A quick review of my digital library leads to some additional sources
William Aberhart (1878–1943),
...snip...
In all areas of life, Aberhart liked absolute answers. Scripture, he believed, provided such answers if one had the proper key to unlock it. Various biblical texts presented serious problems for his hermeneutic.
This hermeneutic, especially the literal interpretation of prophecy, required a text which was literally true, just waiting to be decoded. Aberhart found his text in the King James Version, which he believed to be inerrant. Since the Textus Receptus had, he believed, been miraculously preserved by God in the Swiss Alps, every syllable and all the punctuation of the King James Version was inspired.
In the early 1920s Aberhart moved increasingly toward the sectarian fringe. His lectures, and his magazine,
The Prophetic Voice, begun in 1924, popularized his views. In 1920 he came under the influence of the ‘Jesus Only’ Pentecostal movement. As a result, he adopted their baptismal formula and a charismatic understanding of the Spirit, although without accepting the doctrine of initial evidences, and introduced to his church the office of ‘Apostle’. He believed that the Spirit was received through the laying on of hands by the Apostle, Aberhart himself. This office gave him unprecedented power in Westbourne. Aberhart also abandoned his Reformed view of sanctification. ...
D. A. Goertz,
“Aberhart, William,” ed. Timothy Larsen et al.,
Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 3.
~~~~
"This article will set forth the broad contours of the "KJV-only" movement, discussing some of its most colorful characters and peculiar views."
FUNDAMENTALISM AND THE KING JAMES VERSION: HOW A VENERABLE ENGLISH TRANSLATION BECAME A LITMUS TEST FOR ORTHODOXY
by Jeffrey P. Straub (Professor of Historical Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Plymouth Minnesota). 2011
~~~~
Jeffrey P. Straub,
“Fundamentalism and the King James Version: How a Venerable English Translation Became a Litmus Test for Orthodoxy,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 16 (2011): 41.
~~~~~~~
In the early 1970s an element in fundamentalism developed a “King James-only” type of thinking, breaking with fundamentalist scholarship and history. The spectrum of this group is fairly wide
Rolland D. McCune,
“Doctrinal Non-Issues in Historic Fundamentalism,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal Volume 1 1 (1996): 175.
~~~~
After 1950, the nature of fundamentalism changed. Independent Baptists became more prominent, the battles with the “new” evangelicals took center stage, and fundamentalists fought each other over secondary separation and the King James Only position. Fundamentalism also took on a more “southern” feel, largely through the influence of periodicals like
Sword of the Lord and institutions such as Bob Jones University. Fundamentalists and many historians will look forward to seeing how Bauder and Delnay tell those stories in their forthcoming second volume.
Nathan A. Finn,
“Review of One in Hope and Doctrine: Origins of Baptist Fundamentalism, 1870–1950 by Kevin Bauder and Robert Delnay,” Themelios 40, no. 1 (2015): 138–139.
~~~~~~
I have said that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments
as originally given were absolutely inerrant, and the question of course arises to what extent is the Authorized Version, or the Revised Version, the inerrant Word of God. The answer is simple;
they are the inerrant Word of God just to the extent that they are an accurate rendering of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as originally given and to all practical intents and purposes they are a thoroughly accurate rendering of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as originally given, (emphasis in original)
R.A. Torrey (general editor of
The Fundamentals) in Fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith, (Gutenburg.org) 1918. pp. 36-37.
~~~~~
While the New American Standard Bible had been on the scene for some time, the Good News Bible, the Amplified Bible, and the J. B. Phillips paraphrase of sections of the New Testament were the first of several entries into an era of new translations. But nothing upset the apple cart of traditionalists more than Ken Taylor’s paraphrase, The Living Bible. The rub was that it was not a literal translation but a paraphrase that he had written to help his children understand Scripture more readily. He shopped it with publishers only to find that no publisher wanted to take the high risk of publishing such a controversial concept as a major paraphrase of Scripture. So he opened his own publishing house, now called Tyndale Publishers. The Living Bible was a smashing success (much to the dismay of all the publishers who had turned it down). But with that success came bucket-loads of controversy. Articles, sermons, pamphlets, and books targeted Taylor’s popular edition of the Bible. The translations war was officially underway. The King James Only movement soon emerged in defense of the KJV claiming that their Bible was the only true word from God that could be trusted.
Joe Stowell,
“Foreword,” in
Which Bible Translation Should I Use? A Comparison of 4 Major Recent Versions (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2012).
