Talk:King James Only movement

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Bible Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

James White's book "The King James Only Controversy" was first published in 1995 (and an annotated copy is cited on the page many times from Archive.org of all places). An updated an expanded ("revised") edition was released on in 2009 and is the standard edition now. I have not compared to the editions to see what has changed in the arguments/evidence. White of course is not a textual scholar, but he is currently in a PhD program from an accredited university for new testament studies I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:5205:A800:C8A9:DED4:A9FF:4042 (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any reliable estimates as to the number of KJVO believers, either in the United States or elsewhere? I'd be interested to know how popular the movement actually is within Christianity, and I'm sure that would be of interest to readers too. 147.147.20.80 (talk) 04:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added the original research tag to the article because there are way too many statements without sources. It is not good enough to just list a bunch of books at the end of the article under "Further reading" and then synthesize from all of them throughout the article. Each statement needs to be sourced individually. From a practical standpoint, i think the article could be pared to 1/3 of its current length and it would still need 3 times as many sources. See Wikipedia:No original research for more information about Wikipedia's policy on and definition of original research.   — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 20:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kesh added a cleanup tag to this article on April 2, saying, "article is not well laid-out or cited". I agree, and propose that after some time is given for folks to source the claims in the article (maybe 2 or 3 weeks), that all the unsourced claims be deleted. A short well-sourced article is much better than a long article with unverified claims. So, if this article doesn't substantially change, and there aren't any objections, I'll delete everything except the introduction and the "Variations", "See also", "Notes" and "Further reading" sections and move the handful of relevant sourced claims into some new part of the article.   — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 19:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Sorry for the hit-and-run tagging, but things are a little hectic for me. I stumbled across this article from a related one, and… eh. A lot of the presented information looks good, but nearly all of the cites are only in the introduction! Most of the article is uncited, and peppered with citation needed tags, or just in disorganized lists.

I support stripping out the unsourced information, even if this turns the article into a stub. Things can be built back up from there, based on sourced information. It should also be written as prose, rather than bulleted lists. Hopefully I'll have time this week to help with the cleanup. -- Kesh (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, two weeks have passed, and no one made any attempt to add sources or complain here, so I've removed all the unsupported sections. If someone had started to add sources, I would have gladly extended the deadline. Please cite sources when making additions to this article.   — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 14:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man, this looks good! I think now the article contains only stuff that belongs here. Tempting as it is to use this page as a place to promote your particular opinion on Bible translation (I myself did not resist that temptation), most of that stuff really belonged to other pages (to which the article still links). So, my advice is, even if you have sources to bolster your pro- or contra-KJV statements, just leave them away anyway. The article is so much better without that stuff. Thanks to Chris for his bold move. Landroving Linguist (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a section pointing out specific errors in the King James Bible. For example, I want to add a section on how the KJV mistranslates the 6th commandment. It says "Thou shalt not kill.", but the original Hebrew is more correctly translated to "Thou shalt not murder." From a legal standpoint, there is a difference between the two words. Kill means to take a life (plant, animal, human, bacteria, etc.) regardless of outside circumstances, and murder means to intentionally kill an innocent human, usually with malice, which leaves exceptions for a time of war, self-defense, and capital punishment. Emperor001 (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that this article is not about the KJV as such, but about a movement in the church advocating its use. So your list of errors would be better placed in Authorized King James Version. But even there, you would have to take care to avoid original research. In your case above, you will have to show cited sources which support your claim that "kill" is an erroneous translation. All in all, I guess such a list would be a great way to start a new edit war - one guy's translation error is another guy's doctrine, so I would probably avoid doing this. Landroving Linguist (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Sure, the KJV has some mistranslated words, but they are known and not many. This article is about KJV-Onlyism and its extremes, not about the KJV. Mdoc7 (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is also noteworthy that some fundamentalists like Jack Chick go as far as to claim that it is the only God-approved Bible, even over other languages so that it cannot be translated unto other languages because it would lose its status. I'll try to get a quote for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejandro 13:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack Chick has long ago lost his credibility when the Chick/Alberto fiasco reared up on him years ago. Mdoc7 (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. James White according to the web site http://www.lockman.org/nasb/nasbprin.php would definely have the King James onlyism divided up to 5 points , especially when he was a critical consultant to NASB Update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.38.138 (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, reminds me of 5 point Calvinism... Mdoc7 (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This site http://textus-receptus.com/w/mediawiki-1.13.2/index.php/Main_Page is a wiki supporting the King James Version. Should there be a links section at the bottom of this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.91.212 (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC) By 2019 that site no longer existed. Sussmanbern (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I started to make an edit to this page on the basis that "Ruckmanism" is definately a
negative bash on the KJVO croud. It was stated that "this belief is often refered to
as ruckmanism..." Well, thats true, but its also quite obvious that the term is only
"user friendly". To quote from Dr. Ruckman, "Theres a screw loose
in the corkscrew of the screwball who's trying to ball things up".lol
I suggest a change be made to the terminology in the article. --GodSpeed and God Bless! Devon Jones (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I would like to commend the editor(s) of this article. I think you have achieved a fair level of neutrality within this article. I would like to cite a view that is slightly distinct from any of what is classified under "Variations" section. What I mean by this, is the "Received Text Only" position attributed to D.A. Waite is very close to what I and others would call "Perfect Preservation" view. This would be attributed to Pastor Kent Brandenburg (and many others), whose book is the fourth one listed in the "Further Reading" section. I haven't finalized my research on this topic, but I would like to know, if this would be worth attaching to this article, or should I go ahead and forge another or rather new article on this topic? What say you? Bhardecker (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a "neutral view" of a subject, because the truth will always part the lies. The "Received Text only" position is the same stance as the "KJV only" stance. And God never promised a divinely "perfect preservation" of the scriptures, despite what Brandenburg says, erroneously.Mdoc7 (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The debate in favour of belief in Divine Preservation entered a new domain in modern times with the work of Gavin McGrath of Australia. The first neo-Byzantine textual analyst in over 300 years, he writes in the tradition of e.g., Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and Elzevir. He is presently working on Received Text textual commentaries upholding the Received Text and King James Version e.g., Volume 1 (Matthew 1-14, 2008, revised 2010) or Volume 2 (Matthew 15-20). These are available on-line at www.easy.com.au/~gmbooks/. (They may also be found via Yahoo or Google at "Gavin McGrath Books".)

This reads like advertising and makes no assertion of its notability, so I removed it. Hairy Dude (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be a criticism section in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.10.18.42 (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No: WP: Criticism. At least, not called "Criticism of"... Perhaps a reception section is alright, but then it wouldn't really make a difference. You just get a lengthy section that, in the end, says nothing more than "Some worship it, some like it, some are neutral toward it, some dislike it, and some hate it."--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard many churchgoers claim that Jesus himself used the King James Version of the Bible, often claiming that "the version with the red letters is the only acceptable one; those are Jesus' own words". Is this a common thing within the King James Only community, or is it simply regional? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More likely just local. A region would not be that naive about the KJV existing 2000 years ago. (I hope) However, red-lettered excerpts in the gospels and elsewhere in the NT are indeed what Jesus said, but in another language. Mdoc7 (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The version of this that I've had thrown at me is "The King James has English the way Jesus spoke it," this from an Arkansas web troll who mainly promotes the Republican Party and model trains.

Parenthetically there was a French nobleman of just before the Revolution who spent his whole fortune, including the castle, on buying up Jesus' diaries. He knew they were real because He wrote in Vercingetorix's style of French...

DavidLJ (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Often attributed to Ma Ferguson... AnonMoos (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The Tragedy of Greedy Bible Publishing Companies" by Daniel Townsend (http://www.examiner.com/presbyterian-in-jackson/the-tragedy-of-greedy-bible-publishing-companies) explores the dearth of free English translations that are substantially more readable than the Early Modern English of the KJV. He's gone World English Bible-only because there aren't any other free translations of the Bible into contemporary English. Might legal threats be part of what inspires KJV-only movements? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't apply to the UK, where the KJV is under "crown copyright". Anyway, in practice a number of translations seem to be available on the Internet for non-commercial use... AnonMoos (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The English Revised Version of 1881-85 was deliberately not copyrighted in an effort to encourage much reprinting and very affordable copies; instead the result was sloppy (and sometimes altered) reprints by less conscientious publishers. Learning from that, the National Council of Churches made a point of copyrighting the Revised Standard Version so it could try to prevent defective reprints, but it was very easy about granting permission to reproduce and quote substantial portions of the RSV - even to critics who were hostile to the RSV. Sussmanbern (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think a helpful addition to this article would be a section on the reasons behind KJV-onlyism (specifically the "Received text only" and "Inspired KJV group"). Without using circular reasoning or personal insults, show what basis there is or believing that the Textus Receptus is superior to the older manuscripts. Show what evidence there is that other manuscripts have been somehow corrupted along the way and are therefore unreliable. I have searched long and hard, but have been unable to come up with any solid foundation behind the beliefs of this movement and it would seem that their only argument is to have you compare your version of choice to the KJV and since it's different than the KJV, it's "corrupt".

Mike (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that any serious textual/philological scholar of modern times holds that position. You can try to rescue selective material from the last article version before drastic surgery... -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You would simply do well by perusing the articles contained here: http://www.kjvonly.org/ I will save you time, if you prefer, by saying flat out that KJVO reasons are not only UNsound, but a complete waste of time. It is not even biblically sound, because it's a false doctrine of the church. But you mentioned "reasons behind KJV-Onlyism". This article explains in detail how it got started, and we have David Otis Fuller to thank for it: http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_great_which_bible.htm But that's not all. Here's a full index of articles, some of which have direct bearing in this particular topic: http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/index_doug.html

The moral of the story: a book has got to be check out fully before you can rely heavily upon it. The old ancient Jewish proverb applies: "If you wish to strangle, be hanged on a good tree," that is, if you must rely on an authority, you do well to make sure it is a reliable one.

Now I'm going to start cutting things up here. Mdoc7 (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KJVOs simply reject any talk about the manuscript or historical evidence for the text and simply base their defence on the supposed significance of various KJV readings in supporting one or another sentiment or article of faith -- this even in the face of strong evidence that the reading does not appear in the more ancient manuscripts. Sussmanbern (talk) 08:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of dubious character is this book, because the author had ulterior motives in removing information from the book in order to hide certain facts regarding Wilkinson. Source: http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_great_which_bible.htm (Despite the name in the URL, Doug Kutilek is not a KJVO advocate.) Mdoc7 (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have The Revision Revised (Centennial Edition, 1883-1983) book. The pages referenced in the footnote for the respective quotes are not found in the book at the pages indicated (pages 9 and 48). Mdoc7 (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--found the Revision Revised pages for both quoted excerpts, retained the paragraph of one of the citations but deleted the other one. This other one I may restore, but needs re-wording. Mdoc7 (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I wish for in this article is for the KJVO movement to be described for what it is—a movement that states that the KJV is their one and only holy writ—and how it came to be that way.

Criticism and contrary views are a welcome counterpoint, in my opinion, but the text shouldn’t be written completely from that perspective. That’s what Point of View means. It’s not “you” writing, it’s an encyclopedia.

The phrase “false doctrine” sounds in my ears like a church leader writing, implicitly claiming ex cathedra that this-or-that contrary doctrine is true. Even if such a contrary doctrine were true, it’s not something that an encyclopedia can preach like that, with those words, in that voice.

Identify false statements (like the copyright issue) and criticize them on their own merit. Source and link to contrary movements.

Like it or not, the world is full of groups that have come to the conclusion that some or other text is their holy and inspired word of God. For some (peace be upon them) it’s the القرآن, for others (God bless them) it’s the King James bible.

Discussions on whether or not they are right or wrong in some sense can absolutely be referenced on Wikipedia but this text was permeated to such an extreme degree of a certain perspective that it was jarring to see. Jikybebna (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some things are not POV, whether it's your point of view or not. And some things don't need a counterview (or counterpoint, your word) because it's fact-based. What you're proposing is akin to a watered-down version of the truth. Mdoc7 (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to say I don't agree with your comments because that's Wikipedia's policy. But I don't subscribe to it, because a neutral "encyclopedia" entry doesn't tell a user anything, if not the truth. :) Mdoc7 (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know whether or not what I want to see here is what you would call a watered-down version of the truth. I’m looking for something like this: The King James Only movement was started back in this-or-that… The King James Only movement holds that this-or-that is true… One notable critic is Some-name, who says that this-or-that… i.e. an article that just describes and summarizes the history and controversy.

Mdoc, you seem to subscribe to some set of doctrines or proposed facts about God and humanity’s relationship to God, and see every statement that contradicts one of those doctrines as a blatantly false. This perspective, while great for life, is not workable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles aren’t “saved”, as it were. The articles can’t say things like “We all know God is immutable” and use that as a reference or axiom. Jikybebna (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then I'm finished here. Wiki is a secular site, you're right. Doesn't change the truth, though--nor the doctrine, for that matter, which is not mine to set. Mdoc7 (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Riplinger, author of New Age Bible Versions, an attempted defense of KJVOnlyism, does not appear to be mentioned. Has she been discredited even within the KJVOnly movement? 108.246.205.134 (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Riplinger has been very quiet of late (since the publication of her second big book, Hazardous Materials in 2008). Reportedly she has serious health problems so severe that her public appearances have been limited. But her two big books are still hot items among KJVOs. Sussmanbern (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article states, "[The] Movement adherents typically use the 1769 revision rather than the original 1611 version, which contains apocryphal books as well as a much more difficult language." But that is the only reference to the books. What is the KJV-Only view on the books? Do they accept them? Or, if they don't, what is their explanation for why they were in the 1611 KJV? Any extra info would be great Anthony 'Timoteo' Fisher 18:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gideon.judges7 (talk • contribs)

The website www.kjvtoday.com/home/editions state that the Apocrypha was in the 1611 Edition for Protestant debates with Catholics. This is really not correct, the Anglican Church accepts the Apocrypha as part of Scripture, (See Wiki on Apopcrypha). That would be an excuse a KJV-Only person might use. A KJV-Only person that believes that the words of the KJV are inerrant cannot understand that according to the kjvtoday site and others there is the 1611, 1629, 1638, 1769, 1873, and 1967 Scofield Bible Editions of the Authorized Version. An average person of today cannot even read the leaf of the 1638 KJV Edition I have in my room. It is still a good work based on the "Textus Receptus" Greek of the ROMAN CATHOLIC Erasmus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easeltine (talk • contribs) 21:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean? An atheist by definition is someone who rejects the belief in God in the most strictest sense. How does one practice a rejection of a belief? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.175.30 (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A section can be shortened. http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html says: "In a very real sense, the very question of which is superior, Westcott and Hort, or the textus receptus, is passe, since neither is recognized by experts in the field as the standard text."172.249.8.109 (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The King James Bible was first published in 1611, as a standard English Bible to be used in the services of the Church of England according to the Book of Common Prayer. It gradually supplanted all other English Bible versions, to become by the 19th century, the standard Bible text for English-speaking Protestants whether inside or outside the Anglican tradition....Simbagraphix (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of some garbled text to the lead probably makes it no longer reflect the source although readers would think it did. And is Gail Riplinger the best representative of the movement to use as a source for the lead? Doug Weller talk 14:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing why "only" should be capitalized any more than "movement". "King James only" is a descriptive title, rather than an official one. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because otherwise it would look as though the article was referring to King James sole movement, ie the only movement by the King James Bible? Doug Weller talk 08:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, technically it should be "King James-only movement", although I don't see the potential for that problem without an apostrophe in the title. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"King James only!" is a slogan. In the term "King James Only movement", the word "only" is being mentioned, not used (see Use-mention distinction) and the capitalization makes that clear... AnonMoos (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't (at least not to me). Nouns are either common or proper. Use–mention distinction doesn't affect capitalization conventions. "King James-only" is not the name of an organization. It's a philosophy which is the common denominator amongst various organizations and individuals. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether "King James Only movement" or "King James only movement" makes more sense, capitalizing the Only is the way it's usually done. And as far as Wikipedia is concerned, I think that's what really matters. Alephb (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was basically what I was wondering - what are external sources using? If it's "Only", then we should obviously do the same, as much as I would personally disagree with it. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So far I've only ever seen it with the capital Only. Alephb (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'd be willing to change it if the majority of sources used 'only', but it doesn't seem that they do. Possibly for the reason I gave, maybe because it's a slogan. Doug Weller talk 11:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joefromrandb -- in "King James Only movement", the capitalization makes it clear that the word "only" is part of the name of the movement, while lack of capitalization would obscure this. "King James-only movement" might have some advantages, but that punctuation makes it seem like the word "only" modifies the single word "James", and it doesn't appear to be used as often... AnonMoos (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur Jikybebna (talk) 05:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having reached this article for the first time today, I am struck by the structure of the last section "Translations based on Westcott and Hort's Greek Text or its variants" compared to the rest of the article. Specifically it reads like a summary written from the POV of a KJVO advocate. I feel it adds very little to the article as a whole, is insufficiently neutral in tone, consists largely of lists, and has poor citation support. (Full disclosure, I do not support the KJVO view, nor am I a subject matter expert, so I'll leave this to others to consider) Rob Burbidge (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rob Burbidge, I pulled out the stuff in that section that didn't meet WP:V, and I think what's left won't concern you as much. Alephb (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, well that 'section' is now reduced to a single sentence and not very informative at that. For one thing, it lacks a mention of the versions based on the so-called Majority Text. But to deal with what's there, some versions are specifically based on Westcott & Hort: Goodspeed, New World (Jehovahs Witnesses), Basic English, several others (mostly early 20th century and now forgotten); others are based on Nestle (pre-Aland): RSV, Moffatt, Schonfield (these did not necessary confine themselves to the Nestle main text but sometimes used readings from the apparatus). From Nestle-Aland (a recent - the last 20 years - decision that the Nestle version will have the same main text as the main text of the UBS version edited by Aland) such recent ones as NRSV, NIV, ESV, TEV, et al. The Nestle edition has an apparatus that includes a little something for just about every verse, the UBS apparatus is confined to 'problem' verses with more extensive citations of sources. Sussmanbern (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The apparent IP-hopper who has been adding poorly-sourced pro-Byzantine material to this page has been doing the same thing over at Byzantine text-type. I've posted edit war warnings on all the various IPs. Should this continue, I'll try and figure out whatever is supposed to be done next. Alephb (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lead paragraph currently states "[…] all other English translations produced after the KJV are corrupt." In my experience, (at least some) adherents will even defend the KJV over older bible translations, such as Geneva Bible. The phrasing here is not sourced. Is there material explicitly stating that later translations are inferior or that all other translations are, or is this one of those things that falls on the spectrum of KJO-ism? Should the intro be reworded? ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've read in Talk above that the article need not necessarily list counterviews/criticisms. However, KJO rebuttals of these criticisms—or the fact that there is no rebuttal to a criticism—would be an informative addition to the article. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable, verifiable source which would be an informative addition to the article, please dont hesitate to add it. Be bold. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second picture has this caption: "Church sign indicating that the congregation claims to use the Authorized King James Version of 1611." I don't see how the sign indicates that. Also how about saying they use it, not they claim to use it? Does anyone doubt they use it? I actually like the photo since it makes the article more fun. But if we want to be reasonable in light of policy here, how about we take it out? PopSci (talk) 04:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's in white text on the top right corner of the blue part. Jikybebna (talk) 05:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's such a core argument in many KJV-proponents' view. Please don't remove it.Jikybebna (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, feel like we're reaching a good compromise now. Jikybebna (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is KJO-propaganda. No criticism allowed. The reader is offered no inkling that it is a WP:FRINGE movement. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The list of denominations containing KJO adherents includes "High Church Anglicans" - yet I've been unable to locate a single one on record. Can this either have a citation added, or be deleted? 131.111.5.129 (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the reference as I could not find anything either. Thanks for highlighting this. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 15:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]