The Disappearance of the Dean Burgon Society

[Anthony Pritchard]

Bill Fortenberry wrote:

April Mahon referred

David Crystal maintained

Words of man.

You said:

"...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. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies and in Bible translations can and should be corrected. It could also be soundly concluded that any words, perverted, diminished, or mistranslated by men are not the absolutely pure words of God..."

When you say that men failed to preserve God’s Word, you are necessarily saying that the God who gave the inspired Word in spite of fallible men failed to protect it from fallible men. You cannot affirm human failure in preservation without implying divine failure in preservation. The two claims stand or fall together.

This is the logical entailment of your own premise.

 

[Logos1560]

You said:

"...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. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies and in Bible translations can and should be corrected. It could also be soundly concluded that any words, perverted, diminished, or mistranslated by men are not the absolutely pure words of God..."

When you say that men failed to preserve God’s Word, you are necessarily saying that the God who gave the inspired Word in spite of fallible men failed to protect it from fallible men. You cannot affirm human failure in preservation without implying divine failure in preservation. The two claims stand or fall together.

This is the logical entailment of your own premise.

Your invented entailment is not the logical conclusion to what I accurately stated in agreement with Scriptural truths. You have not refuted my actual statements. You continue your bogus misrepresentations. I nowhere said that God failed in preservation as you try to suggest. On the other hand, you have failed to prove your extra-biblical arguments to be sounder than my scripturally-based statements.

Your own extra-biblical argument against modern English Bibles could be understood to suggest human failure in the preservation of the words of God translated into modern English in them. Are you claiming that you do not imply divine failure in preservation in the word of God translated into present-day Modern English since you condemn those English Bibles? Do you not suggest that God failed to protect His words from fallible men who translated present modern English Bible?

 

[Logos1560]

Words of man.

Bill Fortenberry, who is a KJV defender with views similar to yours, would claim to be an authority on English. Bill Fortenberry claims to have read 10,000 books in English. Are you claiming to be a self-appointed authority on the English language with more knowledge than these three people?

Bill Fortenberry wrote: “The next period of the English language extending from 1450 to 1690 is known as Early Modern English” (False Friends and True Enemies, p. 239; Stewardship Requires Fidelity: A Biblical Case for the King James Version, p. 41).

April Mahon, who is Forbes Professor of English language, referred to “Early modern English (a convenient if slightly amorphous term which covers at least 1500-1700)” (Mugglestone, Oxford History of English, p. 180).

David Crystal, who has been referred to as "the world's greatest authority on the English language," 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.

David Crystal noted: “The King James Bible looks backward in its grammar, and preserves many of the forms and constructions which were falling out of use elsewhere” (Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, p. 65). David Crystal maintained that the KJV translators “often opted for older forms of the language, when modern alternatives were available” (Ibid.). David Crystal wrote: “The -eth [ending] was already dying out in Shakespeare’s day, and a century later wouldn’t be seen at all, other than in writers being deliberately archaic – or, as with the taxman cometh, being jocular” (Making Sense, p. 181). David Crystal wrote: “The third person singular of the present tense of verbs is always –(e)th. In other texts of the period, it is being replaced by -s” (Cambridge Encyclopedia, p 65). Concerning the KJV, David Crystal pointed out: “In particular, the modern use of do with negatives and in questions is missing: we find they knew him not instead of they did not know him. By contrast, both old and new constructions are used in Shakespeare, and the do construction became standard by about 1700” (Ibid.).

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?
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?

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Bill Fortenberry, who is a KJV defender with views similar to yours, would claim to be an authority on English. Bill Fortenberry claims to have read 10,000 books in English. Are you claiming to be a self-appointed authority on the English language with more knowledge than these three people?

Bill Fortenberry wrote: “The next period of the English language extending from 1450 to 1690 is known as Early Modern English” (False Friends and True Enemies, p. 239; Stewardship Requires Fidelity: A Biblical Case for the King James Version, p. 41).

April Mahon, who is Forbes Professor of English language, referred to “Early modern English (a convenient if slightly amorphous term which covers at least 1500-1700)” (Mugglestone, Oxford History of English, p. 180).

David Crystal, who has been referred to as "the world's greatest authority on the English language," 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.

David Crystal noted: “The King James Bible looks backward in its grammar, and preserves many of the forms and constructions which were falling out of use elsewhere” (Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, p. 65). David Crystal maintained that the KJV translators “often opted for older forms of the language, when modern alternatives were available” (Ibid.). David Crystal wrote: “The -eth [ending] was already dying out in Shakespeare’s day, and a century later wouldn’t be seen at all, other than in writers being deliberately archaic – or, as with the taxman cometh, being jocular” (Making Sense, p. 181). David Crystal wrote: “The third person singular of the present tense of verbs is always –(e)th. In other texts of the period, it is being replaced by -s” (Cambridge Encyclopedia, p 65). Concerning the KJV, David Crystal pointed out: “In particular, the modern use of do with negatives and in questions is missing: we find they knew him not instead of they did not know him. By contrast, both old and new constructions are used in Shakespeare, and the do construction became standard by about 1700” (Ibid.).

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?
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

April Mahon

David Crystal

Your entire philosophy is built on the words of man.

None of the people you quoted have anything to do with your reconstruction method. Fortenberry, Mahon, and Crystal are discussing the history of English, not the doctrine of preservation. I have never disputed that the KJV is written in Early Modern English. That is simply a linguistic category, and every scholar you cited agrees with it.

But linguistic history does not prove reconstruction. You are using language scholars to defend a textual method they never addressed. The question is not whether English changed, of course it did. The question is whether God preserved His words through the transmission of the churches, or whether His words were largely lost and must be restored by modern editors.

Your citations do not touch that issue. They describe English. They do not justify reconstruction.

 

[Logos1560]

Your entire philosophy is built on the words of man.

Your opinion is wrong. My view is based on what the Scriptures state and teach, which I apply to the verifiable facts throughout history. I quote men to provide evidence concerning the facts of history and the facts concerning the making of post-NT Bible translations. Your extra-biblical two lines of Bibles argument [a KJV-only argument] is inconsistent and wrong. Your philosophy depends just as much on the words of men and on your extra-biblical assumptions and claims. The Masoretes and Jews who copied the Old Testament Hebrew text were not part of the New Testament church. They believed the false doctrine of a claimed oral law given to Moses, and they rejected the Lord Jesus Christ as the Messiah and Saviour. Textual criticism and reconstruction were involved in the making of the varying Textus Receptus editions and in the making of English Bible translations including the KJV.

While the term textual criticism may not be found in Scripture, following or obeying God’s instructions in several verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Eccl. 3:14, Rev. 22:18-19), which would relate to the process of copying Scripture, would in effect be practicing a form of textual criticism. Examining the copy being made to see that no words are added, no words are omitted, and no words are changed would be engaging in textual criticism. Removing added words, adding back omitted words, and correcting changed words would be restoring the text to its intended original form.
Determining whether words are added, taken away, or diminished would be what is called textual criticism.
These scriptural instructions and truths provide sound guidance concerning how to know the words which the LORD has or has not spoken (Deut. 18:20-22, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 23:35, Ezek. 22:28, Isa. 8:20, 1 Thess. 5:21, 1 John 4:1).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Your opinion is wrong. My view is based on what the Scriptures state and teach, which I apply to the verifiable facts throughout history. I quote men to provide evidence concerning the facts of history and the facts concerning the making of post-NT Bible translations

You are defending reconstructionism by redefining textual criticism, attacking the Masoretes, rewriting the history of the TR, and appealing to scholars who deny preservation. Your position is built on the words of men, not the doctrine of Scripture.

 

[Logos1560]

You are defending reconstructionism by redefining textual criticism, attacking the Masoretes, rewriting the history of the TR, and appealing to scholars who deny preservation. Your position is built on the words of men, not the doctrine of Scripture.

It is your modern position that is built on the words of men, not the doctrine of Scripture. I permitted the Scriptures themselves to define what would constitute textual criticism. I am presenting the biblical view of it. While the term textual criticism may not be found in Scripture, following or obeying God’s instructions in several verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Eccl. 3:14, Rev. 22:18-19), which would relate to the process of copying Scripture, would in effect be practicing a form of textual criticism. Examining the copy being made to see that no words are added, no words are omitted, and no words are changed would be engaging in textual criticism. Removing added words, adding back omitted words, and correcting changed words would be restoring the text to its intended original form. Determining whether words are added, taken away, or diminished would be what is called textual criticism.

According to your inconsistent, erroneous reasoning, the early English Bible translators and the KJV translators would have supposedly denied preservation when they engaged in textual criticism.
In his preface to his 1534 New Testament, William Tyndale wrote: "I had taken in hand to look over the New Testament again and to compare it with the Greek, and to mend whatsoever I could find amiss." Writing for all the translators in the preface to the 1611 KJV, Miles Smith noted: “If anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.” Miles Smith observed: “No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the word translated, did no less then despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man’s weakness would enable, it did express.”

 

[John of Japan]

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by the terms a mature or weakened or imprecise language. Linguists tell us that even the language of the most "primitive" tribe is complicated and grammatically sophisticated (and missionary translators have confirmed that). The primary "weakness" of a language without a written language component is that there will not be terms for modern technology. Even then there are ways to render unfamiliar concepts: inventing a new word, transliterating, etc.

Again, the grammar of any unwritten language can be equally as complicated as any Indo-European language.

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.

It is more complicated than that, in that Dr. Price advocated the use of the linguistic tool of transformational grammar in his method, and did a complete transformational grammar of the Hebrew language in his book. I don't completely follow him in that. His other book, Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation, gives a more understandable and simplified version of his method, but that book is out of print and very hard to come by. That's unfortunate, since Price gives in that book an excellent break down on what was wrong with Eugene Nida's use of transformational grammar.

 

[John of Japan]

You are defending reconstructionism by redefining textual criticism, attacking the Masoretes, rewriting the history of the TR, and appealing to scholars who deny preservation. Your position is built on the words of men, not the doctrine of Scripture.

By reconstructionism, you do mean the doctrine of R. J. Rushdoony, do you not? I see absolutely no connection with that and this thread.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

I'm not sure what you mean by the terms a mature or weakened or imprecise language. Linguists tell us that even the language of the most "primitive" tribe is complicated and grammatically sophisticated (and missionary translators have confirmed that). The primary "weakness" of a language without a written language component is that there will not be terms for modern technology. Even then there are ways to render unfamiliar concepts: inventing a new word, transliterating, etc.

One of the major points that the KJV-Only crowd often asserts is that the AV1611 was translated at a time when the English language had reached full (or significant) maturity with regards to spelling, grammar, syntax, and so forth. Such would therefore result in a translation that was timeless and there would be little to no need for any further update or revision. Of course, we understand this not to be the case and if you are going to use a King James Bible (1769 revision usually), you had better have an adequate undertanding of how the English language has evolved over the 400 years since the KJV was first published! So many times I struggle with a passage in the King James and when I open up my ESV to the same passage, things become clear as day! I then go back to my King James and exclaim "Oh, that's what the passage is saying!" I would venture to say that any "Smart" KJVO type would likely have some modern "Alexandrian" version secretly stashed away for this very reason. The dumb ones just waddle about and make idiotic assertations that there is "new revelation" to be found when trying to read 17th Century English with 21st century understanding!

I would guess that such would be the case ever the more when you are doing translation work in a spoken language that has hardly ever been written down so you do the best with what you have and expect to have significant revisions for the forseeable future?

 

[Logos1560]

One of the major points that the KJV-Only crowd often asserts is that the AV1611 was translated at a time when the English language had reached full (or significant) maturity with regards to spelling, grammar, syntax, and so forth. Such would therefore result in a translation that was timeless and there would be little to no need for any further update or revision. Of course, we understand this not to be the case and if you are going to use a King James Bible (1769 revision usually), you had better have an adequate undertanding of how the English language has evolved over the 400 years since the KJV was first published!

You raise valid points that suggest that English had not reached full maturity in 1611.

English at the time of the making of the KJV was in the period of Early Modern English and the period of the Great Vowel Shift so English had not reached its full maturity in 1611. David Crystal, who has been described as “the world’s greatest authority on the English language” wrote: “Modern English is obviously different in certain respects from the kind of Early Modern English represented in the King James Bible” (Begat, p. 4).

David Crystal referred to “the pronunciation changes which took place during Early Modern English” (Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, p. 69). David Crystal added: “The changes were many and complex. The effects of the Great Vowel Shift were still slowly working their way through the sound system” (Ibid.). David Crystal noted: “All the long vowels changed. That’s why it’s called a Great Vowel Shift. And the spelling of all words with long vowels was affected, as a result” (Spell It Out, p. 130). April Mahon wrote: “The whole long vowel system is radically reshaped between about 1450 and 1750 in what has come to be known as the Great Vowel Shift” (Mugglestone, Oxford History of English, p. 184).

David Crystal noted: “The King James Bible looks backward in its grammar, and preserves many of the forms and constructions which were falling out of use elsewhere” (Cambridge Encyclopedia, p. 65). David Crystal maintained that the KJV translators “often opted for older forms of the language, when modern alternatives were available” (Ibid.). David Crystal wrote: “The -eth [ending] was already dying out in Shakespeare’s day, and a century later wouldn’t be seen at all, other than in writers being deliberately archaic – or, as with the taxman cometh, being jocular” (Making Sense, p. 181). David Crystal wrote: “The third person singular of the present tense of verbs is always –(e)th. In other texts of the period, it is being replaced by -s” (Cambridge Encyclopedia, p 65). Concerning the KJV, David Crystal pointed out: “In particular, the modern use of do with negatives and in questions is missing: we find they knew him not instead of they did not know him. By contrast, both old and new constructions are used in Shakespeare, and the do construction became standard by about 1700” (Ibid.).

April Mahon wrote: “As thou slips away moreover, it takes along the matching verb ending – (e)st of forms such as thou goest, thou thinkest, thou seest, which in turn contributes to that general reduction of overt inflectional morphology which, as we have seen, had been under way since the Old English period. In the same vein, the earlier – (e)th verbal marker for the third person singular present tense first comes to alternate with the originally northern –(e)s, and is gradually displaced by it” (Mugglestone, Oxford History of English, p. 182). April Mahan wrote: “In syntax, the furthest-reaching development in early modern English involves the use of do” (p. 183). In this same history of English, Terttu Nevalainen mentioned “two important processes of change in Tudor English: one that affected the third-person singular verbal ending (e.g. he knoweth, which was gradually displaced by he knows), and one that introduced the auxiliary do into English (so that structures such as they know not were gradually displaced by they do not know)” (p. 221). Tertu Nevalainen wrote: “The rise of do is a grammatical development which is, in histories of the language, particularly associated with Tudor English” (p. 244). Tertu Nevalainen referred to “the Tudor period from the late fifteenth to the early seventeenth century (1482-1603)” (p. 222). Terttu Nevalainen wrote: “Most speakers now associate –(e )th with archaic usage” (p. 226).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

One of the major points that the KJV-Only crowd...

Speaking for myself. The points I make are philological, not sentimental. Early Modern English did not merely sound elevated. It possessed structural features that Modern English no longer has. These are measurable linguistic realities, not romantic preferences.

Early Modern English, roughly 1550 to 1700, had capacities that matter directly for translation:

• full second person pronoun distinction, thou and thee
• stable verb morphology
• flexible and expressive syntax
• rich metaphorical range
• broad semantic fields
• tolerance for ambiguity
• precision in aspect and mood
• a vocabulary at its historical peak

Modern English has undergone a collapse in expressive precision:

• loss of case distinctions
• loss of pronoun distinctions
• loss of verb endings
• loss of metaphorical density
• loss of syntactic flexibility
• loss of semantic breadth

The clearest illustration is the collapse of the second person system. The single word “you” now covers both the singular and the plural. This is not a stylistic shift. It is a grammatical collapse. Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek require singular and plural distinction in second person forms. Modern English cannot express this without paraphrase. Early Modern English could express it natively.

Thus:

• Thou shalt
• Ye shall

These are not archaic flourishes. They are necessary grammatical equivalents to the original languages.

This is why I hold the position I do. It does not require inspiration of translators or rejection of Greek and Hebrew. It simply recognizes providence in history. God preserved His Word in the Majority Text, and when He brought that text into English, He did so at the moment when English was most capable of bearing its full meaning.

And to be clear, I am not KJV only. I am preserved text only. There are faithful translations in other languages that use the preserved text as well. The problem in modern English is twofold. First, the language itself has degraded and lost the grammatical and semantic precision needed to carry certain distinctions. Second, modern versions introduce an admixture of preserved text and reconstructed text. A little leaven works through the whole lump. The issue is not English alone, nor is it the KJV alone. It is the combination of a weakened language and a mixed textual foundation.

If God intended Scripture to be preserved in English, He would not choose Middle English, which was immature and unstable, nor Modern English, which is imprecise and has collapsed distinctions. He would choose Early Modern English, when the language was mature, stable, and expressive.

This mirrors what missionaries see everywhere. Immature languages require constant revision. Mature languages allow stable translation. Declining languages lose precision. Preservation requires linguistic stability. Modern English has neither stability nor precision.

My position is not reconstruction. I reject Alexandrian reconstruction, eclectic reconstruction, conjectural emendation, and the idea of a lost text restored by modern editors. I affirm continuity of transmission, providential preservation, linguistic maturity, and doctrinal stability.

 

[Logos1560]

And to be clear, I am not KJV only. I am preserved text only. There are faithful translations in other languages that use the preserved text as well.

You seem to reject other post-1611 English Bible translations made from the same preserved original-languages texts as the KJV, which suggests that you are KJV-only.

Since the KJV is an English Bible translation made in 1611, the term KJV-only would be used soundly and correctly to describe a certain view or teaching concerning English Bible translations since 1610, not concerning Bible translations in other languages. The accurate term KJV-only is used by Bible believers to define and describe any view that accepts or makes some type of exclusive claims for only one English Bible translation—the KJV.

Holders of a KJV-only view would in effect attempt to suggest, assume, or claim that the KJV is the word of God in English in some different sense than any other English translation is the word of God in English. While perhaps admitting the fact that the KJV is a translation, holders of a KJV-only view attempt in effect to treat the KJV as though it is in a different category than all other English translations or as though it is not a translation in the same sense (univocally) as other English Bibles. In practice, KJV-only advocates accept no other English Bible as being the word of God translated into English in the same exact sense (univocally) that they would claim only or solely for the KJV.


KJV-only author D. A. Waite incorrectly alleged that “Ruckman does not believe the Bible should be in Spanish, English, Russian, French, or any other language” (Critical Answer to James Price’s, p. 9). Waite claimed: “The Ruckman position’s ‘only’ is ‘only’ in English (no Spanish, no Italian, no French” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 20).

Peter Ruckman asserted: “There is nothing wrong with a missionary using the Diodati translation in Italy instead of the Authorized Version. There is nothing wrong with a missionary using the Olivetan version in France instead of the Authorized Version, and there is nothing wrong with a missionary in Germany using Luther’s version instead of the Authorized Version” (Bible Babel, p. 2). Peter Ruckman recommended “Valera’s Spanish version” and “Martin Luther's German version" (Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 1). In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Peter Ruckman wrote: “Martin Luther’s German Bible is the same text as the King James, 1611” (p. 80). Ruckman wrote: “Martin’s German Bible is the German King James Bible. It is the equivalent of the ‘King’s English,’ and so all affirm” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 146). Ruckman wrote: “God produced a German Textus Receptus for the Continent” (p. 230). Ruckman asserted: “Never hesitate to correct any Greek text with the text of the ‘Reichstext’” (Monarch of the Books, p. 19).

Would you suggest that Peter Ruckman was preserved text only and not KJV-only because he accepted faithful translations in other languages that use the preserved texts?

 

[John of Japan]

Speaking for myself. The points I make are philological, not sentimental. Early Modern English did not merely sound elevated. It possessed structural features that Modern English no longer has. These are measurable linguistic realities, not romantic preferences.

Early Modern English, roughly 1550 to 1700, had capacities that matter directly for translation:

• full second person pronoun distinction, thou and thee

This I will grant.

• stable verb morphology

Modern English has this.

• flexible and expressive syntax

Modern English has this. It is one of the most expressive languages there is.

• rich metaphorical range

I see no difference in 21st century English and 1611 English.

• broad semantic fields

How does modern English not have this?

• tolerance for ambiguity

Modern English is the same.

• precision in aspect and mood

Modern English has this.

• a vocabulary at its historical peak

Vocabulary has changed in modern English, but not diminished.

Modern English has undergone a collapse in expressive precision:

• loss of case distinctions
• loss of pronoun distinctions
• loss of verb endings
• loss of metaphorical density
• loss of syntactic flexibility
• loss of semantic breadth

The clearest illustration is the collapse of the second person system. The single word “you” now covers both the singular and the plural. This is not a stylistic shift. It is a grammatical collapse. Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek require singular and plural distinction in second person forms. Modern English cannot express this without paraphrase. Early Modern English could express it natively.

The only thing I will admit here is the point about the modern English "you" as opposed to 1611 English. The rest of these points are grasping at straws.

Come on, any competent linguist or English teacher can refute these points. Now if you want to take one or two of them and give the rationale behind them I'd be happy to discuss it with you.

 

[John of Japan]

One of the major points that the KJV-Only crowd often asserts is that the AV1611 was translated at a time when the English language had reached full (or significant) maturity with regards to spelling, grammar, syntax, and so forth. Such would therefore result in a translation that was timeless and there would be little to no need for any further update or revision. Of course, we understand this not to be the case and if you are going to use a King James Bible (1769 revision usually), you had better have an adequate undertanding of how the English language has evolved over the 400 years since the KJV was first published! So many times I struggle with a passage in the King James and when I open up my ESV to the same passage, things become clear as day! I then go back to my King James and exclaim "Oh, that's what the passage is saying!" I would venture to say that any "Smart" KJVO type would likely have some modern "Alexandrian" version secretly stashed away for this very reason. The dumb ones just waddle about and make idiotic assertations that there is "new revelation" to be found when trying to read 17th Century English with 21st century understanding!

Thank you for the illumination about the KJVO thinking on this. I've not read anything by one of them in a long time, but I understand what you are saying here. And of course, I stand with you that their position is wrong-headed.

I would guess that such would be the case ever the more when you are doing translation work in a spoken language that has hardly ever been written down so you do the best with what you have and expect to have significant revisions for the forseeable future?

I've read a lot of biographies of tribal Bible translators, and you are generally on target with this. I do have to say again (not to contradict you) that there is no such thing as a "primitive" language. The most jungle-bound language with no alphabet is a very complex means of communication.

I have huge respect for those missionaries whose task takes a decade or more just to get a NT translation. This is where many American churches have fallen down in their missiology. Baptists in particular are doing very little in this area, though there are recent developments that are encouraging.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You seem to reject other post-1611 English Bible translations made from the same preserved original-languages texts as the KJV, which suggests that you are KJV-only.

My position is that preservation in the English language is found in the KJV because it was produced when English had reached full maturity. Older English translations were made into an immature English that could not yet carry the preserved text with full precision, although the KJV translators did diligently compare them. That is a linguistic and providential claim, not an exclusivity claim. There are faithful translations in other languages that use the preserved text. I do not deny them.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Come on, any competent linguist or English teacher can refute these points. Now if you want to take one or two of them and give the rationale behind them I'd be happy to discuss it with you.

John, I appreciate your willingness to grant the second person distinction, but the other points are not straws. They are standard observations in historical linguistics. The issue is not whether Modern English is expressive. The issue is whether Modern English retains the specific grammatical and semantic capacities that matter for accurate rendering of the preserved text. In several areas, it does not.

You asked for rationale, so I will give it.

Stable verb morphology. Modern English has simplified morphology, but it does not retain the full range of inflectional cues that Early Modern English still carried. The older system preserved distinctions in aspect and mood that Modern English now expresses only through auxiliary constructions. The meaning can still be expressed, but not with the same native precision.

Flexible and expressive syntax. Modern English is expressive, but it is also more rigid. Early Modern English permitted syntactic inversions, fronting, and ordering that allowed translators to mirror Greek and Hebrew structures more closely without sounding unnatural. Modern English is less tolerant of these structures, which forces translators into paraphrase.

Rich metaphorical range. Modern English has many metaphors, but it has lost entire metaphorical domains that were active in Early Modern English. Words like conversation, charity, ghost, meat, quick, suffer, and prevent carried broader metaphorical and semantic ranges that mapped more directly to Greek and Hebrew. Modern English has narrowed these fields.

Broad semantic fields. Modern English tends toward specialization. Words acquire narrower, more technical meanings. Early Modern English words often carried multiple senses that allowed translators to choose terms that captured both literal and figurative dimensions simultaneously. Modern English often requires separate explanatory phrasing.

Tolerance for ambiguity. Modern English prefers explicitness. Early Modern English tolerated layered meaning, double valence, and polyvalent phrasing. This matters because Hebrew poetry and Greek theological argument often rely on controlled ambiguity. Modern English tends to flatten these structures.

Precision in aspect and mood. Modern English expresses aspect and mood, but it does so through auxiliary constructions and fixed patterns. Early Modern English retained older forms that allowed translators to mirror Greek aspectual nuance more directly. Again, the meaning can be expressed, but not with the same native economy.

Vocabulary at its historical peak. This is not about the number of words in the language. It is about the breadth of active vocabulary available to educated writers. Early Modern English drew simultaneously from Anglo‑Saxon, Norman French, Latin, and emerging Renaissance neologisms. The range was unusually wide. Modern English has grown, but it has also specialized and compartmentalized.

You granted the second person distinction. That is good, because it is the clearest example of what I am describing. Modern English cannot express singular and plural second person without paraphrase. Early Modern English could express it natively. That is not nostalgia. It is a measurable grammatical fact.

My position is that preservation in the English language is found in the KJV because it was produced when English had reached full maturity. Older English translations were made into an immature English that could not yet carry the preserved text with full precision, although the KJV translators did diligently compare them. That is a linguistic and providential claim, not an exclusivity claim. There are faithful translations in other languages that use the preserved text. I do not deny them.

 

[John of Japan]

Well, I asked for one or two, and you dumped the entire load on me, but that's okay. I can't answer them all right now, but I will just say that I see your answers as opinion. And I certainly have a different opinion. It would b e nice if you gave illustrations of what you are talking about rather than simply give your opinions.

John, I appreciate your willingness to grant the second person distinction, but the other points are not straws. They are standard observations in historical linguistics. The issue is not whether Modern English is expressive. The issue is whether Modern English retains the specific grammatical and semantic capacities that matter for accurate rendering of the preserved text. In several areas, it does not.

You asked for rationale, so I will give it.

Stable verb morphology. Modern English has simplified morphology, but it does not retain the full range of inflectional cues that Early Modern English still carried. The older system preserved distinctions in aspect and mood that Modern English now expresses only through auxiliary constructions. The meaning can still be expressed, but not with the same native precision.

Flexible and expressive syntax. Modern English is expressive, but it is also more rigid. Early Modern English permitted syntactic inversions, fronting, and ordering that allowed translators to mirror Greek and Hebrew structures more closely without sounding unnatural. Modern English is less tolerant of these structures, which forces translators into paraphrase.

Rich metaphorical range. Modern English has many metaphors, but it has lost entire metaphorical domains that were active in Early Modern English. Words like conversation, charity, ghost, meat, quick, suffer, and prevent carried broader metaphorical and semantic ranges that mapped more directly to Greek and Hebrew. Modern English has narrowed these fields.

Broad semantic fields. Modern English tends toward specialization. Words acquire narrower, more technical meanings. Early Modern English words often carried multiple senses that allowed translators to choose terms that captured both literal and figurative dimensions simultaneously. Modern English often requires separate explanatory phrasing.

Tolerance for ambiguity. Modern English prefers explicitness. Early Modern English tolerated layered meaning, double valence, and polyvalent phrasing. This matters because Hebrew poetry and Greek theological argument often rely on controlled ambiguity. Modern English tends to flatten these structures.

Precision in aspect and mood. Modern English expresses aspect and mood, but it does so through auxiliary constructions and fixed patterns. Early Modern English retained older forms that allowed translators to mirror Greek aspectual nuance more directly. Again, the meaning can be expressed, but not with the same native economy.

Vocabulary at its historical peak. This is not about the number of words in the language. It is about the breadth of active vocabulary available to educated writers. Early Modern English drew simultaneously from Anglo‑Saxon, Norman French, Latin, and emerging Renaissance neologisms. The range was unusually wide. Modern English has grown, but it has also specialized and compartmentalized.

You granted the second person distinction. That is good, because it is the clearest example of what I am describing. Modern English cannot express singular and plural second person without paraphrase. Early Modern English could express it natively. That is not nostalgia. It is a measurable grammatical fact.

My position is that preservation in the English language is found in the KJV because it was produced when English had reached full maturity. Older English translations were made into an immature English that could not yet carry the preserved text with full precision, although the KJV translators did diligently compare them. That is a linguistic and providential claim, not an exclusivity claim. There are faithful translations in other languages that use the preserved text. I do not deny them.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

It would b e nice if you gave illustrations of what you are talking about rather than simply give your opinions.

You requested illustrations rather than bare assertions, so let me give you concrete examples. These are not opinions. They are standard observations in historical linguistics and historical semantics.

You granted the second person distinction, which is good, because it is the clearest example of measurable grammatical loss. Here are illustrations for the other points.

1. Verb morphology and aspect. Early Modern English could express aspectual nuance with native forms that Modern English now expresses only through auxiliaries. Example:

• “He goeth” versus “He is going.” The older form could carry habitual, iterative, or durative force depending on context. Modern English must paraphrase to express the same nuance.

2. Syntactic flexibility. Early Modern English tolerated inversions and fronting that allowed translators to mirror Greek and Hebrew structures more closely. Example:

• “In the beginning was the Word” mirrors Greek word order more naturally than Modern English typically allows. Try producing the same effect in Modern English without sounding archaic. It is difficult.

3. Metaphorical range. Words in Early Modern English carried broader metaphorical domains. Example:

• “Quick” meant alive, living, active, spiritually responsive. Modern English has narrowed it to “fast.” The older term could carry literal and figurative senses simultaneously.

4. Semantic breadth. Early Modern English words often carried multiple senses that mapped directly to Greek and Hebrew. Example:

• “Conversation” meant conduct, manner of life, behavior, interaction, and speech. Modern English has narrowed it to “talking.” The older term could capture both ethical and social dimensions at once.

5. Tolerance for ambiguity. Early Modern English allowed layered meaning without sounding unnatural. Example:

• “Charity” carried both affection and benevolence. Modern English has narrowed it to financial giving. The older term could carry theological, moral, and relational senses simultaneously.

6. Precision in mood. Early Modern English retained forms that allowed translators to mirror Greek subjunctive and imperative nuance more directly. Example:

• “Be ye therefore perfect” mirrors the force of the Greek imperative. Modern English tends to flatten this into “Be perfect,” which loses the communal and formal force.

7. Vocabulary at its historical peak. This is not about the number of words in the dictionary. It is about the active vocabulary available to educated writers. Early Modern English drew simultaneously from Anglo‑Saxon, Norman French, Latin, and Renaissance neologisms. Modern English has grown, but it has also specialized and compartmentalized. The breadth was different, not smaller or larger.

These are illustrations, not opinions. They are the kinds of examples historical linguists use when describing the shift from Early Modern English to Modern English.

My position is that preservation in the English language is found in the KJV because it was produced when English had reached full maturity. Older English translations were made into an immature English that could not yet carry the preserved text with full precision, although the KJV translators did diligently compare them. That is a linguistic and providential claim, not an exclusivity claim. There are faithful translations in other languages that use the preserved text. I do not deny them.