KJV-Onlyism and Imperialism


Recently, there was a bit of a lively discussion when I suggested that some people take the KJVO position because it harkens back to the days of British world dominance. While not my intention, this article seems to have really irritated people. I found that the reasons for the irritation were odd since they had nothing to do with the questions asked in the article itself. People argued that:

  1. It had no well-known antecedent
  2. It attacked the KJV and those who use it
  3. It supported the Critical Text position
  4. It implied that anyone who uses the KJV does so because it was the Bible of imperial Britain

Addressing KJV-Onlyism…Again « Fundamentally Changed.

There is nothing in the bible to demand an adherence to one particular translation. If you think so, show me.

You Might Also Like

13 Replies to “KJV-Onlyism and Imperialism”

  1. I concur, Polycarp, and I think the body of this post and the previous one bears that out. There is nothing in the Bible about adhering to any one translation (or for that matter about there being one special strain of original texts, one of the KJVO camps’ fundamental beliefs.)

    The body of the first post in this series came under attack by KJVO proponents, who assaulted us for daring to allege that people would follow KJVO for any other reason than it was God’s Word for the English Speaking people.

  2. Wait, but doesn’t the KJV say that God’s words are all perfect, which therefore means the KJV is perfect?

    Oh, wait, nevermind. I just realized someone could make that argument with any translation.

    1. What? Surely not. You mean that part in Revelation is in every translation, even the original? But only the KJV says Holy Bible, and it was used by Paul.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.