The only debate was not whether he used Greek authority, but rather which Greek manuscript he used for authority. I really have no clue how you came up with your argument that Erasmus produced his 3rd edition without a manuscript. If he was ignorant of such, he has not gone to any effort to research it, or address it, and he claims to be a theological scholar. He was very untruthful in his speculations about Erasmus and propagated a lot of false information that I still see circulating today.
How can you objectively claim that he is not? Objectively, if the first quote is scripture, the second should also be scripture, he states it with the authority of written scripture, and the only reason why one would assume it was not scripture is …. Let me address one of his statements I neglected, and perhaps you might see what I mean:.
He could only say this if he was omitting whole classes of evidence, including the grammar of the majority Greek text of 1 John. Why did I introduce the Codex? I have seen some people refer to it as a Greek manuscript, and your author calls it a Latin manuscript. Although your author says he has a picture of it, there is nothing behind his web link. Though thinking about this I suppose that anyone could show me a picture of any Latin manuscript and I would have to take their word for it as to its identity. Whether or not the Codex is Latin or Greek makes little difference to me personally, because I evaluated this on subject before without being aware of this particular Codex.
So here is a proposal. There are whole classes of evidence being withheld by the theological types here, yet in the case of a Greek minority reading, it is precisely these sources to which we should expect to turn. If you have not, can you truly say that you are trying to evaluate all available evidence? For example, I would not be surprised if you were unaware of the Greek grammatical problem that occurs when the full text is omitted. And, would you please clarify: do you believe that a reading must always be present in the majority of all extant surviving Greek texts in order to be legitimate?
Or is it possible for a Greek minority reading to be correct? You were quick to stand up for Wallace, but compare the types of statements you had already made?
Some of them sounded positively Nazi. I said earlier that I forgive easily. The full text of 1 John can also be found in Greek lectionaries 60 and Lectionary 60 dates to A. Lectionary older, dating to the tenth century. Finally, there are at least two Greek lectionaries early didactic texts usually containing copious scriptural citations in which the Comma appears Lectionaries 60 and I hold it not, as you apparently believe, as a prejudice that I brought to the issue.
I now think, in retrospect and after having seen what I take to be plenty of decent evidence, that the KJV only position is intellectually inept, contrary to fact and not a serious candidate for scholarly Christian attention. We would be well off if we all forgot about it ever existing and got on with sensible thinking. The one example you suggested turned out to be Latin.
But this was no error, and I was surprised at your comment. Every source that I am aware of cites Erasmus as the first to compile and distribute something we call Textus Receptus. Even KJV only sources say this. If you have some special way of interpreting things so that you can describe Erasmus as not compiling the work that later — yes, with editorial help from later people — became the basis of the KJV, then fine. Yes, it existed in a manuscript that was provided to him, but he knew better.
But this changes very little. It was Codex 61, written by a friar named Roy or Froy from Oxford that was then quickly provided produced? Even De Jonge, the foremost Erasmus expert who refuted the false claim about Erasmus making a rash promise, accepted that Erasmus knew that Codex 61 was not representative of a Greek original. He says that Erasmus:. He regarded manuscripts which deviated from the Byzantine text known to him, and showed parallels with the Vulgate, as having been influenced by the Vulgate.
Henk J. Second , we agree that absolutely none of the early Greek fathers quoted the Comma. Third , we agree none of the Latin Fathers who use the phrase found in the Comma and who clearly quote it in any context until the fourth century. That brings us to Cyprian , from the late third century. As you know — since you quoted him — he never quotes the Comma which is why we must agree that no Fathers quoted it until the fourth century.
In fact you seem to be quite unable to imagine any circumstances under which he could have said this but not been referring to the fact that the New Testament contains the Comma. He believes that it refers to them. In fact, the example of Cyprian is an outstanding example of how this interpretation of the passage, seeing the three things mentioned as figures or allegories of the members of the Trinity as in Cyprian, who interprets the text this way but never says that it names the Father, Word and Spirit just a century later had actually slipped into Latin copies of the text itself, as in Priscillian or Varimadum whoever he is.
Lastly, you refer to Greek lectionaries, one from the 11th and one from the 10th centuries. Well, I never claimed that there were no such examples. That was Wallace. Of all the possible places from which to defend Textus receptus, the Comma is probably the worst. You wrote quite a long paragraph explaining how your use of theological slurs, labeling, haphazard categorizing, and inflammatory language does not make you a religious bigot.
Yet, I have nothing to judge you by except your actions and your words. If you want to be seen as fair and objective, start acting fair and objective. Your response indicates that you are anything but fair and objective. You have refused to do basic research, even from links that have been put in front of you. This is the mark of one who is scholastically deficient, not of someone who is truly sincere in willing to look at all the evidence. Additionally, some of your responses lead me to question your rational or intellectual capacity, or even your honesty.
The most reasonable and least accusing explanation for these are prejudice and bias. I will demonstrate by example:. This shows me that you are either careless in your wording, or biased to where it affects your judgment. A third option might be that you are deficient in the area of mathematical reason.
You do not have my specific agreement, and you shall receive no blanket endorsement of Wallace from me. The way you phrased your question, it seems you were prepared to take any agreement and try to portray it as a blanket endorsement. I shall not say he is a liar, but he does make false statements. Now you are repeating the myth. You just protested that no one was making the argument, and then you go and use it yourself, with scarcely a pause.
Even a basic reading of the statements of Erasmus demonstrates that he knew it was a legitimate reading, but had not included it because he lacked the Greek text. This, again, is a demonstration of the mathematical fallacy of failing to recognize the difference between surviving evidence and actual fact. You are employing a form of sophistry.
It is quite possible that many Greek fathers quoted the text of 1 John both in normal speech and in their writings. It would be correct to say that we are not aware of any surviving evidence in the writings of early Greek fathers. Do you understand the difference? I am being objective and implementing basic mathematical reasoning. Your statement is irrational and depends upon an illogical assumption that we have access to every statement spoken or written by every Greek father. Third, we agree none of the Latin Fathers who use the phrase found in the Comma and who clearly quote it in any context until the fourth century.
You know full well that we have no such agreement. I just finished citing Cyprian [a Latin Father] who cited the text in question in the context of scripture in A. That brings us to Cyprian, from the late third century. Again, what is with these absolutely false statements? As a substitute, you have substituted a fanciful story that lacks any sort of basis in known fact. It is hard to believe the acrobatics you will go through to try to claim Cyprian is not saying what he is saying. If I understand your argument correctly, it seems that you are claiming that Cyprian is instead referring to the 1 John , even though there is no reference to anything in 1 John Again, I cannot be sure what you are saying, but I think if you actually came out and stated your theory succinctly instead of dodging around it would look plenty silly.
Summarizing, your response was intellectually dishonest it failed to address any of the material points I had raised and your counter-theory was not grounded in facts or evidence. You have not convinced me that you have set aside your prejudice, or that you are attempting to be objective. You have no such agreement, and your failure to address any of the points I raised does not convince me of your sincerity.
Cyprian certainly does quote 1 John Any amount of evidence is irrelevant when speaking with someone who has already prejudiced themselves against considering all evidence and reasonable conclusions. You have not answered material points, you have failed to answer direct non-rhetorical questions, you give leading statements that misrepresent my position, you have neglected to research whole classes of supporting evidence, and your reasoning is biased and irrational. If you were fair and objective and truly seeking to consider all evidence, we would be talking about Greek grammar by now.
From this statement, I judge that Wallace is lacking in his theological, historical, and exegetical ability. I John does not affirm the doctrine of the Trinity, rather it contradicts an opposing argument such as Arianism or Unitarianism. I had requested multiple times that you avail yourself of information that you were lacking, and I provided two web pages. As such, the Johannine Comma would not have been useful in dealing with these heretics. As such, there is no reason why any early patristic writer would have been inclined to find the Comma particularly useful against this particular heresy.
We note that Tertullian, even at that early period in which he wrote, found it necessary to strenuously emphasise that the unity of the three in one was a unity of essence, not person. This is quite explicable in view of the fact that Tertullian was directing his arguments against Praxeas, who held to Monarchian theology. In general, though, the patristics probably would have been disinclined to rely upon these verses to defend the Orthodox view of the Trinity, as the verses could just as easily be turned back against them and twisted to support the Sabellian heresy.
We could also obtain supporting documentation from non-Trinitarian sources, including people that describe themselves as Unitarian and Monarchian.
The King James Only Controversy, Part 4
However, please remember that this discussion is about the integrity of our source text, not about its doctrinal ramifications. It is obvious to me that you have not attempted to avail yourself of any of the relevant material to this discussion. Your entire aim seems to be to prevent any of the relevant evidence that would be required for considering a Greek minority reading from reaching the public discussion. If you have convinced me of anything, it is that you are not sincere. You exhibit the exact same traits that your original blog condemned.
Why does the Majority Greek text demonstrate flawed grammar that is resolved when the full text of 1 John is included? Are you prepared to say that you do not believe the original Greek text was inspired? Since you will not answer material points, nor direct questions, and your statements lack basic logic, and you refuse to address the evidence at hand, this serves as a sufficient demonstration why these discussions usually get no where, because there is seldom an interest in an honest sincere discussion of the relevant evidence.
Andrew, we definitely agreed that Cyprian never quoted the Comma. You personally believe that he must have been referring to it, but he never quoted the section in dispute. As for the rest, dang Andrew. You evidently think I have time for this nonsense, but I think that simply as far as evidence goes, I have said what I need to. Since I am left to my own devices, I presume this means that I have the last word.
We definitely agreed that Cyprian never quoted the Comma. Where, Glenn? Read the actual words. If you can take a clear statement like this and spin it around backwards, why should you be granted any credibility to read statements from Cyprian, Priscillian, Tertullian, and so forth? If you are not intentionally lying you must be severely deluded. I am the one saying that we should be considering the whole spectrum of manuscript evidence, the quotations of the early fathers, not accepting myths and fables without evidence, and looking to the grammatical issue within the Greek text itself.
That is what I call a blinding prejudice. I doubt that you even looked at the Greek grammar. Pro KJV 28 The heart of the righteous studieth to answer: but the mouth of the wicked poureth out evil things. Of course, he will no doubt deny that, but that, in effect is proof that it is true. Not only here, but on scribed, which you can find by googling his name. Honestly, I cant believe Glenn has wasted this much time. Geoff, it is true that a lot of it was time wasted — because some people deny what is right before them e.
It goes around and around and around, whipping up a rhetorical storm of rambling and stumbling over claims. That will at least help keep people away from such fanciful thinking and they will be more wary about just believing KJV-obly claims in future.
King James Only
Some people who might have been sucked into that view will now not be sucked into it. I was wondering which side in this would pick up on the Proverbs reference and claim it for their side; either one could, from their perspective claim that the other guy is the fool.
This is one reason I believe this issue is a major distraction within the church or at least within certain neighborhoods of the church. A more interesting question might be: how in the world did all this KJV-Only stuff begin? I speculate that along the way some over-zealous defenders of orthodoxy with a penchant for conspiracy theory over-reacted and went on a heresy hunt, ascribing nefarious motives to all who disagreed with them hence all the accusations of dishonesty, deliberate distortion, etc.
Glenn, you exited the debate with lies and accusations. Your proposed reading is an incorrect reading on its face and this is plain to see for anyone who can competently read Greek and who understands Greek grammar! I try to use words with precision. Thus, when I used this adjective, it means that when I say that I cannot find an error in the King James text, it is because I have actively tried to break it.
Obviously, I use quite a bit more than the King James text, and I probably avail myself of more translations that most of you here. Just drop the use of the slur. If you know it is offensive, why would you continue to use it? When I say that Glenn was lying about what I said, did you not go back and check the posts in question to determine the actual statement?
Did you not notice that he was refusing to answer basic questions that would be required to proceed with a normal rational discussion? It is not fair to suggest that I have conjured unfair accusations when they are demonstratively true. You asked when people started considering the Authorized translation as inerrant scripture. I have two answers for you. The first is that there are people who have commented or complained that the Authorized text has been treated as inerrant and inspired all the way back to when it was first produced.
If anyone cares, they can ask me directly follow my web page for an email link or you can start your own research from the links I provided. I will, as always, interact with people at my blog when I see fit. You being someone who holds to conditional immortality know this full well. KJV-onlyist is only a derisive slur if you think it is. I dont think it is, and I am sure Glenn does not either, I certainly dont use it that way.
It is merely a term to describe a cult of people who approach Scripture in a certain way. I would suggest you have more problem with it than I do. I think Glenn has gone way and beyond showing he was correct. And having disbelieved Glenn myself, studying the subject and arriving at the same conclusion despite my need to prove him wrong, I have to say… sorry dude, you failed. Therefore your methodology is flawed, and that pretty much ends the story. This awful choice was certainly not made because they just spoke that way about people and graves.
Of all of the inane statements that one has got to really take the cake. You do not seem to have the courage or the integrity to define what you mean by that statement. Act Tyndale 27 because thou wilt not leve my soul in hell nether wilt suffre thyne holye to se corrupcio.
You have fallen into a trap of believing the lies of your enemy, and letting them re-define the words for their own advantage. I am reminded of a joke, where two Kiwis are building a house. Every now and then one of them will reach into his bucket, and toss a nail over his shoulder. Truthfully, were the nails actually in error, or was it that the Kiwi did not properly understand the function of nails?
Stop throwing away the nails, and if you cannot figure out how to use them properly, at least save them for the other side of the house! And what was your suggestion? Even if you attempt to ignore this connotation, it remains a Place designated as a Proper Noun. Ironically, right now I am engaged in a debate with an Eternal Conscious Torment Calvinist who has allowed that the language of my Authorized Text, as read in Modern English, uses language that completely annihilates the devil.
I am also hearing unfounded claims from all sides that are ignorant of what they criticize. In our example from the Titantic forum, it is acknowledged that souls perish. You all could benefit so much from learning basic vocabulary and grammar. It is a well-recognized truism that the key to winning a debate is to define your terms. I let my Bible define its own terms. It works remarkably well this way. It makes no difference whether this is the first death or the second death, because death is still the total annihilation of thoughts and consciousness regardless of the cause of death.
And according to the King James text, in death your actual thoughts perish see Psalm Likewise, if you read ahead to Revelation, it might actually make sense to you for a change:. Rev KJV 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. Hell is not a fire by itself, rather hell is going to be cast into the fire, and set on fire, during the day of judgment. I am continually amazed at the unchristian behavior I see on this blog.
And when I say that you brag about your ignorance, I mean it. I notice that still no one has attempted to read any version of 1 John in the actual Greek. How is this that any of you have deluded yourselves into thinking that you have attempted to evaluate all the evidence? Mat Tyndale 21 Ye have herde howe it was sayd vnto the of ye olde tyme: Thou shalt not kyll. For whoso ever kylleth shall be in daunger of iudgemet. The rest is taken care of, Bill, in the eternal truth of Rom , in whatever translation.
Nicely balanced article as usual Bill. As it is the first of four, I assume you will be dealing with major stylistic differences — Verbal Equivalent translations, Dynamic Equivalent and Paraphrases. All sinners are oysters. The cultured Thomas Marley was present, and heard the sermon and saw what followed. But never mind. I look forward to parts 2, 3 and 4. Thanks Mark. All four parts of this article were put up simultaneously earlier this morning, so they are all there!
Just follow the live link at the end of each part to the next part. And yes in Part 3 of this article I link to a 2-part article I wrote on various translation types, etc. I will link to them again here:. I wish you all the best in tackling this topic; it really needed to be done. Many thanks Jonathan for that important clarification. Good article. The KJV and other reliable versions state that Phebe is a servant, not a deacon — there is a world of difference! Thanks Sarah, but…. This is another clear case of how knowing a bit about how translation theory works, and having a bit of an understanding of the Greek can be of some real help here.
I would first say that the text should always determine our theology, and not our theology determine how we understand the text or translate certain words. The issue of female leadership in the church is of course a really big hot potato, with various Christians of good faith and conviction taking differing positions on this. That is the stuff of another discussion, and I will not enter into that debate here although I tend to lean to the conservative side of things if one must know!
It too would likely take another words just to lay out all the complex issues involved, including textual, linguistic, biblical, theological, cultural and historical concerns! But back to the term in question. If you pull out your Greek New Testament or, if need be, a Greek concordance, or even a good English concordance if that is all you have available , you can see how often the actual Greek word is used, and how it is rendered into English.
The truth is, there are judgment calls in every single Bible version as how to best and most precisely translate the word or words of one language into that of another. So again, there is no sinister conspiracy here, nor some terrible, or some superior, versions. We simply have various options presented to us, and we try as best we can to get the best and most reliable results as we translate.
But thanks for your comment, as it helps to further elucidate matters here. There was no explanation, at least, none that I understood, and thought that the whole idea was an attack on the Bible. That was upsetting. Sounded a lot better. Usually the left agenda does sound better in its terms. We recently looked at the life of Silas and discovered that Acts A little heat was generated about whether Silas returned to Jerusalem or stayed in Antioch. Those who advocated the view that he stayed in Antioch were not open to a discussion. It seems that the excluded v34 has a lot of variants, while vs 33 and 35 have none.
From this alone one can perhaps see why v34 was excluded from the CT. If he stayed in Antioch, then the story in v 33 and v 35 is questionable. We cannot really explain it by suggesting that he left and soon returned. One has to draw the line somewhere. Better to be close as possible to the original source than to be at the other end. Thanks Joe. It is just the propaganda tool of a heretical cult, meant to deceive. So obviously I am not endorsing something like that.
Hi Bill — thank you for your reply and explanation. I have recently left the Pentecostal movement and am reforming. I have a lot to learn! This is so needed Bill, thank you again for your burden for the church as expressed in your many articles and speaking engagements. I hope when it time to stand before our Lord and Saviour He will be delighted in showing you the fruits of your labours. I am developing an enormous admiration for our heavenly Father who not only has done all things well but He has done it in spite of us, in spite of our weakness of the flesh.
Take His word for instance. Of course it is one glaring lie and the only reason it is believed is because one is not to the anger their god by asking questions. But the Lord God Almighty sent the Holy Spirit to flawed people and was still able to present the world with His most precious revelations so that many may be saved. There is no wonder so many have died trying to protect it and share it.
I try convincing them that the only truly anointed word is my New King James. But alas to no avail. I was impressed by your article on the KJV only controversy. I have bee debating them ex. Gail for over 40 years. Let us connect our ministries so we can together deal with the issues of the day. I hope you are publishing your materials in book form, Dr. Robert Morey. The correct translation had to await the discovery in ancient texts of the land of Kue in southern Asia Minor.
Great article. The KJVO crowd usually act like conspiracy theorists. But like most conspiracies, there is often a little truth in it. One big advantage of the KJV is that it is a pre-evolution and pre-documentary-hypothesis era. The major disadvantage is that it has errors that have since been corrected in modern scholarship.
Dilution of sin, hell, abortion etc seems to be creeping into modern translations,. Also 2 Samuel is Goliath. We begin arguing for Creation from the Bible, we need to argue for his words from the same place. Thanks Edi. I have not posted your full comment, for two reasons. One, when someone does not show me the basic respect and courtesy to actually read an entire article first before attacking it, I am not very impressed to be honest.
It shows intellectual laziness and a lack of Christian grace. Also, given that most of your criticisms were in fact already covered in the entire 4-part article which you chose not to read, that makes such comments especially unhelpful, and I will not waste my time here repeating myself on these matters. As to being uninvited by the KJV Only group, um no, it did not bother me in the least.
It simply showed how immature, churlish and clueless they are. And groups like that I prefer NOT to speak to if they are that far into such unhelpful, even cultic silliness. 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. Mar 10, Philip rated it really liked it.
Though written by one outside of Fundamentalism, this work provides a powerful response to the lunacies of Fundamentalist writers such as Ruckman and Riplinger.
King James Onlyism in Action - Tract - Bible Baptist Bookstore
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 histori 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 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. 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 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 Mi For some time already I've been fascinated and interested in the study of the New Testament language and the study of manuscripts. I must say that this inspired me to get back to learning Greek. 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. Oct 03, Fred rated it it was amazing. 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. And while only cited twice in the article this book's influence can, I'm sure, be felt throughout.
If anyone is looking I read the four books which are considered the standard for KJV Onlyism criticism and this one was by far the best. 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.
White please have pity on your fellow scholars and release an eBook edition! Thank you.
Shelves: owned. 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 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!
Aug 11, Daniel rated it it was amazing. To quote Norman Geisler, "This is the best book in print on a topic too often riddled with emotion and ignorance. 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 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. 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. Jan 23, Thomas Harrison rated it it was amazing. 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. Jun 04, Paul Landkamer rated it liked it Shelves: my-collection. 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.
Thorough and well laid out arguments against KJV onlyism. A must read for any facing these issues. 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 "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.
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. 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.
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.
- Early Clinical Intervention and Prevention in Schizophrenia.
- Point Process Models with Applications to Safety and Reliability!
- King James Onlyism versus Scholarship Onlyism Peter S. Ruckman?
- African American Women Writers Historical Fiction.
- Ruckman’s view of the KJV translators;
- Cognitive Perspectives on Israelite Identity.
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.
Fanatic read! 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. 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, Fanatic read! 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. Jul 23, Jimmy added it.
My Responses to KJV-only People, or people typical of King James Onlyism
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.
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. 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.
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 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. 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? 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 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. 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 , and All counted, the KJV has 8, 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. Jan 01, Tony Fiser rated it it was amazing. This book is a treasure for the Body of Christ. I personally come from a background involving KJV Only-ism and I can say from personal experience that the KJV only movement is cultish and the beliefs in that community, which I believe to spawn directly from the KJV only stance, are highly destructive and isolationist.
James White does Christians a great service in demonstrating just how misguided and incorrect is the view that the KJV alone is the preserved word of God and all other translations This book is a treasure for the Body of Christ. James White does Christians a great service in demonstrating just how misguided and incorrect is the view that the KJV alone is the preserved word of God and all other translations are "perversions. The true KJV Only advocate generally mocks and scoffs at "scholarly academics" and so many of them would laugh, out of ignorance, at this kind of rebuttal to their beliefs.
But, interestingly enough, the conference of scholars that translated the KJV are diametrically opposed to KJV Only advocates if one would only read the translators notes to the reader of the KJV. Though there are bad translations, good translations and better translations, NO translation is perfect because it is not possible to perfectly translate a carrier language to a receptor language because languages are integral to their cultures and because between two languages there are cases in which the receptor language simply has no equivalent word. James White demonstrates why this position has challenges.
For example, there are if I recall correctly six verses at the end of Revelation that don't exist in any extant Greek Manuscript. They were translated from the Latin Vulgate because that's what the original translators had access to. This is just one example of where the KJV isn't perfect. The KJV like all other translations has its challenges, but it is to be sure, a fantastic and beautiful translation of God's Word and is perhaps one of the most beautiful literary works ever accomplished in the English Language. In the end, the issue really isn't what family of manuscripts should we follow Alexandrian, Majority Text, Critical Text, Textus Receptus, etc.
The question every manuscript scholar must occupy themselves with is what did the original author pen when he wrote? That is what is important. When one steps out into the larger world outside of the Body of Christ and enters debates with Muslims, Atheists and others, a commitment to KJV Only-ism will expose its weaknesses because those groups as non-Christians have used the most popular translation the KJV to discover these weaknesses and the flaws in it to attack the Christian Truth and Faith. One must, in that context, be able to give answers and defend the faith against illegitimate claims but the KJV Only advocate will be forced to give answers that are irrational, obviously wrong and inconsistent.
That is not what Paul did. That is not what Jesus did. That is not what we are to do. This work is a solid refutation of the KJV Only position and the destruction and harm it causes to the Christian and the non-Christian. It is simultaneously a solid presentation of WHY the Christian Scriptures in the Holy Bible are trustworthy, eclipsing all other historical works of antiquity in demonstrable preservation and accuracy.
Mar 27, Josiah rated it really liked it Shelves: theology , textual-criticism. 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 and Chapter 9 are thus probably the most important chapters for the average reader, as Chapters 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 Rating: 4. An interesting read.
I'm a big fan of the King James Bible, but for strictly stylistic and literary reasons. It's a good translation, technically speaking, but it has its problems. That said, I have only recently run into those formally part of the "KJV Only" movement and thought this might be worth reading as it's been collecting dust on my shelf for a couple of years.