What do you think?
Rate this book
King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations?
Modern Bible translations still come under attack from the King James Only camp. In this revision of a book continually in print for more than ten years, James R. White traces the development of Bible translations old and new, investigating the differences between versions like the NIV, NASB, and NKJV and the Authorized Version of 1611. Written with the layperson in mind, The King James Only Controversy leads the reader through the basic issues of the debate and into the more complex issues of textual criticism. Enlightening reading for all Christians. "Why a second edition? Fourteen years since the writing of the original has seen not only developments in the textual critical field, but the King James Only advocates have been writing books in that time as well, most of which seek to respond to my work. Some key examples, plus an expanded bibliography, bring the work up to date on that level. Further, those advocates have attempted to raise counter examples, and so the number of passages addressed in the work is expanded. During that time I have addressed this topic so many times that I have developed a number of useful illustrations to help the layperson understand the key issues, and these are included in the work as well. Finally, the explosion onto the scene of Bart Ehrman and his works on the New Testament are noted as well. As a result, the next edition of The King James Only Controversy will provide a valuable addition to the library of anyone seeking to understand the trustworthiness of the New Testament today.! " --James R. White, explaining his reasoning for a revision of this book
- GenresChristian
368 pages, Paperback
Published June 1, 2009
About the author
James R. White
37 booksLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name. This profile may contain books from multiple authors of this name.
Other authors publishing under this name are:
James R. White
James R. White
James R. White
James R. White
Other authors publishing under this name are:
James R. White
James R. White
James R. White
James R. White
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 4, 2026
A PERSUASIVE CASE AGAINST THE KJV TEXT, AND ITS OTHER PROBLEMS
James R. White (b. 1962) is a justly famed Christian (Reformed Baptist) apologist who teaches at Grace Bible Theological Seminary, and is the Director of "Alpha and Omega Ministries" in Arizona, as well as pastor of Apologia Church.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1995 book, “Believers who were raise in good, solid Christian churches have to admit to a large measure of ignorance when it comes to the TEXT of the Scriptures. Why are there different translations? Why are there controversies about … entire passages? Why does my pastor’s Bible have a verse that mine does not? It is this kind of confusion that provides a perfect breeding ground for controversy… The King James Only controversy, by its very nature, brings disruption and contention right into the pews of the local Christian church. KJV Only advocates … are often disruptive of fellowship in churches, feeling that their message of ‘God’s one true Bible’ needs to be heard by all... And since much of the KJV Only material alleges grand and complex conspiracies on the part of modern translations, distrust of others who use … those translations often result in schisms within the fellowship with a debilitation of the local body…” (Pg. iii-iv)
“This book is written because of a desire for peace in the church of Jesus Christ… The KJV Only controversy feeds upon the ignorance among Christians regarding the origin, transmission, and translation of the Bible. Those who have taken the time to study this area are not likely candidates for induction into the KJV Only camp… This book is not being written to push one particular translation of the Bible over another… I am not in any way seeking to stop those who use the KJV from reading that venerable translation… I oppose King James Onlyism, not the King James Version itself.” (Pg. v)
He explains, “Codex Sinaiticus is vilified more than any other manuscript by KJV Only advocates, and for obvious reasons. So impressed were the scholars... Tischendorf, Westcott, and Hort that claims were made for it … and Codex Vaticanus… that later study has shown to be unbalanced… Codex Sinaiticus is not near as bad as its enemies would say, nor as good as Tischendorf or others wished… [It was] for a while the oldest manuscript known, and … a tremendously valuable asset to our knowledge of the New Testament text.” (Pg. 33)
He reports, “One of the most critical elements of the entire KJV Only controversy… revolves around the question of ‘text-types’ of ‘text families.’… Basically, a text-type… refers to a grouping of manuscripts that share common readings or characteristics that distinguish them from other text-types… The two ‘ends’ of the spectrum, so to speak, are the Alexandrian and the Byzantine. The Alexandrian is the more ‘concise,’ while the Byzantine is the ‘full’ text… Most scholars … would see the Alexandrian text-type as representing an earlier, and hence more accurate, form of text than the Byzantine text-type. Most believe the Byzantine represents a later period in which readings from other text-types were … ‘conflated’ into the reading in the Byzantine text…. it gives evidence of what might be called the ‘expansion of piety.’ That is, additions have been made to the text that flow from a desire to protect and reverence divine truths.” (Pg. 42-43)
He recounts, “The single most famous incident that is related to Erasmus’ work on the New Testament revolves around the words of 1 John 5:7… The story of how this passage ended up in the KJV is very instructive. When the first edition of Erasmus’ work came out in 1516 this phrase… was not in the text for a very simple reason: it was not found in any Greek manuscript of 1 John that Erasmus had examined. Instead, the phrase was found only in the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus rightly did not include it in the 1st or 2nd editions… Erasmus challenged [Zuniga, a critic] to ‘produce a Greek manuscript that has what I am missing.’ … Since Erasmus had promised… to include the passage should a Greek manuscript be found that contained it, he was constrained to insert the phrase in the 3rd edition when presented with an Irish manuscript that contained the disputed phrase… The manuscript is highly suspect… [and] was most probably … created in the house of … an old enemy of Erasmus.” (Pg. 60-61)
He notes, “Often it is claimed that the ‘Textus Receptus’ [‘received text’] is the … ‘text of the Reformers’… But we must point out that they used this text by DEFAULT, not by CHOICE… it was a matter of using what was available.” (Pg. 69)
He says of the KJV translation of Genesis 37:35, The phrase ‘into the grave’ is the KJV’s rendering of ‘into SHEOL.’ … the inconsistency of the KJV can be seen in the face that ‘sheol’ and ‘hades’ are not synonyms for the Greek term ‘gehenna,’ which really DOES mean ‘hell’ in the traditional sense… This is rather obviously seen in Rev 20:13-14 where death and ‘hades’ are cast into the lake of fire. What is the lake of fire if it is not hell itself? And how does one cast hell into hell?… groups that deny the existence of hell have utilized the KJV’s rendering of passages that obviously are referring to the grave, not the lake of fire, as ‘hell’ to obscure the Scripture’s testimony to the reality of everlasting punishment.” (Pg. 137-138)
He states, “It is common for KJV Only advocates to assert that modern textual scholars simply believe that ‘the older manuscripts are the better manuscripts…' [This] is GENERALLY true. Surely … a manuscript that comes from a century after the writing of the original… should be given more ‘weight’ in examining a variant reading than a manuscript from the 14th century.” (Pg. 153-154)
He argues, “Some KJV Only advocates are surprised to note that the KJV does not do as well as some more modern versions when it comes to providing clear, understandable translations of the key, central passages in the New Testament that testify to the deity of Jesus Christ… the NIV provides the clearest translations of the key passages that teach the deity of Christ; and NASB just a bit less so, and the KJV the least of the three.” (Pg. 196)
He points out, “The reason why the KJV would render the very same Greek term ‘murder’ at one place and ‘kill’ at another [e.g., Mt 19:18/Rom 13:9] is understandable. The KJV was translated by different committees, each entrusted with a particular section of scripture. One committee chose ‘kill,’ while another chose ‘murder.’ … those who view the KJV as inerrantly inspired are left with a problem.” (Pg. 229)
He notes, “the KJV’s unusual rendering of Acts 12:4 [is] more of a MIStranslation than an ambiguous rendering… The word that the KJV translates as ‘Easter’ appears 29 times in the NT. In each of the other 28 instances the KJV translates the phrase as ‘the passover’… [Luke is] referring to the Jewish holiday season, not to some pagan festival that did not become known by the specific term ‘Easter’ for some time to come.” (Pg. 233)
He observes that Jack Lewis collected a number of KJV renderings that leave one confused at first glance. Here are just a few of them: ‘And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke’ (Ex 19:18); ‘Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing’ (Ps 5:6); ‘Nevertheless even him [Solomon] did outlandish women cause to sin’ (Neh 13:26); ‘Solomon loved many strange women’ (1 Ki 11:1); ‘We do you to wit of the grace of God (2 Cor 8:11).” (Pg. 237)
He deals with objections: “Q: Weren’t Westcott and Hort occutists (evil men, heretics, closet Roman Catholics, and any number of other accusations? A: Westcott and Hort were not fundamentalist Baptists. Then again, neither were any of the KJV translators. They were Anglicans, men influenced by their age. Both were professing Christians.” (Pg. 244)
“Q: I’ve been told that there were homosexuals on the NIV translation committee… A: it is true that in the earliest stages of the translation work on the NIV… Virginia Mollenlott was consulted briefly and only in a minor way on matters of English style. At that time she had a reputation of being a committed evangelical Chrisian. Nothing was known of her lesbian views… If we had known in the 60s what became public knowledge only years later, we would not have consulted her at all. But it must be stressed that she did not influence the NIV translators and editors in any of their final decisions.” (Pg. 245-246)
What about the ending of the Gospel of Mark? “It must first be admitted that the documentary evidence for the ancient existence of Mark 16:9-20 is admitted by all… Why do nearly all modern translations either set the section apart or even reduce it to footnotes? First, the passage is excluded from [the oldest manuscripts]… It is also not found in the… Old Syriac… the Sahadic Coptic, manuscripts of the Armenian translation, and some versions of the Georgian translation.” (Pg. 255)
This book will be “must reading” for anyone studying these issues.
James R. White (b. 1962) is a justly famed Christian (Reformed Baptist) apologist who teaches at Grace Bible Theological Seminary, and is the Director of "Alpha and Omega Ministries" in Arizona, as well as pastor of Apologia Church.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1995 book, “Believers who were raise in good, solid Christian churches have to admit to a large measure of ignorance when it comes to the TEXT of the Scriptures. Why are there different translations? Why are there controversies about … entire passages? Why does my pastor’s Bible have a verse that mine does not? It is this kind of confusion that provides a perfect breeding ground for controversy… The King James Only controversy, by its very nature, brings disruption and contention right into the pews of the local Christian church. KJV Only advocates … are often disruptive of fellowship in churches, feeling that their message of ‘God’s one true Bible’ needs to be heard by all... And since much of the KJV Only material alleges grand and complex conspiracies on the part of modern translations, distrust of others who use … those translations often result in schisms within the fellowship with a debilitation of the local body…” (Pg. iii-iv)
“This book is written because of a desire for peace in the church of Jesus Christ… The KJV Only controversy feeds upon the ignorance among Christians regarding the origin, transmission, and translation of the Bible. Those who have taken the time to study this area are not likely candidates for induction into the KJV Only camp… This book is not being written to push one particular translation of the Bible over another… I am not in any way seeking to stop those who use the KJV from reading that venerable translation… I oppose King James Onlyism, not the King James Version itself.” (Pg. v)
He explains, “Codex Sinaiticus is vilified more than any other manuscript by KJV Only advocates, and for obvious reasons. So impressed were the scholars... Tischendorf, Westcott, and Hort that claims were made for it … and Codex Vaticanus… that later study has shown to be unbalanced… Codex Sinaiticus is not near as bad as its enemies would say, nor as good as Tischendorf or others wished… [It was] for a while the oldest manuscript known, and … a tremendously valuable asset to our knowledge of the New Testament text.” (Pg. 33)
He reports, “One of the most critical elements of the entire KJV Only controversy… revolves around the question of ‘text-types’ of ‘text families.’… Basically, a text-type… refers to a grouping of manuscripts that share common readings or characteristics that distinguish them from other text-types… The two ‘ends’ of the spectrum, so to speak, are the Alexandrian and the Byzantine. The Alexandrian is the more ‘concise,’ while the Byzantine is the ‘full’ text… Most scholars … would see the Alexandrian text-type as representing an earlier, and hence more accurate, form of text than the Byzantine text-type. Most believe the Byzantine represents a later period in which readings from other text-types were … ‘conflated’ into the reading in the Byzantine text…. it gives evidence of what might be called the ‘expansion of piety.’ That is, additions have been made to the text that flow from a desire to protect and reverence divine truths.” (Pg. 42-43)
He recounts, “The single most famous incident that is related to Erasmus’ work on the New Testament revolves around the words of 1 John 5:7… The story of how this passage ended up in the KJV is very instructive. When the first edition of Erasmus’ work came out in 1516 this phrase… was not in the text for a very simple reason: it was not found in any Greek manuscript of 1 John that Erasmus had examined. Instead, the phrase was found only in the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus rightly did not include it in the 1st or 2nd editions… Erasmus challenged [Zuniga, a critic] to ‘produce a Greek manuscript that has what I am missing.’ … Since Erasmus had promised… to include the passage should a Greek manuscript be found that contained it, he was constrained to insert the phrase in the 3rd edition when presented with an Irish manuscript that contained the disputed phrase… The manuscript is highly suspect… [and] was most probably … created in the house of … an old enemy of Erasmus.” (Pg. 60-61)
He notes, “Often it is claimed that the ‘Textus Receptus’ [‘received text’] is the … ‘text of the Reformers’… But we must point out that they used this text by DEFAULT, not by CHOICE… it was a matter of using what was available.” (Pg. 69)
He says of the KJV translation of Genesis 37:35, The phrase ‘into the grave’ is the KJV’s rendering of ‘into SHEOL.’ … the inconsistency of the KJV can be seen in the face that ‘sheol’ and ‘hades’ are not synonyms for the Greek term ‘gehenna,’ which really DOES mean ‘hell’ in the traditional sense… This is rather obviously seen in Rev 20:13-14 where death and ‘hades’ are cast into the lake of fire. What is the lake of fire if it is not hell itself? And how does one cast hell into hell?… groups that deny the existence of hell have utilized the KJV’s rendering of passages that obviously are referring to the grave, not the lake of fire, as ‘hell’ to obscure the Scripture’s testimony to the reality of everlasting punishment.” (Pg. 137-138)
He states, “It is common for KJV Only advocates to assert that modern textual scholars simply believe that ‘the older manuscripts are the better manuscripts…' [This] is GENERALLY true. Surely … a manuscript that comes from a century after the writing of the original… should be given more ‘weight’ in examining a variant reading than a manuscript from the 14th century.” (Pg. 153-154)
He argues, “Some KJV Only advocates are surprised to note that the KJV does not do as well as some more modern versions when it comes to providing clear, understandable translations of the key, central passages in the New Testament that testify to the deity of Jesus Christ… the NIV provides the clearest translations of the key passages that teach the deity of Christ; and NASB just a bit less so, and the KJV the least of the three.” (Pg. 196)
He points out, “The reason why the KJV would render the very same Greek term ‘murder’ at one place and ‘kill’ at another [e.g., Mt 19:18/Rom 13:9] is understandable. The KJV was translated by different committees, each entrusted with a particular section of scripture. One committee chose ‘kill,’ while another chose ‘murder.’ … those who view the KJV as inerrantly inspired are left with a problem.” (Pg. 229)
He notes, “the KJV’s unusual rendering of Acts 12:4 [is] more of a MIStranslation than an ambiguous rendering… The word that the KJV translates as ‘Easter’ appears 29 times in the NT. In each of the other 28 instances the KJV translates the phrase as ‘the passover’… [Luke is] referring to the Jewish holiday season, not to some pagan festival that did not become known by the specific term ‘Easter’ for some time to come.” (Pg. 233)
He observes that Jack Lewis collected a number of KJV renderings that leave one confused at first glance. Here are just a few of them: ‘And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke’ (Ex 19:18); ‘Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing’ (Ps 5:6); ‘Nevertheless even him [Solomon] did outlandish women cause to sin’ (Neh 13:26); ‘Solomon loved many strange women’ (1 Ki 11:1); ‘We do you to wit of the grace of God (2 Cor 8:11).” (Pg. 237)
He deals with objections: “Q: Weren’t Westcott and Hort occutists (evil men, heretics, closet Roman Catholics, and any number of other accusations? A: Westcott and Hort were not fundamentalist Baptists. Then again, neither were any of the KJV translators. They were Anglicans, men influenced by their age. Both were professing Christians.” (Pg. 244)
“Q: I’ve been told that there were homosexuals on the NIV translation committee… A: it is true that in the earliest stages of the translation work on the NIV… Virginia Mollenlott was consulted briefly and only in a minor way on matters of English style. At that time she had a reputation of being a committed evangelical Chrisian. Nothing was known of her lesbian views… If we had known in the 60s what became public knowledge only years later, we would not have consulted her at all. But it must be stressed that she did not influence the NIV translators and editors in any of their final decisions.” (Pg. 245-246)
What about the ending of the Gospel of Mark? “It must first be admitted that the documentary evidence for the ancient existence of Mark 16:9-20 is admitted by all… Why do nearly all modern translations either set the section apart or even reduce it to footnotes? First, the passage is excluded from [the oldest manuscripts]… It is also not found in the… Old Syriac… the Sahadic Coptic, manuscripts of the Armenian translation, and some versions of the Georgian translation.” (Pg. 255)
This book will be “must reading” for anyone studying these issues.
Did Not Finish
January 31, 2025This book has good information on the history of Bible translations, I just don't have the time to finish it right now.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews