Various exposes already existed in the public consciousness during the time of the making of the Revised Version, such as the controversy surrounding having a Unitarian involved, etc. And while various people were known to pull out of the process, and criticise it, nothing was more devastating as Dean Burgon's articles in editions of the Quarterly Review. While there was some generated excitement during the release of the Revised Version, whatever enthusiasm was there quickly dwindled. The Revised Version New Testament came out in 1881 and the next year Burgon released the most devastating of his articles against it. Burgon and others recognised the value of staying with the King James Bible.
It seems that it was not until around the 1950s that the present King James Bible only movement really developed into what it is known today (e.g. Ray, Fuller and Hills). This came out of a general view that viewed modern versions with suspicion, and that the King James Bible was the best. The King James Bible only view proper, as an articulated defence of the King James Bible built upon a pre-existing sentiment, but further developed into the kind of views that might be expressed today by those who recognise the full purity of the King James Bible.
The highest form of King James Bible only now is not reactionary to modern versions, and is not primarily concerned with comparing the AV to modern versions. This is because more than enough has been shown to expose modern versions (and this knowledge should continue), without having to continually blast modern versions or make extreme claims for the King James Bible (e.g. inspiration, hidden codes). In fact, study into the very nature of the King James Bible yields its perfection, its exactness to the nullification of all other modern versions. To highlight the truth is better than to just be attacking error.
While there is a problem with many sincere Christians believing that the new Greek basis is superior to the King James Bible, those who are arguing for a continuing Majority Text or a Textus Receptus basis are not much better, because the battle in regard to the original languages is overtaken by an entirely wrong approach, namely, that arguing for one Greek text form over another seems to bypass that God has provided His full truth in English. While the Textus Receptus is superior, there is no authoritative immaculate Greek Textus Receptus document which exists right now. In other words, the present arguments and counter arguments concerning “which Greek text form is a better foundation?” is entirely the wrong field for the battle, since God promised that the Gospel would go forth to all nations, and that with another tongue would He speak to the Jews, etc. His working in history has been to abandon the field of Greek for the raising up of one final, full and perfect Bible in English for the world.
Read the book "The Revision Revised" put out by Waite's "Bible For Today" to see Burgon's view of the Revised Version.
There is presently little which describes development of the King James Bible only view.
|