How the Fundamentalist KJV-Onlies have polarized the debate

Just found this blog, which also advertised the Moorman-White debate. Haven't found a discussion of the debate there yet. The blog owner is an ex-fundamentalist, now Reformed, in fact attending John Piper's church, so it's interesting for me to compare our different experiences, since I've been Reformed (Calvinist) for some years but am not completely happy with it. I have no fundamentalist background at all, but I have found what I consider to be some good studies of the Bible Versions issue among the fundamentalists, and I reject most of the Reformed contributions to the debate because they completely accept Westcott and Hort and their legacy.

I did spend some time on an extreme fundamentalist forum a few years ago and that was quite an experience: "hidebound" comes to mind. I got kicked off for refusing to affirm that the KJV is perfect as is (probably also for admitting to being a Calvinist, though this wasn't the immediate reason, also probably for arguing in favor of the woman's head covering -- they believe 1 Cor 11:2-16 requires long hair). I learned quite a bit about the KJV Only arguments while there, some of which are good.

Coming from the other direction as this blog owner does, I can see that he may be led into arguments I've now rejected. As I sift through the pages related to the site I am impressed with how much the fundamentalist emphasis is on proving the KJV to be perfect. That part of the debate I tend to avoid, as I don't think it's the point, that's why I'm not a KJV-Only and that's why it's very frustrating when their position is imputed to me. When I run across claims that the KJV is MASSIVELY flawed, of course THEN I may get into the fray. But I accept that there are bound to be some things about the KJV that need to be changed, and the Textus Receptus as well.

For me the KJV is the Standard but I don't regard it as perfection itself, merely the historically established benchmark that should have been left in place, gradually and reverently updated and corrected as necessary from time to time, instead of overthrown by the Revised Version of 1881, especially considering the dishonesty of the committee involved, the false Greek texts they substituted in place of the Textus Receptus, which they were certainly not authorized to do, and the 36,000+ changes they made in the English, that amounted to a defacement of the King James Bible.

All that is to me a horrendous crime and a disaster for the church. This is not a KJV-Only argument as such but because the debate has so often been cast in those terms, because the fundamentalist KJV-Onlies are so aggressive about their position, it's hard to get a hearing for this.

Their opponents aren't any better, as they sometimes spend all their effort against the extremists like Ruckman as if there is no other point of view.

The main legitimate job for me is arguing that the Alexandrian texts and the English substitutions are unworthy and a disaster for the Church, not that the KJV is perfect.

================================
At least this site and its links may help me stick to the important points.
Here I'm just going to post a list of links.

http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/kjv-only/
http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2007/02/06/a-kjv-only-manifesto/
Article on the 400th anniversary of the KJV at a fundamentalist site, Sharper Iron.
KJV Only Debate

John MacArthur discussion on the whole controversy:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Fundamentally Reformed Partner Sites
KJV Only Research
Forums at KJV Only Research.