the Geneva Bible. The KJV was too new and was approved by King James and the official church of England from which the Separatists wanted to separate. (I was privately much amused that the KJV wasn't the Bible of choice for the Pilgrims. My KJV-only parents would have been shocked!!!) I too would consider preaching to remain highly important in churches so that first point really doesn't make sense to me, unless the author is really not trying to accurately describe the past but is instead trying to indite today's Christianity by attacking the trend to put praise and worship as a prominent part of the service. Pilgrims and Puritans were two separate sects. My point is that if they were going to draw parallels, it would most certainly be with the Puritans, even by their own account outside of this particular bit of convenient rhetoric. The Pilgrims at Plymouth were a very small group, and they remained so throughout their short history. Plymouth Colony and the Puritan Massachusetts Bay Colony were separate entities until the 1690?s. The 1620 Pilgrims were a mixed lot at best. More than half came over for adventure or to avoid creditors rather than for religious freedom. I wonder how come the original Puritans (I assume he means the Puritans even though he says "Pilgrims." Those two groups would not be confused by any legitimate historian.) became heroes to David Beale, whoever he is. The Puritans were the ones who kicked out Roger Williams, who