted between the Geneva Bible and the KJV, and yet KJV-only authors have claimed that they are “basically the same” Bibles. The makers of the KJV were Bible revisers of the pre-1611 English Bible just as the makers of the NKJV were Bible revisers of the 1611 KJV.

Generally speaking, the KJV and the NKJV can be soundly and justly considered to be as much “basically the same” Bibles as the Geneva Bible and the KJV are considered to be or as the Bishops’ Bible and the KJV are considered to be. The NKJV can be regarded as much a textual twin of the KJV as the Bishops’ Bible is. If the Geneva Bible and the KJV can be properly considered “practically identical,” the KJV and the NKJV could also be considered the same. The NKJV can soundly and accurately be regarded as a genuine revision of the KJV in the very same sense (univocally) as the KJV is a genuine revision of the Geneva Bible or the Bishops’ Bible and of all the pre-1611 English Bibles.

In the same general sense that the dedication in the 1611 KJV asserts that the KJV is “one more exact translation” as the Bishops’ Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, or the Matthew’s Bible, the NKJV can also be asserted to be “one more exact translation.” Was the KJV intended to be a Tyndale’s “lookalike,” Matthew’s Bible “lookalike,” Geneva Bible “lookalike” or Bishops’ Bible “lookalike” even though it was also intended to replace them? The KJV may look so similar to the Geneva Bible or the Bishops’ Bible, but it is not the same exact Bible translation.

 

[Logos1560]

​

For the promise of God is not only inspiration, but preservation: “Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever” (Psalm 12:7). The faithful words He gave are not relics but living speech, preserved, entrusted, and capable of being accurately known. Yet such preservation demands a language equal to the task. The English of the King James translators, of Tyndale and Cranmer, was forged for this burden. It did not dilute the Word, it delivered it.

Does this possibly suggest or imply that English is considered to be superior to the Hebrew and to the Greek for preserving the words that proceeded directly from the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles?

Is it possibly being suggested that Hebrew was not equal to the task for preserving the Old Testament words and that Greek was not equal to the task for preserving the New Testament words?

According to what the Scriptures state and according to the definition of preservation, would not a consistent, sound, scriptural view of Bible preservation be true both before, in, and after 1611? Baptist pastor and KJV defender Glenn Conjurske suggested that many KJV-only advocates “have never yet understood so much as the meaning of the word ‘preservation’” (Olde Paths, Jan., 1997, p. 14; Bible Version, p. 177). Glenn Conjurske asserted: “In its very nature preservation must be continuous, from beginning to end” (Ibid.). Glenn Conjurske added: “The ‘final form’ of anything which is preserved is just the same as it was the first day of its existence, and every day thereafter. This is the meaning of ‘preservation, and is certainly necessary to their doctrine of perfect preservation” (Ibid.; Bible Version, p. 177). Glenn Conjurske concluded: “The very meaning of ‘preservation’ necessitates that he [God] should keep it pure always, and not merely that he should restore it to purity after the passing of hundreds of years” (Bible Version, p. 63). KJV-only author D. A. Waite asserted: “Bible ‘preservation’ that is not ‘perfect’ is not ‘preservation’” (Fundamentalist Deception on Bible Preservation, p. 117). Glenn Conjurske asserted: “We can have no restoration, no final form, no coming into being, of anything which has been preserved in perfection” (Bible Version, p. 178). Francis Turretin noted: “For in order to preserve a copy exactly conformed to the original, it is sufficient for the same words to occur in each” (Institutes, Vol. 1, p. 121). Gail Riplinger asserted: “Something must be preserved. There is no preservation without an object of preservation” (Hazardous Materials, p. 1144).

The same specific words of God given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles would be the object of preservation.

 

[Logos1560]

R. S. Sugirtharajah wrote: “Their preference for the King James Version over the new arrivals is often based on the simple and purely subjective reason that the King James Version is venerably archaic and enticingly more familiar” (Burke, KJV at 400, p. 511).

Adam Nicolson wrote: “The Romantics’ hunger for the archaic, which in English consciousness seems scarcely distinguishable from the poetic, is at one with the Jacobean search for the ancient and the primitive, a deeply retrospective habit of mind which searches for meaning in the past. The old, for the English, is holy and beautiful, largely because the language of the King James Bible has conveyed that to them” (God’s Secretaries, p. 237).