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.