Although most proponents will not admit it, the KJV harkens back to a day when English-speaking people ruled the world. Could it be that it is a symbol of lost glory? A reminder of the imperial ambitions?

I am not sure I buy the author’s argument, but I did not see where he called people who use the KJV as imperialistic or fascist. I think he made some valid points from a historical perspective and did ask a question as to whether the strong support of the KJV is purely “because it is best” or in some people’s views, “because it is the only one.” Having had contact with individuals who believed it was best to translate a Spanish Bible from the English KJV, I can see how that smacks of English speaking supremacy. Still, his article did not prove that face, just opened the door to ask questions. For full disclosure, I use the KJV and NKJV almost exclusively, and I wasn’t at all offended by the article.

I have not read or heard anything from KJVO advocates indicating British Imperialism had anything to do with their position. On the contrary, from my observation it appears almost none have an awareness of too much British history. If they did it might give them a couple reasons to doubt their position.

From my observation, many who advocate the KJVO have little or no acquaintance with the original languages, Often they are not as well educated as many other Pastors or missionaries. The KJVO position appeals to their desire to have additional authority or a special niche that sets them apart.

Also, there are some people who have a certain mindset that makes them feel more comfortable with a unique position that gives certainty and casts simple and easy doubt on that which appears more complex to them. Like an adaption of Ocham’s razor. God preserved the KJV. Its that simple. All the other textual knowledge theories and investigations are too complex. In addition, multiple translations sometimes differ. Therefore, all this proves the simplest must be true.

I have observed some adopt the KJVO position based on the authority of another, such as a Pastor. They then later find and adopt the arguments for the position.

These are observations. There are some exceptions I am sure.

This war has raged for years, and this idea simply is simply “off the wall.” It has not shown up in the literature of the KJVO advocates.

I picked up one of my KJV-Only books and found some substantiation of this idea. Jack Moorman’s Forever Settled: A Survey of the Documents and History of the Bible (Dean Burgon Society Press, 1999) is a compilation of quotes, and pg. 243 of my copy led me to the internet to find the full quotes from Benjamin Wilkinson’s book. Wilkinson is the author of the influential work Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. Wilkinson’s book was reproduced by both J.J. Ray and David Otis Fuller without proper identification of Wilkinson as being a Seventh Day Adventist scholar. Doug Kutilek argues persuasively that Wilkinson’s work is what launched the modern KJV Only movement (by it’s being picked up and used by Ray in 1960 and Fuller in 1970).

The following comes from Wilkinson’s work published in 1930, available online here.

God who foresaw the coming greatness of the English-speaking world, prepared in advance the agent who early would give direction to the course of its thinking. One man stands out silhouetted against the horizon above all others, as having stamped his genius upon English thought and upon the English language. That man was William Tyndale. (pg. 33)

The hour had arrived, and from the human point of view, conditions were perfect, for God to bring forth a translation of the Bible which would sum up in itself the best of the ages. The heavenly Father foresaw the opportunity of giving His Word to the inhabitants of earth by the coming of the British Empire with its dominions scattered throughout the world, and by the great American Republic, both speaking the English language. Not only was the English language by 1611 in a more opportune condition than it had ever been before or ever would be again, but the Hebrew and the Greek likewise had been brought up with the accumulated treasures of their materials to a splendid working point. The age was not distracted by the rush of mechanical and industrial achievements. Moreover linguistic scholarship was at its peak. Men of giant minds, supported by excellent physical health, had possessed in a splendid state of perfection a knowledge of the languages and literature necessary for the ripest Biblical scholarship. (pg. 42)

The birth of the King James Bible was a death stroke to the supremacy of Roman Catholicism. The translators little foresaw the wide extent of circulation and the tremendous influence to be won by their book. They little dreamed that for three hundred years it would form the bond of English Protestantism in all parts of the world. One of the brilliant minds of the last generation, Faber, who as a clergyman in the Church of England, labored to Romanize that body, and finally abandoned it for the Church of Rome, cried out, — “Who will say that the uncommon beauty and marvelous English of the Protestant Bible is not one of the great strongholds of heresy in this country?”

Yes, more, it has not only been the stronghold of Protestantism in Great Britain, but it has built a gigantic wall as a barrier against the spread of Romanism.

“The printing of the English Bible has proved to be by far the mightiest barrier ever reared to repel the advance of Popery, and to damage all the resources of the Papacy.”

Small wonder then that for three hundred years incessant warfare has been waged upon this instrument created by God to mold all constitutions and laws of the British Empire, and of the great American Republic, while at the same time comforting, blessing, and instructing the lives of the millions who inhabit these territories. Behold what it has given to the world! The machinery of the Catholic Church can never begin to compare with the splendid machinery of Protestantism. The Sabbath School, the Bible printing houses, the foreign missionary societies, the Y.M.C.A., the Y.W.C.A., the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, the Protestant denominational organizations, — these all were the offspring of Protestantism. Their benefits have gone to all lands and been adopted by practically all nations. Shall we throw away the Bible from which such splendid organizations have sprung? (51-52)

I find this as coming close to a substantiation of Erik’s ideas that a high view of Britain and America was in part a motivation for idolizing the English translation of the “good old days”.

In a lengthy discussion with a man on the KJV issue he told me that all people of the world, past, present and future will be judged at the last day by the King James Bible. If that isn’t an imperialistic attitude, I don’t know what is.

In 1611 the English language was spoken by a mere 3% of the world’s population, but today English has become the closest thing to a universal language in history. He used the King James Bible to carry His words to the far ends of the earth, where it was translated into hundreds of languages by English and American missionaries for over 300 years. The sun never set on the British empire. It was even taken to space by American astronauts and read from there. God knew He would use England, its language and the King James Bible to accomplish all these things long before they happened. It is the only Bible God has providentially used in this way. It is the only Bible believed by thousands upon thousands of believers to be the inspired, infallible and 100% true words of God.

This is from Will Kinney a KJV-Only proponent with a wide internet presence. It comes from [URL=http://kjvodebate.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/imperialist-influence-on-the…] this comment[/URL] , left at my team KJVO debate blog.

What else could this be but proof of an Anglo-centric mindset in modern KJV-onlyism?

I have encountered “anglo-centrism” here and there in my research as well. But I’ve also found that the “English is just better” type of argument is pretty rare.
So “proof of an Anglo-centric mindset in modern KJV-onlyism” would be putting too broadly.
Also, among the strongly KJVP and KJVO folks I know, I only know one who includes anglo-centric thinking among his reasons.

As for me… I don’t buy the assumption that a really high view of English culture and “British Imperialism” is an in inherently bad thing. If there really was a strong argument along those lines, I might lean toward KJVO myself. :) But there really isn’t anything there that favors KJV over, say, the Geneva Bible or one of the other early English translations.
(If there is an “I like British things” disease, I’ve probably got it)

I’ve heard that some KJVOers believe that God’s favored form of gov’t, so to speak, is a monarchy, ergo He used a monarch in the preservation of His Word (and a monarch with a Hebrew name to boot)- which could be misinterpreted as “British Imperialism”. But I thought the premise of OP was a bit strained… the “Although most proponents will not admit it” line is so… Dan Rather. Some people of good conscience faced with the same information simply come to different conclusions.

Dan Rather is a good way to put it. When we make “though most won’t admit it” assertions, we’re claiming to know something…
a. about the majority (which is alot of people)
b. about their thought process
c. what “most” have never actually expressed (since most are not writing or speaking on the subject)

So it’s really quite a claim… “I can read the minds of most of the people in group A” ;)

The author of that post did post a clarification. He wanted to generate discussion. We did get some verification of it in at least one of the responses by a Will Kinney who has a wide web presence defending KJVO. He saw no problem with Wilkinson’s quote and basically agreed.

[RPittman]

[Bob Hayton] The author of that post did post a clarification. He wanted to generate discussion. We did get some verification of it in at least one of the responses by a Will Kinney who has a wide web presence defending KJVO. He saw no problem with Wilkinson’s quote and basically agreed.

Bob, you’re too smug and satisfied to see the weakness of your argument. So what? Will Kinney cannot be used as the sole representative of the KJVO movement. It is too diverse to be defined by one man’s views. You’ve proven nothing except that Will Kinney seemingly agrees with Wilkerson. Again, so what? BTW, who is Will Kinney?

Here’s his articles: [URL=http://put_url_here] http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm[/URL]. He’s all over KJVO debate forums and a representative modern KJV onlyist influenced by that idea. Many were saying there is no proof of this among modern KJV onlyists.

Jack Moorman has a book published by the Dean Burgon Society and includes much of the Wilkinson quote in his book. My copy is from 1999.

I’m not saying every KJV Onlyist believes this. Only that it is an influence that may well have spurred on the development of the movement.

Ya’ll’d be amazed by how many KJVOers have never heard of or don’t give a flying fig about some of these supposed ‘influential leaders’. Reminds me of when someone asks if you are a Christian, and you say “Yes”, and then they start talking about Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, as if their ‘fame’ by default makes them influential and representative of all Christians everywhere. IMO, people who spend significant amounts of time on supposed “debate” boards need to get a life, ‘cause it’s the same 20 people saying the same things ad infinitum ad nauseum. A couple of published authors does not a movement make.

[RPittman] I think more highly of lesser known and more credible individuals, although I have not exhaustively read their works, such as Kent Brandenberg, Ken Sheets, Thomas Strouse, et. al.

Actually, it’s the more moderate individuals like the ones you mention (and I have read a good bit of their work) that make me wonder about the English language part of it. On the surface, they talk about perfect preservation of the Hebrew and Greek texts, which seems at first like a fairly reasonable position, even if their works haven’t convinced me. However, practically, it still comes down to the KJV “Only,” as asking about things like the Geneva version or other pre-KJV Bibles, or heaven forbid, something like the NKJV, always results in that camp giving one reason or another why those are not the true scriptures in the same sense the KJV is in their eyes.

No, I don’t buy the “imperialistic” argument, but I highly doubt that any modern translation of even the supposedly perfectly preserved texts (usually Scrivener’s is mentioned), no matter who it was done by, would ever be accepted by most in the KJVO camp. To be honest, I probably wouldn’t use it myself — I’m generally KJVP, because I *like* the language and the way the scriptures read in that version, and to this day, I find the modern versions much harder to memorize. But I understand that not all share that view, and I don’t believe language should stand in the way of clarity. As a result, I use a number of translations in my study, ESV and NKJV being two of the ones I use most. And I certainly don’t recommend a KJV as first Bible for someone recently saved that is not already a scholar or lover of English from that period.

All this to say that I also agree that the King James Version itself (regardless of all the textual arguments as to why it’s better or the best) is a significant factor in the KJVO movement, and that fact is hard to deny.

[dcbii]

[RPittman] I think more highly of lesser known and more credible individuals, although I have not exhaustively read their works, such as Kent Brandenberg, Ken Sheets, Thomas Strouse, et. al.

Actually, it’s the more moderate individuals like the ones you mention (and I have read a good bit of their work) that make me wonder about the English language part of it. On the surface, they talk about perfect preservation of the Hebrew and Greek texts, which seems at first like a fairly reasonable position, even if their works haven’t convinced me. However, practically, it still comes down to the KJV “Only,” as asking about things like the Geneva version or other pre-KJV Bibles, or heaven forbid, something like the NKJV, always results in that camp giving one reason or another why those are not the true scriptures in the same sense the KJV is in their eyes.

No, I don’t buy the “imperialistic” argument, but I highly doubt that any modern translation of even the supposedly perfectly preserved texts (usually Scrivener’s is mentioned), no matter who it was done by, would ever be accepted by most in the KJVO camp. To be honest, I probably wouldn’t use it myself — I’m generally KJVP, because I *like* the language and the way the scriptures read in that version, and to this day, I find the modern versions much harder to memorize. But I understand that not all share that view, and I don’t believe language should stand in the way of clarity. As a result, I use a number of translations in my study, ESV and NKJV being two of the ones I use most. And I certainly don’t recommend a KJV as first Bible for someone recently saved that is not already a scholar or lover of English from that period.

All this to say that I also agree that the King James Version itself (regardless of all the textual arguments as to why it’s better or the best) is a significant factor in the KJVO movement, and that fact is hard to deny.

Good thoughts, Dave. And to clarify one last time, I am not the author of the OP, but I thought he made some good points that may have some merit. I found some evidence for this mindset and remember reading other examples of it too. But this is just one strand and one influence, nothing more.

Now as to the idea that the KJV as the only Bible we should use, I used to hold that. I used to hold to a TR Only view. I chronicle my journey to an acceptance of the ESV as my primary reading Bible on my team [URL=http://kjvodebate.wordpress.com/ KJV Only debate blog[/URL]. I certainly respect the KJV and think it is a great, if not the great translation of all time. But I found that even though I knew a lot about the archaic language, when I started reading from the ESV, my Bible came alive in new ways. The idea of the Greek text was communicated in a more accessible form through a modern version, and I believe that will be the case for many others as well.

Edit: fixed blog link

[Bob Hayton] I certainly respect the KJV and think it is a great, if not the great translation of all time. But I found that even though I knew a lot about the archaic language, when I started reading from the ESV, my Bible came alive in new ways. The idea of the Greek text was communicated in a more accessible form through a modern version, and I believe that will be the case for many others as well.

You’re absolutely right, and that was true for me too — “alive” is a good way to state it. The first time I read through the prophets in the NIV (and I realize that whatever fundamental credentials I may have had just evaporated, simply for stating that), those books of the Bible opened up in ways they hadn’t before, simply because of my previously having misunderstood (or not having fully understood) what was written.