Has English Degraded?

[Anthony Pritchard]

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

John, your question struck me as pretentious because it shifted the discussion from translation categories to a moral evaluation of me. But to answer plainly: yes, I pray for missionary translators. I pray for anyone laboring to bring Scripture into another language. My argument here has never been about missions or about the value of translation work. It has been about the specific linguistic environment in which the preserved text was rendered into English. That is a separate category.

When you move the discussion from linguistic categories to personal spirituality, it looks less like engagement and more like performance. That is the kind of expertise‑as‑shield dynamic I have been pointing out.

 

[Logos1560]

Your assertion that I “attack the honesty of other posters” is another misrepresentation.

It is not a misrepresentation since you suggested that another poster was not engaging in "honest debate" which would question his honesty. In your response, you again alleged "not honest debate," which shows again that you were not misrepresented.

You were not misquoted.

You may have an incorrect understanding or definition of the term KJV-only, which may lead you to claim incorrectly that you are supposedly misrepresented when your stated own reasoning is soundly identified as being KJV-only. You deflect or divert away from dealing with my clear definition and explanation of what constitutes a KJV-only view. If you do not hold any other post-1611 English Bible translation to be the inspired and preserved word of God in English, you would be in effect making an exclusive only claim for the KJV. If you cannot make the same claim that you yourself stated concerning the KJV being "the inspired and preserved word of God in English", concerning other post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV, Modern KJV, KJ3, KJ2000, etc. then it is an exclusive only claim for only one post-1610 English Bible translation.

You were corrected for trying to put words in my mouth that I did not say. You in effect replaced my words with a version that I did not write. You incorrectly suggested that I was saying that God failed to preserve His words.

 

[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.

It was not a misrepresentation, it was a logical conclusion. No matter.

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.

The very title of your thread is, "Has English Degraded? The KJV Debate Proves It." Therefore, you are arguing for the superiority of KJV English, or 1611 English.

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

Again, I don't know what you mean. Please explain how I am using expertise as a "shield." When you make an accusation, at the very least it should be understood by the accused.

And again you are accusing me of debating dishonestly. I have found that when one cannot answer one's opponent in a debate, then the personal attacks begin

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

I disagree.

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.

And the same right back at you. You are not representing my points accurately.

 

[John of Japan]

John, your question struck me as pretentious because it shifted the discussion from translation categories to a moral evaluation of me.

I don't not consider the matter of whether or not one prays for Bible translator missionaries to be a "moral" issue at all, and I can't figure out how you got that from what I wrote. I was simply curious. Very few believers in our pews know a thing about missionary Bible translators. I'm glad you pray for one or more of them.

But to answer plainly: yes, I pray for missionary translators. I pray for anyone laboring to bring Scripture into another language. My argument here has never been about missions or about the value of translation work. It has been about the specific linguistic environment in which the preserved text was rendered into English. That is a separate category.

To me, any argument about Bible translation is ergo, about missionary Bible translation. I'm tired of the endless arguments on English translations when there are already several hundred of them, tons of money is being spent on them, and there are still around 3000 languages in the world with not one single verse of the Word of God.

When you move the discussion from linguistic categories to personal spirituality, it looks less like engagement and more like performance. That is the kind of expertise‑as‑shield dynamic I have been pointing out.

I DID NOT move the discussion to personal spirituality I was not entering prayer as part of the debate. I was trying to be friendly with that and with several other posts.. I'm done with that. You apparently don't believe in friendliness on the BB. I'll cease trying to be friendly with you.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

In Post #33 you wrote calling the KJV "a common, pure, preserved Word of God in English."

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.

Again, you accuse me of dishonesty. Frankly, I think this is because you've run out of arguments.

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.

Yes, I've been attacking your position. But you've been attacking me personally. Perhaps you simply can't answer my arguments, so you stoop to personal attack.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

In Post #33 you wrote calling the KJV "a common, pure, preserved Word of God in English."

You are reframing my position again. You quoted my phrase “a common, pure, preserved Word of God in English” as if I were claiming that Early Modern English is a superior language. I was speaking about the text, not the language. When I said “a common, pure, preserved Word of God in English,” I used the article “a,” not “the.” You are collapsing categories I have already defined. My point has consistently been about translation suitability, not linguistic superiority.

You say you have been attacking my position. The difficulty is that the positions you are attacking are not the ones I actually took. I have answered your arguments by separating the categories involved. You have repeatedly reassigned my words to claims I did not make. Naming a misrepresentation is not a personal attack. Earlier in the thread you questioned my morality. I did not question yours. I pointed out the reframing.

I will continue to hold to the categories I have already established. They remain the basis of my position.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Establishing truth ends the argument whether the other person accepts it or not. I will not be responding to this thread from this point on.

 

[Salty]

In Post #33 you wrote calling the KJV "a common, pure, preserved Word of God in English."

You are reframing my position again.

Then you please reframe you position - in 25 words or less?

 

[Logos1560]

Establishing truth ends the argument whether the other person accepts it or not.

You did not establish your claims to be verifiable truth. Do you merely try to assume or declare your unproven claims to be truth?

You refuse to accept the truth that you have not proven Early Modern English to have been degraded in Modern English.

You did not prove that Early Modern English is the right vehicle for the preserved text for those who speak and read Modern English.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Then you please reframe you position - in 25 words or less?

My position is that the preserved Hebrew and Greek text was translated into Early Modern English with formal equivalence, producing a stable, common English Bible.

 

[Logos1560]

It was not a misrepresentation, it was a logical conclusion. No matter

The very title of your thread is, "Has English Degraded? The KJV Debate Proves It." Therefore, you are arguing for the superiority of KJV English, or 1611 English.

Yes, the very title of his thread affirms that he was arguing for the superiority of 1611 English. He did not establish his claim to be true as he merely assumes it or tries to declare it to be established as "truth".

How is his own seeming argument indicated in his own title supposedly being reframed?

Establishing truth ends the argument whether the other person accepts it or not.

He seems to suggest that everyone has to accept blindly his personal declarations and assertions since he seems to declare that they are established as "truth" on his own say-so. Perhaps he is his own authority.

 

[Logos1560]

c) The subjunctive. Early Modern English used it productively. If he be, though she go. We retain fossils such as if I were and God save the King, but most speakers now use the indicative.

James Moses Grainger wrote: “The use of the subjunctive in the King James Version is characterized by great looseness and irregularity due to the unfixed state of English syntax during the period from which the English Bible drew its idiom, 1535-1611” (Studies in the Syntax of the KJV, p. 50).

Lindley Murray wrote: "It is a general rule, that when something contingent or doubtful is implied, the subjunctive ought to be used" (English Grammar, p. 178). Lindley Murray wrote: "Conjunctions that are of a positive and absolute nature, require the indicative mood" (p. 179).

Lindley Murray wrote: "The subjunctive is used in the like improper manner in the following example: 'Though he were a son, yet learned he obedience, by the things which he suffered'[Heb. 5:8]. But in a similar passage, the indicative, with great propriety, is employed to the same purpose: 'Though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor'" [2 Cor. 8:9] (English Grammar, p. 179).

 

[Logos1560]

d) Older grammatical categories that show the direction of change. Grammatical gender, dual number, and the full case system were already fading by 1600, but they illustrate how much structure English once carried.

Perhaps they merely illustrate how much Middle English or Early Modern English retained or followed Latin grammar since imprecise Early Modern English had not yet been standardized with any standard English grammars. In 1611 English had not reached its maturity since it had not yet developed its own standardized English grammar.

You did not establish your points to be the truth since you merely seem to assume them. You do not engage in serious discussion concerning your unproven points.

J. B. Lightfoot asserted: “Accustomed to write and speak in Latin, they [the KJV translators] unconsciously limited the range and capacity of the Greek by the measure of the classical language with which they were most familiarly acquainted” (Fresh Revision, p. 80). Lindley Murray (1745-1826), who has been called the father of English grammar, wrote: “The English tongue is, in many respects, materially different from the learned languages [Greek, Latin]. It is, therefore, very possible to be mistaken ourselves, and to mislead and perplex others, by an undistinguishing attachment to the principles and arrangement of the Greek and Latin Grammarians” (English Grammar, p. 99). David Crystal wrote: “The influence of Latin syntactic style on English became marked in the 16th century” (Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English, p. 70). David Crystal wrote: “The remarkable John Wallis (1616-1703) was the first to call for a new, non-Latin approach to English grammar” (Making Sense, p. 56). Thus, the KJV translators’ Latin scholarship including Latin grammar may have affected some of their English translating decisions. Just as spelling of English words was not yet settled and standardized, English grammar rules, syntax, and usages may not have been firmly established or settled in 1607-1610. James Grainger referred to “the unfixed state of English syntax during the period from which the English Bible drew its idiom, 1535-1611” (Studies in Syntax, p. 50).

Richard Hughes suggested: “The first attempt at standardizing the rules of English grammar is in 1762, with the publishing of Bishop Robert Lowth’s ‘A Short Introduction to English Grammar’” (English Grammar, p. 279). David Crystal noted: “One of the most influential grammars of the 18th century was Robert Lowth’s Short Introduction to English Grammar (1762). This was the inspiration for Lindley Murray’s widely used English Grammar (1794)” (Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, p. 3). It could be argued that Samuel Johnson in his outline of English grammar in his 1755 Dictionary made an earlier attempt at standardizing English grammar.

The lack of standardization of grammar and spelling in Early Modern English does not suggest that it is a more precise, mature, and accurate English than Modern English. This important process of the standardization of grammar, spelling, and punctuation in immature and imprecise Early Modern English in the 1700's and afterwards did not degrade Modern English.

Are you advocating the Latin approach to English grammar? Are you attached to the aspects of Latin grammar in Early Modern English? Are you possibly taking the English in post-1900 KJV editions after spelling and grammar were inconsistently updated and standardized and assuming it to be true of the original 1611 edition?

 

[Logos1560]

Has the 1611 KJV remained the same and stable for over 400 years?

Some authors have claimed that the text of current KJV editions is exactly the same or is substantially the same as the text of the original 1611 edition. Do they prove their claims to be true? For example, Ed DeVries wrote: “Buy a KJV at any bookstore and compare it to a KJV from 1611 and you will see that EVERY word is the same” (Divinely Inspired, Inerrantly Preserved, p. 66). Ed DeVries maintained that "none of the 'revisions' of the KJV between 1611 and 1769 resulted in the addition, subtraction, and or replacement of one word" (p. 67). Likewise, James M. Rasbeary asserted: “The King James Bibles we use today are the same as those first published in 1611” (What’s Wrong with the Old Black Book, p. 82). David Daniels claimed: “The simple fact is that the King James Bible you can purchase in almost any bookstore, allowing for changes in spelling (and possibly the two printing errors), is the same Book of God’s preserved words that was printed in 1611” (Answers to your Bible Version Questions, p. 128). David Daniels declared: “God had a plan to guarantee permanent accuracy for His words” (Yes You Can, p. 10). David Daniels asserted: “His original wording in the 1611 KJV was so well done that it became the standard for commerce, religion, and education vocabularies wherever anyone spoke English” (p. 11). David Daniels claimed: “God’s plan was to make an eternal standard version in English that we could all easily learn to read throughout all the centuries during which English was the international language” (Ibid.).

Jack McElroy asserted: “Anybody using a KJB today is using an edition of the Authorized Version of 1611 containing the pure words of God” (Bible Version Secrets, p. 470). Evangelist William Bradley contended that "the King James Bible printed in 1611 reads the same as the King James Bible printed in 1997" (Purified Seven Times, p. 115). Bruce Lackey wrote: “The King James Version which we possess today is the same as the 1611 edition” (Why I Believe, p. 77). Mike Holloway declared: “The words were not changed; only the spelling was changed” (Common Sense, p. 114). Mike Holloway claimed: “Every word now is exactly the same word as translated in 1611” (Ibid.). Paul Devine asserted that the Authorized King James Bible “has stood unchanged for over 400 years” (Why Your Bible, p. 37).

Kelly Gallagher contended: “The sound and words of the King James is as the 1611 original. This writer has examined both and they are the same except for font style and spelling changes” (Perfect Bible, p. 21). Kelly Gallagher claimed: “The King James Bible we have today is substantially the same as the one completed in 1611” (p. 64). Robert Potthoff asserted: “Since its completion in 1611, the KJV has remained essentially unchanged. While spelling and punctuation have been standardized over time, the actual text of the KJV has not been altered, preserving its doctrinal integrity and authority” (Why the KJV, p. 80). William Bradley declared: "The text of the Bible has remained unchanged from 1611 till today" (To All Generations, p. 71). M. H. Tabb asserted: “There were no textual changes in those various editions (not revisions) of the KJB” (Inspiration, p. 273). Edward F. Hills wrote: “Aside from printers errors, these editions differ from each other only in regard to spelling, punctuation, and, in a few places, italics” (KJV Defended, p. 230; Text, p. 382). Alan O’Reilly declared: “Subsequent Editions of the AV1611 differ from the 1611 Edition only in matters of spelling, punctuation and Italics, where obviously variation is possible without discrepancy. Allowing for correction of typographical errors by later Editions, the actual TEXT of any AV1611 available today is the same as that of 1611” (O Biblios, p. 2).

D. A. Waite (1927-2024) asserted: “The fact of the matter is that the present King James Bible is substantially (almost 100%) identical with the original 1611” (Fundamentalist Mis-Information, p. 53). Waite wrote: “We don’t have to be worried about the changes since 1611” (p. 91). David Cloud claimed: “From 1611 until the end of the 19th century, only minor changes were made in the English Bible, largely spelling and grammatical changes” (Examining “the King James Only, p. 136). Caleb Garraway asserted: “The text of the King James Version is virtually and essentially unchanged from the first printing in 1611 to this very day” (Pure Words, p. 81). Caleb Garraway claimed: “The ‘changes’ were not mistranslation or retranslation changes. These further editions of the King James Version were only released with the purpose to standardize spelling, correct punctuation, correct a printer’s error, or update the English font to something more readable” (p. 80). Mickey Carter contended “that the only changes made were in the spellings of certain words and the form of some of the letters” and that “the words were never changed” (Things That Are Different, pp. 173, 174). Raymond Blanton claimed: “The only changes we know of are spelling changes. The words are not changed” (Perilous Times, February, 2000, p. 4).

G. John Rov asserted: “All versions of the King James Bible are the issue of the 1611 edition as they are the same in word and translation content, differing only in spelling modernization and type set from Gothic font to Roman text” (Concealed from Christians, p. xiv). G. John Rov claimed: “No words have been changed. If you would fluently read the 1611 KJV and a KJV purchased today, the simultaneous reading would be in tandem” (p. 79). David O’Steen asserted: “For over four hundred years, it [the King James Bible] has proven itself to be perfect and without error” (Study Notes, p. 15). David O’Steen declared: “The KJB has proven itself for over four hundred years to be without error” (p. 31). Brandon Peterson asserted: “The King James Bible will never change” (Sealed by the King, p. 39). Brandon Peterson declared: “I believe the King James Bible was always the faithful and true pure word of God since it came out in 1611” (p. 415). Jack McElroy claimed: “We see the word of God being assembled until its final form as it appeared in the 1611 First Edition of the Authorized Version” (Which Bible, p. 158). Jack McElroy asserted: “The words in any edition of the KJB are pure and perfect even if they’re not identical” (p. 212). Jack McElroy declared: “The differences don’t mean that any edition was wrong or flawed” (Bible Version, p. 470). In response to the question “was then the 1611 edition a completed and perfected edition”, Michael Hollner answered: “YES!” (King James Only Debate, p. 395, 2021 edition).

 

[Logos1560]

Was the punctuation of English at its peak in Early Modern English in 1611, and was 20 percent of the punctuation in the 1611 degraded in Modern English?

The punctuation in the 1611 edition has been revised in later editions. David Norton suggested that “one fifth of the original punctuation” in the 1611 edition “is revised in some way” in later standard editions of the KJV (Textual History, p. 153). The mentioned count of nearly 24,000 variations in KJV editions included many changes in punctuation. D. A. Waite asserted that he discounted “punctuation changes as not significant changes” (Critical Answer to James Price’s, p. 33). Waite claimed: “It doesn’t matter if there were printings of the King James Version that were different from the 1611 KJV in spelling and punctuation” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 78). Would it be true that punctuation changes are not significant in all cases? F. H. A. Scrivener asserted: “The case in which difference in punctuation involves difference of meaning cannot be thus summarily dismissed” (Authorized Edition, p. 82). David Norton maintained that punctuation does matter, that it is important, and that it “controls meaning” (Textual History of the KJB, pp. 149-150).

In at least some cases and likely in many cases, a difference in punctuation can affect the meaning and interpretation of a verse or a sentence, which would make these changes significant. Whether a question mark or a period is used in a KJV edition would make a difference in meaning. For example, at the end of Jeremiah 32:3-5, some KJV editions have a question mark while others including the 1611 edition have a period. After the word “feet” at 2 Samuel 4:4, the 1611 edition has a comma while most present KJV editions have a period. Between “wicked” and “forget” at Psalm 74:19, the 1611 edition has no punctuation mark. The removal or adding of marks of parenthesis can affect the meaning or interpretation. The moving of a comma or introduction of a comma can make a difference in the meaning of a sentence, preventing misunderstanding or perhaps sometimes contributing to possible misunderstanding.

In one example at Luke 23:32, commas, not found in the 1611 edition, was added after the word “other” and after “malefactor” to remove the possibility of it being understood to suggest that Jesus was also a malefactor. Donald Brake maintained that “a missing comma causes some ambiguity in Luke 23:32” and that “a comma belongs after ‘two other,’ perhaps clarifying that only two of the three parties present were malefactors” (Visual History of the KJB, p. 157). These commas at Luke 23:32 may have been first added in Edinburgh KJV editions in the 1780’s and adopted in Oxford, Cambridge, and London editions after 1800. Scrivener could not find the introduction of the comma at Luke 23:32 earlier than a KJV edition printed in 1817, but he did not consider or check editions printed in Edinburgh (Authorized Edition, p. 87).

In another example a comma in the 1611 edition at 2 Corinthians 5:2 [“grone earnestly, desiring”] is moved and placed after the word “groan.” Thus, the adverb “earnestly” is made to modify the word “desiring” instead of modifying the verb “groan” as it would in the 1611 edition. At Numbers 31:50, a comma is missing in the 1611 edition after “gold”, which would result in it modifying the word chain [“of jewels of golde chaines, and bracelets” instead of “of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets”]. At Psalm 79:1, the 1611 edition has a comma between “thine” and “inheritance.”

In an example from the standard 1638 Cambridge edition of the KJV, a comma in Hebrew 10:13 was moved so that it stated “after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God.” This moved comma remained in most KJV editions for 200 years until it has changed back in 1838 in a London KJV edition printed by George Eyre and Andrew Spottiswoode to where it was placed in the 1611 edition. The standard 1743 Cambridge KJV edition, the standard 1762 Cambridge KJV edition, and the standard 1769 Oxford KJV edition had the comma after “sins” and before “forever sat down.” Concerning Hebrews 10:12, KJV-only author David Daniels asserted: “So the King James rightly said Jesus’ one sacrifice for sins was forever. The Geneva instead says that Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins, then set down forever. But anyone can see this is false, when we compare it to Stephen’s visions of heaven, as being stoned to death in Acts 7:55-56” (Can You Trust Just One Bible, ebook without page numbers). For two hundred years, the presentation or punctuation that KJV-only author David Daniels condemned as false was standard in most KJV editions.

At 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13, the 1611 edition of the KJV and most editions up to the 1743 Cambridge had a comma after “God” and before “and our Saviour.” F. H. A. Scrivener wrote: “In regard to weightier matters, the comma put by 1611 after ‘God’ in Titus 2:13 is fitly removed by 1769 moderns, that ‘the great God and our Saviour’ may be seen to be joint predicates of the same Divine Person” (Authorized Edition, p. 87). David Cloud wrote: “In some cases, punctuation changes were significant, such as the removal of the comma after ‘God’ in Titus 2:13, which was in the 1611 but was omitted in the 1769 edition” (Why We Hold, p. 465).

The adding of apostrophes to the 1611 edition introduced many changes to it as editors/printer made decisions about whether nouns used as possessives were used in a singular or plural sense.

 

[John of Japan]

Well folks, I give up on Anthony. Every time I think I've understood the turgid prose of his positions, he accuses me of dishonesty. I thought we could have a reasonable discussion, but nope. He makes absurd, illogical accusations such as when I asked if he prayed for Bible translator missionaries, and he said I was attacking him morally. Really???

I'm outta here! Might not be on the BB all week--a very busy week. God bless!

 

[xlsdraw]

Well folks, I give up on Anthony. Every time I think I've understood the turgid prose of his positions, he accuses me of dishonesty. I thought we could have a reasonable discussion, but nope. He makes absurd, illogical accusations such as when I asked if he prayed for Bible translator missionaries, and he said I was attacking him morally. Really???

I'm outta here! Might not be on the BB all week--a very busy week. God bless!

Disgraceful exit as usual.