Well I see that I have been beaten to the puch.

No matter, I shall post what I was intending to now.

When searching back through the greater part of Church history I do not find the presents of the phrase “King James Only”. These words are absent from the lips or the written pages of countless Christians for the exceptional part of history. The reasons for this are three fold:

• For one, Bible believers of the past believed in the Bible, and not one verse in the Bible tells us to believe in the King James Bible and/or any other Version for that matter. Yet it does lend to the belief in only one Bible which we will discuss latter.

• Two, The King James Bible did not exist throughout all history, nor did the English language; therefore, it could not have been an issue.

• Three, When the King James Bible did appear, it was accepted by the church as the word of God in English, hence there was not controversy accenting it in opposition to any other version.

Although, the phrase was not paramount throughout the better part of Church history, Bible believers of past did recognize that the Scriptures indubitably put-forth the promise of preservation (see Matt. 5:18). Listen to the Westminster Confession of Faith:

[QUOTE;1533] The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the language of every people unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[/QUOTE]

The particular part to pay attention to is “…kept pure in all ages…”. This distinctive expression clearly shows the belief that the scriptures were preserved. And I could list a half a dozen to a dozen quotations that evidence such (whoever would like, I will post them on request). In as much, it makes sense that His word must exist in their day as well as ours. The precise phrase “King James Only” is then, of really recent origins.

Where the phrase exactly came from is unknown. No one knows for sure.

Wikipedia states:
By 1995 the phrase was popularized widely through the writing of James R. White, director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, an apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona, when he published The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? Not to mention that John Ankerberg and John Weldon’s book The Facts On The King James Only Debate: How Reliable Are Today’s Bible Versions? further popularized it. Be that as it may, we have the phrase now and must deal with it.

However, was it the product of King James Bible zealots or Modern antagonist? Donald A. Wait in a two part audio sermon claims that the phrase is a ‘smear word’ (see http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=2307164925 and http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=260713240 ), while James R. White contends that that the phrase is not insulting nor inaccurate (see The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? Minneapolis: Bethany House. 1995, p. 248.) Why the difference? The answer to this I think, will be found when we determine how broad or who narrow we want to read the phrase ”King James Only.”

Men such a David H. Sorenson limit the phrase to all that are like Peter S. Ruckman:
He also mentions those who would claim that the King James Bible is not just for English speaking peoples, but also for non-English speaking peoples. Which means, that if a non-English speaking person wants the Word of God he must learn English.

Now, Sorenson’s position is termed The Preserved Text Position (Touch Not The Unclean Thing: The Text Issue and Separation, p. 30). The book is very good in that it makes a good case for our King James Bible as the standard.

On the converse side, James R. White widens the term considerably. He mentions 5 main variations: 1.) I like the KJV best (they prefer the KJV as the best English Translation in existence but who would not be opposed to a better one arriving in the future); 2.) The Textual Argument (they prefer the Hebrew and Greek MSS. underlining the KJV as superior not as inspired but as more accurate to the originals); 3.) Received Text Only (they prefer the Textus Receptus as being inerrant and the received Hebrew text as well, but they do not consider the KJV as inerrant); 4.) The Inspired KJV Group (they believe that KJV in English is inspired and at that inerrant via preservation); 5.) The KJV As New Revelation (they hold to the idea that the KJV is inspired revelation and hence, can correct the Greek and Hebrew MSS.). Of course he also includes in a foot note a sixth group we can call 6.) The Eternal KJV Group; he writes of them:

.

Now what is painfully obvious, is that White paints too broad a brush. One I suspect is inaccurate. Yet, Sorenson, in my opinion is too narrow in his limitations. So what do we do? After spending years reading (hundreds of books, hundreds of articles & pamphlets, and hundreds of web-sites), not to mention the dozens audio and video heard and watched; I can say two main things. 1.) Their does exist variation within the King James Only Camp; 2.) Their does exist certain parameters that define one as King James Only.

The Variations (Will delineate upon request)

A. TR is generally accurate, but could use some revision

B. TR is absolutely perfect, and needs no revision

C. The KJB is generally accurate, but could use some minor revising

D. The KJB is absolutely perfect, and needs no revision

The parameters that define KJVO

1. All agree that God’s Authoritative Word exists today.

2. All emphasize the Bible doctrine of preservation

3. All reject the Westscott/Hort textual theory

4. All reject the Westscott/Hort Greek Text

5. All believe that the Modern English Versions are founded on bad and corrupt manuscripts

6. All believe that the King James Authorized Bible is the only link, in English, as to what God actually and originally said

These 6 parameters are what I think define King James Only.
__________________________________

- “One accurate measurement is worth more than a thousand expert opinions”

- “...this is the Word of God; come, search, ye critics, and find a flaw; examine it, from its Genesis to its Revelation, and find an error... This is the book untainted by any error; but is pure, unalloyed, perfect truth. Why? Because God wrote it. Ah! charge God with error if you please; tell him that his book is not what it ought to be. I have heard men, with prudish and mock-modesty, who would like to alter the Bible; and (I almost blush to say it) I have heard ministers alter God's Bible, because they were afraid of it... Pity they were not born when God lived far—far back that they might have taught God how to write.” Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 1: Sermon II p. 31)

- “If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that 'to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun' : 'a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracing' : a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard.” Dean John William Burgon (The Revision Revised. pp. vii-viii)