What do you think?
Rate this book
The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism
D. A. Carson addresses laypeople and pastors with a concise explanation of the science of textual criticism and refutes the proposition that the King James Version is superior to contemporary translations. The book provides a readable introduction to two things: biblical textual criticism and some of the principles upon which translations are made.
130 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1978
46 people are currently reading
261 people want to read
About the author
D.A. Carson
340 books753 followersDonald A. Carson is research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. He has been at Trinity since 1978. Carson came to Trinity from the faculty of Northwest Baptist Theological Seminary in Vancouver, British Columbia, where he also served for two years as academic dean. He has served as assistant pastor and pastor and has done itinerant ministry in Canada and the United Kingdom. Carson received the Bachelor of Science in chemistry from McGill University, the Master of Divinity from Central Baptist Seminary in Toronto, and the Doctor of Philosophy in New Testament from the University of Cambridge. Carson is an active guest lecturer in academic and church settings around the world. He has written or edited about sixty books. He is a founding member and currently president of The Gospel Coalition. Carson and his wife, Joy, reside in Libertyville, Illinois. They have two adult children.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews
July 1, 2013
In this critique of the King James Version Only movement, Carson nails the technical issues but perhaps misses his target audience in doing so. Though some proponents of KJVO do engage in strenuous debate over text types, transmission habits, and the like, most people who believe in it do so for much simpler existential reasons. For them, KJVO doctrine offers a simple, practical solution to questions of authority. The lack of attention to these concerns, which receive cursory treatment in the middle of the book, may diminish the book's usefulness for some. Also, proponents both tutored and unlearned are often highly presuppositional in their approach. Thus, Carson's matter-of-fact evidential approach may not register with them.
In summary, this book is ideal for KJVO people primarily interested in technical questions or for non-KJVO people trying to get a handle on the issue. Also, Carson has an appendix addressing Wilbur Pickering's The Identity of the New Testament Text, an important work arguing for the majority text.
In summary, this book is ideal for KJVO people primarily interested in technical questions or for non-KJVO people trying to get a handle on the issue. Also, Carson has an appendix addressing Wilbur Pickering's The Identity of the New Testament Text, an important work arguing for the majority text.
August 15, 2024
A bit dated with the information provided, but a good introduction to the issue from a Critical Text/ Modern Text position. Much of his critiques and theses have been answered.
March 8, 2015
Very good and short book. Having been written fifteen and a score years ago, it probably would benefit from a second edition; but it tells something about KJVists (and TRists) that its arguments remain quite convincing, even if some of its opponents can hardly refrain from writing a diatribe per day.
Being short has its drawbacks. White’s book on the same subject has more historical context, and Carson also fails to define a few technical terms he employs; but anyone baffled by them owns himself a quick Google search.
I would so wish defenders of the Byzantine text type would relent and allow us to be true Christians.
Being short has its drawbacks. White’s book on the same subject has more historical context, and Carson also fails to define a few technical terms he employs; but anyone baffled by them owns himself a quick Google search.
I would so wish defenders of the Byzantine text type would relent and allow us to be true Christians.
March 4, 2021
If you are ever tempted to believe that the TR alone ought to be the gold standard in Greek texts then read this book. Carson gives many good arguments against slavishly following the TR and thus the KJV, as well as providing a reasonable way to view basic textual criticism. The only thing I didn't like is in chapter 9 he uses the fact that all translations have to make decisions between strict literacy and the scene of the passage (changing the syntax to fit English etc.) as a valid reason for using paraphrase translations like the original NIV.
August 13, 2024
Over forty years old and still relevant. It does get a bit pedantic in the final sections, but this is a brief but useful correction to KJVO- and TR-only thinking
October 2, 2019
Read this for school. Interesting!
January 3, 2025
I am not smart enough or well versed in the historical background of Bibile translations to fully appreciate this book.
January 21, 2021
The first Bible I bought after I became a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ was The New Scofield Reference Bible in the King James Version (KJV). I devoured each word and underlined many statements in it. It was the Bible I took with me when I went up to Belfast to read for a degree in Divinity. That's when my 'love affair' with the KJV went off the boil!
Even though during all my student days the KJV would be my 'go-to' version, I was introduced to other versions and to textual criticism.
I wish I had known/owned this book when at university, as it would have been very useful.
If you are not acquainted with the issues surrounding the KJV-only debate, this wee book (although now quite dated) is an excellent primer to the whole debate and debunks most, if not all, of the arguments put forward by the KJV-only camp.
The tone of the book is informative, helpful in navigating through what is a difficult area of textual study, and amazingly courteous towards opponents who are themselves less than courteous towards their opponents!
If one has this wee book and Dr. James White's, 'The KJV-Only Controversy', then you have sufficient material in your armory to discern the main issues in the debate.
I really enjoyed re-reading this book and will have recourse to it from time to time, because Dr. Carson's insights are fantastic and helpful!
A 5-star read (for me anyhow!).
Even though during all my student days the KJV would be my 'go-to' version, I was introduced to other versions and to textual criticism.
I wish I had known/owned this book when at university, as it would have been very useful.
If you are not acquainted with the issues surrounding the KJV-only debate, this wee book (although now quite dated) is an excellent primer to the whole debate and debunks most, if not all, of the arguments put forward by the KJV-only camp.
The tone of the book is informative, helpful in navigating through what is a difficult area of textual study, and amazingly courteous towards opponents who are themselves less than courteous towards their opponents!
If one has this wee book and Dr. James White's, 'The KJV-Only Controversy', then you have sufficient material in your armory to discern the main issues in the debate.
I really enjoyed re-reading this book and will have recourse to it from time to time, because Dr. Carson's insights are fantastic and helpful!
A 5-star read (for me anyhow!).
September 12, 2013
This book is very useful introduction to the whole debate over whether or not the King James Version is the best (or, according to some, the only valid) Bible version.
Carson gives very good arguments that this is not the case, that instead, there is a reason why modern translations don't rely on the same set of manuscripts as the KJV, and does a good job of addressing many of the arguments I have commonly seen used by proponents of the King James only view. It's not that hard of a view to refute, but it very much helps to have access to something like this that explains some of the technical information without going over the head of a normal person. It puts forth the defense of modern versions as a whole (though some, Carson is quite clear, are not very good).
It also doubles as a good introduction to things lay Christians are not always familiar with (like what manuscripts are and why they matter, and how Bible translation works). It can be a little dry at times, but it is short and readable, and Carson manages to avoid getting overly technical for the most part.
All in all, it is a very useful resource that i think I will be referring to in the future.
Carson gives very good arguments that this is not the case, that instead, there is a reason why modern translations don't rely on the same set of manuscripts as the KJV, and does a good job of addressing many of the arguments I have commonly seen used by proponents of the King James only view. It's not that hard of a view to refute, but it very much helps to have access to something like this that explains some of the technical information without going over the head of a normal person. It puts forth the defense of modern versions as a whole (though some, Carson is quite clear, are not very good).
It also doubles as a good introduction to things lay Christians are not always familiar with (like what manuscripts are and why they matter, and how Bible translation works). It can be a little dry at times, but it is short and readable, and Carson manages to avoid getting overly technical for the most part.
All in all, it is a very useful resource that i think I will be referring to in the future.
May 31, 2012
If you grew up King James Only, as I did, then this is a must read. Carson writes about a complex and nuanced issue with clarity in language that anyone could grasp. Clear and to the point. THis book helped me to let go of many myths and misunderstandings I had surrounding the King James Bible.
July 20, 2021
Carson make great points and articulates a defense of modern translations. However he does not address the more popular KJV only arguments. This book is still a good read and will edify all you partake in it. Plus I would assume Carson would not defend the NIV if he were to update the book.
February 18, 2021
A wonderful and concise introduction to textual criticism. Good information and arguments as to why the KJV and Texts Receptus do not need to be idealized as they have been.
September 27, 2021
This book was most helpful to me in understanding some background information, biblical textual criticism, and some principles upon which translations are made.
July 9, 2025
This book by Dr. Carson is an extremely well thought through book that deals with some of the, in my view, subjective arguments that KJV Only advocates propose (esp. Chapters 7-9). The book is divided into two main parts: textual questions and non-textual questions, with 7 and 2 chapters respectively, with Chapter 7 & 9 being the most dense chapter in the entire book.
Chapter 1 begins with an overview of copying practices in the New Testament period and how texts may have been transmitted in the earlier period, all of which, of course, are conjectural but do provide a human aspect to the whole issue of textual criticism.
Chapter 2 deals with some of the errors that crop up in MSS, which can be divided into two main categories: intentional and unintentional.
Chapter 3 deals with the various “buckets” (my wording) of manuscripts known as “text-types.” These “text-types” are broad characteristics that these various manuscripts share in common (the operative word being “broad”). For example, they may share the same errors, the same readings in key areas and the same pattern of development (I’m assuming this last one refers to the “transmission” of the text).
Chapter 4 deals with some of the criteria that textual-critics use to determine whether certain readings/variants are correct such as geographical distribution, dating of certain manuscripts (more importantly the text-type itself) among other things.
Chapter 5 deals with the origins of the textus-receptus mainly through the work of Desiderius Erasmus who was the first to publish (not “print,” pp. 33-34) the Greek New Testament.
Chapter 6 is where the technical discussion begins, starting with some reasons why certain persons advocate the Byzantine text-type over the other text-types. Carson draws upon the work of David Otis Fuller and the book he edited called Which Bible? (see pp. 39-40, 40n3).
Chapter 7 deals with 14 propositions that D.A. Carson believes and defends. They also deal with, by definition, the (textual) arguments of the KJV-Only advocates. Chapters 8 and 9 deal with part 2 of the book. Here, Carson deals with non-textual or subjective arguments relative to the preference of the KJV over the more modern translations.
Finally, D.A. Carson has an appendix dealing with Wilbur Pickering’s work The Identity of the New Testament Text. He makes frequent references to this section multiple times throughout the book.
In the final analysis, the book is well structured and, for the most part, easy to read—the only exception, however, being Carson’s rather technical, verbose, and rather (at times) superfluous language. But since this was published back in 1979, I can understand. Further, this is my first book in this category, I can understand that it will take some getting used to in order to understand the nomenclature with this part of Christianity.
Many a time I found myself resonating with the book with audible “mmms” as the various points were being made that severely (in my view) undermined the subjective biases of those who hold a more rigid form of KJV-onlyism (of which there are at least 5 groups—see James R. White, The King James Only Controversy, pp. 23–28).
Many of the subjective arguments, in my opinion, have been severely, if not entirely, diminished—they have lost their philosophical, logical, and theological weight. I must admit that after reading this book, I feel as if I am better equipped to detect such subjective argumentation (primarily dealt with in chapters 7–9).
In essence, he gives a number of reasons why they don’t hold up to scrutiny:
1) They’re based on subjective bias (it’s reverent, it’s easy to memorise, it’s best for public reading, etc.);
2) The logic, to remain consistent, must be applied to other versions/translations as well, which, if done, would undermine the arguments used in favour of the KJV.
All in all, the book is “technically” 103 pages in length minus the appendix. With the appendix it’s 123 pages. As I made substantial progress through the book, I said to myself “It didn’t feel like the book took that long to get through at all!”
I do plan to read more books in this category such as James R. White, The King James Only Controversy; F. F. Bruce, The New Testament documents: Are They Reliable?; F. F. Bruce. The Books and Parchments; John D. Meade, Scribes and Scripture: The Amazing Story of How We Got the Bible; J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism; Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry eds. Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism; Peter D. Wegner, Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible; Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament its Origin, Development, and Significance; Bruce M. Metzger, The Early Versions of The New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, And Limitations; Bruce M. Metzger and Bart Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration.
Chapter 1 begins with an overview of copying practices in the New Testament period and how texts may have been transmitted in the earlier period, all of which, of course, are conjectural but do provide a human aspect to the whole issue of textual criticism.
Chapter 2 deals with some of the errors that crop up in MSS, which can be divided into two main categories: intentional and unintentional.
Chapter 3 deals with the various “buckets” (my wording) of manuscripts known as “text-types.” These “text-types” are broad characteristics that these various manuscripts share in common (the operative word being “broad”). For example, they may share the same errors, the same readings in key areas and the same pattern of development (I’m assuming this last one refers to the “transmission” of the text).
Chapter 4 deals with some of the criteria that textual-critics use to determine whether certain readings/variants are correct such as geographical distribution, dating of certain manuscripts (more importantly the text-type itself) among other things.
Chapter 5 deals with the origins of the textus-receptus mainly through the work of Desiderius Erasmus who was the first to publish (not “print,” pp. 33-34) the Greek New Testament.
Chapter 6 is where the technical discussion begins, starting with some reasons why certain persons advocate the Byzantine text-type over the other text-types. Carson draws upon the work of David Otis Fuller and the book he edited called Which Bible? (see pp. 39-40, 40n3).
Chapter 7 deals with 14 propositions that D.A. Carson believes and defends. They also deal with, by definition, the (textual) arguments of the KJV-Only advocates. Chapters 8 and 9 deal with part 2 of the book. Here, Carson deals with non-textual or subjective arguments relative to the preference of the KJV over the more modern translations.
Finally, D.A. Carson has an appendix dealing with Wilbur Pickering’s work The Identity of the New Testament Text. He makes frequent references to this section multiple times throughout the book.
In the final analysis, the book is well structured and, for the most part, easy to read—the only exception, however, being Carson’s rather technical, verbose, and rather (at times) superfluous language. But since this was published back in 1979, I can understand. Further, this is my first book in this category, I can understand that it will take some getting used to in order to understand the nomenclature with this part of Christianity.
Many a time I found myself resonating with the book with audible “mmms” as the various points were being made that severely (in my view) undermined the subjective biases of those who hold a more rigid form of KJV-onlyism (of which there are at least 5 groups—see James R. White, The King James Only Controversy, pp. 23–28).
Many of the subjective arguments, in my opinion, have been severely, if not entirely, diminished—they have lost their philosophical, logical, and theological weight. I must admit that after reading this book, I feel as if I am better equipped to detect such subjective argumentation (primarily dealt with in chapters 7–9).
In essence, he gives a number of reasons why they don’t hold up to scrutiny:
1) They’re based on subjective bias (it’s reverent, it’s easy to memorise, it’s best for public reading, etc.);
2) The logic, to remain consistent, must be applied to other versions/translations as well, which, if done, would undermine the arguments used in favour of the KJV.
All in all, the book is “technically” 103 pages in length minus the appendix. With the appendix it’s 123 pages. As I made substantial progress through the book, I said to myself “It didn’t feel like the book took that long to get through at all!”
I do plan to read more books in this category such as James R. White, The King James Only Controversy; F. F. Bruce, The New Testament documents: Are They Reliable?; F. F. Bruce. The Books and Parchments; John D. Meade, Scribes and Scripture: The Amazing Story of How We Got the Bible; J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism; Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry eds. Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism; Peter D. Wegner, Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible; Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament its Origin, Development, and Significance; Bruce M. Metzger, The Early Versions of The New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, And Limitations; Bruce M. Metzger and Bart Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration.
December 16, 2023
I read this book years ago and from then to now have read numereous others in support of the King James Version of the Bible (see my reviews of Which Bible? by David Otis Fuller, The King James Version Defended by Edward F. Hills, The Identity of the New Testament Text by Wilbur Pickering, etc..). So to be fair, I decided to re-read The KJV Debate. In a nutshell, it is not helpful and does nothing but muddy up the waters. The author states without apology that he is not only in favor of the New International Versioin (NIV) (p.84) but that it "is the best English translation of the Greek [New] Testament now available" (p.97), "now" being April 1979 when the book first came out. His bias is so evident that I have scribbled comments in the margins throughout my copy in disagreement with numerous of his statements. To prevent this review from becoming a book in itself and to spare the time of those who will read this, allow me to quote what I believe to be the most important statement in the book, found on p.50: "If it be true that about 95 percent of the [New Testament] manuscripts belong to the Byzantine tradition (and it is)...". And the Byzantine text supports the King James Version (see Pickering's book above). In summary, the Bible reader will have to decide which translation(s) to trust more: those based upon what 95% of the manuscripts agree with (like the KJV), (AND ALWAYS REMEMBER THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE COPIES OF THE ANCIENT HAND-WRITTEN MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS ARE MINOR AND DO NOT AFFECT ANY MAJOR DOCTRINE); or those translations based on manuscripts that are indeed older but which make up only 5% of the available copies (like the NIV). For me, I'm sticking with the King James Version. A few final thoughts: (1) One wonders what the author thought of the New King James Version, which came out the year after his book was published); (2) Although (perhaps) not the author's intent, his book could actually WEAKEN the faith of some toward the Bible, no matter which translation; (3) Strangely enough, Mr. Carson disparages the one alternate translation that I do use occasioinally, that being the New English Bible (1960 I think), not to be confused with the much more recent New English Translation.
March 28, 2020
There are some who claim that the King James Version of the Bible is the only inspired Word of God available to the Church today. That is a dangerous position and it undermines the faith people have placed in modern translations of Scripture. Theologian D.A. Carson, in a classic book, cries out to the Church in a plea for realism on this subject. In his measured, reliable, and cogent manner, Dr. Carson explains why the KJV only position is problematic and misleading. The emotional, anti-intellectual arguments of the KJV only group are no match for Dr. Carson’s erudition. This concise volume contains everything you need to understand this debate and it is well worth your time. Happy reading!
September 24, 2023
4,5
A fine introduction to why the KJV is a good translation with weaknesses and the need for good modern translations.
The book introduces the reader to a very much introduction level understanding of textual criticism.
It shows the weaknesses of the rhetoric of some KJV only defenders.
It also goes into some translation theory issues relating to the KJV in comparison to more modern translations.
It also touches on some pastoral issues.
It is a book that is a little old, and so some of the scholarship could be dated.
At times, the material is a bit dry for most people.
I enjoyed it and learned a thing or two.
A fine introduction to why the KJV is a good translation with weaknesses and the need for good modern translations.
The book introduces the reader to a very much introduction level understanding of textual criticism.
It shows the weaknesses of the rhetoric of some KJV only defenders.
It also goes into some translation theory issues relating to the KJV in comparison to more modern translations.
It also touches on some pastoral issues.
It is a book that is a little old, and so some of the scholarship could be dated.
At times, the material is a bit dry for most people.
I enjoyed it and learned a thing or two.
August 1, 2023
Dated, but still helpful. The arguments in favor of the KJV as superior or closer to the original autographs just don’t hold weight. Conspiracy theories about supposed tampering within other textual traditions still make the rounds in churches—but again, close scrutiny proves otherwise. This book is also helpful as a brief introduction to textual criticism. Written for laymen as well as pastors, but at times still technical (but textual criticism is technical, there’s just no way around it.)
June 18, 2020
The inherent problem with this book is its age. Newer translations like the ESV are closer to this debate now and make it somewhat different as the ESV, in particular, is so close to the original as to be the scholar's Bible of choice. This was never true of the NIV which was more of a congregational Bible. Still worth reading, though not the best of this fine scholar.
July 15, 2024
This book reminded me alot of my college Logic & Philosophy class. I appreciate how clear and direct his rebuttals are. I would've given it 5 stars except for the lofty language in some spaces that could make it difficult for someone to read (ironic right? ...granted, someone interested in this topic probably has sufficient vocabulary to understand what is being said)
February 9, 2026
This book is almost definitely outdated in some of the specifics of textual criticism and English translations of the Bible but D.A. Carson’s main arguments and clear thinking hold up well in bringing clarity to the debate. This is a helpful resource for pastors who might engage frequently with arguments that insist on the superiority of the KJV.
March 7, 2020
Objectivity?
One of my greatest concerns with any book that I read is whether or not the Author conveys objectivity in presenting arguments. D.A Carson clearly demonstrates this quality and I would recommend this book.
One of my greatest concerns with any book that I read is whether or not the Author conveys objectivity in presenting arguments. D.A Carson clearly demonstrates this quality and I would recommend this book.
December 22, 2020
A sober reminder of what is truly at stake in the King James Version only debate. Though Dr. James White's more modern work is more popular, D.A. Carson's book laid the groundwork for the debate as the KJV only movement was gaining traction.
April 14, 2020
Deep thinking, good read
November 27, 2020
3.5 stars
October 29, 2024
Somewhat technical but very informative
June 2, 2025
This was helpful in understanding textual criticism! But, I will admit some of the finer details went over my head as it gets technical but overall a great resource.
May 11, 2017
3 stars.
Carson, a big name in theological studies, is capable of great writing. This work from 1979, however, will not knock your socks off. It is, above all else I believe, fair. Carson intentionally avoids emotive argument and "gotcha" polemic. The book is much more academic than popularly written, but will be the one I recommend to those interested in the English translations debate until I find a better one.
Carson, a big name in theological studies, is capable of great writing. This work from 1979, however, will not knock your socks off. It is, above all else I believe, fair. Carson intentionally avoids emotive argument and "gotcha" polemic. The book is much more academic than popularly written, but will be the one I recommend to those interested in the English translations debate until I find a better one.
February 15, 2018
Carson is a real genius. I'll never forget my fellow elder and myself listening to an exquisite sermon by Brother Carson from Ephesians 1. Just after the "amen", my fellow elder looked at me and said, "I am so glad you are not that smart." I want to believe that was a compliment.
Seriously, Carson can be hard to read. His book "The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God" is absolutely one of the best every written on that subject. But, it's heavier reading. This book, however, is one of the simplest Carson has written. It deals with basic information on textual criticism and translation philosophies that any layman should be able to follow easily.
A few heads' up's...He is an advocate of the NIV and it comes out a few times. I, personally, prefer a more formal equivalent version like the ESV. That raises another issue...this book was written before the NIV was complete or the ESV was a project. It is a notch dated. That said, the arguments of the KJVO groups are the same today as they were then. So, it's all truly still relevant even without the completely information on modern translations.
This one is a nice introductory work to this subject. It's not nearly as deep as a work like James White's on the same subject.
Seriously, Carson can be hard to read. His book "The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God" is absolutely one of the best every written on that subject. But, it's heavier reading. This book, however, is one of the simplest Carson has written. It deals with basic information on textual criticism and translation philosophies that any layman should be able to follow easily.
A few heads' up's...He is an advocate of the NIV and it comes out a few times. I, personally, prefer a more formal equivalent version like the ESV. That raises another issue...this book was written before the NIV was complete or the ESV was a project. It is a notch dated. That said, the arguments of the KJVO groups are the same today as they were then. So, it's all truly still relevant even without the completely information on modern translations.
This one is a nice introductory work to this subject. It's not nearly as deep as a work like James White's on the same subject.
January 17, 2016
D. A. Carson lays aside all the bombastic arguments that tend to surround the "KJV Only" debate and logically explains the actual issues that come into play in translating the Bible into English without resorting to "cherry picking" or "ad hominem" arguments. He deals with both textual issues (i.e. the Greek text underlying the New Testament) and other issues (e.g. the contention that the KJV is "more reverent").
This is a "must read" for anyone interested in this topic. The level of the book falls somewhere between popular and scholarly. In places (especially when dealing with textual issues) it can get a bit technical, and people who are not already acquainted with the topic may have to take it slowly. However, it is well worth the effort.
This book was written 31 years ago so it does not deal with some of the newer translations or paraphrases. It primarily references the KJV, NASB, NIV (of which only the NT was available at the time), and (to a small degree) the Living Bible. (This is not a book which advocates the "KJV only" position).
This is a "must read" for anyone interested in this topic. The level of the book falls somewhere between popular and scholarly. In places (especially when dealing with textual issues) it can get a bit technical, and people who are not already acquainted with the topic may have to take it slowly. However, it is well worth the effort.
This book was written 31 years ago so it does not deal with some of the newer translations or paraphrases. It primarily references the KJV, NASB, NIV (of which only the NT was available at the time), and (to a small degree) the Living Bible. (This is not a book which advocates the "KJV only" position).
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews