What do you think?
Rate this book
The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?
A thoroughly researched discussion of the development of Bible translations ancient and modern, including key differences between versions such as the New International, New American Standard Bible, and the Authorized Version of 1611.
368 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 1995
77 people are currently reading
1199 people want to read
About the author
James R. White
30 books487 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
James White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. He is a professor, having taught Greek, Systematic Theology, and various topics in the field of apologetics. He has authored or contributed to more than twenty four books, including The King James Only Controversy, The Forgotten Trinity, The Potter’s Freedom, and The God Who Justifies. He is an accomplished debater, having engaged in more than one-hundred forty moderated, public debates around the world with leading proponents of Roman Catholicism, Islam, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormonism, as well as critics such as Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and John Shelby Spong. In recent years James has debated in such locations as Sydney, Australia, as well as mosques in Toronto, London, and South Africa. He is an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, has been married to Kelli for more than thirty two years, and has two children, and one grandchild, Clementine.
James White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. He is a professor, having taught Greek, Systematic Theology, and various topics in the field of apologetics. He has authored or contributed to more than twenty four books, including The King James Only Controversy, The Forgotten Trinity, The Potter’s Freedom, and The God Who Justifies. He is an accomplished debater, having engaged in more than one-hundred forty moderated, public debates around the world with leading proponents of Roman Catholicism, Islam, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormonism, as well as critics such as Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and John Shelby Spong. In recent years James has debated in such locations as Sydney, Australia, as well as mosques in Toronto, London, and South Africa. He is an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, has been married to Kelli for more than thirty two years, and has two children, and one grandchild, Clementine.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 126 reviews
February 21, 2015
As an Independent Baptist, I have been frustrated for years by the hang up of this particular breed of church on deifying a single, extremely error-ridden and outdated translation of the Bible. Before I knew anything at all, I complained of its cumbersome text; later I found out that everything I had ever heard in defense of the KJV was an outright lie.
I was told it was the first translation in English -- but that would be John Wycliffe's Bible, 1380-1400.
I was told it was the first [English] Bible to be popularly available -- but there were 11 complete English Bibles available between 1547-1553, and 31 English New Testaments between 1542-1553.
I was told it was the first [English] Bible supported by the government -- but Matthew's Bible (1537) was printed with royal license and the basis of all later Authorized Versions; Cromwell commissioned The Great Bible of 1539; even Coverdale's had a note reading, "Set forth with the Kynges moost gracious license." (Also, side note, why would the government's approval be something I want? If the American government put its stamp of approval on a translation, I'd be sure to never touch it!)
I was told there had never been another Bible like it before -- but it lifted fully ONE-THIRD of its material straight from Tyndale's 1526. It also copied straight from Coverdale (1535) and the Rheims New Testamen of 1582 (a Catholic vernacular translation).
But then I started coming up against arguments that my background in Jacobean history couldn't solve. I was told that the KJV got its authority from the Textus Receptus -- what was that? Verses and textual issues of translation that I had no background in started surfacing in these arguments, and I needed help. That's when a KJV critic who also happens to be a Baptist posted this video on my Facebook page. I watched James White's succinct argument strip away all the credibility of the "Authorized Version," of the "Textus Receptus," and explain in plain language just what the issues of this controversy are.
This warmly sarcastic bald guy with a book-stuffed office immediately won me over and I began searching for him on Goodreads. As soon as I saw The King James Only Controversy, I knew it was a must-read. I enjoyed every moment of it, and learned a great deal. He is very gentle about the KJV, not looking to offend anyone but simply to explain the truth about Bible translation. In fact, I've now given this book to my KJV-proponent mother because I know his style won't offend her.
Everyone who is interested in apologetics should definitely read this book, no matter what translation you prefer to use. You may ask, why is this even an issue? Or, why should I encourage this issue by reading up on it? White points out that many cultic offshoots such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses prefer the KJV, and emphasizes how difficult it is to witness to them using this error-pocked version. Unfortunately, the KJVOers have made this an issue, and a responsible student of God should definitely be acquainted with the argument and its defense.
I was told it was the first translation in English -- but that would be John Wycliffe's Bible, 1380-1400.
I was told it was the first [English] Bible to be popularly available -- but there were 11 complete English Bibles available between 1547-1553, and 31 English New Testaments between 1542-1553.
I was told it was the first [English] Bible supported by the government -- but Matthew's Bible (1537) was printed with royal license and the basis of all later Authorized Versions; Cromwell commissioned The Great Bible of 1539; even Coverdale's had a note reading, "Set forth with the Kynges moost gracious license." (Also, side note, why would the government's approval be something I want? If the American government put its stamp of approval on a translation, I'd be sure to never touch it!)
I was told there had never been another Bible like it before -- but it lifted fully ONE-THIRD of its material straight from Tyndale's 1526. It also copied straight from Coverdale (1535) and the Rheims New Testamen of 1582 (a Catholic vernacular translation).
But then I started coming up against arguments that my background in Jacobean history couldn't solve. I was told that the KJV got its authority from the Textus Receptus -- what was that? Verses and textual issues of translation that I had no background in started surfacing in these arguments, and I needed help. That's when a KJV critic who also happens to be a Baptist posted this video on my Facebook page. I watched James White's succinct argument strip away all the credibility of the "Authorized Version," of the "Textus Receptus," and explain in plain language just what the issues of this controversy are.
This warmly sarcastic bald guy with a book-stuffed office immediately won me over and I began searching for him on Goodreads. As soon as I saw The King James Only Controversy, I knew it was a must-read. I enjoyed every moment of it, and learned a great deal. He is very gentle about the KJV, not looking to offend anyone but simply to explain the truth about Bible translation. In fact, I've now given this book to my KJV-proponent mother because I know his style won't offend her.
Everyone who is interested in apologetics should definitely read this book, no matter what translation you prefer to use. You may ask, why is this even an issue? Or, why should I encourage this issue by reading up on it? White points out that many cultic offshoots such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses prefer the KJV, and emphasizes how difficult it is to witness to them using this error-pocked version. Unfortunately, the KJVOers have made this an issue, and a responsible student of God should definitely be acquainted with the argument and its defense.
July 2, 2017
Despite my decided preference for the AV, White does a great job here demolishing the cargo cult approach to the AV demonstrated by some of her more ardent defenders. I happened to read this book because I am in the middle of an online debate with White on this very subject. I will let everyone know when it goes public.
May 14, 2009
The King James Only Controversy: Can you trust modern translations? By James R. White is now an updated expanded second edition. I never got a chance to read the original edition and I know the question on many people’s mind is “Why is an new edition needed? – I thought the KJV only thing died out awhile ago.” While the main focus of the book is to explain and help the reader understand how and why the King James and modern translations (i.e. NIV, ESV, NKJV, and NASB to name a few) came into being and how the scholars and translators chose the English words to explain the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words.
This book is a great introduction to Textual Criticism (which is not bad at all) and the reliability of the modern Bible translations we have. It will also help the reader understand the Bible better and help them defend it when questioned about the reliability of it. It is not a hard book to read but it is not an easy book either – it will make you think.
As Mr. White states repeatedly – this is NOT an anti-KJV book but more of a call for a greater understanding in the church on how we have the translations we have and how accurate they are.
I would highly recommend this book to anyone who has a friend in the KJV-only camp and/or wants a greater understanding on how we have gotten our Bibles we have today.
This book is a great introduction to Textual Criticism (which is not bad at all) and the reliability of the modern Bible translations we have. It will also help the reader understand the Bible better and help them defend it when questioned about the reliability of it. It is not a hard book to read but it is not an easy book either – it will make you think.
As Mr. White states repeatedly – this is NOT an anti-KJV book but more of a call for a greater understanding in the church on how we have the translations we have and how accurate they are.
I would highly recommend this book to anyone who has a friend in the KJV-only camp and/or wants a greater understanding on how we have gotten our Bibles we have today.
February 25, 2009
Claims of religious exclusivity are nothing new to the church. There have been myriads of movements and sects over the years that contain the label “Christian,” yet promote separatism from other believers over something they alone deem essential. While orthodox Christianity has always held specific doctrines to be necessary, divisive dogmas of these sects go far beyond the foundational truths of the faith. One group might claim that they are the only true Christians based on their baptismal formula, or another that they carry the mantle of apostolic succession. Some argue that true faith requires worship on a particular day, while others by calling God a particular name. But what James White discloses in The King James Only Controversy might make even the most ardent perpetrators of legalism blush. This controversy purports that one must use only the King James Version of the Bible, and that any other English translation will mislead the reader through satanic deception.
While this controversy first appeared decades ago, it still impacts the church today in significant ways. White notes that men in the pastorate often must set aside the work of the ministry to address concerns over modern translations from unsuspecting members of the congregation (iv). Over the years this controversy has split churches and even disrupted missionary endeavors. But is there really any merit to this debate? Did God allow His Word to be corrupted in modern translations? Do the new versions promulgate new age philosophies?
James White does a masterful job systematically dismantling the emotionally charged arguments of the KJV only camp. He begins by explaining to the uninformed how translation works, what textual criticism is, why there are textual variants between families of manuscripts, and why versions differ by formal and dynamic equivalency. He avoids condescension in his explanations, yet at the same time, evades unnecessary intellectualism. He writes with calm, reasonable responses, refuting those who thrive on ad hominem attacks and circular arguments.
Having read some of the KJV only literature, I was pleased to read White’s well-thought out and well-documented response. He has an uncanny ability to “heap burning coals on [the:] head[s:]” of KJV only advocates by refuting their arguments in a logical and thoughtful way (cf. Pr. 25:21-22). He provides examples of circular reasoning from proponents of the KJV only camp, such as Gail Riplinger, whose New Age Bible Versions is a classic example of propaganda. White adopts her style of chart comparisons in order to reveal the ease with which conspiratorial promulgations can be foisted upon the unsuspecting. By addressing the movement’s arguments in this manner, White unveils the myriad of logical fallacies present in KJV only writings.
The King James Only Controversy also highlights various KJV only advocates, revealing the spirit with which they write (91-121). Using their own words, their arguments are exposed as bombastic and irrational. They consistently vilify anyone associated with modern versions, spending a great deal of time attacking the character of these men instead of their work. Their own words prove them to be ignorant of textual intricacies, if not downright deceptive. Yet through all of this, White maintains the composure of a man concerned with the facts, and not someone who is just bent on making a lot of noise. This approach is consistent with the Scriptures, which contrast the fool and the prudent man. “A fool does not delight in understanding” (Pr. 18:2), and, “The prudent man acts with knowledge” (Pr. 13:16).
Another helpful part of the book identifies errors in the King James translation. White laboriously, yet as he admits, somewhat reluctantly, focuses his attention on addressing some of the ambiguous and archaic language of the King James version that has potential to confuse the modern reader. He refutes the aberrant claims that the KJV is easier to read, providing many clear examples to the contrary. He also equips the reader with an arsenal of words that have long been absent from modern vocabulary. Again, he approaches these subjects with a levelheaded demeanor that comes through in his writing.
White also points out that the KJV only movement avoids any rational dialogue regarding textual criticism. He makes a pertinent observation when he states, “You cannot get far with a person who does not wish to travel with you” (249). I discovered this truth by first-hand experience. Having worked alongside a KJV only proponent for several years, I can attest to the fact that those who hold this view can be more difficult to convince than many cult members with whom I have dialogued. This particular person was so convinced that the KJV is the only true Bible, that none of White’s 300 pages of argumentation could sway him in the slightest bit. This is a common reaction by one who has been so deceived by King James only propaganda.
I believe that The King James Only Controversy is an important book for the modern church. Not only does it service the layperson by providing a brief look into the world of textual criticism, but it equips the pastor with a response to troubled church members who cross paths with KJV only literature. It defends some great men of the faith who have been verbally assaulted by some of the movement’s leaders, and also reveals the tremendous undertaking it is to produce a readable English version of ancient documents. Through this book, James White has further established himself as a true defender of the faith and of the church of God.
While this controversy first appeared decades ago, it still impacts the church today in significant ways. White notes that men in the pastorate often must set aside the work of the ministry to address concerns over modern translations from unsuspecting members of the congregation (iv). Over the years this controversy has split churches and even disrupted missionary endeavors. But is there really any merit to this debate? Did God allow His Word to be corrupted in modern translations? Do the new versions promulgate new age philosophies?
James White does a masterful job systematically dismantling the emotionally charged arguments of the KJV only camp. He begins by explaining to the uninformed how translation works, what textual criticism is, why there are textual variants between families of manuscripts, and why versions differ by formal and dynamic equivalency. He avoids condescension in his explanations, yet at the same time, evades unnecessary intellectualism. He writes with calm, reasonable responses, refuting those who thrive on ad hominem attacks and circular arguments.
Having read some of the KJV only literature, I was pleased to read White’s well-thought out and well-documented response. He has an uncanny ability to “heap burning coals on [the:] head[s:]” of KJV only advocates by refuting their arguments in a logical and thoughtful way (cf. Pr. 25:21-22). He provides examples of circular reasoning from proponents of the KJV only camp, such as Gail Riplinger, whose New Age Bible Versions is a classic example of propaganda. White adopts her style of chart comparisons in order to reveal the ease with which conspiratorial promulgations can be foisted upon the unsuspecting. By addressing the movement’s arguments in this manner, White unveils the myriad of logical fallacies present in KJV only writings.
The King James Only Controversy also highlights various KJV only advocates, revealing the spirit with which they write (91-121). Using their own words, their arguments are exposed as bombastic and irrational. They consistently vilify anyone associated with modern versions, spending a great deal of time attacking the character of these men instead of their work. Their own words prove them to be ignorant of textual intricacies, if not downright deceptive. Yet through all of this, White maintains the composure of a man concerned with the facts, and not someone who is just bent on making a lot of noise. This approach is consistent with the Scriptures, which contrast the fool and the prudent man. “A fool does not delight in understanding” (Pr. 18:2), and, “The prudent man acts with knowledge” (Pr. 13:16).
Another helpful part of the book identifies errors in the King James translation. White laboriously, yet as he admits, somewhat reluctantly, focuses his attention on addressing some of the ambiguous and archaic language of the King James version that has potential to confuse the modern reader. He refutes the aberrant claims that the KJV is easier to read, providing many clear examples to the contrary. He also equips the reader with an arsenal of words that have long been absent from modern vocabulary. Again, he approaches these subjects with a levelheaded demeanor that comes through in his writing.
White also points out that the KJV only movement avoids any rational dialogue regarding textual criticism. He makes a pertinent observation when he states, “You cannot get far with a person who does not wish to travel with you” (249). I discovered this truth by first-hand experience. Having worked alongside a KJV only proponent for several years, I can attest to the fact that those who hold this view can be more difficult to convince than many cult members with whom I have dialogued. This particular person was so convinced that the KJV is the only true Bible, that none of White’s 300 pages of argumentation could sway him in the slightest bit. This is a common reaction by one who has been so deceived by King James only propaganda.
I believe that The King James Only Controversy is an important book for the modern church. Not only does it service the layperson by providing a brief look into the world of textual criticism, but it equips the pastor with a response to troubled church members who cross paths with KJV only literature. It defends some great men of the faith who have been verbally assaulted by some of the movement’s leaders, and also reveals the tremendous undertaking it is to produce a readable English version of ancient documents. Through this book, James White has further established himself as a true defender of the faith and of the church of God.
August 13, 2022
I grew up loving the King James Version of the Bible. It was the only Bible I used (and continue to use). As a teenager, I studied and read many authors that defended the veracity & inerrancy of the King James. However, to be honest, I had never studied or read any works that addressed in a substantive way, some of the foibles or inconsistencies of those who held to the "King James Only" position.
From the outset, I want to be clear - this book did not get me to change my mind about my belief (or use in) the preservation of the King James for the English speaking people. However, I do admire White for the way he presented himself and his suppositions in the book. He is far more educated than I am in biblical languages. In this short review, I want to present both areas of agreement & disagreement I had with the author and then conclude with a few thoughts.
Areas of AGREEMENT
Balance
Having grown up reading selections from people such as Ruckman, Gipp, and others who defend the King James Version, I am well aware of their propensity to "major" on the version issue in their churches to the point where I felt those churches were lacking in balance. In addition, the invective writing style held by many in this camp always put a sour taste in my mouth. I believe we can disagree with other Christians without demeaning, debasing, or destroying their name and character.
On page 28, the author states, "It is sad to say that one will often hear more about the KJV than about the Lord Jesus from these people." I realize this is an objective statement, but in my experience this is often sad but true. I know many in this movement who are strong in their belief on the Bible but who have marriages and families falling apart. These things ought not so to be.
Not held by tradition
"We are never to look for new 'truths' that take us beyond the rich revelation God has already given us in Christ Jesus. Such an attitude demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of the riches that are already ours in Christ. At the same time, we are not to be so attached to our traditions, to our way of doing things, that we are unwilling to improve ourselves or our service to Christ." p. 31
"Our most beloved traditions must be held up to examination if we are to be men and women of truth and honesty." p. 35
I agree with the author on this point. Every one of us (regardless of our beliefs) need to be careful regarding traditions. They can be good, but they can also be bad.
On scholars/pastors obscuring the clear teaching of God's Word with original language use
"I also am well aware that those of us who know the languages are often guilty of using them in a way that is opposite to our professed reasons for having learned them. That is, rather than making things clearer, we may well obscure God's truth by going off into unnecessary (and cryptic) discussions of some point of grammar nor germane to the issue at hand. Those who have been given the privilege (and hence the responsibility) of knowing these languages always should strive to make their knowledge useful in the edification of others in the body of Christ." p. 43
I am not of the persuasion that one ought never to refer to the Greek or Hebrew. However, I do believe it should be a practice that is done ONLY when the English is obscure. Referring to the original languages should never be done to "correct" the Bible but to use as a "microscope" to see closer what is already there.
Mean-spiritedness
"A true Christian scholar is a lover of truth, and one does not need to adorn truth with mean-spiritedness." p. 301
As stated early in this review, many of the leading proponents of the King James Only movement denigrate and attack those who either use or defend other translations in a way that is (IMHO) way over the top. One of my friends recently told me he is "King James Only," not "King James Angry!" I laughed realizing he is right and I agree with him!
To his credit, White over and over again stated he is not out to criticize the King James Bible or those who use the KJV. He is out to correct, what he believes, faulty suppositions that exist in the minds of those who support the KJV Only movement.
Near the end of the book, he states this:
"Finally, as I said at the beginning, my desire is for the peace of Christ's church. I truly hope this work will help to quell restless spirits in congregations who through zeal for a human tradition are causing dissension and discord. May the facts of the matter, rather than the emotions of the moment, convince them to refrain from disturbing the brethren, and may the church focus instead upon the weighty and important issues that face her." p. 309
He presents what he believes to be the facts and earlier on page 309 encourages the reader to decide for themselves what they believe to be true regarding this issue.
Areas of DISAGREEMENT
In this work, the author will often give statements like, "If the translators were alive today, they would admit that...............................is a better translation." He does this on page 158 regarding the word "corrupt" vs. the word "peddle" in 2 Corinthians 2:17. It's a subjective viewpoint that does not hold much water with me.
White's explanation of why the word hell as used in the King James should be translated "sheol" or "gehanna" is also something I disagree with. He refers to Revelation 20:13-14 as not making sense if "hell" is being cast into the "lake of fire" and says, "how does one cast hell into hell?" Personally, I believe hell and the lake of fire are two different abodes. Hell is the temporary holding place (I personally believe in the center of the earth) until the Great White Throne Judgment where people will be judged (Revelation 20) and than cast into their eternal torment, the Lake of Fire.
White's explanation of why it is okay for the new versions to translate Lucifer's name in Isaiah 14:12 to that of "morning star" which is another name for Jesus in Revelation 22:16 is less than satisfying and one I completely disagree with.
I could go on and on with these type of subjective arguments presented from the author. There are times when it felt like he had to convince the reader to agree with what he was presenting.
CONCLUSION
White presented one item that I was not familiar with that I will have to chew on for a while. It was that of the translation of Revelation 16:5 and the way the King James Version reads. He presented every underlying text available that we have and the King James does not reflect what ANY of the manuscript lines actual read in the original languages. History records that Theodore Beza, one unknown to the ancient church, changed a phrase in that verse and there is no manuscript evidence to support it. Even all of the English Bibles leading up the King James Version read differently. This is an area I will have to study personally to find out what is going on.
Bible students know that the devil has been questioning God's Word since Genesis 3. That is his M.O. Always has been, always will be. As to why White didn't address that the explosion/multiplicity of Bible versions has led to the questioning of God's Word at an unprecedented level is beyond me.
At our church, we will continue to use only the King James Version and encourage others to do so. It promotes a unity and togetherness that is missing in so many churches that use all sorts of different versions. However, we will do this without the vitriol that is so prevalent in much of the King James Only movement today.
From the outset, I want to be clear - this book did not get me to change my mind about my belief (or use in) the preservation of the King James for the English speaking people. However, I do admire White for the way he presented himself and his suppositions in the book. He is far more educated than I am in biblical languages. In this short review, I want to present both areas of agreement & disagreement I had with the author and then conclude with a few thoughts.
Areas of AGREEMENT
Balance
Having grown up reading selections from people such as Ruckman, Gipp, and others who defend the King James Version, I am well aware of their propensity to "major" on the version issue in their churches to the point where I felt those churches were lacking in balance. In addition, the invective writing style held by many in this camp always put a sour taste in my mouth. I believe we can disagree with other Christians without demeaning, debasing, or destroying their name and character.
On page 28, the author states, "It is sad to say that one will often hear more about the KJV than about the Lord Jesus from these people." I realize this is an objective statement, but in my experience this is often sad but true. I know many in this movement who are strong in their belief on the Bible but who have marriages and families falling apart. These things ought not so to be.
Not held by tradition
"We are never to look for new 'truths' that take us beyond the rich revelation God has already given us in Christ Jesus. Such an attitude demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of the riches that are already ours in Christ. At the same time, we are not to be so attached to our traditions, to our way of doing things, that we are unwilling to improve ourselves or our service to Christ." p. 31
"Our most beloved traditions must be held up to examination if we are to be men and women of truth and honesty." p. 35
I agree with the author on this point. Every one of us (regardless of our beliefs) need to be careful regarding traditions. They can be good, but they can also be bad.
On scholars/pastors obscuring the clear teaching of God's Word with original language use
"I also am well aware that those of us who know the languages are often guilty of using them in a way that is opposite to our professed reasons for having learned them. That is, rather than making things clearer, we may well obscure God's truth by going off into unnecessary (and cryptic) discussions of some point of grammar nor germane to the issue at hand. Those who have been given the privilege (and hence the responsibility) of knowing these languages always should strive to make their knowledge useful in the edification of others in the body of Christ." p. 43
I am not of the persuasion that one ought never to refer to the Greek or Hebrew. However, I do believe it should be a practice that is done ONLY when the English is obscure. Referring to the original languages should never be done to "correct" the Bible but to use as a "microscope" to see closer what is already there.
Mean-spiritedness
"A true Christian scholar is a lover of truth, and one does not need to adorn truth with mean-spiritedness." p. 301
As stated early in this review, many of the leading proponents of the King James Only movement denigrate and attack those who either use or defend other translations in a way that is (IMHO) way over the top. One of my friends recently told me he is "King James Only," not "King James Angry!" I laughed realizing he is right and I agree with him!
To his credit, White over and over again stated he is not out to criticize the King James Bible or those who use the KJV. He is out to correct, what he believes, faulty suppositions that exist in the minds of those who support the KJV Only movement.
Near the end of the book, he states this:
"Finally, as I said at the beginning, my desire is for the peace of Christ's church. I truly hope this work will help to quell restless spirits in congregations who through zeal for a human tradition are causing dissension and discord. May the facts of the matter, rather than the emotions of the moment, convince them to refrain from disturbing the brethren, and may the church focus instead upon the weighty and important issues that face her." p. 309
He presents what he believes to be the facts and earlier on page 309 encourages the reader to decide for themselves what they believe to be true regarding this issue.
Areas of DISAGREEMENT
In this work, the author will often give statements like, "If the translators were alive today, they would admit that...............................is a better translation." He does this on page 158 regarding the word "corrupt" vs. the word "peddle" in 2 Corinthians 2:17. It's a subjective viewpoint that does not hold much water with me.
White's explanation of why the word hell as used in the King James should be translated "sheol" or "gehanna" is also something I disagree with. He refers to Revelation 20:13-14 as not making sense if "hell" is being cast into the "lake of fire" and says, "how does one cast hell into hell?" Personally, I believe hell and the lake of fire are two different abodes. Hell is the temporary holding place (I personally believe in the center of the earth) until the Great White Throne Judgment where people will be judged (Revelation 20) and than cast into their eternal torment, the Lake of Fire.
White's explanation of why it is okay for the new versions to translate Lucifer's name in Isaiah 14:12 to that of "morning star" which is another name for Jesus in Revelation 22:16 is less than satisfying and one I completely disagree with.
I could go on and on with these type of subjective arguments presented from the author. There are times when it felt like he had to convince the reader to agree with what he was presenting.
CONCLUSION
White presented one item that I was not familiar with that I will have to chew on for a while. It was that of the translation of Revelation 16:5 and the way the King James Version reads. He presented every underlying text available that we have and the King James does not reflect what ANY of the manuscript lines actual read in the original languages. History records that Theodore Beza, one unknown to the ancient church, changed a phrase in that verse and there is no manuscript evidence to support it. Even all of the English Bibles leading up the King James Version read differently. This is an area I will have to study personally to find out what is going on.
Bible students know that the devil has been questioning God's Word since Genesis 3. That is his M.O. Always has been, always will be. As to why White didn't address that the explosion/multiplicity of Bible versions has led to the questioning of God's Word at an unprecedented level is beyond me.
At our church, we will continue to use only the King James Version and encourage others to do so. It promotes a unity and togetherness that is missing in so many churches that use all sorts of different versions. However, we will do this without the vitriol that is so prevalent in much of the King James Only movement today.
March 27, 2012
James White does a great job of debunking many outrageous claims made by KJVO advocates. He also paints a great picture of what textual criticism looks like for even the non-scholar to understand. I was a King James Onlyist for some time and struggled greatly with this debate. However after reading this book my struggle was put to rest and I have faith God has preserved His word in other translations than the KJV.
November 4, 2023
Dr. White and myself would have plenty of disagreements on many doctrines. I found this book was a good assessment to those in the KJV Only camp who make their arguments based on conspiracy and out of context quotations.
However, I mainly worked through the book for his presuppositions and starting points rather than the content. There is an adage that states that without scientists, there would be no science. This meaning that all documented science is the interpretation of scientists. The scientist is not without their own biases and presupposition, but the evidence itself is neutral. This is true concerning the study of textual criticism. All manuscripts and textual evidence is independent. But how does one interpret the data?
I found several double standards within the book in comparison of the KJV and a modern version. White would say that people have claimed the modern versions have “taken things out of the Bible” because their starting point is the KJV/TR. However, on the other side of the argument, he would mention that the KJV/TR have “added things” to the Bible. Why? Because his starting point is the Critical Text. White did what any other would do on any side of the discussion: present their belief.
Also. White did provide comparisons of translations, textual analysis, manuscript evidence that can be used for further study!
Regardless, I believe it would be undeniable to say, (broadly speaking) in the comparison of the Critical Text vs Majority Text of the Bible, either Majority text adds to the original or the Critical text takes away from the original. The primary issue isn’t so much the translation as it is what is being translated. The proper underlying Text is the starting point. Once the text is decided then the next step that should be taken is how to translate that text.
However, I mainly worked through the book for his presuppositions and starting points rather than the content. There is an adage that states that without scientists, there would be no science. This meaning that all documented science is the interpretation of scientists. The scientist is not without their own biases and presupposition, but the evidence itself is neutral. This is true concerning the study of textual criticism. All manuscripts and textual evidence is independent. But how does one interpret the data?
I found several double standards within the book in comparison of the KJV and a modern version. White would say that people have claimed the modern versions have “taken things out of the Bible” because their starting point is the KJV/TR. However, on the other side of the argument, he would mention that the KJV/TR have “added things” to the Bible. Why? Because his starting point is the Critical Text. White did what any other would do on any side of the discussion: present their belief.
Also. White did provide comparisons of translations, textual analysis, manuscript evidence that can be used for further study!
Regardless, I believe it would be undeniable to say, (broadly speaking) in the comparison of the Critical Text vs Majority Text of the Bible, either Majority text adds to the original or the Critical text takes away from the original. The primary issue isn’t so much the translation as it is what is being translated. The proper underlying Text is the starting point. Once the text is decided then the next step that should be taken is how to translate that text.
April 24, 2016
Very good book defending modern practices of textual criticism against the majority text/Textus Receptus positions that form the basis of the KJVO position. While the prose is a bit clunky at times, White does a really good job overall of explaining the complicated practice of textual criticism to the average reader and does a thorough debunking of the position that holds the Textus Receptus as the authorized version of the Church and such. My only critique with this book is that it got a bit repetitive at times towards the ending because of how thorough White was trying to be. Chapters 1-5 and Chapter 9 are thus probably the most important chapters for the average reader, as Chapters 6-8 are just responding to some of the ridiculous arguments from the extreme proponents of the KJVO position. I also found the appendices personally helpful for giving explanations for controversial passages such as the ending of Mark and the pericope de adultera (John 7:53-8:1). Overall, a very thorough book that effectively dismantles the majority text/Textus Receptus positions and provides a solid defense for modern textual criticism.
Rating: 4.0 Stars (Very Good).
Rating: 4.0 Stars (Very Good).
March 24, 2013
Wow. This book is a must-read. Whether you know anything about the issue or not. White's book is a great intro for textual study.
I came from a highly KJVO background, and am still attending a TR Only Christian College. I use the ESV, but could never fully justify my use of it until now.
White gives great historical background of textual transmission and translation, as well as a revealing look at the translations done by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza for the Textus Receptus. He follows the TR up until its translation for the KJV in 1611, and beyond that. He also gives many details concerning Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the ancient papyri, and the rest of the eclectic text--and whether or not it is to be trusted.
He does a great job at showing errors in the KJVO thought process, and puts many holes in their logic, using facts (facts...who knew?)to back up his points as opposed to mere emotional appeals.
Great read. Will read it again. I recommend it to anyone who is even REMOTELY interested in the topic.
I came from a highly KJVO background, and am still attending a TR Only Christian College. I use the ESV, but could never fully justify my use of it until now.
White gives great historical background of textual transmission and translation, as well as a revealing look at the translations done by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza for the Textus Receptus. He follows the TR up until its translation for the KJV in 1611, and beyond that. He also gives many details concerning Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the ancient papyri, and the rest of the eclectic text--and whether or not it is to be trusted.
He does a great job at showing errors in the KJVO thought process, and puts many holes in their logic, using facts (facts...who knew?)to back up his points as opposed to mere emotional appeals.
Great read. Will read it again. I recommend it to anyone who is even REMOTELY interested in the topic.
June 10, 2022
I cannot imagine a better book ever being written on this particular topic.
The structure and language is pristinely clear throughout; very easy to follow and incredibly well-ordered.
James covers a lot of ground: relevant history (archeological discoveries of biblical manuscripts, scribal traditions over the centuries, manuscript streams), textual criticism, translation philosophy, king James only proponents and much more.
I very much like that this book functions as an introduction to the science of textual criticism as well as being a precise, comprehensive and convincing rebuttal to the King James Only position.
In fact, this book has more than piqued my interest in the enterprise of textual criticism.
An easy 5 stars.
The structure and language is pristinely clear throughout; very easy to follow and incredibly well-ordered.
James covers a lot of ground: relevant history (archeological discoveries of biblical manuscripts, scribal traditions over the centuries, manuscript streams), textual criticism, translation philosophy, king James only proponents and much more.
I very much like that this book functions as an introduction to the science of textual criticism as well as being a precise, comprehensive and convincing rebuttal to the King James Only position.
In fact, this book has more than piqued my interest in the enterprise of textual criticism.
An easy 5 stars.
February 17, 2019
If you love the Textus Receptus for what it is, you should not have a problem with this book. James White acknowledges the value of the Textus Receptus and even the King James Version at times. What is problematic is the cult-like character of some King James Only advocates.
White begins with a survey of textual history and transmission. It’s one thing to say “God providentially preserved my favorite ms tradition.” It’s quite another to work through the transmission process. He explains the discovery of Sinaiticus and other texts. Even if you are a Ruckmanite, you will nonetheless appreciate the discussions on miniscule vs uncial texts, etc.
Copyists of manuscripts are going to make errors. Try it one day. Copy a page from a dictionary and see if you made any mistakes? Repeat a few thousand times. These minor errors are called textual variants (misspelled words, skipped lines, etc.). They are easily recognizable. White writes,
“Another kind of “scribal error” has to do with harmonization. Let’s say you were used to the way a particular phrase sounds in a particular passage of Scripture because your pastor uses that verse all the time in church. But let’s say that a similar phrase occurs elsewhere in Scripture—similar, but not exactly the same. As you are copying that other passage of Scripture it would be very easy to inadvertently make that passage sound like the one you are accustomed to. You might not even know you had changed anything” (White 37).
Text Types (43)
“(1) The Alexandrian text-type, found in most papyri, and in the great uncial codices K and B.
(2) The Western text-type, found both in Greek manuscripts and in translations into other languages, especially Latin.
(3) The Byzantine text-type, found in the vast majority of later uncial and minuscule manuscripts.
(4) The Caesarean text-type, disputed by some, found in and “Family 1” (abbreviated f 1).”
One of White’s stronger arguments is that Erasmus used the same method of textual analysis that is condemned by KJV Only advocates today.
This book actually increased my appreciate of the NKJV. It’s a decent translation, but it also provides variant readings in the margin. This isn’t to “sow doubt,” but to alert the reader to the textual issues.
Responding to Byzantine-Text Arguments
White: “The question we must ask the proponents of the Byzantine text-type is this: upon what basis should we believe that the Byzantine text, simply because it ended up being the majority text later in history; was in fact the best representative of the original writings during that vital period of the first few centuries” (152)?
The text, on the contrary, would have resembled the Alexandrian-type.
One often hears from KJV Only types that the modern translations delete passages proving the deity of Christ. While White explains how basic textual transmission works and how that accounts for these passages, he reverses the method and lowers the boom by showing passages where the modern translations are clearer on the deity of Christ than the KJV (Jude 4, Col. 2:9, 1 Peter 3:14-15, Acts 16:7). Does this mean the KJV translators were in conspiracy to deny the deity of Christ? Of course, such a position is idiocy.
Problems with the KJV
Acts 5:30. Did they kill Jesus and then hang him on a tree? Or did they, as the modern translations note, kill him by hanging him on a tree (225)?
1 Chronicles 5:26. The KJV at best is misleading. It makes it seem like Pul is co-ruler with Tiglath Peleser. At worst it is simply wrong. As the NASB notes, Pul is Tiglath.
Acts 9:7/22:9. On the KJV’s reading, the others heard the voice and didn’t hear the voice, a clear contradiction. The modern translations have a better reading.
The Changing English Language
“Fetched a compass” (Joshua 15:3, 2 Kgs 3:9) actually means travel or turn around. Quoting Edwin Palmer White notes,
what is the meaning of “chambering” (Rom. 13:13), “champaign” (Deut. 11:30), “charger” (Matt. 14:8— it is not a horse), “churl” (Isa. 32:7), “cielcd” (Hag. 1:4), “circumspect” (Lxod. 23:13), “clouted upon their feet” (Josh. 9:5), “cockatrice” (Isa. 11:8), “collops” (Job 15:27), “confection” (Exod. 30:35— it has nothing to do with sugar), “cotes” (2 Chron. 32:28), “covert” (2 Kings 16:18), “hoiscd” (Acts 27:40), “wimples” (Isa. 3:22), “stomacher” (Isa. 3:24), “w?ot” (Rom. 11:2), “wist” (Acts 12:9), “withs” (Judg. 16:7), “wont” (Dan. 3:19), “surctiship” (Prov. 11:15), “saekbut” (Dan. 3:5), “the scall” (Lev. 13:30), “scrabbled” (1 Sam. 21:13), “roller” (Lzck. 30:21— i.e., a splint), “muffler” (Isa. 3:19), “froward” (1 Peter 2:18), “brigadinc” (Jer. 46:4), “amercc” (Deut. 22:19), “blains” (Lxod 9:9), “crookbackt” (Lev. 21:20), (White 236).
Some more:
And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke (Exod. 1^:18).
Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing I Ps. 5:6).
“For example, while one finds the KJV translating the Greek phrase Ttmuia rr/iov at Luke 11:13 as “Holy Spirit,” the very same phrase is translated “Holy Ghost” at Luke 2:25. It is interesting to note as well that the KJV always capitalizes Holy Ghost, but does not always capitalize Holy Spirit, i.e., Ephesians 1:13, 4:30, and 1 Thessalonians 4:8, where each time the KJV has “holy Spirit” (239 n.10).
In the appendix there is a fine discussion of the Granville Sharp rule, something which wasn’t clear in the 17th century.
Granville Sharp’s rule, according to Granville Sharp, is:
When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article o, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e., it denotes a farther description of the first named person.
Granville Sharp, Remarks on the Definitive article in the Greek Text of the \e w Testament: Containing many proofs of the Divinity of Christ from Passages.
White begins with a survey of textual history and transmission. It’s one thing to say “God providentially preserved my favorite ms tradition.” It’s quite another to work through the transmission process. He explains the discovery of Sinaiticus and other texts. Even if you are a Ruckmanite, you will nonetheless appreciate the discussions on miniscule vs uncial texts, etc.
Copyists of manuscripts are going to make errors. Try it one day. Copy a page from a dictionary and see if you made any mistakes? Repeat a few thousand times. These minor errors are called textual variants (misspelled words, skipped lines, etc.). They are easily recognizable. White writes,
“Another kind of “scribal error” has to do with harmonization. Let’s say you were used to the way a particular phrase sounds in a particular passage of Scripture because your pastor uses that verse all the time in church. But let’s say that a similar phrase occurs elsewhere in Scripture—similar, but not exactly the same. As you are copying that other passage of Scripture it would be very easy to inadvertently make that passage sound like the one you are accustomed to. You might not even know you had changed anything” (White 37).
Text Types (43)
“(1) The Alexandrian text-type, found in most papyri, and in the great uncial codices K and B.
(2) The Western text-type, found both in Greek manuscripts and in translations into other languages, especially Latin.
(3) The Byzantine text-type, found in the vast majority of later uncial and minuscule manuscripts.
(4) The Caesarean text-type, disputed by some, found in and “Family 1” (abbreviated f 1).”
One of White’s stronger arguments is that Erasmus used the same method of textual analysis that is condemned by KJV Only advocates today.
This book actually increased my appreciate of the NKJV. It’s a decent translation, but it also provides variant readings in the margin. This isn’t to “sow doubt,” but to alert the reader to the textual issues.
Responding to Byzantine-Text Arguments
White: “The question we must ask the proponents of the Byzantine text-type is this: upon what basis should we believe that the Byzantine text, simply because it ended up being the majority text later in history; was in fact the best representative of the original writings during that vital period of the first few centuries” (152)?
The text, on the contrary, would have resembled the Alexandrian-type.
One often hears from KJV Only types that the modern translations delete passages proving the deity of Christ. While White explains how basic textual transmission works and how that accounts for these passages, he reverses the method and lowers the boom by showing passages where the modern translations are clearer on the deity of Christ than the KJV (Jude 4, Col. 2:9, 1 Peter 3:14-15, Acts 16:7). Does this mean the KJV translators were in conspiracy to deny the deity of Christ? Of course, such a position is idiocy.
Problems with the KJV
Acts 5:30. Did they kill Jesus and then hang him on a tree? Or did they, as the modern translations note, kill him by hanging him on a tree (225)?
1 Chronicles 5:26. The KJV at best is misleading. It makes it seem like Pul is co-ruler with Tiglath Peleser. At worst it is simply wrong. As the NASB notes, Pul is Tiglath.
Acts 9:7/22:9. On the KJV’s reading, the others heard the voice and didn’t hear the voice, a clear contradiction. The modern translations have a better reading.
The Changing English Language
“Fetched a compass” (Joshua 15:3, 2 Kgs 3:9) actually means travel or turn around. Quoting Edwin Palmer White notes,
what is the meaning of “chambering” (Rom. 13:13), “champaign” (Deut. 11:30), “charger” (Matt. 14:8— it is not a horse), “churl” (Isa. 32:7), “cielcd” (Hag. 1:4), “circumspect” (Lxod. 23:13), “clouted upon their feet” (Josh. 9:5), “cockatrice” (Isa. 11:8), “collops” (Job 15:27), “confection” (Exod. 30:35— it has nothing to do with sugar), “cotes” (2 Chron. 32:28), “covert” (2 Kings 16:18), “hoiscd” (Acts 27:40), “wimples” (Isa. 3:22), “stomacher” (Isa. 3:24), “w?ot” (Rom. 11:2), “wist” (Acts 12:9), “withs” (Judg. 16:7), “wont” (Dan. 3:19), “surctiship” (Prov. 11:15), “saekbut” (Dan. 3:5), “the scall” (Lev. 13:30), “scrabbled” (1 Sam. 21:13), “roller” (Lzck. 30:21— i.e., a splint), “muffler” (Isa. 3:19), “froward” (1 Peter 2:18), “brigadinc” (Jer. 46:4), “amercc” (Deut. 22:19), “blains” (Lxod 9:9), “crookbackt” (Lev. 21:20), (White 236).
Some more:
And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke (Exod. 1^:18).
Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing I Ps. 5:6).
“For example, while one finds the KJV translating the Greek phrase Ttmuia rr/iov at Luke 11:13 as “Holy Spirit,” the very same phrase is translated “Holy Ghost” at Luke 2:25. It is interesting to note as well that the KJV always capitalizes Holy Ghost, but does not always capitalize Holy Spirit, i.e., Ephesians 1:13, 4:30, and 1 Thessalonians 4:8, where each time the KJV has “holy Spirit” (239 n.10).
In the appendix there is a fine discussion of the Granville Sharp rule, something which wasn’t clear in the 17th century.
Granville Sharp’s rule, according to Granville Sharp, is:
When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article o, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e., it denotes a farther description of the first named person.
Granville Sharp, Remarks on the Definitive article in the Greek Text of the \e w Testament: Containing many proofs of the Divinity of Christ from Passages.
March 13, 2015
Do you have a favorite version of the Bible? If so, it may be your preference for a number of reasons: perhaps it’s the version you grew up reading, or you like the poetic or old-fashioned language it uses, or maybe you just find the language easier to understand than in other versions. For most people, choosing a Bible version to read and study is based on factors like these.
Some people have their reasons for preferring or only using the King James (also known as the 1611 Authorized) Version of the Bible. Dr. James White makes it clear that he has nothing against the KJV or people who like using it. But his book "The King James Only Controversy" focuses on that group of people who go beyond preference to insistence, to the point of considering all other translations as corrupt. These individuals believe that if you use other translations you are rejecting the true Word of God. People who hold to this extreme view are known as KJV Only advocates. White insists that even the translators of the KJV would disagree with this view.In the Preface to the 1611 AV, the translators state, “variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures.”
Dr. White begins his book with this statement: "I am sincerely convinced that if most Christians had a solid grasp on the history of the Bible, and were familiar with at least the broad outline of how translation is undertaken, the KJV Only issue would be more of a slight disagreement than a full-blown controversy."
Dr. White begins by providing a fair amount of detail about the early history of Bible translating and discussing the challenges of translating from the original Greek and Hebrew.
Next White explains the use of and differences between word-for-word translations and translation for meaning, and includes examples. He does go into some detail about text-types and families; some people may find this a little dry, but I found it interesting and helpful.
White then discusses several outspoken King James Only advocates and the problems with their position. Dr. White sums up the problems associated with the KJV Only position this way:
"King James Onlyism is a human tradition. It has no basis in history. It has no foundation in fact. It is internally inconsistent, utilizing circular reasoning at its core, and involves the use of more double standards than almost any system of thought I have ever encountered."
For a more details about this book, see my review at www.ImAllBooked.com
Some people have their reasons for preferring or only using the King James (also known as the 1611 Authorized) Version of the Bible. Dr. James White makes it clear that he has nothing against the KJV or people who like using it. But his book "The King James Only Controversy" focuses on that group of people who go beyond preference to insistence, to the point of considering all other translations as corrupt. These individuals believe that if you use other translations you are rejecting the true Word of God. People who hold to this extreme view are known as KJV Only advocates. White insists that even the translators of the KJV would disagree with this view.In the Preface to the 1611 AV, the translators state, “variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures.”
Dr. White begins his book with this statement: "I am sincerely convinced that if most Christians had a solid grasp on the history of the Bible, and were familiar with at least the broad outline of how translation is undertaken, the KJV Only issue would be more of a slight disagreement than a full-blown controversy."
Dr. White begins by providing a fair amount of detail about the early history of Bible translating and discussing the challenges of translating from the original Greek and Hebrew.
Next White explains the use of and differences between word-for-word translations and translation for meaning, and includes examples. He does go into some detail about text-types and families; some people may find this a little dry, but I found it interesting and helpful.
White then discusses several outspoken King James Only advocates and the problems with their position. Dr. White sums up the problems associated with the KJV Only position this way:
"King James Onlyism is a human tradition. It has no basis in history. It has no foundation in fact. It is internally inconsistent, utilizing circular reasoning at its core, and involves the use of more double standards than almost any system of thought I have ever encountered."
For a more details about this book, see my review at www.ImAllBooked.com
December 24, 2010
Having spent three years in my life in a rural Tennessee city where King James Onlyism is still a major controversy, James White's book is very helpful in disarming the accusations of KJV Onlyists. However, this book is not just a book about why the KJV should not be the only English Bible translation. It is also a brief history of how the English Bible came to the form that it is now. While this topic is fairly narrow, it is a helpful treatment on the subject for those who are interested.
July 28, 2023
Very solid work, but a little dry in places. Impossible to fault White's excellent research and strong argumentation...although I can't say I need a whole lot of convincing on the subject!
June 28, 2013
I can thank James White for getting me interested in the subject of textual criticism and have watch all his YouTube videos in six months. I have come to know his personality and his jokes and his passion and his style. Some people write like they talk (see Howard Hendricks) and James White writes like he talks, with a lot of passion. White had a video that said for a good introduction to textual criticism he would recommend this book so I picked it up as my intro to the subject and set to work on really starting to come down on where I want to begin studying.
This book does a great job in that it provides a great overview of how we got the Bible and how English translations have come about. White doesn't delve into a ton of detail but he shows the highlights and the important steps on how we came up to the KJV and why further editions, like NASB and ESV, are needed and fuller. White does not step on KJV as inferior and it's awesome to read someone who has a high view of God's Word and a great grasp on scholarship and the need for intellectualism in Christianity (Francis Shaeffer would be proud).
White also does a good topic of what the book is titled and that's dealing with the arguments levied by KJV Only people and takes it right to both the text and to the logic of the argument, with no need for name calling or grand statements of extremism.
White also shows how textual criticism can be used to help develop a fuller, more complete understanding of the Faith and how to answer criticism against Christianity. This was really the main reason why I read the book. It was a really great introduction to that field of study. The topics are fairly clear in how they are addressed and the argumentation is not over complicated.
There are a few small negatives that I found that may be difficult for some, including myself. White does start out right off the bat stating that he's trying to strike a balance between an area of study that can be vast and broad and complicated and knowing to write to a general audience. At time, he tends to assume you remember what you read eight chapters ago or use terms that weren't that clear. I believe this comes from White knowing so much about the topic that he tends to stumble on just how "clever" the reader is. When White refers to Scripture to support his arguments, I would have liked to have had the Scripture listed rather than look them up. It's just helpful not having to turn between two books for these times. These are mostly limited to his arguments and not his main points so they are low impact on hassle.
I would have loved to see a "Suggested Reading" page although the footnotes tend to give you repeated examples of who White supports. Speaking of which, the footnotes in this book are great! I know it sounds geeky but I love a book where reference footnotes are on the bottom of the page rather than in the back or at the end of the chapter. It's so much cleaner and easier. The footnoted notes of White's writing add to the topic and can be skipped if they aren't important to you - just as any good footnote is. Great footnotes WOOO!!!
It convinced me on the topic at hand and I would recommend this book as a good jumping off point for anyone wanting to get into textual criticism. It has helped motivate me into a deeper study. Final Grade - A+
This book does a great job in that it provides a great overview of how we got the Bible and how English translations have come about. White doesn't delve into a ton of detail but he shows the highlights and the important steps on how we came up to the KJV and why further editions, like NASB and ESV, are needed and fuller. White does not step on KJV as inferior and it's awesome to read someone who has a high view of God's Word and a great grasp on scholarship and the need for intellectualism in Christianity (Francis Shaeffer would be proud).
White also does a good topic of what the book is titled and that's dealing with the arguments levied by KJV Only people and takes it right to both the text and to the logic of the argument, with no need for name calling or grand statements of extremism.
White also shows how textual criticism can be used to help develop a fuller, more complete understanding of the Faith and how to answer criticism against Christianity. This was really the main reason why I read the book. It was a really great introduction to that field of study. The topics are fairly clear in how they are addressed and the argumentation is not over complicated.
There are a few small negatives that I found that may be difficult for some, including myself. White does start out right off the bat stating that he's trying to strike a balance between an area of study that can be vast and broad and complicated and knowing to write to a general audience. At time, he tends to assume you remember what you read eight chapters ago or use terms that weren't that clear. I believe this comes from White knowing so much about the topic that he tends to stumble on just how "clever" the reader is. When White refers to Scripture to support his arguments, I would have liked to have had the Scripture listed rather than look them up. It's just helpful not having to turn between two books for these times. These are mostly limited to his arguments and not his main points so they are low impact on hassle.
I would have loved to see a "Suggested Reading" page although the footnotes tend to give you repeated examples of who White supports. Speaking of which, the footnotes in this book are great! I know it sounds geeky but I love a book where reference footnotes are on the bottom of the page rather than in the back or at the end of the chapter. It's so much cleaner and easier. The footnoted notes of White's writing add to the topic and can be skipped if they aren't important to you - just as any good footnote is. Great footnotes WOOO!!!
It convinced me on the topic at hand and I would recommend this book as a good jumping off point for anyone wanting to get into textual criticism. It has helped motivate me into a deeper study. Final Grade - A+
January 8, 2016
Dr. White provides a great refutation to the arguments presented by KJV-Onlyists. He exposes the inconsistency in their arguments and how to apply the same inconsistencies to other translations showing that a translation is just that, a translation. While the translations are translated by godly scholars, through painstaking processes, it is still an operation of human and there are valid reasons for differences, even translation weaknesses.
I read the book for the history of the translation and variants moreso than for the ability to refute the KJV-Only argument. His defense of the Word of God in light of the variants is solid and applicable. He also explains why the requests of Bart Erhman regarding manuscripts would be no better, pointing to the root issue that those who want to reject the inspiration of the Bible will continue to do so, regardless of the evidence. It is a fascinating compilation of where certain translations are more accurate than others, and why. Each translations has points in which it is stronger than others, all the more adding to the reasons we should not be dogmatic about one English translation over another.
The first quarter of the book was an easy read. As I progressed, it became a little more technical. Being as how I am not a linguist, I do feel like there were a few places where I had to read the information several times to understand it. I feel that is par for the course, since language is not my strength, and in no way a reflection of the author or his ability to communicate clearly.
Let it be noted, Dr. White is in no way anti-KJV, he is anti-KJV Only. It is the dogmatic standing upon one translation, considering it to be the inspired translation that he is refuting. He exposes why we cannot cling to such arguments, and he would make a case against any argument that were dogmatically to be NIV-Only, NASB-Only and so on.
All in all, this was a beneficial read for my knowledge of how we obtained our English translations. I think the book would be even more beneficial to those who are in conversation with a KJV-Onlyist. While I'm not sure it is a proper reflection of the book, the reason I gave it four stars is because while I'm not in regular conversation with ardent KJV-Onlyists, and there were places where it was more technical and harder for me to understand. But, as I mentioned previously, I am not a linguist.
This is a valuable book, one I will be thankful to have on my bookshelves for future reference knowing I will be better equipped for future conversation regarding the text and translations of our English Bible.
I read the book for the history of the translation and variants moreso than for the ability to refute the KJV-Only argument. His defense of the Word of God in light of the variants is solid and applicable. He also explains why the requests of Bart Erhman regarding manuscripts would be no better, pointing to the root issue that those who want to reject the inspiration of the Bible will continue to do so, regardless of the evidence. It is a fascinating compilation of where certain translations are more accurate than others, and why. Each translations has points in which it is stronger than others, all the more adding to the reasons we should not be dogmatic about one English translation over another.
The first quarter of the book was an easy read. As I progressed, it became a little more technical. Being as how I am not a linguist, I do feel like there were a few places where I had to read the information several times to understand it. I feel that is par for the course, since language is not my strength, and in no way a reflection of the author or his ability to communicate clearly.
Let it be noted, Dr. White is in no way anti-KJV, he is anti-KJV Only. It is the dogmatic standing upon one translation, considering it to be the inspired translation that he is refuting. He exposes why we cannot cling to such arguments, and he would make a case against any argument that were dogmatically to be NIV-Only, NASB-Only and so on.
All in all, this was a beneficial read for my knowledge of how we obtained our English translations. I think the book would be even more beneficial to those who are in conversation with a KJV-Onlyist. While I'm not sure it is a proper reflection of the book, the reason I gave it four stars is because while I'm not in regular conversation with ardent KJV-Onlyists, and there were places where it was more technical and harder for me to understand. But, as I mentioned previously, I am not a linguist.
This is a valuable book, one I will be thankful to have on my bookshelves for future reference knowing I will be better equipped for future conversation regarding the text and translations of our English Bible.
March 11, 2011
Though written by one outside of Fundamentalism, this work provides a powerful response to the lunacies of Fundamentalist writers such as Ruckman and Riplinger. White is aggressive and pulls no punches throughout the extremely readable volume. He does one of the best jobs at laying out the various strands of belief in the textual debates, and divides his argumentation along the lines of textual and translational differences. White also does an excellent job walking the reader through the historical myths set up by the KJV-Only advocates and through the real (and somewhat disturbing) history of the movement today. All in all, this work is one of the most valuable on the topic, though it is not without its faults. One issue is White's strong argumentation for the superiority of the eclectic text and modern versions. This insistence will most certainly turn off the KJV-Only advocate. Another issue is, as I mentioned at the outset, that White is not a fundamentalist. Although this issue seems of little importance to those who oppose the KJV-Only advocates, this creates the reason for wholesale rejection of the work by the adherents of that viewpoint. Their view is that if you are not from our camp that you dare not speak to its issues. Although I would disagree with their premise, I cannot help but agree that this work will prove to be of little value to the proponents of KJV-Onlyism, but will be of great value to those who wish to refute their claims.
December 28, 2014
For some time already I've been fascinated and interested in the study of the New Testament language and the study of manuscripts. It just seems to interesting to me, to know how God has worked in history to preserve His Words for us.
I should admit that I'm blessed that living in Holland I have not encountered KJV Onlyist, man...I just can't understand the logic. People can truly be very obedient slaves to their traditions...
The first work on Textual Criticism I read was Timothy Paul Jones's Misquoting Truth, it was a short read and I liked it. I've been following Dr James White's ministry for some time now and I have watched many of his debates /discussions on Textual Criticism. I must say that this inspired me to get back to learning Greek.
James was very respectful, although the KJV Onlyists are/were anything but respectful to the other side. He dealt with the issues honestly and documented his assertions and the reasons why he or the scholars think so regarding a specific passage.
I look forward by the grace of God to continue my learning of Greek and deepen my study in Textual Criticism and Koine Greek.
I should admit that I'm blessed that living in Holland I have not encountered KJV Onlyist, man...I just can't understand the logic. People can truly be very obedient slaves to their traditions...
The first work on Textual Criticism I read was Timothy Paul Jones's Misquoting Truth, it was a short read and I liked it. I've been following Dr James White's ministry for some time now and I have watched many of his debates /discussions on Textual Criticism. I must say that this inspired me to get back to learning Greek.
James was very respectful, although the KJV Onlyists are/were anything but respectful to the other side. He dealt with the issues honestly and documented his assertions and the reasons why he or the scholars think so regarding a specific passage.
I look forward by the grace of God to continue my learning of Greek and deepen my study in Textual Criticism and Koine Greek.
November 22, 2014
I read the four books which are considered the standard for KJV Onlyism criticism and this one was by far the best. Candidly I could have skipped the others, just read this one and would have done just as well for myself.
As a result of reading this book I was able to write the following article on KJV Onlyism as it relates to Mormonism: http://beggarsbread.org/2014/11/02/we...
And while only cited twice in the article this book's influence can, I'm sure, be felt throughout.
If anyone is looking for a book to read on the subject this is the one that I will be recommending from now on.
My only criticism of the book is that it's only valuable in paper - no eBook edition is currently available. While I don't mind reading paper I'm so tired of transcribing from it for citations. Mr. White please have pity on your fellow scholars and release an eBook edition!
Thank you.
As a result of reading this book I was able to write the following article on KJV Onlyism as it relates to Mormonism: http://beggarsbread.org/2014/11/02/we...
And while only cited twice in the article this book's influence can, I'm sure, be felt throughout.
If anyone is looking for a book to read on the subject this is the one that I will be recommending from now on.
My only criticism of the book is that it's only valuable in paper - no eBook edition is currently available. While I don't mind reading paper I'm so tired of transcribing from it for citations. Mr. White please have pity on your fellow scholars and release an eBook edition!
Thank you.
August 11, 2015
If you want to know how to respond to KJV-only adherents, this is the book to read! The author compares KJV to other new translations, debunking the errant naysayers' claims, by telling exactly what the ancient Greek texts say, most of these texts not being discovered until after 1611. After reading this book, I believe that all pastors should study the Hebrew and Greek languages to better understand what the Bible actually says. In many cases, the newer versions are more accurate than the KJV!
June 19, 2022
To quote Norman Geisler, "This is the best book in print on a topic too often riddled with emotion and ignorance."
This book was at the same time scholarly and understandable. Although it could get pretty dry for some readers, as is to be expected with discussions about bible translation, it is a necessary read for anyone seeking clarity surrounding this controversy.
This book was at the same time scholarly and understandable. Although it could get pretty dry for some readers, as is to be expected with discussions about bible translation, it is a necessary read for anyone seeking clarity surrounding this controversy.
May 23, 2011
This is not an anti-KJV book. Useful in refuting the claims of KJV-onlyism, but also a good introduction to textual criticism and issues concerning the reliability of modern Bible translations. Intermediate read. Not light reading, yet not to technical.
February 18, 2019
This was a re-read, but it was again helpful. Beyond the specifics of the KJV issue, this book is helpful in understanding (and gaining confidence in) the process by which we have current, original-language texts and also the translations of those texts to English.
January 20, 2014
After the first half of the book, the rest is fairly predictable. To sum things up, it presents a good argument that the KJV is an excellent translation, but the KJV 'only' fanatics are wrong. Most translations have merit.
December 28, 2014
Coming from an Independent Baptist Church that is Kjvo,this book was an answer to prayer. I had so many doubts and questions about the issue. This book opened my eyes to the truth about the controversy. A must read for anyone that wants to know the truth about king james onlyism
November 19, 2014
Thorough and well laid out arguments against KJV onlyism. A must read for any facing these issues.
February 7, 2021
Biblical Preservation Does not Require a Re-Inspired English Translation
Author James White presents us with an extensive interaction with King James Onlyism, the movement that insists that you must use the King James Version of the Bible exclusively if you want to have God’s complete word in English.
The starting point in the thinking of King James Only advocates is in making the following equation: the King James Bible alone equals the Word of God alone . And with that equation in mind, they speak in the strongest language against modern translations such as the NIV and NASB, charging them with being the products of an “Alexandrian Cult” that have deliberately made “deletions” and “changes” to God’s Word for the sinister reason of undermining Biblical teachings on the virgin birth and the deity of Christ.
Some of them in fact have a particular conception of divine providence of the Scriptures that views the KJV as essentially being re-inspired by God as He did the original autographs, and thus being inerrant in and of itself. And so if someone in, say, Russia wants to read the Word of God in its purest form, they would do well to learn English and pick up a King James Bible!
Although it is true that the King James Version has been very influential over the past four centuries, Dr. White points out that this is not a good argument for exclusive divine blessing. He shows that if we look back in history, we’ll see that the very same argument currently being used against modern translations was used against Erasmus, whose Greek New Testament would form the basis for the KJV. The strenuous resistance he encountered was from those who argued that the Latin Vulgate had been used by God for a millennium, and so should not be tampered with or replaced.
And looking back even further in church history to when Jerome produced the Vulgate itself, we find that he encountered the same stiff resistance because his “novelty” changed what people had come to love in the wording of the Septuagint, which clearly had to have been God’s one and only version!
That history repeats itself in demonstrating emotional resistance to change says more about human nature than about the method of divine textual preservation.
The first edition of this book came out in 1995. But Dr. White felt it necessary to produce an expanded and updated second edition in 2009 in response to the appearance of popular-level attacks on the reliability of the Bible, mounted especially by Dr. Bart Ehrman, a bona fide textual critic of solid credentials.
And in the face of these new and seemingly persuasive challenges, the King James Only line of reasoning proves to be no longer just naïve and misinformed, but dangerous. It provides no intellectual defense whatsoever because Ehrman insists on the very same mode of divine textual preservation that the KJV Only camp does, only he adds a big “if:” if God miraculously inspired the New Testament, he would also have in the same way miraculously preserved the text against any and all corruption and error.
But since, the skeptic such as Ehrman argues, there are many thousands of errors manifest in the available manuscripts, therefore the originals are also likely not inspired. And if the originals are likely not inspired, then they are just the products of men. Since they are just the products of men, we have no word from God and have no reason to believe that there even is a God. And following his own logic, Ehrman went from being an evangelical Christian to becoming an agnostic and perhaps even an atheist.
The KJV Only camp is committed to the same narrow version of Biblical preservation as Ehrman required. With Ehrman, they insist that we must have absolute certainty about each and every word, but this necessitates the invention of another round of divine Biblical inspiration to avoid having to deal with the reality of manuscript differences and the potential of going down Ehrman’s road of skepticism.
And invention is just what this is, because it is nowhere taught in Scripture. But then how can the Bible in our hands be preserved from errors and corruption if God does not supernaturally inspire a particular English translation? In answer to this, Dr. White simply asks the question, why should we believe textual variation precludes preservation of an inspired text?
He argues that it is in fact the very presence and multiplication of variants (yes, errors) themselves over the course of history that gives us confidence that we can reconstruct the originals with a very high degree of confidence. This is because of two things. First, the rapid dissemination of the New Testament writings all around the Mediterranean world ensured that no unscrupulous person or authority could gather up all the manuscripts and change them all. Second, a study of New Testament manuscript transmission reveals what has been called the “tenacity of the text,” meaning that readings might be added to the text but have never been lost, so what we have today is the originals plus a small amount, but not the originals minus portions that can never be recovered. The job of textual criticism is therefore to burn off the impurities, as it were, and leave us with the gold of the original text.
And so Dr. White shows us that assurance that “what we have now is what they wrote then” comes not from requiring constant divine intervention at every stage of manuscript copying to prevent errors, resulting in what would essentially be a photocopy of the originals. Ehrman requires this, doesn’t see it in the manuscript tradition and so loses his faith. KJV Onlyist also require this, but manufacture it by a blind leap of faith and so are immune to what the evidence actually shows.
No, preservation is found in the manuscript tradition itself: “It is a surface-level magic trick… to come up with a photocopied text. It is a far more real miracle for God to take the work of multiple authors… to multiple audiences, during a time of Imperial persecution, working through the very mechanisms of history… and in that process create the single most attested text of all antiquity where less than one percent of the text requires us to engage in serious examination of the sources to determine the original reading.” (p. 307)
The King James Only camp holds to a false, unbiblical method of divine, Biblical preservation, and this commitment is dangerous because it does not stand up to close scrutiny. If their particular version of preservation is regarded as the only method of preservation, the only barrier to a logical slide into atheism, like what happened to Bart Ehrman, is blind faith. And Christians are not called to blind faith, but to a faith that is testable and holds up in the face of the empirical facts of history.
James White’s book should be read by Christians who want to know not only about the KJV Only controversy and why it is needlessly divisive, but also how it is reasonable to be assured that we do indeed have available to us now what the original Biblical authors wrote so many years ago.
Author James White presents us with an extensive interaction with King James Onlyism, the movement that insists that you must use the King James Version of the Bible exclusively if you want to have God’s complete word in English.
The starting point in the thinking of King James Only advocates is in making the following equation: the King James Bible alone equals the Word of God alone . And with that equation in mind, they speak in the strongest language against modern translations such as the NIV and NASB, charging them with being the products of an “Alexandrian Cult” that have deliberately made “deletions” and “changes” to God’s Word for the sinister reason of undermining Biblical teachings on the virgin birth and the deity of Christ.
Some of them in fact have a particular conception of divine providence of the Scriptures that views the KJV as essentially being re-inspired by God as He did the original autographs, and thus being inerrant in and of itself. And so if someone in, say, Russia wants to read the Word of God in its purest form, they would do well to learn English and pick up a King James Bible!
Although it is true that the King James Version has been very influential over the past four centuries, Dr. White points out that this is not a good argument for exclusive divine blessing. He shows that if we look back in history, we’ll see that the very same argument currently being used against modern translations was used against Erasmus, whose Greek New Testament would form the basis for the KJV. The strenuous resistance he encountered was from those who argued that the Latin Vulgate had been used by God for a millennium, and so should not be tampered with or replaced.
And looking back even further in church history to when Jerome produced the Vulgate itself, we find that he encountered the same stiff resistance because his “novelty” changed what people had come to love in the wording of the Septuagint, which clearly had to have been God’s one and only version!
That history repeats itself in demonstrating emotional resistance to change says more about human nature than about the method of divine textual preservation.
The first edition of this book came out in 1995. But Dr. White felt it necessary to produce an expanded and updated second edition in 2009 in response to the appearance of popular-level attacks on the reliability of the Bible, mounted especially by Dr. Bart Ehrman, a bona fide textual critic of solid credentials.
And in the face of these new and seemingly persuasive challenges, the King James Only line of reasoning proves to be no longer just naïve and misinformed, but dangerous. It provides no intellectual defense whatsoever because Ehrman insists on the very same mode of divine textual preservation that the KJV Only camp does, only he adds a big “if:” if God miraculously inspired the New Testament, he would also have in the same way miraculously preserved the text against any and all corruption and error.
But since, the skeptic such as Ehrman argues, there are many thousands of errors manifest in the available manuscripts, therefore the originals are also likely not inspired. And if the originals are likely not inspired, then they are just the products of men. Since they are just the products of men, we have no word from God and have no reason to believe that there even is a God. And following his own logic, Ehrman went from being an evangelical Christian to becoming an agnostic and perhaps even an atheist.
The KJV Only camp is committed to the same narrow version of Biblical preservation as Ehrman required. With Ehrman, they insist that we must have absolute certainty about each and every word, but this necessitates the invention of another round of divine Biblical inspiration to avoid having to deal with the reality of manuscript differences and the potential of going down Ehrman’s road of skepticism.
And invention is just what this is, because it is nowhere taught in Scripture. But then how can the Bible in our hands be preserved from errors and corruption if God does not supernaturally inspire a particular English translation? In answer to this, Dr. White simply asks the question, why should we believe textual variation precludes preservation of an inspired text?
He argues that it is in fact the very presence and multiplication of variants (yes, errors) themselves over the course of history that gives us confidence that we can reconstruct the originals with a very high degree of confidence. This is because of two things. First, the rapid dissemination of the New Testament writings all around the Mediterranean world ensured that no unscrupulous person or authority could gather up all the manuscripts and change them all. Second, a study of New Testament manuscript transmission reveals what has been called the “tenacity of the text,” meaning that readings might be added to the text but have never been lost, so what we have today is the originals plus a small amount, but not the originals minus portions that can never be recovered. The job of textual criticism is therefore to burn off the impurities, as it were, and leave us with the gold of the original text.
And so Dr. White shows us that assurance that “what we have now is what they wrote then” comes not from requiring constant divine intervention at every stage of manuscript copying to prevent errors, resulting in what would essentially be a photocopy of the originals. Ehrman requires this, doesn’t see it in the manuscript tradition and so loses his faith. KJV Onlyist also require this, but manufacture it by a blind leap of faith and so are immune to what the evidence actually shows.
No, preservation is found in the manuscript tradition itself: “It is a surface-level magic trick… to come up with a photocopied text. It is a far more real miracle for God to take the work of multiple authors… to multiple audiences, during a time of Imperial persecution, working through the very mechanisms of history… and in that process create the single most attested text of all antiquity where less than one percent of the text requires us to engage in serious examination of the sources to determine the original reading.” (p. 307)
The King James Only camp holds to a false, unbiblical method of divine, Biblical preservation, and this commitment is dangerous because it does not stand up to close scrutiny. If their particular version of preservation is regarded as the only method of preservation, the only barrier to a logical slide into atheism, like what happened to Bart Ehrman, is blind faith. And Christians are not called to blind faith, but to a faith that is testable and holds up in the face of the empirical facts of history.
James White’s book should be read by Christians who want to know not only about the KJV Only controversy and why it is needlessly divisive, but also how it is reasonable to be assured that we do indeed have available to us now what the original Biblical authors wrote so many years ago.
February 20, 2019
"I am sincerely convinced that if most Christians had a solid grasp on the history of the Bible, and were familiar with at least the broad outline of how translation is undertaken, the KJV Only issue would be more of a slight disagreement than a full-blown controversy." - Dr. James R. White
I was one of those Christians for years. Having been surrounded by KJV onlyists my entire life, I was confused about the reliability of modern translations for quite some time. Later, I met and interacted with the more militant type of KJV onlyists that Dr. White describes in this book. I even read and shared Gail Riplinger's horrible book with some of my family and friends. I am forever grateful that God sovereignly guided me away from that false teaching and gave me resources from which to study and learn the truth about Bible history and the reliability of Bible translations. This book was, for me, a breath of fresh air.
The first few chapters were especially interesting, insightful, full of information, and helpful. Dr. White teaches about text types, variants, manuscripts, etc. There is a history of the Scriptures in this book that, as mentioned above, many people are unaware of. I thought that Dr. White did a good job of informing the reader of the basics of what he was discussing so that even those of us who know nothing of Greek or Hebrew could understand his points and explanations. The book taught me a lot about the issues of translation that arise in all versions of the Bible, whether KJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, or any other version. Dr. White has also given me a greater appreciation for the KJV through his discussion of all the scholarship that went into its creation. He is not anti-KJV at all. He describes it as a fine translation of God's Word.
I know many good men and women who prefer the KJV over other translations and who even believe that the KJV is more reliable than other translations, but there are many others who bring a great amount of hostility into any conversation about modern Bible versions. Throughout this book, Dr. White is polite and does not engage in name-calling nor hateful language. He simply states what he has seen, heard and experienced. While he is able to back up his case with facts, the KJV-only camp will usually resort to name-calling and claims of secret conspiracies.
This book is an outstanding resource. I highly recommend it for anyone who is struggling with questions about the reliability of our Bible or looking for more in-depth knowledge of Bible versions.
I was one of those Christians for years. Having been surrounded by KJV onlyists my entire life, I was confused about the reliability of modern translations for quite some time. Later, I met and interacted with the more militant type of KJV onlyists that Dr. White describes in this book. I even read and shared Gail Riplinger's horrible book with some of my family and friends. I am forever grateful that God sovereignly guided me away from that false teaching and gave me resources from which to study and learn the truth about Bible history and the reliability of Bible translations. This book was, for me, a breath of fresh air.
The first few chapters were especially interesting, insightful, full of information, and helpful. Dr. White teaches about text types, variants, manuscripts, etc. There is a history of the Scriptures in this book that, as mentioned above, many people are unaware of. I thought that Dr. White did a good job of informing the reader of the basics of what he was discussing so that even those of us who know nothing of Greek or Hebrew could understand his points and explanations. The book taught me a lot about the issues of translation that arise in all versions of the Bible, whether KJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, or any other version. Dr. White has also given me a greater appreciation for the KJV through his discussion of all the scholarship that went into its creation. He is not anti-KJV at all. He describes it as a fine translation of God's Word.
I know many good men and women who prefer the KJV over other translations and who even believe that the KJV is more reliable than other translations, but there are many others who bring a great amount of hostility into any conversation about modern Bible versions. Throughout this book, Dr. White is polite and does not engage in name-calling nor hateful language. He simply states what he has seen, heard and experienced. While he is able to back up his case with facts, the KJV-only camp will usually resort to name-calling and claims of secret conspiracies.
This book is an outstanding resource. I highly recommend it for anyone who is struggling with questions about the reliability of our Bible or looking for more in-depth knowledge of Bible versions.
May 16, 2018
Fanatic read! I’ve been listening to Dr. White for quite some time now and I have heard many presentations on the content found here, but having it in a literary form is well worth the money. It’s very straightforward and compelling. I believe all Christians who wish to have a meaningful understanding of the reliability of the Scriptures should read this book. As usual, he is very accurate in his representation of others and seeks to represent them truthfully. The question in the subtitle reads, “Can you trust modern translations?” The answer is a resounding YES!
I will add, Part 2 at the end of the book is more technical, but working through it is well worth it. It may even pique your interest in learning Greek.
I will add, Part 2 at the end of the book is more technical, but working through it is well worth it. It may even pique your interest in learning Greek.
Read
July 23, 2011This is a great resource for any pastor to have, concerning the King James Only (hereafter, KJVO) debate. James White has done a good job addressing this controversy in a matter that is Christ-like and fair, contrary to the attitude seen in the works of some proponents of KJVO. Even before reading the book, I was looking forward to reading on a topic that I know little about, having minimal interaction with it online and in the Marines. Overall, I thought the book was a good example of how one can disagree with an issue and yet remain charitable, not resorting to personal attack against the other side. I want to give some of my personal highlights in reading this book.
The KJVO controversy requires a bit of background, and White does a good job explaining what the controversy is, and the different shades of KJVO. White also provides a good introduction at a lay level to the history of the Bible, Bible translations, the concept of textual criticism and a useful discussion on biblical manuscripts. White’s presentation on the manuscripts and textual criticism covers largely the New Testament rather than the Old, which is a legitimate criticism of the book. However, in all fairness, one must realize White’s strength has been in New Testament textual criticism. Furthermore, there are very few Evangelical scholars engaged in Old Testament textual criticism; there is probably one percent of Old Testament Textual critic that are Evangelical Christians.
So often King James Only advocates are theologically driven such as the instance of an advocate pointing out how John 6:47 in the NASB does not state believe “on Me†(that is, Jesus), when it does in the KJV (218-220). This seem to be a case where there is a denial of believing in Jesus, but as White points out, this is not the case, citing counter-examples of how the KJV does not name the object of faith (Jesus) in other verses. There is a problem in this line of argument used by those in the KJVO camp as well, since the same form of argument used by KJVO proponents can be turned back against them. White cites Acts 4:25 of how the NIV names the Holy Spirit as the source of inspiration of David writing Psalms 2, whereas the KJV fail to have this reading (222). One who argues for a theological superior reading would prefer the NIV here over the KJV Only, since it is theologically more superior, having mention the Holy Spirit.
James White’s presentation is largely quite fair. There are times he adopts what the KJV reading as the original, such as in the instance of Philipppians 1:14 against the NASB (229). It’s moments in the book like this, that should make the reader cautious when one read online criticisms from the KJVO camp that question White’s motivation in writing the book. White however, does offer problems of the KJV in chapter 9, but even then the purpose is not so much to destroy the KJV as to demonstrate that like any other translation, the KJV as a translation is not infallible. It is subject to critique and corrections, like any other version. He cites the KJV reading of 1 Corinthians 10:24, which sounds as if it is encouraging to seek someone’s wealth (294), and the saying in the King James, “fetch a compassâ€, as an Old English idiom that most probably do not understand today, which means “turn aroundâ€(293). From these observations, White provide a devastating critique: “Some AV defenders insist that all one needs is a good dictionary at hand and all will be well when encountering such terms. But why should we always need a dictionary at hand when reading the Bible? Why make reading the Scriptures a laborious task when rendering them in our modern tongue would do just as well?†(295-296).
I was glad to see White address the argument that I heard as a young Christian of how there were homosexuals in the NIV committee (299-300). I have always wondered if that was true, and who were these individuals and their role in the translation process. White discusses this, informing the reader that the person in question was a certain Virginia Mollenkott, and how she was not part of the Committee but was consulted briefly in a minor way in the beginning, and had no influence on the final decision of the NIV production. White also provides here a devastating counter-argument, reducing the KJVO argument to absurdity by pointing out how there are scholars who now believe that the King James behind the KJV was a homosexual. Should the KJVO camp be consistent, they would be led to reject their favorite version.
A KJVO argument I heard in the past was how the KJV was superior because of its lack of footnotes. The certainty of the Word of God in the King James is implied here. White mentioned twice in the book that the KJV has notes also (see 122-124, and 263-264). All counted, the KJV has 8,422 marginal readings and notes when it was first published! It is hard to imagine that this is what most KJVO followers would like to hear. It is also quite enlightening, as it reveals the translators of the KJV understood the importance of interacting with the original languages and manuscript evidences, the process in which is still carried on in the works of modern translations.
In review of the book at large, I would definitely recommend this work to every pastor, to be equipped in handling KJVO. I would also recommend this work to anyone who struggles through this divisive issue, and wants an informed and balance response.
The KJVO controversy requires a bit of background, and White does a good job explaining what the controversy is, and the different shades of KJVO. White also provides a good introduction at a lay level to the history of the Bible, Bible translations, the concept of textual criticism and a useful discussion on biblical manuscripts. White’s presentation on the manuscripts and textual criticism covers largely the New Testament rather than the Old, which is a legitimate criticism of the book. However, in all fairness, one must realize White’s strength has been in New Testament textual criticism. Furthermore, there are very few Evangelical scholars engaged in Old Testament textual criticism; there is probably one percent of Old Testament Textual critic that are Evangelical Christians.
So often King James Only advocates are theologically driven such as the instance of an advocate pointing out how John 6:47 in the NASB does not state believe “on Me†(that is, Jesus), when it does in the KJV (218-220). This seem to be a case where there is a denial of believing in Jesus, but as White points out, this is not the case, citing counter-examples of how the KJV does not name the object of faith (Jesus) in other verses. There is a problem in this line of argument used by those in the KJVO camp as well, since the same form of argument used by KJVO proponents can be turned back against them. White cites Acts 4:25 of how the NIV names the Holy Spirit as the source of inspiration of David writing Psalms 2, whereas the KJV fail to have this reading (222). One who argues for a theological superior reading would prefer the NIV here over the KJV Only, since it is theologically more superior, having mention the Holy Spirit.
James White’s presentation is largely quite fair. There are times he adopts what the KJV reading as the original, such as in the instance of Philipppians 1:14 against the NASB (229). It’s moments in the book like this, that should make the reader cautious when one read online criticisms from the KJVO camp that question White’s motivation in writing the book. White however, does offer problems of the KJV in chapter 9, but even then the purpose is not so much to destroy the KJV as to demonstrate that like any other translation, the KJV as a translation is not infallible. It is subject to critique and corrections, like any other version. He cites the KJV reading of 1 Corinthians 10:24, which sounds as if it is encouraging to seek someone’s wealth (294), and the saying in the King James, “fetch a compassâ€, as an Old English idiom that most probably do not understand today, which means “turn aroundâ€(293). From these observations, White provide a devastating critique: “Some AV defenders insist that all one needs is a good dictionary at hand and all will be well when encountering such terms. But why should we always need a dictionary at hand when reading the Bible? Why make reading the Scriptures a laborious task when rendering them in our modern tongue would do just as well?†(295-296).
I was glad to see White address the argument that I heard as a young Christian of how there were homosexuals in the NIV committee (299-300). I have always wondered if that was true, and who were these individuals and their role in the translation process. White discusses this, informing the reader that the person in question was a certain Virginia Mollenkott, and how she was not part of the Committee but was consulted briefly in a minor way in the beginning, and had no influence on the final decision of the NIV production. White also provides here a devastating counter-argument, reducing the KJVO argument to absurdity by pointing out how there are scholars who now believe that the King James behind the KJV was a homosexual. Should the KJVO camp be consistent, they would be led to reject their favorite version.
A KJVO argument I heard in the past was how the KJV was superior because of its lack of footnotes. The certainty of the Word of God in the King James is implied here. White mentioned twice in the book that the KJV has notes also (see 122-124, and 263-264). All counted, the KJV has 8,422 marginal readings and notes when it was first published! It is hard to imagine that this is what most KJVO followers would like to hear. It is also quite enlightening, as it reveals the translators of the KJV understood the importance of interacting with the original languages and manuscript evidences, the process in which is still carried on in the works of modern translations.
In review of the book at large, I would definitely recommend this work to every pastor, to be equipped in handling KJVO. I would also recommend this work to anyone who struggles through this divisive issue, and wants an informed and balance response.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 126 reviews