8. KJVO is historically contrary to Fundamentalism. The Fundamentals taught that the Scriptures were inspired in the orginal autographs, NOT in translations.Originally posted by David J:
KJVOism is liberalism because:
1. It claims that only the KJV is the correct bible for the English speaking people with NO SCRIPTURE to support this claim.
2. It puts words in God’s mouth by making a claim that God never made.
3. KJVOism is pushed forth as a doctrine. There is no scripture to justify this stand therefore KJVOism is based upon a tradition created by man. Many liberal doctrines are born from the traditions of man and KJVOism is a good example.
4. Many KJVOist willing overlook fellow KJVOist deceptions, distortions, and all out lies. Han’s uplifting of Riplinger is a good example.
5. Just because one is a social conservative doe not exclude one from being a theological liberal.
6. KJVOism requires that one sets aside well documented historical facts and accept a doctrines based on a few verses taken out of context.
7. KJVOist are unwilling to tell me why the 1611 KJV was corrected without using many double standards. A conservative does not dwell in double standards and blind-eye tactics.
-THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE — DEFINITION, EXTENT AND PROOF BY JAMES M. GRAY, D. D.5. Let it be stated further in this definitional connection, that the record for whose inspiration we contend is the original record — the autographs or parchments of Moses, David, Daniel, Matthew, Paul or Peter, as the case may be, and not any particular translation or translations of them whatever. There is no translation absolutely without error, nor could there be, considering the infirmities of human copyists, unless God were pleased to perform a perpetual miracle to secure it.
And in another part of the same chapter,
But hey, why if they actually read the stuff that defined their movement they might learn something. They would think all their heros were liberals if they knew the truthAs we are not contending for an inerrant translation, does not the burden of proof rest with the objector? But some of these “discrepancies” are easily explained. They do not exist between statements of the Bible and facts of science, but between erroneous interpretations of the Bible and immature conclusions of science.

Anyone interested can read the The Fundamentals online, including the parts I copied, at:
[link]http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6528/fundcont.htm[/link]