The Disappearance of the Dean Burgon Society

[John of Japan]

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

Your asking me to prove your own point. No can do. (And since you doubt my credentials, I've also taught English in two languages.) You've proven nothing. さようなら。(Sayonara.) God bless you.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Your asking me to prove your own point. No can do. (And since you doubt my credentials, I've also taught English in two languages.) You've proven nothing. さようなら。(Sayonara.) God bless you.

John, I am not asking you to prove my point. I am asking you to prove your own. You stated that languages “do not contract,” and you offered that as a rebuttal to my examples. That claim requires evidence. Simply saying you have taught English does not supply that evidence. Credentials do not replace demonstration. I gave concrete examples of semantic contraction in modern English. You did not address those examples, and you did not provide counter‑examples showing that the older categories remain intact. If you want to dismiss my evidence, you must present your own. That is all I am asking for. If you prefer to end the discussion, that is your choice, but the burden of proof remains where it began: on the person making the claim.

 

[John of Japan]

Hi Logos1560,

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

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

Welcome to the Baptist Board and my thread.

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

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

Here is the current website of the DBS: dean burgon society. As you can see, there is very little content on the website, and nothing about their annual meeting, etc. So the DBS is pretty much defunct.

I'm sure Logos 1560 knows much more than I do about the DBS, but I am quite familiar with it and can possibly answer questions. As to he dissolving of the DBS, there was an exodus some years ago (Logos can tell you when) and some of the main men went out to start the King James Research Council. The founder of the DBS, Dr. D. A. Waite hung on until his death on May 4, 2024. Dr. Waite's son was kind of the heir to the ministry, but with the major leaders gone and his father dead, the DBS has pretty much died on the vine.

Waite's personal website has been kept up by his son at: The Bible For Today HomePage. A lot of Waite's content is preserved there.

 

[Jerome]

his seminal book 1964 book, Toward a Science of Translating....But Nida did not even use the term "receptor" in that book, but later in his 1982 book with Charles Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation. I'm positive you will find no earlier usages of the term.

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

 

[John of Japan]

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

Okay, then, please correct me.

Here is one of my sources. "Receptor Language Defined by Nida & Taber [as per my post--JoJ] as 'the language into which a message is translated from the original or source language....' In other words, as regards referential meaning the term receptor language is basically synonymous with the probably more widespread term TARGET LANGUAGE" (Dictionary of Translation Studies, by Mark Shuttleworth and Moira Cowie, 1997).

 

[Prussian Peasant]

本当にありがとうございました, John! (Copied & pasted via Google translator, all potential errors theirs) Thank you very much. I had already pulled the emergency brake by unwatching this thread after it was rocketing off topic and I got e mails every some minutes ... Meanwhile, I had a private conservation with Logos 1560 who also has helped a lot.

Although I would recommend more recent critical text editions for being closer to the autographs, I do not mind too much which textual tradition one prefers, for altogether, the textual differences are not bearing any doctrinal differences. On the other hand, TR only resp. KJV only folks usually tell the opposite and even spread rumors of heretical corruptions. Thus they are not only slandering more recent fellow Christians like Westcott, Hort, Tregelles, Tischendorf etc., but especially those of the first three centuries, unknown to us by name, who risked and probably sometimes even sacrificed their lives so that later generations like us would still hold the Holy Scriptures of the NT in their hands. Such slander is annoying, but also that they are upsetting Christians whithout a theological education, thereby undermining their faith. — We do indeed have way more serious problems in the churches worldwide than fighting such phantoms and strawmen.

 

[John of Japan]

本当にありがとうございました, John! (Copied & pasted via Google translator, all potential errors theirs) Thank you very much. I had already pulled the emergency brake by unwatching this thread after it was rocketing off topic and I got e mails every some minutes ... Meanwhile, I had a private conservation with Logos 1560 who also has helped a lot.

Google got it right. Sorry about the side trail. I got caught up in it!

Although I would recommend more recent critical text editions for being closer to the autographs, I do not mind too much which textual tradition one prefers, for altogether, the textual differences are not bearing any doctrinal differences.

My position is Byzantine priority, and I mostly use the Byzantine Textform Greek NT edited by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont. The Byzantine Solid Rock Greek New Testament is also very good. I translated into Japanese using the TR, which I consider to be a subset of the Byzantine. Occasionally I consult the UBS 4 and Metzger's commentary on that.

I agree that the textual differences do not lose any doctrines. In fact, other important things are preserved in all Greek NTs, such as the names of Jesus. "Alpha and Omega" is missing one mention in the critical text, but the other is still there.

On the other hand, TR only resp. KJV only folks usually tell the opposite and even spread rumors of heretical corruptions. Thus they are not only slandering more recent fellow Christians like Westcott, Hort, Tregelles, Tischendorf etc., but especially those of the first three centuries, unknown to us by name, who risked and probably sometimes even sacrificed their lives so that later generations like us would still hold the Holy Scriptures of the NT in their hands. Such slander is annoying, but also that they are upsetting Christians whithout a theological education, thereby undermining their faith. — We do indeed have way more serious problems in the churches worldwide than fighting such phantoms and strawmen.

Yeah, D. A. Waite of the Dean Burgon Society did a lot of attacking in his books and articles. That's a shame, since he was better educated than almost all in his camp, what with a PhD from Dallas. Then of all things he endorsed Riplinger until she got on his bad side!

My main burden in this area is missionary Bible translation, a very neglected ministry among Baptists.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Although I would recommend more recent critical text editions for being closer to the autographs,

The argument that the critical text is more accurate because its manuscripts are older confuses two very different concepts. It treats “oldest surviving” as if it were the same thing as “best preserved.” They are not the same. They are not even related in any necessary way.

A manuscript survives because of conditions, not because of accuracy. The oldest manuscripts we possess today survived for reasons that have nothing to do with textual purity. They survived because they were not used. They survived because they were stored in dry climates. They survived because they were placed in libraries rather than churches. They survived because they were copied on durable material. They survived because they were forgotten.

Survival is an accident of history. Preservation is a function of transmission.

 

[Salty]

This thread will be closed no sooner than 0830 GMT, (Thr); 1230 am EDT, (Thr) 930 pm PDT, (Wed)

 

[Salty]

This thread is closed
Feel free to start a new one