I was watching a history of the British monarchy today, and the succession of rule from Queen Elizabeth I and James VI of Scotland (James I of England). Elizabeth sought to have a middle ground Protestantism that satisfied both the Romish traditions of High Church Anglicanism and the more fundamentalist Puritanism. When James I came to the throne, the Puritans had hoped his Presbyterian upbringing in Scotland would influence his religious views to the point that he would rid the land of the excesses of High Church Anglicanism and adopt a simpler, more non conformist form of Protestantism as the preferred practice. However, they were to be disappointed, for not only did James maintain the religious patterns of Elizabeth's reign, but he dispensed with the Geneva Bible, which the Puritans preferred, and authorised a new translation which would be more middle ground, i.e, the King James (or Authorised) Version. What interested me was that in the dedicatory to the KJV, reference is made to these theological extremes by the statement, "So that if, on the one side,we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us because we are poor instruments to make God's Holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire to keep in ignorance and darkness; or if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by selfconceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil; we may rest secure, supported within by the truth and innocency of a good conscience, having walked the ways of simplicity and integrity, as before the Lord." The thought occurred to me, (and I speak now as one who loves and uses the KJV, and no other version), that some of my brethren still fit the bill of those who were described as "self conceited" in 1611. By that I mean, they see absolutely nothing of good in any other version, instantly dispel any attempt to revise the KJV, and separate from and repudiate other brethren who take a different view. When I was first saved, (1979), those who held to the KJV did so as a matter of preference and were not nearly so belligerent or militant about the matter as so many are today. We did not make the issue of Bible translation a matter of separation (I still don't). It seems that with the passing of time KJV folk have been bullied into a militancy that "gives liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves." And I find it strange, from a historical perspective that this militancy is most often manifest by the extremes of fundamentalism in upholding a Bible which was intended, from the first, to hold the middle ground between non-conformist Protestantism and Romanism. Today we might even describe it, (dare I say it) as a medieval new evangelicalism of sorts. I wonder where today's KJV only fundamentalists would have stood in King James' day? In all likelihood not with the new fangled version authorised by the new monarch. I wondered if we are in danger (those who love and use the Authorised Version) of only approving those things which are "hammered on [our own] anvil, and in danger, thereby, of self conceit. Now, I do not wish this to become an anti KJVO slanging match, because I am pro KJV. But I would like to ask my brethren a simple question. Given the historic background of this beloved version, in all honesty, do you think you would have given it your support in 1611?