The KJVO Movement Is Headed Down

[Van]

Making an unfounded assumption eh? IIRC, when he preached through the book of 1 John (known locally as 101 messages on 1 John), he went with the NASB. Initially, you weren't specific in your question. So, I gave a general answer.

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

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I didn't walk anything back. I did however clearly define my usage of the term. And as I said before, I used the term only as it applied to my home church.

Second, your version of record walk back

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Then my question to you is if the Lord called yo would you come to San Francisco and serve Him there?

Are you saying The Lord did not call them there? Stepping into any type ministry without The calling of The Lord would not be advisable.

 

[Van]

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.

 

[Reynolds]

Then my question to you is if the Lord called yo would you come to San Francisco and serve Him there?

Of course.

 

[Salty]

Would San Francisco be considered today's Nineveh?

 

[Rob_BW]

Would San Francisco be considered today's Nineveh?

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

 

[Glenn J. Kerr]

the egregious errors in the TR

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.

 

[Glenn J. Kerr]

Your disdain not withstanding, the KJV is a very good translation.

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.

 

[Van]

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.

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)

"The majority of manuscripts and Westcott and Hort agree against the textus receptus in excluding Luke 17:36; Acts 8:37; and I John 5:7 from the New Testament, as well as concurring in numerous other readings (such as "tree of life" in Revelation 22:19). Except in a few rare cases, writers well-versed in textual criticism have abandoned the textus receptus as a standard text."

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?

 

[Rippon]

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.

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.

 

[Reynolds]

Would San Francisco be considered today's Nineveh?

Seem to have a lot in common.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

As a local newspaper columnist once called the City "Baghdad by the Bay", I sometimes call it "Babylon by the Bay."

Would San Francisco be considered today's Nineveh?

 

[Glenn J. Kerr]

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"?

 

[Rippon]

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.

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

 

[John of Japan]

I am past wearied of the Bible versions debate. It seems the people who debate the most about the versions seem to do the least about actually doing what all those versions agree on. Actually living out Gods commands (and they are pretty plain in all versions) is much more important than bickering over two words in translation that are meaningless. I bet God gets great pleasure when a man with little education wins souls using the Living Bible or the message. I wonder how much pleasure He gets frpm listening to people bicker and fight about lexicon and source manuscripts.

Here is why the debate about versions is important: the results are carried out on the mission fields of the world. I take a stand on these issues because part of my job is training people to do Bible translation. In the light of that, this forum about translation is very important, especially when people write concerning methodology. Again, it is important to me that translators be qualified, so sometimes I write against the "wannabes" and fakes.

Having said that, I would be perfectly happy if no other English translation was ever done. We have literally hundreds of those, yet there are still 1000's of languages which do not have the first word of Scripture translated.

Concerning winning souls with the Living Bible, I agree that it can be done. I knew a missionary saved through that version. But wouldn't it be better after salvation to put a reliable copy of God's Word in the hands of the new convert, one he could trust and learn from rather than a paraphrase with terrible renderings in many places?

I only personally know one Dr of the Greek language. He told me years ago "What I don't understand in The Word no longer bothers me. What bothers me is I know one day I will have to stand before Jesus and answer for why I did so little with the parts I fully understood." He also told me one time "I was much more useful to God when I was an uneducated country preacher than I ever was to Him after going to seminary and getting a bunch of letters piled up after my name."

What this says to me is that he went to the wrong seminary. I have several diplomas, and let me assure you, they stood me in great stead seeking to win souls on the mission field of Japan. (Granted, one of those diplomas is from a Japanese language school.)

My son (he and I teach together in college and seminary) has a BA, MA, MDiv, and PhD in NT, but helps run the Jr High SS, teaches in training union, goes soul-winning twice every week, and will travel to teach in Kenya in Sept. You see, he got his degrees from good, Bible-believing schools where the profs were on fire for Christ. That is evidently where your Greek Dr. friend did not go, or he would have been better equipped to serve Christ.

Ignorance is not a tool to better serve the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[TCassidy]

Most church members are not concerned with their pastor's degrees, but with his leadership, teaching, and preaching ability.

However, degrees are important for two reasons. They give a general understanding of the level of knowledge and preparation a person has, and thus how seriously he takes his ministry.

And more importantly, degrees give us credibility with those outside the church. They open doors so we can reach those who may not, otherwise, be willing to listen to us.

As Doc Clearwaters used to put it, "He whom God calls to preach, he first calls to prepare."

 

[John of Japan]

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.

Welcome to the Baptist Board, Dr. Kerr. I agree with you here. And there is plenty of evidence that the traditional ending should be in Mark, as you know. My son's doctoral adviser, Dr. David Alan Black, is an eclectic, but believes the longer ending to be genuine.

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"?

I have not read Sproul's book, but obviously that would be a good one to read. I think we have it in our college library and have been planning to read it.

Glad you agree with me that the KJVO movement is slowly dying.

By the way, I have a thread in the "Evangelism, Missions & Witnessing Forum" about Bible translation ministries. My next post was going to be about Bibles International, but I would welcome you input there as being much better than what I might write.

John R. Himes

 

[McCree79]

Welcome to the Baptist Board, Dr. Kerr. I agree with you here. And there is plenty of evidence that the traditional ending should be in Mark, as you know. My son's doctoral adviser, Dr. David Alan Black, is an eclectic, but believes the longer ending to be genuine.

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