Posts Tagged ‘King James Version only’

I think it’s important to know how King James Only defenders “defend” their doctrine of KJV only. The purified seven times defense is a myth pushed forth by many KJV only defenders.  The end result of this “7 X” myth is a faulty mixture of Psalm 12, the history of the English Bible, and circular reasoning to create facts that simply do not exist! The following article is a good example of mixing reality with fiction in order to defend what cannot be defended. -David J

“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” (Psalm 12:6)

As any student of English Bible history knows, the Authorized Version of 1611 was not the first Bible to be translated into English. But even though hundreds of complete Bibles, New Testaments, and Scripture portions have been translated into English since 1611, it is obvious that the Authorized Version is the last English Bible; that is, the last English Bible that God “authorized.”

Because the Authorized Version is the “last” English Bible, and because its defenders believe it to contain the very words of God, various schemes have been contrived to make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being “purified seven times.” The problem is that the Authorized Version is not the seventh English Bible — it is the tenth one.

Although there were some attempts during the Old and Middle English period to translate portions of the Bible into English, the first complete Bible or New Testament in English did not appear until the fourteenth century.

John Wycliffe (c.1320-1384) is credited with being the first to translate the entire Bible into English. It is to be remembered that no Greek or Hebrew texts, versions, or editions were yet fabricated. Wycliffe did his translating primarily from the only Bible then in use: the Latin Vulgate. He is often called the “Morning Star of the Reformation” for his opposition to ecclesiastical abuses and the Papacy. Wycliffe’s New Testament translation was completed in 1380, and the entire Bible in 1382.

William Tyndale (c. 1494-1536) has the distinction of being the first to translate the New Testament from Greek into English. He early distinguished himself as a scholar both at Cambridge and Oxford, and was fluent in several languages. Tyndale soon advanced both his desire and his demise, as seen in his reply to a critic: “I defy the pope and all his laws; if God spare my life, ere many years I will cause the boy that driveth the plough in England to know more of the Scriptures than thou doest.” The Bible was still forbidden in the vernacular, so after settling in London for several months while attempting to gain approval for his translation efforts, Tyndale concluded: “Not only that there was no room in my lord of Londons palace to translate the New Testament, but also that there was no place to do it in all England, as experience doth now openly declare.”

Accordingly, Tyndale left England in 1524 and completed his translation of the New Testament in Germany. The moving factor in his translation of the New Testament was that he “perceived by experience, how that it was impossible to establish the lay people in any truth, except the scripture were plainly laid before their eyes in their mother tongue, that they might see the process, order and meaning of the text.” The printing of his New Testament was completed in Worms and smuggled into England, where it was an instant success. Tyndale then turned his attention to the Old Testament. He never finished it, however, for on May 21, 1535, Tyndale was treacherously kidnaped and imprisoned in Belgium. On October 6, 1536, he was tried as a heretic and condemned to death. He was strangled and burned, but not before he uttered the immortal prayer of “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes.”

Although Tyndale’s English Bible was the first to be translated directly from the original languages, it was just the New Testament. It was Myles Coverdale (1488-1569) who was the first to publish a complete English Bible. In 1533, King Henry VIII established the Church of England, and, in 1534, the Upper House of Convocation of Canterbury petitioned King Henry to decree “that the holy scripture should be translated into the vulgar English tongue by certain good learned men, to be nominated by His Majesty, and should be delivered to the people for their instruction.” Thomas Cromwell (1485-1540) and Archbishop Cranmer (1489-1556) were likewise convinced of the desirability of having the Bible translated into English. Coverdale’s Bible was printed in October of 1535. He based his work on the Zurich Bible of Zwingli, the Vulgate, the Latin text of Paginius, Luther’s Bible, and the previous work of William Tyndale, especially in the New Testament.

Although Coverdale’s second edition of 1537 contained the license of the king, the first Bible to obtain such license was published earlier the same year. The Matthew Bible was more of a revision than a translation. Thomas Matthew was just a pseudonym for John Rogers (c. 1500-1555), a friend of Tyndale, to whom he had turned over his unpublished manuscripts on the translation of the Old Testament. Rogers used Tyndale’s New Testament and the completed parts of his Old Testament. For the rest of the Bible, he relied on Coverdale. The whole of this material was slightly revised and accompanied by introductions and chapter summaries. Cranmer commented in a letter to Cromwell that he liked it “better than any other translation heretofore made.” And so it happened that Tyndale’s translation, which was proscribed just a few years earlier, was circulating with the King’s permission and authority both in the Coverdale and Matthew Bibles.

Although the Coverdale and Matthew Bibles were “set forth with the King’s most gracious license,” the Great Bible was the first “authorized” Bible. Cromwell delegated to Myles Coverdale the work of revising the Matthew Bible and its controversial notes. In 1538, an injunction by Cromwell directed the clergy to provide “one book of the bible of the largest volume in English, and the same set up in some convenient place within the said church that ye have care of, whereas your parishioners may most commodiously resort to the same and read it.” The completed Bible appeared in April of 1539. Although called the Great Bible because of its large size, it was referred to by several other designations as well. It was called the Cromwell Bible, since he did the most to prepare for its publication. It was also termed the Cranmer Bible, after the often reprinted preface by Cranmer beginning with the 1540 second edition. Several editions were printed by Whitechurch, and hence it was also labeled the Whitechurch Bible. In accordance with Cromwell’s injunction, copies of the Great Bible were placed in every church. This led to it being called the Chained Bible, since it was chained in “some convenient place within the said church.”

At the same time as Coverdale was preparing the Great Bible, Richard Taverner (1505-1577) undertook an independent revision of Matthew’s Bible. It appeared under the title of: “The Most Sacred Bible whiche is the holy scripture, conteyning the old and new testament, translated into English, and newly recognized with great diligence after most faythful exemplars by Rychard Taverner.” He was a competent Greek scholar and made some slight changes in the text and notes of the Matthew Bible. His work was eclipsed by the Great Bible and had but minor influence on later translations.

During the reign of the Catholic queen, Mary Tudor (1553-1558), many English Reformers, among them Myles Coverdale, fled to Geneva. It was here in 1557 that William Whittingham (1524-1579), the brother-in-law of John Calvin, and successor of John Knox at the English church in Geneva, translated the New Testament in what was to become the Geneva Bible. When Elizabeth, the sister of Mary, assumed the throne in 1558, many exiles returned to England. But Whittingham and some others remained in Geneva and continued to work on a more comprehensive and complete revision of the entire Bible that superseded the 1557 New Testament — the Geneva Bible of 1560.

The superiority of the Geneva Bible over the Great Bible was readily apparent. It was the notes, however, that made it unacceptable for official use in England. Archbishop Matthew Parker soon took steps to make a revision of the Great Bible that would replace both it and the Geneva Bible. The Bible was divided into parts and distributed to scholars for revision. Parker served as the editor and most of his revisors were bishops, hence the Bishops’ Bible. The first Bible to be translated by a committee, it was published in 1568.

The Douay-Rheims Bible was the first Roman Catholic translation of the Bible in English. When English Romanists fled England for the Continent under the reign of Elizabeth, many settled in France. In 1568, an English college was established by William Allen (1532-1594) at Douay. The college moved for a time to Rheims in 1578 under Richard Bristow (1538-1581). It was here that Gregory Martin (d. 1582) began translating the Bible into English from the Latin Vulgate. This was precipitated by Allen’s recognition that Catholics had an unfair disadvantage compared with Bible-reading Protestants because of their use of Latin and the fact that “all the English versions are most corrupt.” The Catholic New Testament was finished in 1582, but the complete Old Testament did not appear until 1610.

After the death of Elizabeth in 1603, James I, who was at that time James VI of Scotland, became the king of England. One of the first things done by the new king was the calling of the Hampton Court Conference in January of 1604 “for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church.” Here were assembled bishops, clergyman, and professors, along with four Puritan divines, to consider the complaints of the Puritans. Although Bible revision was not on the agenda, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, John Reynolds, “moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the Original.”

The next step was the actual selection of the men who were to perform the work. In July of 1604, James wrote to Bishop Bancroft that he had “appointed certain learned men, to the number of four and fifty, for the translating of the Bible.” Although fifty-four men were nominated, only forty-seven were known to have taken part in the work of translation. The completed Bible, known as the King James Version or the Authorized Version, was issued in 1611, and remains the Bible read, preached, believed, and acknowledged as the authority by all Bible believers today.

Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Great, Taverner, Geneva, Bishops’, Douay-Rheims, and King James — ten English Bibles. As mentioned previously, various schemes have been contrived to make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being “purified seven times.” The problem with this noble goal is that it entails the elimination of three versions. But which three? Wycliffe’s Bible is sometimes omitted because it was translated from the Latin instead of the original Hebrew and Greek. Tyndale’s Bible is sometimes omitted because it was not a complete Bible — just a New Testament and portions of the Old Testament. Coverdale’s and Matthew’s Bibles could conceivably be omitted because they rely so much on Tyndale. Taverner’s Bible is sometimes omitted because it was a revision of Matthew’s Bible and had little influence on later English versions. The Geneva Bible could conceivably be omitted because King James considered it to be the worst of the English versions. The Douay-Rheims, because it is a Roman Catholic version, is always omitted from the list.

This leaves the Great Bible, the Bishops’ Bible, and the King James Bible — three out of the ten. It appears that Bible believers have manipulated the history of the English Bible to prove a bogus theory.

Or have they?

The answer is yes and no. As will presently be proved, the theory is not bogus at all — even if some zealous brethren have been careless in the way they went about proving it.

The definitive list of Bibles that makes the Authorized Version the seventh Bible, thus fitting the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being “purified seven times,” is not to be found in the opinions of the many writers on the history of the English Bible. To the contrary, the definitive list is to be found in the often-overlooked details concerning the translating of the Authorized Version.

To begin with, the translators of the Authorized Version did acknowledge that they had a multitude of sources from which to draw from: “Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch.” The Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were all accessible, as were the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Tremellius, and Beza. What we want, however, is a reference to English Bibles.

The translators also acknowledged that they had at their disposal all the previous English translations of the sixteenth century: “We are so far off from condemning any of their labors that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry’s time, or King Edward’s (if there were any translation, or correction of a translation in his time) or Queen Elizabeth’s of everrenowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance.” Although this statement of the translators refers to English Bibles, it is not specific as to exactly which versions.

The information we need is to be found, not in the translators’ “The Epistle Dedicatory” or their “The Translators to the Reader,” but in the “Rules to be Observed in the Translation of the Bible.” These general rules, fifteen in number, were advanced for the guidance of the translators. The first and fourteenth, because they directly relate to the subject at hand, are here given in full: “1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.” “14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tindoll’s, Matthews, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s, Geneva.”

And thus we have our answer. The seven English versions that make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being “purified seven times” are Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, the Great Bible (printed by Whitechurch), the Geneva Bible, the Bishops’ Bible, and the King James Bible.

The Wycliffe, Taverner, and Douay-Rheims Bibles, whatever merits any of them may have, are not part of the purified line God “authorized,” of which the King James Authorized Version is God’s last one — purified seven times.

I am using this information as defined under the Fair Use section of US copyright law as described under: Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. THE AV 1611: Purified Seven Times By Dr. Laurence M. Vance is copyrighted by Vance Publications P.O. Box 11781, Pensacola, FL 32524, USA. Phone: (850) 474-1626. 

Advertisements

I’m simply applying King James Only standards to the 1611 KJV vs modern KJVs(source)

From “Spread the Challenge” You have been Challenged.

I am challenging the accusers of the King James Bible (that it contains errors) to once and for all prove their accusations. These are the people that coined the phrase, “King James Only” or “King James Only-ism”. The same crowd says “no translation is inspired”. If you are one of this crowd, then this challenge is being aimed straight at you. Time for you to put up or shut up!

I am formally challenging you to a public debate to be recorded/video, and/or posted on YouTube (and other places) for all to see.

If an error(s) can be proven in the King James Bible, then I will pay all your travel(your choice) expenses to and from the debate, meals & lodging (of your choice), plus pay for any and all time lost financially to be sure that it will not cost you a dime. All you have to do is debate the subject publicly before cameras and prove at least one error in the King James Bible.

Now there it is—-I have issued the challenge, so put up or shut up. If you are any kind of man(or woman) at all, and really do know your stuff, then I would expect you to take this opportunity to enlighten the World on this subject.

Speak up and show your proof, or shut-up and get off line!

You have been challenged. The ball is in your court. What say ye?

Bob Berney

Generally I do not post e-mails like this to my blog, but this is a classic example of the confusion found within the King James only camp.

Mr. Berney, instead of taking your money and wasting many hours doing useless debates, I will present you with four post to read and ask you to research the facts.

Please read:

AV1611 only? Do King James Onlyists use a 1611 KJV?

Perversion coming from the pulpit is far more deadly than poor Bible translations

Questions for King James only people…

The King James Bible is an excellent translation

If you will take the time to truly study the facts outside the poison that is being feed to you by $$$main-stream$$$ King James Onlyist, then you will see how the doctrine of KJV only is a lie. Unless you agree with prima scriptura, then you cannot justify this doctrine. My challenge to you is very simple: Read a 1611 KJV starting with “To the Reader“.

One of the near-universal but untested assumptions of “King James Only”-ites is that Psalm 12:6, 7 has specific reference to God’s perfect preservation of Scripture in the copying and translating process, and that more specifically this refers to the King James Version, and in truth only to the KJV and no other Bible version in English or any other language on earth. This interpretation is both grossly arbitrary and wholly unsound.(source)

Many KJV only advocates use Psalm 12:6-7 as a defense for their King James Only doctrine. Please visit “Purified Seven Times”: A Case of Defective Exegesis and Improper Application by Doug Kutilek and join the conversation.

See also:

The King James Bible is an excellent translation

Why King James Only? Part One

Perversion coming from the pulpit is far more deadly than poor Bible translations

King James Onlyism can be preached in a way that makes it seem truthful. This belief can be presented as protecting God’s Word from Satan’s servants who are trying to destroy the Bible. While this belief seems noble on the surface, the truth is its foundation is built upon prima scriptura rather than sola scriptura. The KJVO belief has no scriptural support that can only be applied to the KJV. The best that KJVOists can do is twist scriptures like Psalm 12:6-7 in order to make it sound like it supports their beliefs.  The hoops they will jump through to defend this false doctrine would make for a good circus act.

I always advise my readers to observe how KJVO advocates deal with people who question them and to take a hard look at their associations. If you see the names Peter Ruckman, William Grady, Sam Gipp, and Gail Riplinger, then you can get a good idea what kind of KJVOist you are dealing with. These names are at the top of the KJVO deception hierarchy.

It’s easy to create a conspiracy theory by comparing different translations from different manuscript lines. By doing this, it can seem like modern translations are changing the Word of God. The same holds true when modern bibles are compared to the KJV. Here are two examples. The first is often used by KJVOists. The second is most often ignored by them.

Scripture Reference(pro-KJV) KJV NASB
Matt 13:36, Matt 14:14, Matt 14:22,Matt 14:25, Matt 17:11, Matt 17:20,Matt 18:2, Matt 22:37, Matt 24:2,
Mark 2:15, Mark 5:19, Mark 7:27,Mark 11:14, Mark 11:15, Mark 12:41,Mark 14:22, Luke 7:22, Luke 8:38,Luke 9:43, Luke 9:60, Luke 10:21,Luke 23:43, Luke 24:36, John 4:16,John 4:46, John 5:17, John 6:14,John 8:9, John 8:20, John 8:21,John 9:1, John 11:45
Jesus He
Mark 5:24, Luke 7:37, Luke 19:1 Jesus (in italics) He
Matt 15:30, Luke 10:39, John 19:38 Jesus His
John 7:50, John 19:39 Jesus Him
Matt 8:29 Jesus, thou Son of God Son of God
Matt 16:20 Jesus the Christ the Christ
Romans 15:8, 2 Cor 4:6, 2 Cor 5:18 Jesus Christ Christ
Col 1:28, Phile 1:6, 1 Pet 5:10,
1 Pet 5:14
Christ Jesus Christ
Luke 7:19, Luke 10:39, Luke 10:41 Jesus the Lord
Acts 19:10 Lord Jesus Lord
Rom 16:18 Lord Jesus Christ Lord Christ
1 Cor 16:22, 2 Tim 4:22 Lord Jesus Christ Lord
Acts 3:26 Son Jesus servant
Rom 1:3 Son Jesus Christ our Lord Son
Acts 7:45, Heb 4:8 Jesus Joshua
Mark 16:20 Jesus Jesus ( see footnote)
Matt 13:51, John 19:16, Acts 9:29,
Gal 6:15, Eph 3:9, Eph 3:14,
Col 1:2, 1 Thess 1:1(2nd)
Jesus [not present]
Scripture Reference(s)(Pro-NASB) KJV NASB
Matt 5:1, Matt 8:24, Matt 9:1,
Matt 10:1, Matt 12:48, Matt 13:11,
Matt 13:24, Matt 13:52, Matt 15:10,
Matt 15:39, Matt 22:34, Matt 24:34,
Matt 26:20, Matt 26:45, Mark 1:35,
Mark 2:27, Mark 4:38, Mark 6:1,
Mark 6:45, Mark 7:24, Mark 9:1,
Luke 4:42, Luke 5:16, Luke 5:34,
Luke 6:17, Luke 7:15, Luke 8:22,
Luke 11:1, Luke 11:27, Lukee 18:35,
Luke 19:11, Luke 19:40, Luke 19:45,
Luke 20:3, Luke 20:3, Luke 20:17,
Luke 22:8
he Jesus
Matt 9:10(2nd), Matt 12:10, Matt 12:22,
Matt 17:14, Matt 19:3, Matt 20:20,
Matt 22:23, Matt 26:16, Mark 1:30,
Mark 1:40, Mark 8:22, Mark 10:2,
Mark 10:35, Mark 12:18, Luke 8:24,
John 4:40
him Jesus
Acts 3:16 his Jesus
Acts 10:48 the Lord Jesus Christ
Acts 18:25 the Lord Jesus
Acts 16:7 Spirit Spirit of Jesus
Acts 24:24, Romans 8:34, Gal 5:24,
Eph 3:6, Col 4:12
Christ Christ Jesus
Rom 8:11 Christ Christ Jesus
Acts 9:20 Christ Jesus
Acts 9:22 this Jesus
Heb 7:24 this man Jesus
Romans 1:4, Jude 1:25 [not present] Jesus Christ our Lord
Matt 16:1, John 19:17 [not present] Jesus

This is a good example of the distortions, conspiracy theories, rants, and misunderstandings coming from the King James Only movement. Notice at the 13 second mark he said, “One thing I love about being a King James Bible believer is everything I believe for the most part can be shown in the Bible“.  This statement is about the only ounce of truth found in this video. The fact is there is no scriptural support for this King James Only belief. No where in the KJV is King James onlyism even hinted.  When he said,” …for the most part...” he was trying to deflect the fact that he has zero scriptural support to back up his claims about the KJV.

If any of you are familiar with the King James Only movement (KJVO) then you are well aware of how they claim that modern bibles are perversions of the Word of God. They push forth conspiracy theories leading people to believe that all modern Bibles have some dark Satanic/worldly agenda to taint the very Word of God. Some KJVOist even go so far as to blame modern day apostasy on modern translations. I will not go into debunking the KJVO myth, but I do want to talk about the real dangers facing the church today – perversions from the pulpits.

Generally a poor translation can be spotted easily. I consider all paraphrased translations very poor because they are not literal translations of the Scriptures. It is easy to spot the weak renderings in these paraphrased translations. I do not promote using paraphrased translations. An example of a poor rendering is found in The Message 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, “Don’t you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don’t care about God will not be joining in his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don’t qualify as citizens in God’s kingdom. A number of you know from experience what I’m talking about, for not so long ago you were on that list. Since then, you’ve been cleaned up and given a fresh start by Jesus, our Master, our Messiah, and by our God present in us, the Spirit.

Translations like the NWT: New World Translation is an example of a translation where the people had an agenda to change the Word of God to conform to their beliefs. The cult known as the Jehovah Witness set about to create a Bible version that conformed to Watch Tower dogma. The result was a truly perverted translation with some very poor textual renderings. Translations like the NWT are easy to detect. All we must do is look at the source of the translation and compare it to other Bibles. Verses like John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” stand out as a clear perversion of the underlying text. Hebews 1:8 “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.'” is another clear example of changing the Scriptures to support Jehovah Witness dogma.

Even the KJV has weak renderings like 1 Timothy 6:10, “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” The love of money is not the root of all evil. Money is not the root cause of rape; the love of money has nothing to do with rape. If we dig long enough we can find poor renderings in all English translations.

The real poison and perversion, far deadlier than any poor translation, are the false teachings coming from the pulpits (or stage in the case of the Emergent Church). These wolves can use any translation to poison the sheep. They can use their enticing voices (2 Peter 2:1-3),their ear tickling messages (2 Timothy 4:2-4), and their form of godliness to deceive the hearts of many (2 Corinthians 11:13-15). It’s not the translation that they use that is the root cause of the problem, but rather the false teacher preaching.

If we blame apostasy on the bibles used by false teachers and cult leaders, many KJVO advocates will be alarmed to know that many major cults like the Mormons used a King James Bible to spread their heresies. The KJV destroys the Mormon myths when the KJV is taken in context. The problem is how false teachers twist and distort the Word of God to conform to their beliefs. I am sola scriptura because this belief goes a long way in preventing these types of false teachers from spreading heresy. The last thing a false teacher wants is for his people to actually read/study the Bible and ponder what they read.

I agree that poor translations can aid in bad doctrines and poor teachings. To some extent these poor translations like The Message, NWT, etc… are the cause of some questionable teachings and beliefs. Does this mean that all modern Bibles are responsible for bad doctrines and heresies? The answer is no. To blame modern Bibles for all the problems today is to convict the KJV along side the modern Bibles. The KJV was used by Oneness Pentecostals, Mormons, and various other cults. Cult leaders like Peter S. Ruckman are KJVOists. Does this mean the KJV is bad? The answer again is no.

If we take the time to follow the Berean example in Acts 17:11 NASB, “Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so,” it will help us spot these wolves and hirelings who are distorting the truth. It’s up to all of us to study the Word and ask questions about what we are being taught from the pulpit (2 Timothy 2:14-17).

The truly disturbing thing that I have seen in many from the KJVO Camp is how they refuse to address the issue of Scriptural support for their KJVO belief. KJVO advocates denounce sola scriptura in favor of prima scriptura because they do not have any Scriptural support to back their KJVO doctrine. Some go so far as to blind-eye heretics like Peter S. Ruckman, Gail “god and” Riplinger, and Sam Gipp just because they are King-James-Only. I’ve said many times in the past when debating KJVOists, “King James Onlyism pardons a multitude of sins and heresies as long as the offending party is King James only.” I fear that too often my observations are correct regarding the double standards held by many in the KJVO Camp.

Instead of worrying so much about whether the preacher is using a KJV, we should be examining what he is preaching to make sure that he is preaching the whole council of God. We need to study to make sure that no false teachings are slipping in through the pulpit. Regardless of the translation, a wolf can devour the sheep with a smile are he reads from even the most conservative translations available today.

Romans 16:17-18 (NASB)
16:17 Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them.
18 For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.