Here is from Wikipedia, which I tried to clean up and correct:
Wilkinson is an obscure figure today, and is remembered mainly for a book he wrote in 1930 entitled Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. Some years later Independent Baptist preacher David Otis Fuller also wrote a book concerning the Textual debate entitled, Which Bible?,[2] which helped to popularize King James Only beliefs because he excluded Wilkinson's Adventist beliefs from his book.

Wilkinson criticized the English Revised Version, which was completed in 1885, because he claimed it was translated from inaccurate Greek texts. For example, in Acts 13:42 a change in the Greek text removed the word Gentiles in a text that says they observed the Sabbath, which ultimately changed the Adventist belief in Sabbath keeping. In Hebrews 9:27 a translation more literal than the King James Version (KJV) altered a proof text for the Adventist belief in 'soul sleep.'[1]

Wilkinson was the first known person to criticize Westcott and Hort,[1] believing they made changes to the text in translation, due to the fact that they rejected the use of the Textus Receptus and instead, used text based mainly on the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.[3] Those who preferred not to use the Textus Receptus, such as Westcott and Hort, used what Wilkinson claimed were corrupted manuscripts and which other authorities on the textual issue such as John Burgon, who called it a "fabricated text", and "among the most corrupt documents extant"[4] and likened the manuscripts used as to the "two false witnesses" of Matthew 26:60.[5] [6] the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. The Codex Vaticanus that has come down to us had portions which have been collated and changed or edited by several scribes over the centuries, with many exclusions [7][8] [9] and errors that were intended to be corrections made in the process, [10] [11] while the Codex Sinaiticus has known textual variants in its text and exclusions. [12] [13][14]

Wilkinson was also the first person to associate Psalm 12:6-7 claiming, that this verse was God's promise to preserve the KJV[1] The majority of Christians, however, do not believe in this particular interpretation of biblical scripture.

In his book Truth Triumphant, Wilkinson painted a true church after Jesus' ascension in the face of apostasy and persecution, fled into the wilderness, preserved the Word of God and teaching of Jesus. The true church manifested during the Reformation, bringing in long lost teachings of the bible that was forbidden during the Dark Ages, and that she will triumph over the beast and its image in the last days.

Benjamin was also a participant in the Seventh-day Adventist 1919 Bible Conference which was a highly significant event within the Adventist Church. Like other conferences at the time amongst fundamentalists it discussed the nature of inspiration, both of the Bible and Seventh-day Adventist prophetess Ellen G. White. Wilkinson was a representative of the conservative faction at the conference, arguing that White's writings were inerrant. However, other leaders such as A. G. Daniells argued that White's writings were not inerrant, but still supported biblical inerrancy. Mainstream Adventists today use the King James Version, but they do not necessarily support the King-James-Only movement.

Now David Otis Fuller was the one who really took Wilkinsons study and brought it to the limelight.Fuller dedicated much of his life to the defense of the Byzantine text-type as embodied in the Textus Receptus and, largely, the King James Version.
Fuller’s three volumes on the subject of texts and versions contain the full or summarized works of many older authorities on the textual issue. The most notable influence being Benjamin G. Wilkinson. Others include John Burgon, Herman C. Hoskier, Philip Mauro, Joseph Philpot, Samuel Zwemer, and George Sayles Bishop, as well as the works of a number of contemporary writers, including Edward Hills, Terence Brown, and Wilbur Pickering.

Everyone must look up John Burgon and read his history and understand what he stood for and fought against, and he understood the danger in those 2 Alexandrian Codices.I will post more later but got to be off to work...

OK, we would still have the record of Jesus' fast in the wilderness and all the passages of the OT. This doesn't do away with the fast at all. Again, we are speaking of the omission of a few words, and our beliefs are not based on a few words.

Maybe a few passages are translated incorrectly. But isn't this true of the KJV also? There is no perfect version. It is much easier, for instance, to present the SDA view of the sanctuary in Hebrews using the NEB or the Jerusalem Bible than the KJV. And no version translates Luke 23:43 correctly except the JW's translations (NWT and Emphatic Diaglott). That's why we need the several versions and all of them contribute to a better understanding of the Bible.

This is where you must differntiate between the false logic which evil uses and Gods truth. You may find days, numbers, ages, totals, places, etc incorrect or inflated or mistranslated in the KJV, but the doctrines and theology is not. Its solid and unchangeable, but in the versions from the Alexandrian codices, the doctrines and theology has already been altered or changed so it is not reliable. You already having a correct understanding of the cdoctrines and theology may not be affected by the versions as a new Christian or a weak and susceptible one, who will pick up the corruptions and proclaim them 'truth'. Quidado mi nina...

You are welcome. I think the article contains a balanced analysis.
The author says, "There are no textual differences that could be used as a real argument in favor of a changed theology. Always when the scientific text is a little shorter than the Textus Receptus, the omitted phrases can be found relatively easily in other biblical passages. Example: Colossians 1:14, 'In whom we have redemption through his blood' (KJV). In modern Bibles the phrase 'through his blood' is absent, but is found elsewhere, e.g., in Ephesians 1:7."

But Rick, the KJV also contains doctrinal/theological mistakes, as I mentioned in the case of Luke 23:43 and the translation of ta hagia in Hebrews.

So more is better? I understand what you're saying, but how do we know the Textus Receptus translates a specific verse correctly?

What about the dead sea scrolls? How do they enter in?

And another question, what is Strong's based on? How do we determine which is correct?

The point being that "the world" views this as another SDA aberration.