Has English Degraded?

[Mike B]

Gail Riplinger proposed:

I follow the Lord Jesus Christ, therefore I could care less what Gail Riplinger (or anyone else)
proposed, claimed, acknowledged, maintained, asserted, indicated, alleged or wrote regarding
their opinion of the KJV.

They do not speak for me, so please, save yourself the effort of posting all that dreck.

 

[Jerome]

...stated, observed, pointed out, suggested, noted, affirmed, contended...

 

[JonC]

Robin Griffith-Jones wrote: “The prayer book of 1604 and the Bible of 1611 were both liturgical texts, to be used in conjunction with each other. Their uniform style was archaic, on the trajectory that led to the prayer book of 1662: a style that by the mid-seventeenth century was recognizably and distinctively liturgical” (Burke, KJV at 400, p. 81). Lori Anne Ferrell asserted: “With its Latinate cadences and lack of explanatory marginal notes, the 1611 Bible, that masterpiece of English prose, was not designed to be a Bible for study and instruction but a text aimed at supporting the Church of England’s Book of Common Prayer” (Killeen, Oxford Handbook, p. 268). Lori Anne Ferrell maintained that the Book of Common Prayer “effectively organizes and redacts those [scriptural] passages to complement a national liturgy. In short, the Book of Common Prayer acts as a curb to individual scriptural interpretation—which, of course, is exactly what a state church’s liturgy is meant to do: express a corporate, not private, religious culture” (pp. 268-269).

Robin Griffith-Jones wrote: “The archaisms characteristic of the KJV characterize as well the prayer book of 1604 –and then of 1662” (Burke, KJV at 400, p. 71). Stephen Prickett maintained that the KJV “was to be deliberately archaic, latinized, and conservative” (Hamlin, KJB after 400, p. 30). Stephen Prickett wrote: “It [the KJV] did not arise from nowhere, but (for all the vilification of him) drew heavily on Tyndale, not to mention Coverdale, the Geneva Bible, and the others. A natural conservatism in the fact of a very rapidly changing language would probably have given the new translation an archaic feel anyway, but the instructions to follow, where possible, the Bishops’ Bible, and a clear political agenda merely reinforced this tendency” (p. 33). In this same book, Hannibal Hamlin and Norman Jones referred to the KJV’s “increasingly archaic language (which was at least slightly archaic even in 1611 when it was first published)” (p. 20).

David Crystal wrote: “The [KJV] translators were consciously conservative, and frequently introduced archaism and traditional readings, especially from Tyndale and Coverdale” (Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English, p. 64). David Daniell asserted: “Those scholars were tied by having, at the King’s command, to base their work on the ill-done, backward-looking, heavily Latinate Bishops’ Bible of 1568 partly because it had no marginal notes” (William Tyndale, p. 344). David Daniell also observed: "Appeal to Latin, so characteristic of the Authorised Version, tends to flatten differences, and make one special kind of language for everything, something a little antiquated, a little removed, and feeling therefore, for the New Testament, rather artificially holy" (p. 139). David Lawton asserted: “The style of the King James Bible was meant to align the reading of the Bible with the worship of the Church of England; and its slightly old-fashioned language was meant to express the great antiquity of that Church” (Faith, p. 81). In an introduction to an Oxford World’s Classics edition of the KJV, Robert Carroll and Stephen Prickett wrote: “Unlike Tyndale, who had translated the koine Greek of the New Testament into a direct and forceful contemporary vernacular, the language of the new translation [the KJV] was often deliberately archaic and Latinized” (p. xxviii).

I think (my opinion) that this long held idea that translations of the Bible (and worship music, attire appropriate for worship, the architecture of churches, sometimes sermons and how we pray) is a secular idea of sacredness (sacred, for a believer, is spiritual rather than legalistic).

But I also think (my opinion) that this was to be expected given the traditions of the translators.

 

[Logos1560]

I follow the Lord Jesus Christ, therefore I could care less what Gail Riplinger (or anyone else)
proposed, claimed, acknowledged, maintained, asserted, indicated, alleged or wrote regarding
their opinion of the KJV.

The Lord Jesus Christ in the Scriptures does not state your opinion of Modern English and your non-scriptural exclusive only claims for the KJV.

The Lord Jesus Christ does not state nor teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England men in 1611.

 

[Mike B]

The Lord Jesus Christ in the Scriptures does not state your opinion of Modern English and your non-scriptural exclusive only claims for the KJV.

There has been no tergiversation on my part, and if you wish, you can re-read my previous posts to
confirm that. I have not stated any opinion of modern English, nor have I made any exclusive only
claims for the KJV.

 

[JonC]

There is not a language on earth and never has been with a standardized version of the language.

For example, Japanese has the Kanto dialect, the Kansai dialect, classical Japanese, colloquial Japanese, various levels of honorifics (polite language), etc.

I once had twin young men come to my church in Yokohama from Akita Prefecture, one of the outlying provinces north of Tokyo. Though I am fluent in the language, I couldn't understand them!

We had two soldiers in our unit who tried to get a Spanish language identifier. One spoke Spanish as his original language. The other learned the language as a teenager as his patents were missionaries going to Mexico.

The soldier who had Spanish as his original language could not pass the exam for the language while the other soldier earned the identifier.

 

[JonC]

Yesterday I went to get a few grocery items. I told my best friend (my dog) "they didn't have one item I needed."

I thought about that. "They didn't have one item I needed."

Reading the posts of many here (how they break down and focus on individual words) this would be very debatable.

Does this mean I picked up every item but one, or that I found nothing I needed?

 

[Deacon]

Yesterday I went to get a few grocery items. I told my best friend (my dog) "they didn't have one item I needed."

I thought about that. "They didn't have one item I needed."

Reading the posts of many here (how they break down and focus on individual words) this would be very debatable.

Does this mean I picked up every item but one, or that I found nothing I needed?

Reminds me of the classic sentence with multiple meanings depending upon what word is stressed.

I didn’t say he stole the money. (Someone else said it)
I didn’t say he stole the money. (I didn't say that)
I didn’t say he stole the money. (I said something else)
I didn’t say he stole the money. (Someone else stole it)
I didn’t say he stole the money. (He did something else with it)
I didn’t say he stole the money. (He stole something else)

Rob

 

[JonC]

Reminds me of the classic sentence with multiple meanings depending upon what word is stressed.

I didn’t say he stole the money. (Someone else said it)
I didn’t say he stole the money. (I didn't say that)
I didn’t say he stole the money. (I said something else)
I didn’t say he stole the money. (Someone else stole it)
I didn’t say he stole the money. (He did something else with it)
I didn’t say he stole the money. (He stole something else)

Rob

Yea.... my dog looked confused when I said that to him.

 

[John of Japan]

I have had the exact opposite experience. I studied Classics (Latin and Greek) as an unconverted youngster at University, but then got fed up with it and went into business.
When I was finally saved, more than 15 years later, I started to mug up my Greek again and although it was a big help to have studied Classical Greek, I'm certainly not going to call myself any sort of expert at Koine Greek. But the NT was not written in posh Classical Greek, it was written in the language of the people of the time. I have no quarrel with anyone who prefers to read the KJV, but for me, the Bible should be read in the type of language in which it was written.

Your a better man that I am at Greek, then!

Having said that, knowing classical Greek would certainly help in learning koine. And as you say NT Greek is colloquial. Still, a language changes quite a bit after 700 years, Homer to Christ. What authors did you study in your classical Greek course?

 

[John of Japan]

We had two soldiers in our unit who tried to get a Spanish language identifier. One spoke Spanish as his original language. The other learned the language as a teenager as his patents were missionaries going to Mexico.

The soldier who had Spanish as his original language could not pass the exam for the language while the other soldier earned the identifier.

Thanks for proving my points! I think....

 

[John of Japan]

English across the world and even across the United States shows differences in both dialect and vernacular. Some regions develop true dialects with distinct grammatical and phonological features, while most differences are simply vernacular, the everyday local usage of the same language. These variations highlight the need for a common, pure, preserved Word of God in English, one that stands above shifting regional speech and provides a stable and unified standard for all English speaking believers.

Please answer my point that if 1611 English is a superior way to communicate, you should be communicating with it to talk to us here on the BB. I understand it quite well. Read it every day since boyhood, completely through at least once a year; done much research in it; took 6 credits of Shakespeare in college, etc. etc. Why dost thou not speak to me with "thou" and "thy"?

Please interact with my quote from a linguistics professor saying there is no such thing as a superior language.

In order to scientifically prove your point (and linguistics is science), you'd have to do research comparing the comprehension of people reading the KJV who knew 1611 English, people reading it who didn't know KJV English, people reading a modern version (say the NKJV), etc. Until you do that you cannot prove your position is anything more than your opinion. I don't mean to be insulting or belittling anything. I'm a linguist, and I'm just trying to work through your position.

I did that kind of research comparing the KJV and the Japanese Classical Bible. My conclusion was that the JCB was 2.5 times harder for a Japanese to understand than the KJV was for modern English speakers. That's the kind of research I'm talking about here. (My research actually helps your position. )

 

[John of Japan]

English across the world and even across the United States shows differences in both dialect and vernacular. Some regions develop true dialects with distinct grammatical and phonological features, while most differences are simply vernacular, the everyday local usage of the same language. These variations highlight the need for a common, pure, preserved Word of God in English, one that stands above shifting regional speech and provides a stable and unified standard for all English speaking believers.

I know of ministries passing out KJV Bibles in various countries: PNG, African countries, most recently Portugal. (One of our deacons went on that trip.) I do agree that is a good thing, and the KJV language thus digested is a help to folks in those countries. Where I disagree is that somehow the language of 1611 was somehow more pure, etc.

If that be true, shouldn't there be such a version of Japanese? Chinese? Korean? There is not. For example, the Japanese Classical Bible (1880 or so, the first complete Japanese Bible) is not superior to the Lifeline NT at all, since the JCB NT was translated from a critical text (probably Tischendorf), but the modern colloquial Lifeline Japanese NT was translated from the TR.

 

[John of Japan]

Tibetan is an interesting language. I know a man who is currently translating a Tibetan Bible. It has to be in classical Tibetan (I think--haven't talked to him lately) because there are so many dialects that are not mutually comprehensible. But supposedly all Tibetans can read the classical language. This is a huge task, and I pray for him every day.

So, missionary translation is my burden, and I teach two seminary classes on the subject. (Not bragging--you'll have to ask my students if I teach well or lousy.) This is where the KJV-Only movement and the likes of Ruckman and Riplinger has gotten the Independent Baptist movement off track. The KJV never says to defend it, only to preach it. And that includes every language. The Bible is a sword, not a museum item to defend and show off.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Please answer my point that if 1611 English is a superior way to communicate, you should be communicating with it to talk to us here on the BB. I understand it quite well.

Your question about why I do not speak in 1611 English here is based on misrepresentation. I have never argued that believers must use 1611 English in conversation. I argued that it was the right vehicle for the preserved text.

Your appeal to a professor who said “no language is superior” does not touch my position. I have not claimed superiority of a language. I have spoken about suitability for translation. You are answering a claim I did not make.

And expertise used as a shield rather than a tool is not honest debate.

Your demand for comprehension studies is also misplaced. Comprehension studies measure the reader, not the precision of the text.

If you want to interact with my actual position, then address what I said. Do not replace my statements with ones I never made and then ask me to defend them.

At minimum, represent my words accurately before you critique them.

 

[John of Japan]

Your question about why I do not speak in 1611 English here is based on misrepresentation. I have never argued that believers must use 1611 English in conversation. I argued that it was the right vehicle for the preserved text.

No, you argued that it is more pure and high quality than modern English. If that is true than it ought to communicate better than modern English. Wist thou not this be true?

And expertise used as a shield rather than a tool is not honest debate.

I see. So I'm debating dishonestly, and you refuse to answer my points, but would rather criticize them. Please enlighten me as to how I have used expertise as a "shield" as you put it. I honestly have no idea what you mean by this.

Question: Do you pray for or support any missionary translators? Just curious.

 

[Walkin' with Jesus]

As someone who has watched this KJVO debate for over 50 years, I’m just jumping in to say, that it was a very sad day when the Devil whispered the idea of “single version onlyism” into the ear of the one who first proposed it. And I’m honestly shocked that we are still debating this damnable teaching 50 years later.

I’ve seen, first as a Bible college student, then as a pastor and a missionary, the deplorable damage to faith that such false teaching creates.

There’s nothing wrong with the KJV or believing that it is the Bible that you hold to. The problem comes when you look down upon others who prefer other good and reliable versions, proclaim your superiority of belief and condemn their version as “heretical”.

Many, I fear, do it out of the pride of having a gnostic knowledge that others lack. Again, it’s not a problem to believe or even debate which Bible is best, but it is a problem to look down one’s nose at other brethren and condemn them based on your faulty beliefs.

 

[Logos1560]

And expertise used as a shield rather than a tool is not honest debate.


At minimum, represent my words accurately before you critique them.

You seem to attack the honesty of other posters.

You seem to use your "expertise" concerning the English language as a shield to prevent anyone from examining your unproven claims about Early Modern English and Modern English.

You do not seem to practice what you preach since you have not always represented my words accurately before you critique them.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

No, you argued that it is more pure and high quality than modern English. If that is true than it ought to communicate better than modern English. Wist thou not this be true?

I see. So I'm debating dishonestly, and you refuse to answer my points, but would rather criticize them. Please enlighten me as to how I have used expertise as a "shield" as you put it. I honestly have no idea what you mean by this.

Question: Do you pray for or support any missionary translators? Just curious.

You are again reframing my position into something I have not argued. I did not say that Early Modern English is “more pure” or “higher quality.” Those are your words, not mine. You are inserting a claim I never made so you can challenge it. My point has consistently been about translation suitability, not linguistic superiority. Early Modern English had structural features that made it a stable vehicle for a formal‑equivalence translation of the preserved text. That is not a claim about purity, quality, or conversational usage.

Your question about whether it “ought to communicate better” is based on your own rephrasing, not on anything I have written. You are critiquing a claim I did not make.

As for expertise: when someone appeals to credentials or academic authority to shut down discussion rather than to illuminate the categories being discussed, that is expertise used as a shield rather than a tool. That has happened repeatedly in this thread. It is not honest debate.

My concern here has been the repeated misrepresentation of my actual words. I have presented my beliefs clearly, with Scripture, calmly and without heat, only to be met with reframing and attacks on positions I never took.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You seem to attack the honesty of other posters.

You seem to use your "expertise" concerning the English language as a shield to prevent anyone from examining your unproven claims about Early Modern English and Modern English.

You do not seem to practice what you preach since you have not always represented my words accurately before you critique them.

Your assertion that I “attack the honesty of other posters” is another misrepresentation. I have pointed out patterns of reframing and misquoting because they occurred. That is not an attack; it is a correction. When my words are replaced with versions I never wrote, I will say so plainly.

As for expertise: when someone appeals to credentials or academic authority to shut down discussion rather than to illuminate the categories being discussed, that is expertise used as a shield rather than a tool. That has happened repeatedly in this thread. It is not honest debate. Expertise should clarify, not deflect.

You also claim I have not represented your words accurately. If you believe I have misquoted you, you are welcome to show the specific sentence. What I will not do is defend claims I never made simply because they were attributed to me.