The Disappearance of the Dean Burgon Society

[Logos1560]

This has dropped below the level of meaningful discussion.

If so, that is your fault because of your repeated strawman distortions and misrepresentations. You have tried to belittle and mock at my scripturally-based position.

You have presented no positive, consistent, sound, convincing, true, and scriptural case for your many unproven assertions that sometimes display KJV-only type reasoning or use KJV-only arguments. The two streams or two lines of Bibles argument is a leading KJV-only argument.

 

[Logos1560]

Some KJV defenders strongly object to being identified accurately as KJV-only even though they clearly have made exclusive claims for only one English Bible translation--the KJV. For one example, D. A. Waite (1927-2024), who was one of the founders of the Dean Burgon Society, has clearly made some exclusive "only" claims for the KJV that would provide valid, sound, convincing evidence for considering his position to be a form of “KJV-only” view.

D. A. Waite claimed: "There are no good translations except the King James Bible" (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 129). Waite asserted: "The King James Bible is the only accurate English translation in existence today" (p. 47). Waite declared: "If you use any other version than the King James Bible you are tampering with the Words of God" (p. 136). Waite claimed: "The King James Bible is always superior to all others in the English language" (p. 80). Waite declared: “I believe that the King James Bible is the only one that English speaking Christians ought to use” (p. 5). Waite wrote: "The only valid Bible is the King James Bible" (p. 131). Waite asserted: “I believe that one translation should be set up as a standard. The translation of the King James Bible is a standard” (p. 23). Waite claimed: “Loyalty to Christ and His Words are measured by what version you use” (p. 133). Waite declared: “It is my firm conviction that anyone who does not use the King James Bible to preach from, teach from, or study from has something defective in that individual’s knowledge of the Scriptures” (p. 144).

In another book, D. A. Waite stated: “I am one of the Christians who contend that only the King James Bible gives us the Words of God in English” (Fundamental Deception, p. 33). Waite maintained that the KJV "is the only acceptable translation from the preserved Hebrew and Greek texts" and "is the only true Bible in the English language" (Fuzzy Facts, pp. 8-9). Waite asserted that the KJV “is the only accurate translation” or “the only accurate, faithful, and true translation” (Critical Answer to James Price’s, pp. 5, 41, 131). Waite wrote: “The King James Bible, because of its accurate translation of those Words [Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek], can honestly and truly be called God’s Words kept intact in English” (p. 109). Waite asserted: "I do not say that the King James Bible is 'fallible' or 'errant.' I don't believe that there are any translation errors in the King James Bible” (Fuzzy Facts, p. 44). Waite declared: “I have said many times before, and I believe, that there are no ‘translational errors’ In the King James Bible” (Critical Answer to Michael Sproul’s, p. 42). Waite wrote: “I have never said I believe in ‘an inerrant KJV.’ That is pure Ruckmanism” (p. 65). When Waite himself directly and clearly contended that the KJV “is ’God’s Word kept intact’” and that “intact” means “not touched” and “nothing harms or defiles it,” he would seem to be in effect or in practice trying to claim or at least imply perfection for the translating in the KJV (Defending the KJB, p. 1). Waite asserted: “The KING JAMES BIBLE is the Word of God in English, and the other versions are not” (p. 52).



In spite of his own direct statements making exclusive only claims for the KJV, D. A. Waite asserted: “I do not go along with that ‘KJV-Only’ term” (Critical Answer to Michael Sproul’s, p. 13), and he declared: “I am not a ‘KJV-only’ advocate” (p. 69).. Waite alleged that KJV-only is “a slanderous smear term” (p. 13), but he failed to prove his allegation to be true. Is it not clear that Waite’s very own stated exclusive, only claims for the KJV would demonstrate that the term as soundly defined and explained in this book can be properly, accurately, truthfully, and honestly applied to Waite’s own stated views? It would not be at all slanderous or libelous to apply the accurate, defined term KJV-only to Waite’s own exclusive only claims for the KJV. According to his own statements, Waite does appear to use “only” in the literal sense of “no other” or “solely and exclusively” concerning English Bible translations. Does D. A. Waite in effect attempt to ignore and avoid a definition of KJV as being an English Bible translation when he offered a definition of the term KJV-only that was a definition for the word “only”—“no other, solely, exclusively” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 138)?

Waite’s definition could be considered a partial and incomplete one since it does not soundly and accurately define KJV-only reasoning/teaching and what constitutes it according to those who use the term. Waite failed to demonstrate that he defines the term according to the meaning intended by those who use the term soundly and accurately. According to Waite's definition of KJV-only, Peter Ruckman and his followers would not be KJV-only.

Does Waite in effect try to have it both ways by making exclusive only claims for the KJV while trying to deny holding any form of a KJV-only view? As an old saying goes: “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.” Likewise, if it looks like KJV-onlyism, walks like KJV-onlyism, and quacks or talks like KJV-onlyism, it is KJV-onlyism. Trying to claim that it should be given a different name would not change what it actually is.

 

[Logos1560]

This writer does not know who may have first invented the term KJV-only, but he first saw this term in the writings of some KJV defenders themselves back as early as the 1970’s or 1980’s. If others supposedly invented it, KJV-only advocates soon adopted and used it themselves. In 1974, did Dick Cimino in effect suggest the term in his question: “Can I afford to take only the King James, with its ‘archaic words’” (The Book, p. 6) [underling added by this author]. In 1979, Robert Sumner referred to a layman who suggested that Spurgeon “accepted only the King James Version” (Bible Translations, p. 15) [underlining added]. Peter Ruckman wrote: “The term ‘King James Only people’ is found in this correspondence (Sept. 24, 1979)” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 469). In 1980 Herb Evans directly referred to “the King James only position” (Flaming Torch, June, 1980, p. 3). In 1980 Herb Evans wrote: “For 270 years (1611-1881), it has been a ‘King James only situation’ (except for the Catholic Bible)” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, June, 1980, p. 8). In his 1982 revision of his 1980 book, Dave Reese referred to the KJV as “the only Bible in the English language which has the correct words” (Book No One Can Read, p. 4), which suggests the term KJV-only.

In a letter to Terence McLean in 1983, David Otis Fuller, one of the founders of the Dean Burgon Society, favorably used the term “KJV only” (McLean, History of Your Bible, p. 69). David Otis Fuller wrote: “It is downright GOOD to know of your two stores being ‘KJV only’” (Ibid.).

 

[John of Japan]

First of all, thank you for giving me actual examples rather than just opinions. I'm curious. Is this all your own research, or are you referencing someone else's work? (No offense intended; just curious.)

Now, on to the content. My main objection is that you are giving a good range of meaning for the KJV word, but not for the modern English word. All you are giving for the modern English word is one meaning, what is called the core meaning. In any language, words are seldom monosemous (having only one meaning), but are usually polysemous (having various meanings), and that is true of the modern words you've given, not just the KJV words. So this one fact upsets your entire theory. Range of meaning may be different for a given word in 1611 and 2026, but it is there .Furthermore, your one meaning is only a gloss meaning (a single word meaning), while you give long meanings to the 1611 words.

I'll illustrate this with some dictionary definitions of some of the modern words from Meanings & Definitions of English Words | Dictionary.com, showing your monosemous conception of the modern words to be wrong. I won't do this for all of your examples, since that would take up too much time and room. Several should be instructive enough. You can always look them up yourself.

You requested illustrations rather than bare assertions, so let me give you more concrete examples.

Conversation​

Early Modern English senses:

• Conduct
• Manner of life
• Behavior
• Interaction with others
• Speech

Modern English sense:

• Talking

Illustration: “Let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ” meant your entire manner of life, not your speech.

a(1)
: oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas
… we had talk enough but no conversation; there was nothing discussed.—Samuel Johnson
(2)
: an instance of such exchange : talk
a quiet conversation
b
: an informal discussion of an issue by representatives of governments, institutions, or groups
conversations among the senators
c
: an exchange similar to conversation
We had a conversation by email.

Charity​

Early Modern English senses:

• Love
• Affection
• Benevolence
• Kindness
• Generosity
• Spiritual love toward God and man

Modern English sense:

• Financial giving or organized aid

Illustration: “Charity suffereth long, and is kind” meant love in action, not giving money.

1
a
: generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering
also : aid given to those in need
received charity from the neighbors
b
: an institution engaged in relief of the poor
raised funds for several charities
c
: public provision for the relief of the needy
too proud to accept charity
2
: benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity
The holidays are a time for charity and goodwill.
3
a
: a gift for public benevolent purposes
b
: an institution (such as a hospital) founded by such a gift
4
: lenient judgment of others
The critic was liked for his charity and moderation.

Ghost​

Early Modern English senses:

• Spirit
• Soul
• Breath
• Life‑force
• Holy Spirit

Modern English sense:

• Apparition or specter

Illustration: “Holy Ghost” meant Holy Spirit, not a phantom.

1
: the seat of life or intelligence : soul
give up the ghost
2
: a disembodied soul
especially : the soul of a dead person believed to be an inhabitant of the unseen world or to appear to the living in bodily likeness
3
: spirit, demon
4
a
: a faint shadowy trace
a ghost of a smile
b
: the least bit
not a ghost of a chance
5
: a false image in a photographic negative or on a television screen caused especially by reflection
6
: one who ghostwrites
7
: a red blood cell that has lost its hemoglobin
ghostlike
ˈgōst-ˌlīk
adjective
ghosty
ˈgō-stē
adjective
see also:
give up the ghost
ghost
2 of 2

verb​

ghosted; ghosting; ghosts
transitive verb
1
: to haunt like a ghost
2
: ghostwrite
ghosted the mayor's autobiography
3
informal : to cut off all contact with (someone) abruptly and usually without explanation : to subject (someone, such as a former romantic partner) to ghosting (see ghosting entry 1 sense 2)
No one wants to be ghosted, mostly because it sucks to admit that the person you gushed about last week is now pretending you don't exist …—Ellen Scott
intransitive verb
1
a
: to move silently like a ghost
b
: to sail quietly in light winds
2
: ghostwrite

Why these matter​

Each of these words once carried multiple senses at once, allowing translators to choose terms that captured:

• literal meaning
• figurative meaning
• theological meaning
• emotional meaning
• moral meaning

All in one word.

This is still mostly true of the English language, as far as it goes. I disagree though that there are or were (in 1611) this many possible meanings. I've read the KJV for over 60 years now, have many books on linguistics, and have never heard of anything similar in the area of semantics. Words have core meanings, and they may be interpreted in context in various ways, but "emotional meaning" or "moral meaning"? The context decides that, not the core meaning of the word.

Modern English has narrowed these words to single, specialized senses, which forces translators into paraphrase.

Nope, sorry, this is completely made up. I am the lead translator of the Lifeline Japanese Bible (Lifeline Bible — Main Site, the first ever colloquial Japanese version from the TR), currently translating the book of Job, and have never, ever, felt that our modern Japanese translation was forced somehow into "paraphrase" because it didn't have the semantic range of the KJV vocabulary.

This is exactly the kind of semantic contraction that makes Early Modern English more capable of carrying the preserved text with precision.

Do you know the original languages of the Bible, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek? Any other languages at all (Spanish, etc.)? If you do, you should rethink this. I've read the whole KJV at least 60 times, and have read the Bible through in several English versions and in Japanese (with checks into Chinese and Latin versions), and I dispute this heartily. I translate into English at least a verse a day from the Byz/TR, and have never thought this as I translated.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

You requested illustrations rather than bare assertions, so let me give you more concrete examples.

Conversation​

Early Modern English senses:

• Conduct
• Manner of life
• Behavior
• Interaction with others
• Speech

Modern English sense:

• Talking

Illustration: “Let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ” meant your entire manner of life, not your speech.

a(1)
: oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas
… we had talk enough but no conversation; there was nothing discussed.—Samuel Johnson
(2)
: an instance of such exchange : talk
a quiet conversation
b
: an informal discussion of an issue by representatives of governments, institutions, or groups
conversations among the senators
c
: an exchange similar to conversation
We had a conversation by email.

Regarding Phi 1:27, the underlying Greek word for "Conversation" (KJV) is πολιτεύομαι (poli-teu'-o-mai) meaning "to behave as a citizen" which is far more reaching than mere "words" one may use. It is easily understood in its context but the word "conversation" is not used in such a manner in modern conversational settings.

The 1828 Dictionary speaks of "Conversation" as being a "general course of manners, behaviour, deportment, especially as it respects morals so I would say the KJV translators were spot-on in this in this instance but since many refuse to educate themselves beyond what they have learned from public schools and state universities, they may default to the "dumbed down" modern version of "a spoken exchange of opinions, thoughts, and feelings" which is not at all what Phi 1:27 is saying.

Back in my KJVO days, I pushed back against learning Greek because "Why do you need it when you have a perfectly good English Bible?" and having an 1828 dictionary, I would;ve gotten away with it in this instance but I now understand the value in knowing and understanding the original biblical languages. I am better at it now but far from any sort of actual expertise.

Anthony has a point regarding the degradation of the English language but I do not see where such is of relevance to modern translation work.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Regarding Phi 1:27, the underlying Greek word for "Conversation" (KJV) is πολιτεύομαι (poli-teu'-o-mai) meaning "to behave as a citizen" which is far more reaching than mere "words" one may use. It is easily understood in its context but the word "conversation" is not used in such a manner in modern conversational settings.

The 1828 Dictionary speaks of "Conversation" as being a "general course of manners, behaviour, deportment, especially as it respects morals so I would say the KJV translators were spot-on in this in this instance but since many refuse to educate themselves beyond what they have learned from public schools and state universities, they may default to the "dumbed down" modern version of "a spoken exchange of opinions, thoughts, and feelings" which is not at all what Phi 1:27 is saying.

Back in my KJVO days, I pushed back against learning Greek because "Why do you need it when you have a perfectly good English Bible?" and having an 1828 dictionary, I would;ve gotten away with it in this instance but I now understand the value in knowing and understanding the original biblical languages. I am better at it now but far from any sort of actual expertise.

Anthony has a point regarding the degradation of the English language but I do not see where such is of relevance to modern translation work.

My point was that preserved‑text, pre‑modern English Bibles use conversation in the older and broader sense of conduct and manner of life, which aligns with πολιτεύομαι in Phil. 1:27. Modern English has collapsed that category into “talk,” and modern translations follow the reduced vocabulary of the modern language. That narrowing does not simply affect interpretation; it affects the accuracy of the translation itself.

This is why I argue against modern translations. When the receptor language loses categories that the biblical languages require, the translation inevitably loses precision. Pre‑modern English carried those categories natively. Modern English does not.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

First of all, thank you for giving me actual examples rather than just opinions. I'm curious. Is this all your own research, or are you referencing someone else's work? (No offense intended; just curious.)

Now, on to the content. My main objection is that you are giving a good range of meaning for the KJV word, but not for the modern English word. All you are giving for the modern English word is one meaning, what is called the core meaning. In any language, words are seldom monosemous (having only one meaning), but are usually polysemous (having various meanings), and that is true of the modern words you've given, not just the KJV words. So this one fact upsets your entire theory. Range of meaning may be different for a given word in 1611 and 2026, but it is there .Furthermore, your one meaning is only a gloss meaning (a single word meaning), while you give long meanings to the 1611 words.

I'll illustrate this with some dictionary definitions of some of the modern words from Meanings & Definitions of English Words | Dictionary.com, showing your monosemous conception of the modern words to be wrong. I won't do this for all of your examples, since that would take up too much time and room. Several should be instructive enough. You can always look them up yourself.


a(1)
: oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas
… we had talk enough but no conversation; there was nothing discussed.—Samuel Johnson
(2)
: an instance of such exchange : talk
a quiet conversation
b
: an informal discussion of an issue by representatives of governments, institutions, or groups
conversations among the senators
c
: an exchange similar to conversation
We had a conversation by email.

1
a
: generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering
also : aid given to those in need
received charity from the neighbors
b
: an institution engaged in relief of the poor
raised funds for several charities
c
: public provision for the relief of the needy
too proud to accept charity
2
: benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity
The holidays are a time for charity and goodwill.
3
a
: a gift for public benevolent purposes
b
: an institution (such as a hospital) founded by such a gift
4
: lenient judgment of others
The critic was liked for his charity and moderation.

1
: the seat of life or intelligence : soul
give up the ghost
2
: a disembodied soul
especially : the soul of a dead person believed to be an inhabitant of the unseen world or to appear to the living in bodily likeness
3
: spirit, demon
4
a
: a faint shadowy trace
a ghost of a smile
b
: the least bit
not a ghost of a chance
5
: a false image in a photographic negative or on a television screen caused especially by reflection
6
: one who ghostwrites
7
: a red blood cell that has lost its hemoglobin
ghostlike
ˈgōst-ˌlīk
adjective
ghosty
ˈgō-stē
adjective
see also:
give up the ghost
ghost
2 of 2

verb​

ghosted; ghosting; ghosts
transitive verb
1
: to haunt like a ghost
2
: ghostwrite
ghosted the mayor's autobiography
3
informal : to cut off all contact with (someone) abruptly and usually without explanation : to subject (someone, such as a former romantic partner) to ghosting (see ghosting entry 1 sense 2)
No one wants to be ghosted, mostly because it sucks to admit that the person you gushed about last week is now pretending you don't exist …—Ellen Scott
intransitive verb
1
a
: to move silently like a ghost
b
: to sail quietly in light winds
2
: ghostwrite

This is still mostly true of the English language, as far as it goes. I disagree though that there are or were (in 1611) this many possible meanings. I've read the KJV for over 60 years now, have many books on linguistics, and have never heard of anything similar in the area of semantics. Words have core meanings, and they may be interpreted in context in various ways, but "emotional meaning" or "moral meaning"? The context decides that, not the core meaning of the word.


Nope, sorry, this is completely made up. I am the lead translator of the Lifeline Japanese Bible (Lifeline Bible — Main Site, the first ever colloquial Japanese version from the TR), currently translating the book of Job, and have never, ever, felt that our modern Japanese translation was forced somehow into "paraphrase" because it didn't have the semantic range of the KJV vocabulary.

Do you know the original languages of the Bible, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek? Any other languages at all (Spanish, etc.)? If you do, you should rethink this. I've read the whole KJV at least 60 times, and have read the Bible through in several English versions and in Japanese (with checks into Chinese and Latin versions), and I dispute this heartily. I translate into English at least a verse a day from the Byz/TR, and have never thought this as I translated.

Let me clarify a few points, because you have attributed to me claims I did not make.

First, the semantic ranges I listed for the pre‑modern English terms were not invented, nor were they taken from someone else’s system. They come from my own study of the biblical languages and of English linguistic history. I have stated before that I am not fluent in Hebrew or Greek, but I have studied them with emphasis on structure, morphology, and semantic domains. My point was not to claim expertise, but to show the contrast between the older English categories and the modern ones.

Second, I did not claim that modern English words are monosemous. I am well aware that modern English words have multiple dictionary senses. My argument is that modern English has lost certain categories that pre‑modern English possessed, especially in the moral, behavioral, and theological domains. The dictionary senses you listed do not contradict that. They simply show that modern English has diversified around a narrowed core, not that it has retained the older categories.

For example, “conversation” in modern English has several senses, but they all orbit verbal exchange. None of them naturally carry the older sense of conduct or manner of life. Pre‑modern English did. That is the point.

Third, when I speak of “emotional meaning” or “moral meaning,” I am not claiming that these are separate dictionary senses. I am saying that older English terms could carry multiple layers of significance simultaneously, because the language itself encoded moral and behavioral categories that modern English no longer encodes. Context always determines interpretation, but the available semantic material differs between eras.

Fourth, I am arguing that modern translations are constrained by the reduced semantic range of modern English, which forces them into paraphrase when the receptor language cannot carry the categories present in the original. Pre‑modern English preserved‑text translations could carry those categories. Modern English cannot.

Your experience translating into Japanese does not negate this point. Japanese has its own semantic structures, and you are working within those. My argument concerns English specifically, and the contraction of its semantic categories over time.

Finally, I am not claiming that Early Modern English had “more meanings” in a numerical sense. I am saying it had broader categories, which allowed a single term to carry literal, figurative, moral, and theological significance without resorting to paraphrase. Modern English has fragmented those categories into specialized, compartmentalized senses. That fragmentation affects translation.

So my position stands: pre‑modern English preserved‑text translations can carry the biblical categories with greater precision than modern English translations, not because the translators were superior, but because the receptor language itself was more capable.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Nope, sorry, this is completely made up

Perhaps you meant “I think your claim is incorrect, and here is why.”

That is a reasoned response. It engages the argument.

Saying "this is completely made up" says:

“You invented this. It has no basis. It is fabricated.”

That is not disagreement. That is asserting dishonesty.

 

[Prussian Peasant]

[...] the now dissolved Dean Burgon Society for many decades and continues his advocacy for the King James Bible.

Hi Logos1560,

I found this forum in search of further information on the DBS since the according Wikipedia article has disappeared, and as already mentioned above, the original webpage of the DBS (.org) seems to have been hacked or captured.

We have the doubious "pleasure" here overseas, too, with some Textus Receptus Only folks who upset the theologically uneducated among Bible believing Christians. In preparation of a well founded answer, I am currently researching on the TRO guys' American sources.

Could you please give some more details, if possible an URL or quotable source stating that the DBS is dissolved? I have looked up the DBS blog you have referenced, but could not find anything.

Greetings from the Land of Luther (to quote an American friend of mine).

 

[John of Japan]

Regarding Phi 1:27, the underlying Greek word for "Conversation" (KJV) is πολιτεύομαι (poli-teu'-o-mai) meaning "to behave as a citizen" which is far more reaching than mere "words" one may use. It is easily understood in its context but the word "conversation" is not used in such a manner in modern conversational settings.

The 1828 Dictionary speaks of "Conversation" as being a "general course of manners, behaviour, deportment, especially as it respects morals so I would say the KJV translators were spot-on in this in this instance but since many refuse to educate themselves beyond what they have learned from public schools and state universities, they may default to the "dumbed down" modern version of "a spoken exchange of opinions, thoughts, and feelings" which is not at all what Phi 1:27 is saying.

Back in my KJVO days, I pushed back against learning Greek because "Why do you need it when you have a perfectly good English Bible?" and having an 1828 dictionary, I would;ve gotten away with it in this instance but I now understand the value in knowing and understanding the original biblical languages. I am better at it now but far from any sort of actual expertise.

Anthony has a point regarding the degradation of the English language but I do not see where such is of relevance to modern translation work.

To be clear, there are five words translated "conversation" in the NT (one in the OT which I don't plan to address.) This thread has encouraged me to do a word study of these words, and maybe I'll be able to share that soon.

 

[John of Japan]

Perhaps you meant “I think your claim is incorrect, and here is why.”

That is a reasoned response. It engages the argument.

Saying "this is completely made up" says:

“You invented this. It has no basis. It is fabricated.”

That is not disagreement. That is asserting dishonesty.

I did not mean to be offensive, just descriptive. I certainly did not mean to assert dishonesty. Making something up is not dishonesty. So anyway, I apologize.

But then I must ask, where did that concept come from? Did nobody invent it (discover, however you want to put it)?

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

did not mean to be offensive, just descriptive. So I apologize.

But then I must ask, where did that concept come from? Did nobody invent (discover, however you want to put it)?

John, thank you for the clarification.

As to your question, the concept did not come from “invention” in the sense of fabricating something. It comes from observing the historical development of English. Languages change, semantic ranges contract or expand, and certain older categories fall out of use. That is simply linguistic history.

So when I say that modern English has narrowed certain terms to specialized senses, I am not claiming a new discovery or proposing a novel theory. I am describing a well‑known feature of language change. Older English terms often carried multiple semantic layers that modern English no longer encodes directly. That is why modern translations sometimes supply explanatory phrasing where earlier English could carry the meaning more compactly.

In other words, the concept arises from the observed development of English.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

My point was that preserved‑text, pre‑modern English Bibles use conversation in the older and broader sense of conduct and manner of life, which aligns with πολιτεύομαι in Phil. 1:27. Modern English has collapsed that category into “talk,” and modern translations follow the reduced vocabulary of the modern language. That narrowing does not simply affect interpretation; it affects the accuracy of the translation itself.

This is why I argue against modern translations. When the receptor language loses categories that the biblical languages require, the translation inevitably loses precision. Pre‑modern English carried those categories natively. Modern English does not.

If modern translators still used the word "conversation" to translate πολιτεύομαι in Phi 1:27, you would make a good point. However, this is simply not the case:

Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. - NIV

Above all, you must live as citizens of heaven, conducting yourselves in a manner worthy of the Good News about Christ. - NLT

Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, - ESV

Nevertheless, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. - BSB

Only let your manner of life be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: - Webster's

The only thing that matters is that you continue to live as good citizens in a manner worthy of the gospel of the Messiah. - International Standard Version

πολιτεύομαι is a verb (Present, Imperitive, Passive) but in a few of these instances, it is treated as a noun although the overall meaning does not change. The major point is that the modern translators seem to be cognizant of the change in meaning and have translated appropriately.

 

[John of Japan]

Let me clarify a few points, because you have attributed to me claims I did not make.

First, the semantic ranges I listed for the pre‑modern English terms were not invented, nor were they taken from someone else’s system. They come from my own study of the biblical languages and of English linguistic history. I have stated before that I am not fluent in Hebrew or Greek, but I have studied them with emphasis on structure, morphology, and semantic domains. My point was not to claim expertise, but to show the contrast between the older English categories and the modern ones.

I'm glad to know you are studying the Bible assiduously.

Second, I did not claim that modern English words are monosemous. I am well aware that modern English words have multiple dictionary senses. My argument is that modern English has lost certain categories that pre‑modern English possessed, especially in the moral, behavioral, and theological domains. The dictionary senses you listed do not contradict that. They simply show that modern English has diversified around a narrowed core, not that it has retained the older categories.

Your post was misleading to me, then, because you gave detailed attention to the KJV English, and only gloss (one word each) attention to the modern English words. That to me is very unbalanced on the KJV side.

For example, “conversation” in modern English has several senses, but they all orbit verbal exchange. None of them naturally carry the older sense of conduct or manner of life. Pre‑modern English did. That is the point.

Third, when I speak of “emotional meaning” or “moral meaning,” I am not claiming that these are separate dictionary senses. I am saying that older English terms could carry multiple layers of significance simultaneously, because the language itself encoded moral and behavioral categories that modern English no longer encodes. Context always determines interpretation, but the available semantic material differs between eras.

This I have to disagree with. It's almost (almost!) saying that modern English speakers cannot have the emotions that the KJV naturally has--or something similar, I'm not sure. It's just not making sense to me.

I would say that any language in the world can carry "multiple layers of significance simultaneously," as you say. For example, if I say in Japanese 家内 it literally means "the person in the house." However, it is a common colloquial term for "wife." It can carry affection, insult, description, etc. etc. Modern English can also carry all of these.

You keep making linguistic statements that are unproven. However, linguistics is a science with rigor, research, and proof. If your statements are true, you should be able to empirically prove them.

Fourth, I am arguing that modern translations are constrained by the reduced semantic range of modern English, which forces them into paraphrase when the receptor language cannot carry the categories present in the original. Pre‑modern English preserved‑text translations could carry those categories. Modern English cannot.

You have yet to prove a "reduced semantic range of modern English." Frankly, I don't agree with this statement. Can you prove it?

Your experience translating into Japanese does not negate this point. Japanese has its own semantic structures, and you are working within those. My argument concerns English specifically, and the contraction of its semantic categories over time.

Again, it is speculative that modern English semantic categories have shrunk. There is a classical Japanese Bible that is beautiful in language, respectful in honorifics, etc. But in our modern Japanese

Languages simply don't "contract." They change and evolve, but humans remain the same, so they need to communicate the same concepts and emotions as their ancestors did.

Finally, I am not claiming that Early Modern English had “more meanings” in a numerical sense. I am saying it had broader categories, which allowed a single term to carry literal, figurative, moral, and theological significance without resorting to paraphrase. Modern English has fragmented those categories into specialized, compartmentalized senses. That fragmentation affects translation.

Still not following your assertions. They remain simply opinions to me until you prove them.

So my position stands: pre‑modern English preserved‑text translations can carry the biblical categories with greater precision than modern English translations, not because the translators were superior, but because the receptor language itself was more capable.

Brief correction. The term "receptor language" is from Eugene Nida, the inventor of dynamic equivalence (DE), which emphasizes the modern reader over the authority of the divine Author. I suggest the term "target language" communicates better for conservative Christians. I'm the minority on this, though. I've read evangelical authors who use Nida's term though they oppose DE.

 

[John of Japan]

If modern translators still used the word "conversation" to translate πολιτεύομαι in Phi 1:27, you would make a good point. However, this is simply not the case:

Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. - NIV

Above all, you must live as citizens of heaven, conducting yourselves in a manner worthy of the Good News about Christ. - NLT

Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, - ESV

Nevertheless, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. - BSB

Only let your manner of life be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: - Webster's

The only thing that matters is that you continue to live as good citizens in a manner worthy of the gospel of the Messiah. - International Standard Version

πολιτεύομαι is a verb (Present, Imperitive, Passive) but in a few of these instances, it is treated as a noun although the overall meaning does not change. The major point is that the modern translators seem to be cognizant of the change in meaning and have translated appropriately.

Good germane post.

By way of teaching (I teach Greek), πολιτεύομαι only occurs twice, and it is not passive, but a deponent, passive in form but active in meaning. There are four other words for "conversation," an interesting one being πολίτευμα politeuma (Phil. 3:20), which I believe the KJV should have translated as "citizenship."

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I'm glad to know you are studying the Bible assiduously.

Your post was misleading to me, then, because you gave detailed attention to the KJV English, and only gloss (one word each) attention to the modern English words. That to me is very unbalanced on the KJV side.

This I have to disagree with. It's almost (almost!) saying that modern English speakers cannot have the emotions that the KJV naturally has--or something similar, I'm not sure. It's just not making sense to me.

I would say that any language in the world can carry "multiple layers of significance simultaneously," as you say. For example, if I say in Japanese 家内 it literally means "the person in the house." However, it is a common colloquial term for "wife." It can carry affection, insult, description, etc. etc. Modern English can also carry all of these.

You keep making linguistic statements that are unproven. However, linguistics is a science with rigor, research, and proof. If your statements are true, you should be able to empirically prove them.

You have yet to prove a "reduced semantic range of modern English." Frankly, I don't agree with this statement. Can you prove it?

Again, it is speculative that modern English semantic categories have shrunk. There is a classical Japanese Bible that is beautiful in language, respectful in honorifics, etc. But in our modern Japanese

Languages simply don't "contract." They change and evolve, but humans remain the same, so they need to communicate the same concepts and emotions as their ancestors did.

Still not following your assertions. They remain simply opinions to me until you prove them.

Brief correction. The term "receptor language" is from Eugene Nida, the inventor of dynamic equivalence (DE), which emphasizes the modern reader over the authority of the divine Author. I suggest the term "target language" communicates better for conservative Christians. I'm the minority on this, though. I've read evangelical authors who use Nida's term though they oppose DE.

Let me address your points carefully, because several of your objections rest on misunderstandings of what I actually claimed.

First, when I speak of “narrowed senses” in modern English, I am not claiming that modern English speakers lack emotions or conceptual depth. I am describing a linguistic fact: semantic categories shift over time, and certain older categories disappear or fragment. This is not speculation; it is simply how languages develop. Older English terms often carried moral, behavioral, and theological layers that modern English no longer encodes directly. That is not a comment on speakers, but on the structure of the language.

Second, your Japanese example does not contradict my point. Japanese has its own semantic structures, its own historical development, and its own way of encoding layers of meaning. My argument concerns English specifically, and the documented contraction of certain English categories between Early Modern English and contemporary usage. Every language changes, but they do not all change in the same way or at the same rate. Pointing to Japanese does not address the English data.

Third, you asked for “proof” of semantic contraction. The examples I gave, such as conversation losing its behavioral/moral domain, are precisely that proof. Modern English dictionaries list multiple senses, but they all orbit verbal exchange. The older category of conduct or manner of life is gone. That is semantic contraction. The same pattern appears in other terms whose older ranges included moral or behavioral significance that modern English no longer carries natively. This is not an opinion; it is observable linguistic history.

Fourth, regarding balance: I focused on the older English terms because they are the ones whose categories have changed. Modern English terms do not need extended treatment to demonstrate that their ranges have narrowed; their dictionary senses already show the fragmentation. The imbalance you noted is simply the result of explaining the older categories that no longer exist.

Fifth, on the term “receptor language”: it is not owned by Nida. It is standard linguistic terminology used across translation studies, including by authors who reject dynamic equivalence. “Target language” is also acceptable, but “receptor language” is not inherently tied to Nida’s theory. It predates and outlives his particular model.

Finally, my claim is not that Early Modern English had “more meanings,” but that it had broader categories that allowed a single term to carry literal, figurative, moral, and theological significance without resorting to paraphrase. Modern English has divided those categories into specialized senses. That fragmentation affects translation. This is not speculation; it is the documented trajectory of English semantic development.

So my position stands: pre‑modern English preserved‑text translations could carry biblical categories more directly because the receptor language itself was more capable in those domains. Modern English translations must work within the constraints of a language whose categories have changed.

Still not following your assertions.

John, let me make one point clear. You have repeatedly treated my argument as if I were claiming that modern English speakers lack emotions, that modern English is monosemous, or that modern English is defective in a general sense. I have never said any of those things. My claim is structural, not psychological. It concerns the language itself, not the people who speak it. Languages change. Categories shift. Semantic fields reorganize. When certain older categories disappear from the receptor language, translators must supply them by paraphrase. Early Modern English possessed categories that mapped more directly to the biblical languages. Modern English does not. In that specific respect, modern English is defective for the task of carrying inspiration intact. It is not defective as a language for ordinary communication. It is simply less capable of encoding certain biblical categories without explanatory expansion. That is the entire point.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You have yet to prove a "reduced semantic range of modern English." Frankly, I don't agree with this statement. Can you prove it?

John, you are asking me for a level of proof that you do not provide for your own position. I have already given concrete examples of semantic contraction in modern English, such as the loss of the behavioral and moral category in the word “conversation.” You have not offered comparable evidence for your claim that modern English has retained all earlier categories. You simply assert it. If you want to require formal linguistic demonstration, then the standard must apply to both sides. I have provided examples, contrasts, and historical development. You have provided disagreement. If you believe modern English has not experienced semantic contraction, then you will need to demonstrate that with evidence, not simply state it.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

By way of teaching (I teach Greek), πολιτεύομαι only occurs twice, and it is not passive, but a deponent, passive in form but active in meaning. There are four other words for "conversation," an interesting one being πολίτευμα politeuma (Phil. 3:20), which I believe the KJV should have translated as "citizenship."

John, you are appealing to a level of linguistic authority that you have not demonstrated. You teach Greek, and I respect that. However, expertise in Greek does not automatically confer expertise in English semantic history. When you ask me to “prove” semantic contraction in modern English, you are asking for a standard of demonstration that you have not met for your own claim that modern English has retained all earlier categories. You simply assert that languages “do not contract,” but you have not provided evidence for that assertion. I have already given concrete examples of semantic contraction. You have not provided comparable evidence for your position. If you want to require formal linguistic proof, then the standard must apply to both sides. I have supplied examples, contrasts, and historical development. You have supplied disagreement. The burden of proof is not one‑directional.

 

[John of Japan]

Let me address your points carefully, because several of your objections rest on misunderstandings of what I actually claimed.

First, when I speak of “narrowed senses” in modern English, I am not claiming that modern English speakers lack emotions or conceptual depth. I am describing a linguistic fact: semantic categories shift over time, and certain older categories disappear or fragment. This is not speculation; it is simply how languages develop. Older English terms often carried moral, behavioral, and theological layers that modern English no longer encodes directly. That is not a comment on speakers, but on the structure of the language.

This is a better explanation. I still don't agree with it. You are not proving that English moral, behavioral and theological categories have changed. You state it without proof as a "linguistic fact." Can you quote a linguist who says this?

Second, your Japanese example does not contradict my point. Japanese has its own semantic structures, its own historical development, and its own way of encoding layers of meaning. My argument concerns English specifically, and the documented contraction of certain English categories between Early Modern English and contemporary usage. Every language changes, but they do not all change in the same way or at the same rate. Pointing to Japanese does not address the English data.

My Japanese example is very relevant to the discussion. KJV English is not modern English, just as Classical Japanese is not modern Japanese. Both languages have evolved. But I'll let it go.

Third, you asked for “proof” of semantic contraction. The examples I gave, such as conversation losing its behavioral/moral domain, are precisely that proof.

No, it is not proof. It proves the evolution of the English language so that "conversation" has narrowed in meaning, but it does not prove that the concept of the KJV no longer exists. We simply use other words to describe it.

Modern English dictionaries list multiple senses, but they all orbit verbal exchange. The older category of conduct or manner of life is gone. That is semantic contraction. The same pattern appears in other terms whose older ranges included moral or behavioral significance that modern English no longer carries natively. This is not an opinion; it is observable linguistic history.

No, it is semantic evolution, not semantic contraction. It is simply one word evolving into several words.

Fourth, regarding balance: I focused on the older English terms because they are the ones whose categories have changed. Modern English terms do not need extended treatment to demonstrate that their ranges have narrowed; their dictionary senses already show the fragmentation. The imbalance you noted is simply the result of explaining the older categories that no longer exist.

Again, you proved nothing. Modern English also has terms that have evolved and widened in meaning. Take the term "evolve," which now means several things it never meant in 1611 English.

Fifth, on the term “receptor language”: it is not owned by Nida. It is standard linguistic terminology used across translation studies, including by authors who reject dynamic equivalence. “Target language” is also acceptable, but “receptor language” is not inherently tied to Nida’s theory. It predates and outlives his particular model.

Sorry, you are wrong. I was trying to help you, since I teach Bible translation in our seminary, but that's okay. Go your own way.

I'll just say that secular authors and Bible translation authors all agree that Nida started off the modern discipline of translation studies with his seminal book 1964 book, Toward a Science of Translating. Until then, not a single university in the world had a "Translation Studies Department." But Nida did not even use the term "receptor" in that book, but later in his 1982 book with Charles Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation. I'm positive you will find no earlier usages of the term.

With that post of yours, I'm dropping out of this discussion. You obviously think you are the expert, and are not willing to receive any knowledge from me.

 

[John of Japan]

There's an old Chinese story that a young man went to an old master of the martial arts and asked for teaching. However, he then droned on about himself for quite a while, until the old master began pouring tea, but did not stop so that the young man's cup overflowed. When the young man objected, the old master said, "Your cup is already full, so you don't need me."