The Disappearance of the Dean Burgon Society

[John of Japan]

What's your position on the KJV? How would you differ with D.A. Waite and other KJV only advocates?

I'm a Lifeline Bible Only advocate! That is the Japanese NT translation from the TR that I was the lead translator for. (We were in Japan for 33 years.) This is the only modern Japanese NT from the TR, not from critical Greek texts. My team is now working on the Lifeline OT. My point is that KJVO advocates are rarely knowledgeable or supportive of missionary Bible translations. Such translations are the heart of my position on the KJV. To advocates of the KJV in the US I say, "Put your money where your mouth is, and support missionary translations." Few do.

So, my position on the KJV is that it is the best English translation in history, and I teach and preach from it, but I do not believe in a perfect translation. Rather, I think most of the KJVO movement is off target. They are not obeying the Great Commission, which never says to defend the Bible. In fact, there are no passages in the whole Bible telling us to defend God's Word. Instead, we are to preach it, spread it, use it, and translate it. (Bible translation is implicit in the Great Commission.)

Refugees from the DBS started something called the William Carey Bible Society, thinking to support missionary translations, but it went belly up. Their website was taken over by a Japanese yakuza gang, and for a while it had instructions for nefarious purposes on it. It is now totally inactive.

Having said all of that, I do support or acknowledge the following institutions for their emphasis on missionary Bible translation:

WorldView Ministries (I'll be at a meeting in June.)
Bearing Precious Seed (They printed our Japanese NT.)
Baptist Bible Translator's Institute
Global Bible Translators. Interestingly enough, this organization is KJVO, but their main translation consultant, Steve Combs (a very able man, though I've never met him) wrote a Greek grammar: The Translator's Greek Grammar of the Textus Receptus. In it he gives translation problems from the TR, but then translates them in modern English. This is the forced direction missionary translation must take.

 

[Truth Seeker]

I'm a Lifeline Bible Only advocate! That is the Japanese NT translation from the TR that I was the lead translator for. (We were in Japan for 33 years.) This is the only modern Japanese NT from the TR, not from critical Greek texts. My team is now working on the Lifeline OT. My point is that KJVO advocates are rarely knowledgeable or supportive of missionary Bible translations. Such translations are the heart of my position on the KJV. To advocates of the KJV in the US I say, "Put your money where your mouth is, and support missionary translations." Few do.

So, my position on the KJV is that it is the best English translation in history, and I teach and preach from it, but I do not believe in a perfect translation. Rather, I think most of the KJVO movement is off target. They are not obeying the Great Commission, which never says to defend the Bible. In fact, there are no passages in the whole Bible telling us to defend God's Word. Instead, we are to preach it, spread it, use it, and translate it. (Bible translation is implicit in the Great Commission.)

Refugees from the DBS started something called the William Carey Bible Society, thinking to support missionary translations, but it went belly up. Their website was taken over by a Japanese yakuza gang, and for a while it had instructions for nefarious purposes on it. It is now totally inactive.

Having said all of that, I do support or acknowledge the following institutions for their emphasis on missionary Bible translation:

WorldView Ministries (I'll be at a meeting in June.)
Bearing Precious Seed (They printed our Japanese NT.)
Baptist Bible Translator's Institute
Global Bible Translators. Interestingly enough, this organization is KJVO, but their main translation consultant, Steve Combs (a very able man, though I've never met him) wrote a Greek grammar: The Translator's Greek Grammar of the Textus Receptus. In it he gives translation problems from the TR, but then translates them in modern English. This is the forced direction missionary translation must take.

If I understand you correctly you would be KJV prefer just like John R Rice. Do you know of any IFB churches or schools in the U.S. who would also have this more moderate position on the KJV. I would dare say if John R Rice was alive today he would probably be using the NKJV based on the same Greet text.

 

[John of Japan]

If I understand you correctly you would be KJV prefer just like John R Rice. Do you know of any IFB churches or schools in the U.S. who would also have this more moderate position on the KJV. I would dare say if John R Rice was alive today he would probably be using the NKJV based on the same Greet text.

Yes, that would describe my position.

Non-KJVO: my college and seminary (baptistcollege.org), Maranatha Baptist U. and Seminary, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, Central Baptist Theological Seminary (in Minnesota). I understand that Pensacola Christian College is TR only; don't know if they consider themselves KJVO. BJU is actually critical text preferred, and nowadays it is mostly IFB, though I don't know percentages. (Back in the 1990s it was 95% Baptist.)

With the deaths of Peter Ruckman and D. A. Waite, there are no national leaders of the movement that I know of. Large schools like Crown College and West Coast Baptist College are KJVO to the best of my knowledge, but don't make a big deal about it. They are more about the Great Commission.

 

[Logos1560]

Global Bible Translators. Interestingly enough, this organization is KJVO, but their main translation consultant, Steve Combs (a very able man, though I've never met him) wrote a Greek grammar: The Translator's Greek Grammar of the Textus Receptus. In it he gives translation problems from the TR, but then translates them in modern English. This is the forced direction missionary translation must take.

I meet Steve Combs at the National Conference for the King James Bible Research Council. I talked with him a little. I gave him a copy of one of my books.

Steve Combs' first two books A Practical Theology of Bible Translating in 2019 and The Translator’s Greek Grammar of the Textus Receptus in 2021
were mostly balanced and reasonable.

In Steve Combs' last two books So Shall My Word Be: Using Biblical Principles to Judge the Modern Bible Versions Movement in 2024 and Magnified Above His Name in 2025, inconsistent KJV-only reasoning is more on display.

 

[John of Japan]

I meet Steve Combs at the National Conference for the King James Bible Research Council. I talked with him a little. I gave him a copy of one of my books.

Steve Combs' first two books A Practical Theology of Bible Translating in 2019 and The Translator’s Greek Grammar of the Textus Receptus in 2021
were mostly balanced and reasonable.

I have both of these and have perused them. He did a fair job. I respect him for actually becoming a translation consultant and visiting many fields to help. Judging by his Greek grammar, he knows Greek pretty well.

When a KJVO person meets missionary Bible translation, they are forced to change. I was once asked, "Is there a KJV in Japanese?" Puzzled, I answered, "No, the KJV is English, and the Japanese read Japanese."

In Steve Combs' last two books So Shall My Word Be: Using Biblical Principles to Judge the Modern Bible Versions Movement in 2024 and Magnified Above His Name in 2025, inconsistent KJV-only reasoning is more on display.

Don't have those, and probably won't get them. But thanks for you diligence in this area.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Dr. Waite’s son has a separate site that still exists: The Bible For Today HomePage

 

[John of Japan]

Dr. Waite’s son has a separate site that still exists: The Bible For Today HomePage

Yeah. He once wrote and asked me why I wasn't in the DBS. I didn't write back. There are several reasons, but perhaps the main one is that when his father died, he kept on the DBS website (A Response To A Critique of “Word-For-Word Translating”) the vicious personal attack against me and our Japanese translation (from the TR) promulgated by H. D. Williams. My crime? I wrote a negative review of H. D. Williams' book on Bible translation on Amazon. Williams does not know Greek or Hebrew, is not fluent in any foreign language, has never taught a language, and has never done any translation work. But somehow Daniel Waite and his father consider him to be a translation scholar. (I'll not get into his "PhD" here.)

Believe me, I'm not bitter at all. I just shake my head and smile. And then keep translating the Lifeline OT with my team. (I'm on Job right now. Fascinating!) To see our NT: Lifeline Bible — Main Site.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Yeah. He once wrote and asked me why I wasn't in the DBS. I didn't write back. There are several reasons, but perhaps the main one is that when his father died, he kept on the DBS website (A Response To A Critique of “Word-For-Word Translating”) the vicious personal attack against me and our Japanese translation (from the TR) promulgated by H. D. Williams. My crime? I wrote a negative review of H. D. Williams' book on Bible translation on Amazon. Williams does not know Greek or Hebrew, is not fluent in any foreign language, has never taught a language, and has never done any translation work. But somehow Daniel Waite and his father consider him to be a translation scholar. (I'll not get into his "PhD" here.)

Believe me, I'm not bitter at all. I just shake my head and smile. And then keep translating the Lifeline OT with my team. (I'm on Job right now. Fascinating!) To see our NT: Lifeline Bible — Main Site.

What are your views regarding word-for-word translation.

My view is a word‑for‑word translation cannot truly be achieved. No two languages match each other perfectly in grammar, idiom, syntax, or semantic range, so a strict one‑to‑one rendering will always distort the receiving language. A literal translation, however, is possible when the language receiving the text is mature enough and stable enough to carry the original meaning. When the receptor language has sufficient vocabulary, nuance, and structural integrity, a literal method can preserve meaning without collapsing into paraphrase. When the receptor language is weakened or imprecise, even a literal translation loses force because the language itself cannot bear what the original text expresses.

 

[John of Japan]

What are your views regarding word-for-word translation.

My view is a word‑for‑word translation cannot truly be achieved. No two languages match each other perfectly in grammar, idiom, syntax, or semantic range, so a strict one‑to‑one rendering will always distort the receiving language. A literal translation, however, is possible when the language receiving the text is mature enough and stable enough to carry the original meaning. When the receptor language has sufficient vocabulary, nuance, and structural integrity, a literal method can preserve meaning without collapsing into paraphrase. When the receptor language is weakened or imprecise, even a literal translation loses force because the language itself cannot bear what the original text expresses.

I hold to the literal method of Hebrew scholar Dr. James Price called optimal equivalence. While striving to translated every word, it aims for readability and literary value in the target language. Also, while translating the grammatical structure of the source language, OE does not fear looking for an equivalent sentence structure without necessarily duplicating the word order, etc. of the source language. This is similar to the method described in Translating Truth, by Wayne Grudem, Leland Ryken, C. John Collins, Vern Poythress, and Bruce Winter.

“Optimal Equivalence—a theory of translation that focuses on the equivalence of words, kernel clauses, transformations, and literary form.” (James Price, A Theory for Biblical Translation: An Optimal Equivalence Model (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2008, p. 336)

 

[Salty]

Thus there is much truth in the phrase "It looses something in the translation!"

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I hold to the literal method of Hebrew scholar Dr. James Price called optimal equivalence. While striving to translated every word, it aims for readability and literary value in the target language. Also, while translating the grammatical structure of the source language, OE does not fear looking for an equivalent sentence structure without necessarily duplicating the word order, etc. of the source language. This is similar to the method described in Translating Truth, by Wayne Grudem, Leland Ryken, C. John Collins, Vern Poythress, and Bruce Winter.

“Optimal Equivalence—a theory of translation that focuses on the equivalence of words, kernel clauses, transformations, and literary form.” (James Price, A Theory for Biblical Translation: An Optimal Equivalence Model (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2008, p. 336)

I appreciate the clarification. I agree that no two languages map perfectly, and that a strict one‑to‑one rendering is impossible. My concern is not with literal translation as an ideal, but with the strength of the receptor language and the discipline of the translator. When the receiving language is mature enough to bear the meaning of the original, a literal method can preserve the text without collapsing into paraphrase. When the receiving language is weakened or imprecise, even a careful literal method loses force because the language itself cannot carry what the source expresses.

In that sense, what Dr. Price calls optimal equivalence seems to be a refinement of the literal method rather than a distinct philosophy. It aims to translate every word and preserve grammatical structure where possible, while allowing limited restructuring when English cannot sustain the original word order. That is a reasonable approach as long as the adjustments serve the text rather than the translator. My concern is always that flexibility be governed by necessity rather than preference, so that the meaning of the original is preserved without interpretive smoothing.

 

[Logos1560]

Glenn Conjurske, who is a defender of the KJV and a critic of modern English versions and who admits his own bias for the KJV, acknowledged: “I grant that there is too much paraphrasing in the King James Version, more especially in the Old Testament. But even this may be excused, at least in part” (Olde Paths, October, 1997, p. 236; Bible Version, p. 230). Perhaps because of his love and bias for the KJV, Glenn Conjurske maintained that “it was proper—or at any rate excusable—to retain a certain amount of paraphrase from the older versions” (Ibid.). Glenn Conjurske claimed: “Much of the paraphrasing in the King James Version is retained from Tyndale and Coverdale” (Ibid.). Even though he is critical of the NKJV, Glenn Conjurske admitted: “The New King James Version has doubtless removed some paraphrasing which was in the old version” (Ibid.; Bible Version, p. 231).

Would an admission of some paraphrasing [or dynamic equivalents] in the pre-1611 English Bibles and in the KJV be a serious problem for inconsistent, unjust KJV-only reasoning? Concerning 1 Samuel 14:14, Dave Brunn maintained that “the KJV translators added an expanded, interpretive clause to their translation” and that “they translated the Hebrew word for ‘yoke’ as ‘acre …which a yoke of oxen might plow” (One Bible, p. 57). Could 1 Samuel 14:14 be a place where the KJV kept part of an addition from the Bishops’ Bible? The 1568 Bishops’ Bible rendered the last half of 1 Samuel 14:14 as follows: “within the compass as it were about an half acre of land which two [oxen plow].” E. W. Bullinger claimed that the KJV’s rendering of 1 Kings 20:33 “is a loose paraphrase” (Figures of Speech, p. 116).

Concerning Psalm 69:22, William Barrick wrote: “In this brief text consisting of six Hebrew words, the [KJV] translators expanded them into a very different form utilizing twenty-two words (nine of which are additions not found in the Hebrew forms either lexically or grammatically). This particular example of expansion is paraphrastic” (Understanding Bible Translation, pp. 61-62).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Glenn Conjurske, ... acknowledged

Glenn Conjurske maintained

Dave Brunn maintained

William Barrick wrote

You are presenting a failed argument based on the words of men that you keep endlessly quoting. None of these authorities define preservation. None of them determine what the Masoretes did. None of them overturn Scripture. They are simply the opinions of men.

Scripture does not teach that man preserves God’s Word. Scripture teaches that God preserves His Word down to the number of the noun such as seed versus seeds and down to the smallest stroke such as jot and tittle. Preservation is God’s work, not man’s performance.

The warnings against adding to or taking away from Scripture define the moral responsibility of men, not the faithfulness of God. God’s promise to preserve His words is not overturned by human fallibility. It is fulfilled in spite of it.

Your argument assumes that preservation depends on the accuracy of every individual scribe. Scripture teaches the opposite. Preservation depends on the faithfulness of God. The Masoretes transmitted the text they received. God preserved His words. Later editorial opinions do not change that.

 

[Logos1560]

Your argument assumes that preservation depends on the accuracy of every individual scribe. Scripture teaches the opposite. Preservation depends on the faithfulness of God.

That is not my argument. Your biased opinion is wrong, and it bears false witness as you try to put words in my mouth that I did not say.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

That is not my argument. Your biased opinion is wrong, and it bears false witness as you try to put words in my mouth that I did not say.

Your words:

“According to scriptural truths, omitted words, added words, or changed words do not preserve the exact same original words that proceeded from the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.”

 

[Logos1560]

“According to scriptural truths, omitted words, added words, or changed words do not preserve the exact same original words that proceeded from the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.”

My words do not say what your strawman misrepresentation says since my statement does not say that preservation depends on the accuracy of every individual scribe. My statement states the truth.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

My words do not say what your strawman misrepresentation says since my statement does not say that preservation depends on the accuracy of every individual scribe. My statement states the truth.

You said that omitted words, added words, or changed words do not preserve the original words God gave. That statement asserts that preservation fails when a scribe errs. That is the claim that preservation depends on scribal accuracy. You are now denying the conclusion of your own premise. I am not putting words in your mouth. I am quoting your own.

Scripture does not teach that man preserves God’s Word. Scripture teaches that God preserves His Word down to the number of the noun such as seed versus seeds and down to the smallest stroke such as jot and tittle. Preservation is God’s work, not man’s performance.

The warnings against adding to or taking away from Scripture define the moral responsibility of men, not the faithfulness of God. God’s promise to preserve His words is not overturned by human fallibility. It is fulfilled in spite of it.

Your argument assumes that preservation fails when a scribe omits, adds, or changes a word. Scripture teaches the opposite. Preservation depends on the faithfulness of God. The Masoretes transmitted the text they received. God preserved His words. Later editorial opinions do not change that.

 

[Logos1560]

That statement asserts that preservation fails when a scribe errs. That is the claim that preservation depends on scribal accuracy.

I am agreeing with what is stated and taught in these verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19). Your invented or imagined conclusion is not the conclusion from my scripturally-based statement. You are trying to read into my statement with your strawman misrepresentation something it does not say.

I do not at all say that God's preservation failed.

The truth remains that a scribe or copier did not preserve one of God's words when he omitted it. The Scriptures do not say when a scribe or copier adds a word that that added word become an inspired word of God.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I do not at all say that God's preservation failed.

You are trying to separate your premise from its unavoidable conclusion.

You say “a scribe or copier did not preserve one of God’s words when he omitted it.” That is a doctrinal claim about preservation. If omission means a word was not preserved, then preservation fails when a scribe errs. That is not something I am reading into your words. It is the logical implication of your own statement.

The verses you cite warn men not to add to or take away from God’s words. They define human responsibility. They do not teach that preservation depends on perfect scribal behavior. Scripture teaches that God preserves His Word down to the number of the noun and down to the smallest stroke. Preservation is God’s work, not man’s performance.

 

[Logos1560]

You are trying to separate your premise from its unavoidable conclusion.

Your inconsistent opinion is not true. Do you fail to practice what you preach in your accusations against present English Bible translations? Are you arguing that preservation of the Scripture in the translating of God's words into present-day Modern English is all God's work, not man's performance?

Do you in effect deny that God preserves His Word in present-day Modern English in the NKJV just as well as God preserves His word in 1500's English [Early Modern English or Elizabethton English] in the KJV?

Bill Fortenberry wrote: “The next period of the English language extending from 1450 to 1690 is known as Early Modern English” (False Friends, p. 239; Stewardship, p. 41). April Mahon referred to “Early modern English (a convenient if slightly amorphous term which covers at least 1500-1700)” (Mugglestone, Oxford History, p. 180). David Crystal maintained that Early Modern English is “usually taken to begin around the time of the arrival of printing in Britain (1476) and to end around the lifetime of Dr. Johnson (died 1784)” (Making Sense, p. 180).

The English in the pre-1611 English Bibles and the 1611 KJV is Early Modern English, not Modern English. Cannot the word of God be preserved in present-day Modern English in the same sense that the word of God can be preserved in Early Modern English?