Ernie B. posted this to another thread: Some who oppose the KJV have said they don't rject the KJV but spend countless hours attacking same. This is probably the most common straw man the KJV zealots use. They propose an absurd, extrabiblical, and irrational theory about the transmission and translation of the Biblical text, culminating in an "inerrant" KJV, then castigate everyone else who is rightly skeptical about their claims. The KJV zealots are confusing attacking the KJV with attacking an idea about the KJV. Either they fail to see the difference between a thing an an idea about the thing (in which case they are guilty of sloppy thinking), or they do see it and continue confusing them anyway (in which case they are guilty of deception). Since the KJV-onlyists have constructed this "inerrant" KJV out of thin air, it is they themselves that are attacking the KJV by misrepresenting what it truly is: a good translation, even a great translation, but not necessarily the best translation, and certainly not a perfect translation. It is hardly an "attack" upon the KJV to declare that KJV-only fiction is, in fact, fiction. Would I be guilty of "attacking" the mother of the Lord if I denied the Catholic doctrines of immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, and bodily assumption (to say nothing of the common view that the Virgin Mary is a co-redemptrix with Christ)? Of course not. I am simply telling the truth and portraying Mary as she truly is. But what the Mariolators are to the Roman church, the KJV-onlyists are to the Fundamentalists: zealots for fictional doctrine.