Featured The KJVO Movement Is Headed Down

When I go to church with my wife her Bible is the NKJV... Mine as you all know is the KJV... I know there are many preacher here and I want to ask them this question, when you go in the stand to preach how many say open your ESV Bible to John 3:16?... When you go in the stand you say lets all open our Bibles to John 3:16... What Bible?... Well what Bible did you bring to church?... Does everybody in your church carry the same Bible translation?... How many translations do you own?... How many translations do you refer to as you are preaching?... I know in our church sometime scripture is on a screen, various versions of various translations are posted according to the message... What Bible translations are in the pew caddie for visitors?... I was insulted that Van would imply that KJVP folk are only KJVO folk in disguise... I think I'm better than that and my kind tenure on this board over the years to other brethren here have proved it so... So watch out Van we're coming to get ya!... Sorry I couldn't resist it!... Brother Glen

 

I never said or implied any such thing.

 

I just posted a new thread where I have attached an unpublished article on text forms which I think many of you might enjoy. The article is recommended by Timothy Friberg. I know him as a faithful friend and mentor in life and ministry. Most of pastors and users of NT Greek know him for providing several excellent NT Greek study tools. I have permission from the author to share the article, and so do you.

 

A brand-new Seminary is setting up in Britain which will be KJV-only. Our Mission and Beliefs - Salisbury Reformed Seminary
KJV-only in Britain is less extreme than in the USA> It only claims that the KJV is 'much the best' or 'the only reliable' translation available. It is found among certain Reformed churches over here.

Malcolm Watts, who is the prime mover in the seminary, is also chairman of the Trinitarian Bible Society.

 

Would they hold to any errors/mistakes in it?.
And interesting that I think that group is off Dean Burgeron on txtual criticism, but he was not KJVO, had real issues with the TR....

 

Hi Salty, I know what KJVP means, it means a cloaked KJVO advocate.

 

That isn't true. I know a few KJVP people. They are of a different breed than the KJVO. The mindset is different. They just believe it is the best translation available for them. Some on this site are NIV preferred, ESV preferred, NASB preferred, etc... A person is capable of preferring the KJV to all others and not hold to the view KJVO advocates (which does have various forms).

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Van, that was a silly comment. Of course it means advocate, as he indicated it was his preferred choice; and ALL of us advocate our preferred choices.

 

McCree79, I do not disagree with what Preferred is supposed to mean, but in practice KJVP does not measure up. Answer me this, why do you prefer the TR corruptions over and against the Byzantine Text as found say in the WEB? I certainly agree the NKJV is readily understandable and contains beautiful, elegant and accurate presentations of God's word for the most part, but why oh why did they not fix the problems. Answer, many KJV advocates prefer the corruptions, making them cloaked KJVO I could easily become a KJVP advocate, if the NKJV fixed the egregious errors. The movement, Sir, is going underground in my opinion.

 

Hi Don, the truth is never silly.

 

I don't prefer the TR. Transaltions I use as primary text are CT based. I do however look at NKJV frequently for text comparison.

I am less optimistic than you on that. It will continue to be a minority opinion, but I think it will get loud and aggressive. Social media platforms will allow for the spread of this opinion.





Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Agreed, I look at the NKJV for comparison, and even the good old KJV because on occassion. it has a better translation then the NKJV.

As far as going underground, this BB had a survey in the past where many self identified as KKJO/KJVP which is my basis for believing cloaked is valid.

 

I am assuming I can respond to post #62 without having my response deleted?

 

Van, wrong on one count as far as I am concerned. I prefer the NKJV primarily because of the source text - the Traditional Text of which I prefer the Scrivener 1894-5 text (a melding of the variants of the several TR type manuscripts). I support the 1 John 5:7 Comma as authentic but not other KJV "corruptions" (e.g. Acts 12:4 - Easter).

I have no problem with WH based MV's although I always give way to the Traditional Text (Usually Scrivener) in the event of a variant (for the most part - I do remember one occasion which I went with WH - don't remember the specific verse).

HankD

 

I no longer preach - my ministry now is teaching - adult through senior Sunday School.
NKJV/KJV/NIV are my basic English Bibles but I ALWAYS refer to the Greek/Hebrew when getting down to the "nitty-gritty".


HankD

 

1) The KJV, replete with all its TR corruptions is not "the version of record."

2) Your beloved Pastor, since he knows what the Greek text actually says, must therefore go to the NASB when dealing with the KJV corrupt passages. If not, then my view he is a cloaked KJVO Pastor.

"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."