Featured The KJVO Movement Is Headed Down

First, based on the information you have now supplied, your Pastor is not, in my opinion, a cloaked KJVO advocate.
Second, your version of record walk back does not change my opinion in that regard. I will certainly agree, however, the KJV was the version of record.

Have a nice day

 

Someone needs to look up the meaning of "walk back."

The idea is not that you changed your intended message, the idea is you said "A" but the receivers inferred "B" and so you walk back you original statement to make it less ambiguous or open to misinterpretation.

 

Of course.

 

After thinking through multiple angles on how to answer, all I can say is that that is a pretty profound question

 

I would be interested in what you consider "the egregious errors in the TR." I am not saying there are none, far from it. But this is curiosity, and whatever they are, they are not as great as the egregious errors in the modern critical text, in my humble opinion. The greatest of these errors is consigning the last twelve verses of Mark to oblivion. I would call that error egregious.

 

If we are talking about the New Testament, this statement is correct. But the same cannot be said of the KJV Old Testament. The KJV Old Testament is not a good translation in much of the non-narrative portions. There has been an explosion of Hebrew knowledge through cognate language studies in the last 150 years that has left much of the KJV Old Testament behind in the dust. This is not a textual issue, but an issue of understanding Hebrew vocabulary and grammatical structure.

I have done detailed studies of the two most difficult OT books, Job and Isaiah, and found that there is a clearly definable error in translation on the average of once every ten verses. Such an error ratio would never be acceptable in my work in Bible translation.

 

I do not recall having the honor of discussing biblical views with you before. At the outset, even though I suspect we may disagree on many points, I believe we can share our views without the need to disparage those who hold differing views.

Here is what I posted (#80)

We agree (I hope) that all English translations have errors, some more than others. I think the NKJV has fewer errors than the KJV, but on occasion, the KJV rendering is more accurate than the NKJV.

Now if the NKJV had corrected these four passages, in accordance with the accepted Byzantine Text, then it would be a much better translation. My preferred translation is the NASB95, but I am also a fan of the LEB. And if I am attempting to study a passage, I use the NET, WEB, NKJV and other versions (such as the NIV or KJV) for comparison purposes.

This thread's topic is the status of the KJVO movement, with some saying it is growing weaker and smaller, and others (myself included) thinking it is just changing its name to KJVP. What do you say?

 

Just about all modern versions have those 12 verses. They may be in italics, in smaller print and marked-off in some
way --but they are there contrary to your contention that they are consigned to oblivion.

 

Seem to have a lot in common.

 

I am new to this forum, and am just now finding the end of the thread of discussion. Please forgive me for replying to the first things I saw on the forum. In regard to the last twelve verses of Mark, perhaps the word "oblivion" is too strong, but in principle it is accurate, because the footnotes declare that these verses are not original. Most people I talk to discount them completely. So that is oblivion in their thinking at least.

In regard to the theme of this thread, the KJVO movement is a matter of deep concern to me, and I think it is bound up almost inseparably to the textual question. From what I have seen, KJVO and KJVP are distinctly different. Most of the people I know who are KJVP are very clear that they are not KJVO and do not wish to be considered so. I have a friend who jokingly calls himself NKJV-only. In regard to the general theme of this thread, I do believe the KJVO movement is indeed dying, but slowly. Someone should do an index of KJVO publications to catalog how much and how often things are published. That would quantify the rise or decline of the movement. Are you familiar with Sproul's book on the movement, entitled "God's Word Preserved"?

 

Most conservative New Testament scholars do not believe that those verses in question are authentic.

 

That is strange. In the New Testament survey text book he revised, orginal author is Thomas Lea, He states, "Of these two options, the better choice seems to be to conclude the Gospel at 16:8......addtional support for ending at 16:8 developed as students of Greek syntax found several examples of Greek sentences ending eith the term [gar]."

He does say later, "A decision cannot be reached withbcertainy, but either the longer ending or ending at 16:8 are the most viable options." Here is was speaking against the lesser know short ending.

Maybe he decided to leave Lea's orginal opinion out of respect and was not conveying his own opinion????


The New Testament:
2003
p. 145-146


Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk