One of our viewer comments

The authorized King James Bible of 1611 is a good translation, better than most newer translations out there, but as with all things made by men, imperfect. Accepting the imperfection in things and people is the first step of wisdom.

Also, the KJV Bible was more of a political document during the time of its publishing, King James the First had to come up with something to subdue the Catholic vs Protestant religious strife that was inherited from the preceding Tudor dynasty. And a rival Protestant Bible against the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible.

Anyway, the BP church has always been a combative one, it was this combative spirit which led it to splinter off from the mainline Presbyterian denomination. If you extend the timeline further back it was the anti-Catholic, anti-Arminianism (BP churches are hardcore proponents of Calvinism and TULIP).

Note that I am neither praising nor denouncing this combative spirit, that's the way it is, it is hardcoded in the BP church DNA. I expect BP churches to 'go to war' with other BP churches in future because of some perceived 'heresy' or lukewarmness.

My reply: 

Your observation about the KJV’s dual nature—literary achievement alongside political utility—aligns well with the historical record. James I commissioned the translation partly to bridge theological divisions within his kingdom, but the effort also served his political interests in consolidating power during a period of religious and political fragmentation.[1] He specifically wanted to control the translation process and eliminate the politically problematic annotations found in competing versions.[1] Your point about imperfection is apt: the KJV drew heavily from prior English translations and was substantially dependent on William Tyndale’s work[1], making it a collaborative revision rather than an entirely fresh rendering.

Regarding the Bible Presbyterian Church’s combative character, we confirm this pattern. The BPC emerged from the modernist-fundamentalist controversy when separatist leaders broke from the Presbyterian Church-U.S.A., and internal doctrinal and ecclesiastical disagreements quickly led to further fragmentation.[2] The denomination’s defining characteristic was a separatist stance demanding distance from perceived apostasy and those in fellowship with it—a posture that ultimately isolated the BPC and hindered its evangelistic reach.[2] This reflects a broader fundamentalist tension: by the 1930s, some fundamentalists elevated separatism from mainline denominations into a principle of faith itself.[3]

Your observation that this combative orientation is “hardcoded” into the movement’s DNA is historically defensible. The BPC’s formation, theological commitments (including strict Calvinism), and ecclesiology all reinforced boundaries and conflict rather than bridge-building—a pattern distinct from earlier Presbyterian traditions and reflecting the particular pressures of early twentieth-century Protestant fragmentation.

[1] J. Harold Ellens, Heaven, Hell, and the Afterlife: Eternity in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam [3 Volumes] (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2013). [See here, here, here, here.]
[2] Daniel G. Reid et al., “Bible,” in Dictionary of Christianity in America (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990). [See here, here.]
[3] George Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 7.