The KJVO movement, as we know it, is rooted in the way the NASV was promoted c.1972. There had been resistance to (for the lack of a better term) the work and methodology of Westcott, Hort and others. Dean John Burgeon is the best known of the 19th century critics. Mind you, the good dean would be shocked and thoroughly upset at the way his name is used to support the KJVO position. The man was a medium to high church Anglican. Now, let's go back to the NASV's introduction c. 1972. One of the leading promoters of the NAS was Dr. Stewart Custer of Bob Jones University. Dr. Custer's enthusiasm for the translation did not set well with the many IFBers. His and other conservative evangelical\fundamentalist academics' enthusiasm grated two jet streams of IFBdom. One stream would surprise many. Its source was among some (but not all or many) Historic Northern Baptists like David O. Fuller, D.A. Waite, M. James Hollowood, et al. These men saw themselves as the intellectual and academic equals of Dr. Custer and the group he represented. The difference was they had little academic interaction with the faculty at Bob Jones University. This grew from the difficulties of travel and communication at the time. They also rejected the text model of Westcott and Hort. This group followed the thinking of John Burgeon. Looking back on the era, it seems they took the lack of dialog with the BJU supporters of the NASB as meaning their point of view was being disrespected and marginalized. Then, there is the stream with which most are familiar. This stream stems from those who had little exposure to the original languages. They took seriously their statements from the pulpit when holding their AV1611 high, "This is the Word of God." These were men who looked at seminary as cemeteries. Historically, many Baptists have not held collegiate or seminary training in high esteem at best and many times thought contrary to the plan of God. The enthusiastic statements by the supporters of the NASB were seen as essentially saying "This version is the latest and greatest. The King James doesn't measure up to this version." This put them in mind of the inerrancy battles they had fought or were fighting for (as of c. 1972) the last two generations with the Liberals, Modernists, and Neo-Orthodox. Suffice to say, the battles ended with bitter results for the Fundamentalists. Also, because of the methods and arguments used by their opponents, Fundamentalists ended up somewhat paranoid on matters of inerrancy and translations. Which brings the discussion to how did the descriptor "King James Only" get conflated with Independent Fundamental Baptist? From the first stream, Doctors Fuller and Waite were well known in GARBC circles. Dr. Hollowood was well known in the FBF and taught at Marantha's graduate school. These connections gave them platforms from which to voice their views. D.O. Fuller had the stature to get his trilogy: Which Bible?, True or False?, The Westcott-Hort Textual Theory Examined, and Counterfeit or Genuine? published and widely distributed. Their long term influence was pretty much a side show. The second stream's leaders magnified the KJVO influence until it reached far beyond the actual number of supporters. The late Jack Hyles was perhaps the loudest of this stream's leaders. Beginning in the late '60s, he built a large following based on First Baptist Church of Hammond's Sunday School and bus ministry. With the petering out of large scale bus ministries in the mid 90s, Hyles took up the King James issue. With the platform he built over the past 20 plus years, he reached a number of Independent Fundamental Baptist pastors and leaders. His influence ranged beyond those reached by Peter Ruckman. Hyles also laid the foundation for the acceptance of Gail Riplinger's work. He awarded her a Hyles-Anderson doctorate at the 1996 Pastors' School. The mixing of these two jet streams led to a perfect storm.