The "King James Only movement" advocates the superiority of the Authorized King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. The date of the birth of the King James Only doctrine is not known, but the earliest known point of origin for the concept of King James Onlyism is probably in the 1930s, beginning in some fundamentalist churches.
The evolution of the King James Bible only has moved to a more stringent definition wherein they do not refer to the King James Bible as a version. Instead of the abbreviations “KJV” they will note “KJB” (this subtlety has been accused as factionalizing the movement, of "preserved" vs. "inspired)." Further drawing differential beliefs of those who use Greek and Hebrew Lexicons, Concordances, and other external sources to improve the (in their opinion) meanings of King James Language words. The more stringent believers hold that the King James Bible hold all the definition within the text, and no other sources are acceptable. In Joey Faust's 2011 book, The Word: God Will Keep It, Faust cites diverse quotations going back to the mid 1600s which demonstrate the bias of King James Bible Onlyism. This book asserts that the movement is not new at all but has rather become more vocal as the new Bible versions become more popular. Many of the quotations come from those who despise the King James Only movement and thus, the quotations verify the existence of the movement. The movement itself grew stronger years later, perhaps after David Otis Fuller's book, Which Bible?, published in 1970. The sect came to be known for its exclusivity for the King James Bible, specifically the KJV "Pure Cambridge Edition" Bible. Church historian and apologist James R. White states that the phrases "KJV Only" and "KJV Onlyism" are not "insulting" or "inaccurate." However, KJV proponent D. A. Waite states the term is a "smear word."
Read more about King James Only Movement: Variations, History
Famous quotes containing the words king, james and/or movement:
“A king should die on his feet.”
—Louis XVIII (1755–1824)
“If the Soviet Union can give up the Brezhnev Doctrine for the Sinatra Doctrine, the United States can give up the James Monroe Doctrine for the Marilyn Monroe Doctrine: Let’s all go to bed wearing the perfume we like best.”
—Carlos Fuentes (b. 1928)
“Institutional psychiatry is a continuation of the Inquisition. All that has really changed is the vocabulary and the social style. The vocabulary conforms to the intellectual expectations of our age: it is a pseudo-medical jargon that parodies the concepts of science. The social style conforms to the political expectations of our age: it is a pseudo-liberal social movement that parodies the ideals of freedom and rationality.”
—Thomas Szasz (b. 1920)