The Disappearance of the Dean Burgon Society

[Armchair Apologist]

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

Let's be honest here. The King James Bible faithfully translates and preserves God's word in the English language of the time in which it was translated. The fact of the matter is that the English language was not then, nor is it now, "set in stone!" Words change in meaning over the years so one must keep this in mind as they are reading and studying from the King James. Even as a KJVO type (of the strictest sense for that matter), I knew it was beneficial to have a "Webster 1828 Dictionary" close by whereby I could understand the meaning of words somewhat closer to the time of the translation!

My understanding of the Geneva Bible was not that it was outdated or inferior to the KJV but that there were certain things that were not to the liking of the British Crown so the King James was translated with this in mind and became the official Bible of the Church of England. I guess we could argue over this but not really something I would waste too much energy upon. Needless to say, the Pilgrims on the Mayflower had good reason for preferring the Geneva Bible over the "New Anglican Bible" (KJV 1611) of their time!

 

[Armchair Apologist]

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

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

I don't mind contradictions or disagreements! I am literally "shooting from the hip" here and was actually hesitant of jumping into the conversation as my knowledge of linguistics is very limited so if I am wrong, I appreciate any correction and take such as an opportunity to learn!

I would guess that one would mostly use the English alphabet in spelling out words in a native language although you have dialects which involve "clicking" and other non-verbal utterances that are not so easily transcribed into a written format.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

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

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

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.

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.

Meat​

Early Modern English senses:

• Food in general
• Sustenance
• Nourishment
• Any edible provision

Modern English sense:

• Animal flesh

Illustration: “My meat is to do the will of him that sent me” meant my sustenance, not literal meat.

Suffer​

Early Modern English senses:

• Allow
• Permit
• Endure
• Bear with
• Tolerate

Modern English sense:

• Experience pain

Illustration: “Suffer the little children to come unto me” meant allow, not “make them suffer.”

Prevent​

Early Modern English senses:

• Go before
• Precede
• Anticipate
• Arrive ahead of
• Lead

Modern English sense:

• Stop or hinder

Illustration: “We which are alive and remain shall not prevent them which are asleep” meant we will not go before them, not “we will not stop them.”

Let​

Early Modern English senses:

• Allow
• Permit
• Cause
• Hinder
• Obstruct

Modern English senses:

• Allow
• Permit

Illustration: “Only he who now letteth will let” meant he who now hinders will continue to hinder, not “he who allows will allow.”

Virtue​

Early Modern English senses:

• Moral excellence
• Power
• Strength
• Effectiveness
• Spiritual force

Modern English sense:

• Moral goodness

Illustration: “I perceive that virtue is gone out of me” meant power, not moral excellence.

Holy​

Early Modern English senses:

• Set apart
• Consecrated
• Spiritually pure
• Dedicated to God
• Sacred

Modern English sense:

• Morally pure or religious

Illustration: “Holy ground” meant ground set apart by God, not morally pure soil.

Spirit​

Early Modern English senses:

• Breath
• Wind
• Life‑force
• Soul
• Disposition
• Supernatural being
• Holy Spirit

Modern English senses:

• Ghost
• Attitude
• Supernatural being

Illustration: “The spirit of man” meant life‑force, soul, and inner disposition all at once.

Comfort​

Early Modern English senses:

• Strengthen
• Encourage
• Support
• Fortify
• Console

Modern English sense:

• Make someone feel better emotionally

Illustration: “The Holy Ghost, the Comforter” meant the One who strengthens and fortifies, not merely consoles.

Passion​

Early Modern English senses:

• Suffering
• Endurance
• Strong feeling
• Emotional intensity

Modern English sense:

• Strong enthusiasm or desire

Illustration: “The Passion of Christ” meant His suffering, not His enthusiasm.

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.

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

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

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You do not prove that the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1568 Bishops' Bible or the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible "were made into an immature English that could not yet carry the preserved text with full precision."

Since many changes needed to be made to the English and the inconsistent, non-standard spelling in the 1611 edition of the KJV, it is clear that English had not reached full maturity in 1611.

You are assuming that linguistic maturity is measured by spelling regularity. It is not. Spelling standardization is a typographical and orthographic matter, not a grammatical or semantic one. The maturity I am referring to concerns the structural capacities of the language itself.

1. You say I have not proven that the Geneva or Bishops’ Bibles were made into immature English.​

The evidence is straightforward. The English of the mid‑sixteenth century lacked several features that Early Modern English later developed and stabilized. These features matter directly for translation accuracy.

Examples:

• Pronoun system still in flux
• Verb morphology still shifting
• Semantic fields broader but unstable
• Syntax less regularized
• Lexical choices not yet settled into the mature Early Modern range

This is why the KJV translators themselves compared earlier English versions carefully. They recognized that the language had changed and matured. They did not treat the Geneva or Bishops’ Bible as final English witnesses. They treated them as earlier attempts in a developing language.

The fact that the KJV translators diligently compared earlier English translations confirms the point. They were working in a more mature English and correcting earlier renderings that reflected an immature stage of the language.

2. You claim English had not reached full maturity in 1611 because spelling was inconsistent.​

Spelling has nothing to do with linguistic maturity.

Spelling standardization in English did not fully settle until the eighteenth century. That did not prevent Early Modern English from having:

• a stable pronoun system
• a stable verb system
• a stable syntactic framework
• a mature semantic range
• a broad and active vocabulary

Spelling is orthography. Maturity is grammar, syntax, semantics, and lexical capacity.

You are conflating two different categories.

If spelling standardization were the measure of linguistic maturity, then English would not be mature until Johnson’s dictionary in 1755. Yet no linguist claims that the English of 1755 is superior for translation of Hebrew and Greek. The maturity relevant to translation is structural, not orthographic.

3. The KJV translators themselves recognized the maturity of their English.​

They wrote that they were translating into a language that had reached a point of clarity, expressiveness, and stability. They recognized that English had developed significantly since Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, and Bishops’.

This is why they did not simply revise the Bishops’ Bible mechanically. They re‑rendered passages because the English language itself had matured.

4. My position remains simple and consistent.​

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

You are free to disagree, but the distinction between orthographic standardization and linguistic maturity is essential. The former is irrelevant to translation accuracy. The latter is decisive.

​

 

[Armchair Apologist]

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

You do raise some good points here among which I have heard as a staunch KJVO but still valid nonetheless

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

Thus:

• Thou shalt
• Ye shall

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

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

I believe we ought to acknowledge that with a cultural and moral decline of a society, the quality of language declines as well. I think we can all agree that saying that the English language is changing does not necessarily mean that the English language is improving! I have no interest in the publishing of an "Ebonics Bible" or (God Forbid) one that communicates scriptures with textual acronymns and emojis (LMAO! IDK, WWJD?...)

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

I would be interested to know what you mean by "Preserved Text Only?" Are you speaking of giving priority to the Syriac-Byzantine or some compilation like the Nestle-Aland or whatever? As for me, I still give a great deal of preference to the King James and the Majority Text and often find myself "pushing back" when referring to passages that are missing in the modern translations. Case in point, I am preaching this weekend on Romans 8:1-4 ("No Condemnation") and of course the King James has "Who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit" in vs. 1 and I believe there is good reason for it and will expound on it as such.

I still preach from the King James almost exclusively although the ESV is primarily used by our congregation so I use it in our mid-week studies. I prefer the regal, majestic way in which the KJV presents itself especially in the Psalms and is the Bible in which I still do all of my memorization work.

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

I think we can all agree that we ought not to "Dumb Down" the English language but rather do a better job at teaching our people proper English! My wife is Filipino and English is like her "third language" (following Ilonggo and Tagalog) and in many cases, she understands PROPER English better than many of whom English is their ONLY language!

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

John of Japan speaks of Wycliffe Bible Translators and how very few are trained in the actual biblical languages and I appreciate his concern! I understand the need for expediency that one may do an adequate translation from English to Pidgin, Japanese, Illongo, or whatever, but we should exercise due diligence in providing an accurate translation based upon the original languages!

We also know that there has been a significant shift in Church demographics where the majority of believers are now in the Global South (Africa, South America, Oceana, Etc.). Will English continue to be the predominant language or will another take its place and if another language, would it be something that is adequately more "mature" in its development as you say? I know that there has in the past been controversy over what "Spanish" translation (Reina Valeria) is the "KJV Equivalent" and therefore "God's Word for the Spanish Speaking People!"

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

Once again, I would be interested in what you actually mean here. There have been numerous compilations including the Textus Receptus which has had numerous revisions since the KJV was translated in 1611. I simply do not know enough to express anything aside from personal preferences and I will leave it at that. Where I have significantly changed over the years is that I have other versions aside from the KJV and I no longer use such (per)versions to start fires in my fireplace!

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

the English language was not then, nor is it now, "set in stone!

Let's be honest here. You are confusing two different issues. The fact that English changes over time does not touch the question of whether the language had reached full maturity at the moment the preserved text was carried into it. Linguistic maturity is not the same as linguistic permanence. A language can be mature without being frozen.

A mature language has:

• stable grammar
• stable syntax
• stable pronoun system
• stable verb morphology
• stable semantic ranges
• stable idiomatic structures

Early Modern English had all of these. Mid sixteenth century English did not. Modern English has lost several of them.

That is the point I am making.

Your example of needing Webster’s 1828 Dictionary actually proves my point. You need Webster because the meanings in the KJV reflect the mature semantic ranges of Early Modern English, not the narrowed ranges of Modern English. Webster is closer to the KJV because he is closer to the era of linguistic maturity.

Your point about the Geneva Bible is also misplaced. The Geneva Bible was not inferior morally or spiritually. It was simply produced in a stage of English that was still developing. The KJV translators themselves recognized this. They compared Geneva, Bishops’, Coverdale, and others because they knew the language had changed and matured. They did not treat Geneva as final English. They treated it as an earlier attempt in a developing language.

The Pilgrims preferred Geneva for theological and ecclesiastical reasons, not linguistic ones. Their preference does not change the fact that the English of Geneva was transitional and the English of the KJV was mature.

My position remains simple.

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

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You do raise some good points here among which I have heard as a staunch KJVO but still valid nonetheless

You are confusing two different issues. The fact that English changes over time does not touch the question of whether the language had reached full maturity at the moment the preserved text was carried into it. Linguistic maturity is not the same as linguistic permanence. A language can be mature without being frozen.

A mature language has:

• stable grammar
• stable syntax
• stable pronoun system
• stable verb morphology
• stable semantic ranges
• stable idiomatic structures

Early Modern English had all of these. Mid sixteenth century English did not. Modern English has lost several of them.

That is the point I am making.

Your example of needing Webster’s 1828 Dictionary actually proves my point. You need Webster because the meanings in the KJV reflect the mature semantic ranges of Early Modern English, not the narrowed ranges of Modern English. Webster is closer to the KJV because he is closer to the era of linguistic maturity.

Your point about the Geneva Bible is also misplaced. The Geneva Bible was not inferior morally or spiritually. It was simply produced in a stage of English that was still developing. The KJV translators themselves recognized this. They compared Geneva, Bishops’, Coverdale, and others because they knew the language had changed and matured. They did not treat Geneva as final English. They treated it as an earlier attempt in a developing language.

The Pilgrims preferred Geneva for theological and ecclesiastical reasons, not linguistic ones. Their preference does not change the fact that the English of Geneva was transitional and the English of the KJV was mature.

Your concern about missionary translation is valid, but it applies to modern missions, not to the KJV translators. Missionaries today often translate from Hebrew and Greek into developing languages, which require constant revision because the language itself is still forming. The KJV translators were not doing that. They were translating into Early Modern English, which had reached full maturity and could carry the preserved text with precision.

This is why immature languages require constant revision. This is why mature languages allow stable translation. This is why declining languages lose precision.

English is now declining. Early Modern English was mature. That is why the KJV stands where it does.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I would be interested to know what you mean by "Preserved Text Only?"

Brother, when I say “preserved text only,” I am speaking of the textual stream, not a translation. I am referring to the continuous, providentially preserved line of transmission that runs through the Byzantine Greek tradition, the Syriac Peshitta, the Gothic, the Old Latin, the Waldensian line, the Majority Text, and the printed editions of the Textus Receptus. This stream represents continuity, not reconstruction. It is the line of manuscripts that were copied, used, preached, and received by the believing church for centuries. It never disappeared, never had to be reconstructed, and never required modern editors to guess at lost readings. That is what I mean by preserved text only.

I am not referring to Nestle‑Aland, UBS, eclectic reconstruction, conjectural emendation, or Alexandrian priority. Those represent a reconstructionist philosophy, not a preservation philosophy.

Your Romans 8:1 example is exactly the kind of thing I mean. The phrase “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” belongs to the preserved stream. It is found in the Majority Text, the Byzantine tradition, the Syriac, the Old Latin, the Gothic, the Waldensian line, and the TR editions. It is removed only in the Alexandrian reconstructionist stream. Your instinct to preach it is correct. Your instinct to defend it is correct. Your instinct to prefer the preserved reading is correct. This is what I mean by preserved text only.

Preservation is not English‑only. It is text‑only. There are faithful translations in Spanish, Portuguese, German, French, Italian, Dutch, Romanian, and others that follow the preserved stream. These are not KJV equivalents. They are preserved‑text equivalents. The issue is not English. The issue is the stream of transmission.

The TR is not a single edition. It is a family of printed Greek texts that represent the preserved stream. The differences among TR editions are minor and do not reflect reconstruction. They reflect orthographic normalization, printer corrections, and refinement within the same preserved line. The TR tradition is stable, not eclectic.

Two passages summarize the heart of this conviction. Galatians 3:16 says, “He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed.” Matthew 5:18 says, “One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.” These verses express the precision of Scripture and the certainty of its preservation.

My position is simple. I reject Alexandrian reconstruction, eclectic reconstruction, conjectural emendation, and the idea of a lost text restored by modern editors. I affirm continuity of transmission, providential preservation, linguistic maturity, and doctrinal stability.

 

[Logos1560]

A mature language has:

• 
  
• stable pronoun system

Preservation in the English language is found in the KJV because it was produced when English had reached full maturity.

English did not have a completely stable pronoun system in 1611. English had not reached full maturity in 1611.

Martin Manser noted: “The [KJV] translators used ‘his,’ ‘her,’ ‘of it,’ or ‘thereof’ when they needed a neuter possessive” (I Never Knew, p. 240). David Crystal affirmed that in the KJV “his is used for its, as in if the salt has lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted” (Cambridge Encyclopedia, p. 65). Douglas Stauffer claimed: “By 1600, the pronoun his was beginning to be used exclusively as the masculine possessive pronoun and less as the neuter possessive pronoun (which was being taken over by its). The KJB translators decided to avoid the issue by using the word thereof” (One Book One, p. 262). Concerning Exodus 30:2-3, Alister McGrath observed: “The extensive and highly cumbersome use of ‘thereof’ reflects a deliberate decision to avoid the use of the possessive pronoun” [“‘his’ as a neuter possessive pronoun”] (In the Beginning, p. 276).

In the parallel passages presenting the parable of the fig tree in the gospel of Matthew and in the gospel of Mark, is it easier to understand the KJV referring to the same branch as “his branch” (Matt. 24:32) and “her branch” (Mark 13:28)? The NKJV has “its branch” at both verses. Is the KJV or the NKJV clearer or easier to understand at 1 Kings 13:27? The KJV translated this verse as follows: “And he spake to his sons, saying, Saddle me the ass. And they saddled him.” The NKJV rendered it using one more word: “And he spoke to his sons, saying, ‘Saddle the donkey for me.’ So they saddled it.” Gustavus Paine observed: “Elizabethan grammar has a charm of its own, even when a wrong pronoun gives a comic effect; in 1 Kings 13:27, the 1611 Bible says, ‘And he spake unto his sons, saying, Saddle me the ass. And they saddled him.’ The ‘him’ is in italics to indicate that it is not in the original Hebrew, so there can be no argument when subsequent versions change ‘him’ to ‘it’” (Men Behind the KJV, p. 132). Concerning Matthew 5:13 [“if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted”], Alister McGrath asserted: “To modern English readers, ‘salt’ appears to be treated as a masculine noun in the second phrase, and a neuter noun in the third” (In the Beginning, pp. 274-275). At Numbers 4:9, does the KJV have masculine possessive pronouns [“his lamps, his tongs, his snuffdishes”] referring to the same object for which it also has a neuter pronoun “it”? David Norton referred to “the archaic ‘his’ for the neuter possessive pronoun” (Textual History, p. 144).

Is the English in the KJV more precise and mature with its lack of a neuter possessive pronoun?
Is the NKJV any clearer, more precise, and more understandable as a result of using gender specific third person pronouns singular in number?

The 1611 edition of the KJV was sometimes imprecise and inconsistent concerning the case of pronouns. If all the changes of “you” [accusative or objective case] in the 1611 edition to the nominative case “ye” in later KJV editions and changes of the nominative case “ye” in the 1611 edition to objective case “you” were counted, it would add to over 200 inconsistencies, showing unstable use of pronouns.

Even after 150 years the 1769 Oxford may still have some imprecise editing or printing inconsistencies concerning the case of pronouns. In an article entitled “Ye and You in the King James Version,” John S. Kenyon claimed: “In three cases [Gen. 9:7, Gen. 45:8, Job 12:3] nominative you in the text escaped Blayney, and consequently stands in our present day Bibles” (Publication of the Modern Language Association, Vol. XXIX, pp. 459-460). David Norton asserted: “’And you, be ye fruitful’ (Gen. 9:7) escapes him [Blayney], though he does change the one other example of this construction ‘and you, in any wise keep yourselves‘ (Josh. 6:18) to ‘and ye …’” (Textual History, p. 113). Concerning Genesis 45:8, Isaac Nordheimer rendered it: “Ye did not send me hither or it was not ye that sent me hither” (Critical Grammar of the Hebrew Language, p. 264). Isaac Nordheimer again commented: “Ye did not send me hither, but God, lit. ye did not send me hither for it was God who sent me” (p. 287). The pronoun at Genesis 45:8 just as at Matthew 10:20 and Mark 13:11 should be in nominative case because a pronoun used as a subject complement after a be verb is put in that case. The 1660 London edition of the KJV that changed many objective case uses of “you” to nominative case “ye” has “it was not ye that sent” at Genesis 45:8 as does a 1675 Oxford edition.

In his article, John Kenyon maintained that “in the case of turn ye (you), Blayney is less consistent” (Publication, p. 463). John Kenyon asked: “Why should he change turn ye (Zech 9:12) to turn you, (since the Hebrew has the reflexive) but leave turn ye in Leviticus 19:4, 2 Kings 17:13, Isaiah 31:6, Jeremiah 25:5, Ezekiel 33:11, Joel 2:12, Zechariah 1:3, 4, from the same Hebrew simple form of the verb?” (Ibid.). John Kenyon asserted: “Similarly, Blayney should consistently have changed Jeremiah 49:14 ‘Gather ye together, & come against her, …’ for ye was doubtless intended as a reflexive object. The Hebrew form is reflexive, as it is in 1 Samuel 22:2; 2 Chronicles 20:4, gathered themselves; Ezekiel 39:17, assemble your selves” (p. 464). John Kenyon claimed: “It is probable, therefore, that in Jeremiah 49:14 we have an objective ye in our modern Bibles” (Ibid.). The 1560 Geneva Bible has “gather you together” at Jeremiah 49:14. Ronald Bridges and Luther Weigle wrote: “Yourselves is used in the nominative case, as subject of a verb, without the implied ‘ye’ or ‘you’ in 1 Thessalonians 2:1; 3:3, 5:2 and 2 Thessalonians 3:7” (KJB Word Book, p. 390).

 

[Logos1560]

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

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

This supposed concrete example does not support your claim the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1568 Bishops' Bible or the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible "were made into an immature English. The Church of England makers of the KJV had merely kept some inconsistent uses of "charity" from the 1572 edition of the Bishops' Bible, which were also kept in the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible. The 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible was given to the KJV translators as their starting point in English.

"Due to Latinizing influence, the second edition of the Bishops' Bible reverted to 'charity' in thirty-two instances" (May, Our English Bible In The Making, p. 27). Ronald Bridges wrote: "The advocates of Catholic Latinity had in some way gathered strength, for in the second edition of the Bishops' Bible, published in that year [1572], the word 'charity' is substituted for 'love' in 32 cases" (KJB Word Book, p. 208). KJV defender Laurence Vance noted: “It is in the Bishops’ Bible edition of 1572 that the reading of ‘charity’ in 1 Corinthians 13 first appears” (Making of the KJB, p. 36).

William Tyndale, the father of our English Bible and in effect the primary translator of the KJV, argued that "charity had ceased to be the name of an inward, Divine grace, and denoted only certain outward ostentatious deeds sanctioned by the ecclesiastics" (William Tindale, p. 320). William Tyndale contended that "verily charity is no known English which Agape requireth" (Expositions, p. 135). Tyndale commented: “Finally, I say not, charity God, or charity your neighbour; but, love God, and love your neighbour” (Answer, p. 21). David Teems noted: “Tyndale was fond of the word love not only for its accuracy, but also for its flexibility. Both noun and verb, it suggested possibilities about the nature of God itself” (Tyndale, p. 190). John Drury noted that in Tyndale’s New Testament “agape came out as ‘love’ rather than (following the Vulgate and the church’s hierarchy of virtues) ‘charity’” (Introduction, N. T., p. xiii). Brian Moynaham observed: “Tyndale was justified in finding that ‘love’ was a more accurate translation of the original agape” (God’s Best Seller, p. 73).

John Beard asserted that “the ecclesiastical word ‘charity’ from the charitas of the Latin Vulgate is preferred by King James’s divines to the Saxon word ‘love,‘ which they found in Tyndale’s version as well as in the Bible of Cramner and of Geneva” (A Revised English Bible, p. 79). Concerning 1 Corinthians 13, A. T. Robertson wrote: "Charity (Latin caritas) is wholly inadequate" (Word Pictures, IV, p. 176). KJV defender Edward Hills identified “charity” in the KJV as an archaic rendering with its modern equivalent being “love” (Believing Bible Study, p. 84).

At 1 Corinthians 13:1 the Ryrie Study Bible maintained that the word "charity" comes from the Latin charitas and "means basically benevolence or alms-giving." Geddes MacGregor asserted that “the Vulgate use of caritas suggested ’charity’” (Literary History, p. 114). KJV defender Jonathan Wheatley wrote: “Latin had a ‘Romish’ flavor to it during those days, and the word ‘charity’ carried with it all the ritualistic Roman Catholic Church connotations” (One Principal Good, p. 130). Jonathan Wheatley wrote: “Roman Catholicism’s definition of the word ‘charity’ is connected with the church’s doctrine of indulgences” (pp. 130-131). W. E. Campbell noted the following about the use of this word: "Charity, then is the key-word of the Catholic faith; and Tyndale's object, as [Sir Thomas] More points out, was to displace it by the commoner word 'love,' and thus to make way for the key-word of Protestantism, which was faith" (Erasmus, Tyndale, and More, p. 128). Brian Moynaham pointed out: “Charity is linked in meaning to good works, and it was in the interests of the established Church--Catholic in More’s day” (God’s Best Seller, p. 106). Bill Cooper asserted: “Charity is a monetary commodity (where love is not), and can therefore be bought and sold on the market of good works and merit. Instead of Tyndale’s love covering a multitude of sins, it is the Roman charity that ‘does it’ for the faithful, who thus must earn their salvation by good works. It was, in short, a deliberate return to the ways of the Latin church” (Tyndale Society Journal, August, 2007, p. 68). Derek Wilson wrote: “’Charity’ was a word which fitted in far better with the concept of ‘good deeds’ than the more spiritually demanding ‘love’” (People’s Bible, p. 115).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

English did not have a completely stable pronoun system in 1611. English had not reached full maturity in 1611.

The impressive list of modern scholars you quote does not address the point I made. Your response begins with a false premise. You are treating the neuter possessive pronoun as the measure of linguistic maturity. It is not. The stability of a pronoun system is measured by its ability to distinguish number and person, not by whether a language has developed a neuter possessive form. English in 1611 had already reached full maturity in the categories that matter for translation of Hebrew and Greek.

A mature pronoun system has stable singular and plural forms, a stable second person distinction, stable case distinction, and stable syntactic function. Early Modern English had all of these.

The neuter possessive pronoun “its” is irrelevant to the question of linguistic maturity. It is an orthographic development, not a grammatical one. The presence or absence of “its” does not affect the ability of English to carry Hebrew or Greek meaning. Hebrew does not have a neuter gender. Greek does, but Greek neuter does not map to English neuter in any consistent way. The neuter possessive is not a biblical category.

Your examples of “his,” “her,” and “thereof” do not demonstrate immaturity. They demonstrate the transitional orthography of the period. Orthography is not grammar. Spelling is not syntax. Possessive forms are not the measure of linguistic capacity.

The question is whether English in 1611 had the structural features needed to carry the preserved text with precision and intact inspiration. It did. Those features include full second person distinction, full verb aspect range, a full case system in pronouns, full semantic breadth, stable idiomatic structures, and stable word order. These are the features that matter for translation. These are the features that Modern English has lost. These are the features that Middle English never had. These are the features that Early Modern English possessed in full.

Your long list of examples does not touch any of these categories. They are orthographic observations, not grammatical ones. They do not address the structural maturity of the language. They do not address the philological question at hand.

The English of 1611 was as mature as it would ever be in the categories that matter for translation of Scripture. Later English gained orthographic regularity but lost grammatical precision. Earlier English lacked both.

 

[Logos1560]

Brother, when I say “preserved text only,” I am speaking of the textual stream, not a translation. I am referring to the continuous, providentially preserved line of transmission that runs through the Byzantine Greek tradition, the Syriac Peshitta, the Gothic, the Old Latin, the Waldensian line, the Majority Text, and the printed editions of the Textus Receptus. This stream represents continuity, not reconstruction. It is the line of manuscripts that were copied, used, preached, and received by the believing church for centuries. It never disappeared, never had to be reconstructed, and never required modern editors to guess at lost readings. That is what I mean by preserved text only.


My position is simple.

You show that you are uninformed or misinformed concerning the Bibles on your claimed preserved line. You are simply wrong in some of your claims.
The Old Testament of the Gothic Bible was based on the Greek Septuagint. The Old Testament of the Old Latin Bible was translated from the Greek Septuagint. The Waldensian translations were translated from editions of Jerome's Latin Vulgate. There is not actually consistent continuity and stability in this claimed preserved line of transmission. There was some mixing from the other supposed line into the preserved line. The Church of England makers of the KJV even borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament.

There are some conjectural emendations or reconstructions found in this claimed preserved line of transmission. There are some conjectural emendations in the varying Textus Receptus Greek NT editions.

 

[Logos1560]

I am referring to the continuous, providentially preserved line of transmission that runs through the Byzantine Greek tradition, the Syriac Peshitta, the Gothic, the Old Latin, the Waldensian line,

Thomas Armitage wrote that “he [Peter Waldo] employed Stephen of Ansa and Bernard Ydross to translate the Gospels from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome into the Romance dialect for the common people, as well as the most inspiring passages from the Christian Fathers” (History of the Baptists, I, p. 295). Andrea Ferrari wrote that “Waldo of Lyons paid some clergy to translate parts of the Bible from the Vulgate” (Diodati’s Doctrine, pp. 71-72). Paul Tice confirmed that Waldo “enlisted two clerics to translate various parts of the Bible, including the four Gospels, into the native Provencal language” (History of the Waldenses, p. vi). H. J. Warner maintained that the base for this translation was “for the most part the Vulgate of Jerome” (Albigensian, II, p. 222). Warner noted that Stephen de Ansa, a [Roman Catholic] priest, translated some books of the Bible into the Romance tongue while another priest Bernard Udros wrote his translating down for Peter Waldo (p. 221). Glenn Conjurske affirmed that “the medieval Waldensian version in the old Romance language [was] translated from the Vulgate” (Olde Paths, July, 1997, p. 160). KJV-only author Ken Johnson wrote that “we openly grant this” [“the fact Waldo used the Vulgate as the basis of his translation”] (Real Truth, p. 21).

Deanesly wrote that “the earliest existent Waldensian texts, Provencal, Catalan and Italian, were founded on a Latin Bible, the use of which prevailed widely in the Visigothic kingdom of Narbonne, up to the thirteenth century” and that this Latin Bible “is characterized by a set of peculiar readings, amounting to over thirty, in the Acts of the Apostles” and these same readings appear in “the early Provencal, Catalan and Italian Bible” and “in the Tepl manuscript” (Lollard Bible, pp. 65-66). Deanesly referred to this Latin Bible as “the Visigothic Vulgate” and indicated that it was later superseded by the Paris Vulgate (p. 66). James Roper maintained that the two Provencal versions “are derived from the Latin text of Languadoc of the thirteenth century, and hence in Acts contain many ‘Western’ readings of old Latin origin” (Jackson, Beginnings, III, p. cxxxviii). Roper added: “The translators of these texts merely used the text of Languadoc current in their own day and locality, which happened (through contiguity to Spain) to be widely mixed with Old Latin readings” (p. cxxxviii). Referring to Codex Teplensis and the Freiberg manuscript, Roper wrote: “The peculiar readings of all these texts in Acts, often ‘Western’ go back (partly at least through a Provencal version) to the mixed Vulgate text of Languadoc of the thirteenth century, which is adequately known from Latin MSS” (pp. cxxxix-cxl). Roper asserted: “A translation of the New Testament into Italian was made, probably in the thirteenth century, from a Latin text like that of Languadoc, and under the influence of the Provencal New Testament. It includes, like those texts, some ’Western’ readings in Acts” (p. cxlii). Since Languadoc or Languedoc was the name of a region of southern France, especially the area between the Pyrenees and Loire River, and since Narbonne was a city in southern France in the same region and it was also the name of a province or kingdom in this area, both authors seem to have been referring to the same basic region. For a period of time, this area was not part of the country of France. The Catalan, Provencal, and Piedmontese dialects are considered to be dialects of the Romaunt language, the vernacular language of the South of Europe before the French, Spanish, and Italian languages were completely formed. The above evidence indicates that the mentioned Waldensian translations were made from an edition of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate that was mixed with some Old Latin readings, especially in the book of Acts. William Gilly had the Romanunt Version of the Gospel of John printed in 1848. L. Cledat had the N. T. as translated into Provencal printed in 1887 (Warner, p. 68).

Glenn Conjurske cited Herman Haupt as maintaining that “the old Romance, or Provencal, Waldensian version invariably reads Filh de la vergena (‘Son of the virgin’) instead of ‘Son of man’--except only in Hebrews 2:6, where (of course) it has filh de l’ome, ‘son of man’,” and Conjurske noted that he verified Haupt’s claim (Olde Paths, June, 1996, p. 137). H. J. Warner observed that “in St. John 1, the Romance version had ‘The Son was in the beginning,‘ and in verse 51 ‘The Son of the Virgin’ for ‘the Son of Man,‘ and so throughout all the Dublin, Zurich, Grenoble and Paris MSS. in every corresponding place” (Albigensian, II, pp. 223-224). William Gilly maintained that “wherever the words, Filius Hominis (Son of Man), occur in the Vulgate, they are translated Filh de la Vergena (Son of the Virgin), throughout the whole of this Version of the New Testament” (Romanunt Version, p. xliii).

James Todd described a Waldensian manuscript preserved at Dublin that has the New Testament with the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Cantica, Wisdom, and Ecclelsiasticus in the Romance dialect (Books of the Vaudois, p. 1). Todd noted that its Gospel of Matthew includes “the prologue of St. Jerome.” Todd observed: “No intimation of the apocryphal or uncanonical character of the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus occurs in the MS” (Ibid.). In an appendix of Todd’s book, Henry Bradshaw described some Waldensian manuscripts preserved at Cambridge, noting that Morland Manuscript A includes “a translation of Genesis 1-10 from the Vulgate” (p. 216). Bradshaw noted that Morland Manuscript C included a translation of Job chapters 1-3 and 42 from the Vulgate and “a translation of the whole book of Tobit from the Vulgate” (pp. 215-216).

Glenn Conjurske observed that the “Codex Teplenis is a fourteenth-century manuscript, which has never been modified at all, but exists today just as it did in the fourteenth century, and just as it was written by the scribes who wrote it” (Olde Paths, June, 1996, p. 138). Glenn Conjurske pointed out that Codex Teplensis included the Epistle Czun Laodiern, “to the Laodicens” (p. 133). He noted that this manuscript included a list of Scripture portions to be read on certain holy days and saints’ days and at the end included a short treatise on “the seven sacraments” (pp. 133-134). Out of the eighty-two places where the N. T. has “son of man,” Conjurske pointed out that “the Tepl manuscript reads ’son of man’ only seven times, all the rest having ’son of the virgin’” [sun der maid or meid or another spelling variation] (p. 137; also Oct., 1996 issue, p. 240). He affirmed that the “Teplensis itself reads heilikeit, that is, ’sacrament’” at several verses (Eph. 1:9, 3:3, 3:9, 5:32; 1 Tim. 3:16) (p. 139). Conjuske concluded that “it is an indubitable fact that the version contained in Codex Teplensis closely follows the Latin Vulgate and differs in a myriad of places from the Textus Receptus and the King James Version” (pp. 139-140). According to J. T. Hatfield‘s examination of this text, some other example differences include that the Tepl has “Jesus” at Acts 9:20 where the KJV has “Christ,” “his name” at Acts 22:16 where the KJV has “name of the Lord,” “Lord God” at Revelation 1:8 where the KJV has “Lord,” and “Jesus” at Revelation 22:17 where the KJV has “Jesus Christ.”

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

This supposed concrete example does not support your claim the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1568 Bishops' Bible or the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible "were made into an immature English. The Church of England makers of the KJV had merely kept some inconsistent uses of "charity" from the 1572 edition of the Bishops' Bible, which were also kept in the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible. The 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible was given to the KJV translators as their starting point in English.

"Due to Latinizing influence, the second edition of the Bishops' Bible reverted to 'charity' in thirty-two instances" (May, Our English Bible In The Making, p. 27). Ronald Bridges wrote: "The advocates of Catholic Latinity had in some way gathered strength, for in the second edition of the Bishops' Bible, published in that year [1572], the word 'charity' is substituted for 'love' in 32 cases" (KJB Word Book, p. 208). KJV defender Laurence Vance noted: “It is in the Bishops’ Bible edition of 1572 that the reading of ‘charity’ in 1 Corinthians 13 first appears” (Making of the KJB, p. 36).

William Tyndale, the father of our English Bible and in effect the primary translator of the KJV, argued that "charity had ceased to be the name of an inward, Divine grace, and denoted only certain outward ostentatious deeds sanctioned by the ecclesiastics" (William Tindale, p. 320). William Tyndale contended that "verily charity is no known English which Agape requireth" (Expositions, p. 135). Tyndale commented: “Finally, I say not, charity God, or charity your neighbour; but, love God, and love your neighbour” (Answer, p. 21). David Teems noted: “Tyndale was fond of the word love not only for its accuracy, but also for its flexibility. Both noun and verb, it suggested possibilities about the nature of God itself” (Tyndale, p. 190). John Drury noted that in Tyndale’s New Testament “agape came out as ‘love’ rather than (following the Vulgate and the church’s hierarchy of virtues) ‘charity’” (Introduction, N. T., p. xiii). Brian Moynaham observed: “Tyndale was justified in finding that ‘love’ was a more accurate translation of the original agape” (God’s Best Seller, p. 73).

John Beard asserted that “the ecclesiastical word ‘charity’ from the charitas of the Latin Vulgate is preferred by King James’s divines to the Saxon word ‘love,‘ which they found in Tyndale’s version as well as in the Bible of Cramner and of Geneva” (A Revised English Bible, p. 79). Concerning 1 Corinthians 13, A. T. Robertson wrote: "Charity (Latin caritas) is wholly inadequate" (Word Pictures, IV, p. 176). KJV defender Edward Hills identified “charity” in the KJV as an archaic rendering with its modern equivalent being “love” (Believing Bible Study, p. 84).

At 1 Corinthians 13:1 the Ryrie Study Bible maintained that the word "charity" comes from the Latin charitas and "means basically benevolence or alms-giving." Geddes MacGregor asserted that “the Vulgate use of caritas suggested ’charity’” (Literary History, p. 114). KJV defender Jonathan Wheatley wrote: “Latin had a ‘Romish’ flavor to it during those days, and the word ‘charity’ carried with it all the ritualistic Roman Catholic Church connotations” (One Principal Good, p. 130). Jonathan Wheatley wrote: “Roman Catholicism’s definition of the word ‘charity’ is connected with the church’s doctrine of indulgences” (pp. 130-131). W. E. Campbell noted the following about the use of this word: "Charity, then is the key-word of the Catholic faith; and Tyndale's object, as [Sir Thomas] More points out, was to displace it by the commoner word 'love,' and thus to make way for the key-word of Protestantism, which was faith" (Erasmus, Tyndale, and More, p. 128). Brian Moynaham pointed out: “Charity is linked in meaning to good works, and it was in the interests of the established Church--Catholic in More’s day” (God’s Best Seller, p. 106). Bill Cooper asserted: “Charity is a monetary commodity (where love is not), and can therefore be bought and sold on the market of good works and merit. Instead of Tyndale’s love covering a multitude of sins, it is the Roman charity that ‘does it’ for the faithful, who thus must earn their salvation by good works. It was, in short, a deliberate return to the ways of the Latin church” (Tyndale Society Journal, August, 2007, p. 68). Derek Wilson wrote: “’Charity’ was a word which fitted in far better with the concept of ‘good deeds’ than the more spiritually demanding ‘love’” (People’s Bible, p. 115).

You have shifted the discussion from linguistic maturity to the history of one lexical choice. That is not the issue. The question is whether English in 1611 had the structural features needed to carry the preserved text with precision and intact inspiration.

Your entire response is about the history of the word “charity.” My argument was about the structural capacity of Early Modern English.

These are not the same subject.

The lexical history of “charity” does not touch:

• second person distinction
• verb aspect
• case system in pronouns
• idiomatic stability
• semantic breadth of the language as a whole
• syntactic maturity
• the ability of English to mirror Hebrew and Greek categories

These are the features that determine whether a language is mature enough to carry Scripture with precision. These are the features that Middle English lacked. These are the features that Modern English has lost. These are the features that Early Modern English possessed in full.

Your citations show that “charity” had ecclesiastical baggage and Latin influence. That is true. It is also irrelevant to the question of linguistic maturity. Lexical preference is not a measure of structural capacity. The fact that Tyndale preferred “love” does not mean the language was immature. It means he preferred a different lexical register.

The KJV translators retained “charity” in certain contexts because Early Modern English allowed layered meaning without sounding unnatural. That is the point. The word could carry theological, moral, and relational senses simultaneously. Modern English has narrowed it. That narrowing is part of the linguistic degradation I described.

Your long list of quotations does not address any of this. It is a historical survey of one word, not an analysis of the language’s structural maturity. It does not touch the philological question at hand.

The issue remains simple.

Early Modern English had the structural features needed to carry the preserved text with precision. Middle English did not. Modern English does not. The lexical history of “charity” does not change that.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Thomas Armitage wrote

Does your entire philosophy rest on the words of man? You are very good at quoting them. I do not reject learning from scholars, but the level to which you depend on them is concerning. You do not argue from Scripture, from linguistic structure, or from the internal logic of the languages involved. You argue almost entirely by assembling long chains of quotations from modern writers.

You have cited:

Thomas Armitage Andrea Ferrari H. J. Warner Stephen de Ansa Glenn Conjurske Ken Johnson James Todd J. T. Hatfield

And many more.

But none of these citations address the point I made. They do not touch the structural maturity of Early Modern English. They do not touch the categories that matter for translation of Hebrew and Greek. They do not touch the philological question at hand.

You are treating the opinions of modern scholars as determinative. I am treating the structure of the language itself as determinative.

There is a difference.

The question is simple.

Was English in 1611 structurally capable of carrying the preserved text with precision and intact inspiration?

That question is answered by examining the language, not by quoting authorities.

Early Modern English had:

stable singular and plural pronouns stable second person distinction stable case distinction stable verb aspect stable idiomatic structures stable semantic breadth stable syntax

These are the features that matter for translation. These are the features Middle English lacked. These are the features Modern English has lost. These are the features Early Modern English possessed in full.

Your citations do not address any of these categories. They are historical comments about lexical preference, editorial practice, and ecclesiastical influence. They are not analyses of linguistic structure.

I do not eschew learning from scholars. But when a position rests almost entirely on strings of quotations rather than on the internal logic of the languages themselves, it is fair to ask whether the foundation is Scripture and philology or simply the words of man.

That is the concern.

 

[Logos1560]

You have cited:

Thomas Armitage Andrea Ferrari H. J. Warner Stephen de Ansa Glenn Conjurske Ken Johnson James Todd J. T. Hatfield


But none of these citations address the point I made.

You divert and misrepresent my accurate information that directly addressed your own stated claim of "the continuous, providentially preserved line of transmission" that included the Waldensian line.

My documented evidence proved that the Waldensian Bible translations were made from editions of Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

 

[Logos1560]

Does your entire philosophy rest on the words of man?

I do not eschew learning from scholars. But when a position rests almost entirely on strings of quotations rather than on the internal logic of the languages themselves, it is fair to ask whether the foundation is Scripture and philology or simply the words of man.

No, you know my scripturally-based position does not rest on the words of men as you improperly try to suggest. I have presented many scripturally-based points, which you tried to misrepresent and twist into something that I did not say.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

My documented evidence proved that the Waldensian Bible translations were made from editions of Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

You are treating comparison as dependence. You are treating occasional overlap as proof of base‑text identity. And now you are treating the Latin Vulgate as though it were part of the preserved stream simply because certain translations compared to it. That is not how textual transmission works.

The Waldensian line is NOT invalid because Waldensian translators consulted or compared the Vulgate. Comparison is not dependence. Overlap is not adoption. Influence is not base text.

Every translator in history compares sources. Every manuscript tradition shows occasional overlap. Every textual stream has marginal notes, glosses, and borrowings.

None of that changes the identity of the base text.

The preserved stream is defined by continuity of transmission, not by the absence of comparison.

You are treating any comparison with the Vulgate as proof that the Vulgate is the base text. That is a category mistake. The Waldensians used the Old Latin tradition, which predates Jerome. The fact that later Waldensian copies show Vulgate influence does not change the base text. It shows the normal historical reality of comparison and overlap.

This is why I said, and I will say again:

Translations in the preserved stream were made from the same base text, because the preserved stream itself is one continuous base text.

Your endless lists of citations do not overturn continuity. Your list of citations does not establish reconstruction. Your list of citations does not change the definition of preserved text only.

You have disproven nothing. You have established nothing.

 

[Logos1560]

You have disproven nothing. You have established nothing.

You describe your own assertions which you have not proved to be true.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You describe your own assertions which you have not proved to be true.

This has dropped below the level of meaningful discussion. That is a very sad commentary, when you cannot establish your point(s) with soundness you resort to childish retorts. I am not continuing further.