The Theological Ruminator
You know, I've been trying to put my finger on what makes these people tick for over four years now. The best solutions I've come up with is similar to what you've presented.
My interaction with "onlyists" began while I was in Bible college. I spent an insane amount of time debating them on the issues surrounding their view. What never ceased to amaze me is that I could find a new batch of them on totally different web site, present the same arguments, and receive the same canned counter-arguments almost word-for-word.
Man, I have so many stories. And to be honest, Teno (fairly popular in the onlyist circles), is one of the more tame and reasonable of the group. Here are some stories...
Once, I was debating an individual regarding the "revisions" of the KJV. He was one of the group who believes the KJV is actually an improvement over the original autographs. I started poking fun at this guy about the chapters/verses in the KJV. I ask him if these were "inspired by God." His response? Yes, they were.
So, I asked for proof. He took me to Isaiah. He pointed out that there's a natural division between chapters 39 and 40 of Isaiah. He then deduced that since there were 39 books of the Old Testament -- represented by Isaiah ch. 1-39 -- and 27 books in the New Testament -- represented by Isaiah ch. 40-66-- that the chapters/verses were, indeed, inspired by God. And, yes, he was dead serious in presenting this argument.
-- Next
Many of them will argue God perfectly preserved his word in the KJV. Yet, the KJV has been through numerous "revisions." Some of these updated the "type," some the spelling, and some correcting printing errors (e.g., He/She in Ruth 3:15 or the "adultery bible"). They usually dismiss these as "only" spelling changes/printing errors, etc.
-- Next
Psalm 12:6-7. They use this verse as a justification for KJV Onlyism. They argue the "preserved" in this passage refers to God's word. The passage speaks about "them" (the words for the onlyist) be purified in the fire 7 times over. They then turn and point out that the KJV was the 7th full translation of the Bible into English. Hence, we have scriptural support for onlyism.
-- Next
Want to tick them off from the get go? Bring up the "Translators to the Readers" which was included in the original printing in 1611. In there, they -- or as the onlyist will point out -- Miles Smith states that even the meanest translation of the Bible is still the word of God. Their counter is usually something along the lines of saying Miles doesn't speak for all the translators or saying Miles' has been misunderstood.
-- Next
Their favorite debate tactic is get one off of dealing with onlyism, and then focusing on dismissing modern translations when they're not like the KJV (e.g., "takes out verses" or "deletes this word").
-- Next
"God" as their interpreter. Many will argue they don't interpret the Bible, that they just take the "plain meaning" of God's words. Don't bother wasting your breath on trying to show them how they're actually establishing themselves as the interpreter and final authority. It's a waste of time. 
-- Next
Nicknames. They like to call "non-kjvers" the following names: Modern Versionist (MVers), Bible Correctors (BCers), Apostates, Heretics, and a host of other little names.
-- Next
Web sites. You can usually spot their web sites from a mile away. The have a sweet spot for bad clipart and silly little animations. My person favorite is the one of the devil poking his picture fork at the "AV 1611." And they also like to use excessive CAPITALIZATION to EMPHA
...continued... EMPHASIZE their POINT, as well as bolding, italicizing, and various colors which blend in perfectly with the background making it nearly impossible to read.
-- Next
They are typically from the "Independent Fundamentalist Baptist" groups.
-- Next
Blah blah, and so on. I could tell countless stories and point to some still available on the net. And I don't like to generalize often, but dang, so many of these just fit so many of them perfectly.
I should feel privileged! Will Kinney (aka brandplucked) has stopped by now. I have, perhaps, the two most famous KJV onlyists (Teno/Will) on the Internet commenting on my site.
I feel the love, John Mark, I really do. 
Like your blog John!
Cool site. In the war against fundamentalism, you are truly an ally.
Lynn, I apologize if my post was a bit "ranting." I do love all fellow Christians. Honestly, my issue is not with the KJV - which I think was an excellent translation in its day. My concern is that this issue has been elevated to a level of gospel. To read some KJV only people, if you aren't KJV-only then you are a heretic and are going to hell. If I rant, it's out of frustration only.
Don't apologize. What is a blog for if not to rant?
I'm KJBO but I don't think you're going to hell...I just think you're wrong, if you don't use a KJB. *smiles sweetly*
Take care, y tu eres mi hermano.
Lynn, thanks for the leeway to rant.
Why are you thanking me? *blinks*
Lynn's right... we're not condemning those who use other Bibles to hell.
God magnifies His word above His name (Ps 138:2). In the OT, they learned or knew Hebrew to read the Scriptures. In the NT, they learned or knew Greek to know the Scriptures. What is so wrong with holding the same belief they did? That we hold the inerrant word of God.
I don't have to read my Bible thinking (like mormons teach) "I believe my Bible so far as it is translated correctly" -- I just read it, study it, and never question a word thereof. I'm also able to encourage others to do the same... I'll stick to my perfect KJB that has "the blood" in Col 1:14, doesn't hack away at I John 5:7, and has all verses intact (without goofy footnotes referring to errant CatholicAlexandrian manuscripts saying this and that), so-on and etc...
You can disagree with me (and you can be wrong), but there isn't anything in ANY Bible you'll find that says I'm wrong.
Don't misuse the joy of the rant.
Psa 119:9 Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.
Well, we're just going to disagree on this issue, Joshua. The issue of inspiration of the Greek/Hebrew texts is something we both agree on. Like you, I hold God's word in High esteem and take Ps. 119:9 to heart. What we don't agree on is your claim for the inspiration of the KJV translation and the problems you have found in the Alexandrian text (two seperate issues). The burden of proof isn't on me to find proof in the Bible that you are wrong. The burden of proof is on you to prove that you are right. (If I claimed that the Vulgate was an inspired translation from the Greek/Hebrew, wouldn't it be my responsibility to prove I'm right rather than your responsibility to prove I'm wrong?)
... and I'll try to not misuse the rant...
Sorry to hear you hold to Mormon doctrine.
As I stated, you can disagree with me (and you can be wrong)...
Outside of that, get a Bible. :D Ciao
Joshua, please don't accuse me of believing things I don't believe! Good grief! I am strongly opposed to Mormon beliefs.
Lest you wonder why I'm silent on this--as if THAT matters--you've now got your reasons.
Commenting by HaloScan
