Boy Was Scrivener Wrong
I wish F.H.A. Scrivener, the editor of a version of the Textus Receptus that mimicked the textual critical choices of the King James translators, had been right when he wrote the following in 1873. I have taken the liberty of bolding every erroneous prediction.
If a judgment may be formed from previous experience in like cases, the revised and unrevised Versions [namely the English Revised Version and the KJV, respectively], when the former [the ERV] shall be at length completed, are destined to run together a race of generous and friendly rivalry for the space of at least one generation, before the elder of the two shall be superseded in the affections of not a few devout persons, who, in so grave a matter as the daily use of Holy Scripture, shall prove slow to adopt changes which yet they will not doubt to be made, on the whole, for the better.
Scrivener wrote this in the foreword to a critical edition of the KJV; that is, an edition which corrected printer errors and took the translation back to the state its original translators meant it to be in. He continues…
With such a struggle before it, it is only right that the Authorized or King James’s Bible should be represented, so far as may be, in the precise shape that it would have assumed, if its venerable Translators had shewn themselves more exempt than they were from the failings incident to human infirmity; or if the same severe accuracy, which is now demanded in carrying so important a volume through the press, had been deemed requisite or was at all usual in their age.
—The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1873), ix.