I'm afraid you've conflated several different positions -- which is an easy thing to do, when their proponents themselves are often not careful in distinguishing them! The fact is that most Evangelical Protestants believe the Scriptures are inerrant in the original autographs, i.e. the first handwritten text that the Biblical author wrote down. This means:LMD wrote:That is an erroneous statement. I assume you are referring to Fundamentalism. It isn't just the fundamentalists who believe that. I know that from experience across a wide range of denominations. Most Protestant Christians will say that the Bible is a protected writing, and that God would not allow error into it. They don't think of the KJV as a translation, but as the inspired word of God, and it generally takes a shift in reasoning for most Christians to concede that it is a translation in which error could possibly be introduced.
1) They recognize that errors may have crept in during the textual transmission process, although in practice most Evangelicals are optimistic that that there are no major errors in the text as we have it: the correct reading has likely been preserved in some manuscript, and we can figure it out by applying sound textual criticism.
2) They do not believe that any translation of the Bible is inerrant or inspired. Those who do are on the fringe, or they are not very well informed. In essence, the King James Only-ites are troubled by claim that the inspired Word of God has to be reconstructed through textual criticism; it must have been preserved, complete and inerrant, in a single text. So they conclude that, rather than the Greek, this must be the King James version.
For two typical Evangelical statements on Biblical inerrancy, see here (http://www.pcanet.org/general/beliefs.htm and here http://home.trbc.org/index.cfm?PID=9060. For some entertaining statements of the King James Only position, see here http://www.av1611.org/