Item description for King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations? by James R. White & Mike Baird...
Overview "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"--Provided by publisher.
Publishers Description Modern Bible translations still come under attack from the King James Only camp. In this revision of a book continually in print for more than ten years, James R. White traces the development of Bible translations old and new, investigating the differences between versions like the NIV, NASB, and NKJV and the Authorized Version of 1611. Written with the layperson in mind, The King James Only Controversy leads the reader through the basic issues of the debate and into the more complex issues of textual criticism. Enlightening reading for all Christians.
Promise Angels is dedicated to bringing you great books at great prices. Whether you read for entertainment, to learn, or for literacy - you will find what you want at promiseangels.com!
Studio: Bethany House
Est. Packaging Dimensions: Length: 1" Width: 5.5" Height: 8.5" Weight: 0.96 lbs.
Release Date Jun 1, 2009
Publisher Bethany House
ISBN 0764206052 ISBN13 9780764206054
Availability 3 units. Availability accurate as of May 25, 2017 10:50.
Usually ships within one to two business days from Momence, IL.
Orders shipping to an address other than a confirmed Credit Card / Paypal Billing address may incur and additional processing delay.
More About James R. White & Mike Baird
James R. White is the author of several acclaimed books, including "The God Who Justifies" and "The Forgotten Trinity." The director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization, James also blogs at www.aomin.org. He and his family live in Phoenix, Arizona. Shabir Ally holds an MA and a PhD from the University of Toronto. He is the president of the Islamic Information & Dawah Centre International in Toronto, where he functions as Imam. He explains Islam on a weekly television program called "Let the Quran Speak."
Reviews - What do customers think about King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations??
Encouraging, Excellent and Enlightening May 22, 2008
I know some people still love the KJV Bible, but when they go to church, they should bring their NIV. I believe that the battle has been won by the NIV (and other current versions). The KJV Only movement reminds me of the Japanese soldiers that chose to stay on the Pacific Islands 30 to 40 years after the war had ended. They believed they were still defending the homeland. But unfortunately, the war was long over. The KJV Only movement needs to realize that the war is over and the NIV has clearly won. In their selfishness, the KJV Only movement is only pushing people away.
This book is encouraging because it does a good job on making you appreciate how God has preserved His word through all of the 5,300 cataloged manuscripts. The shear number of these manuscripts being so many (5.300) and the varied location of these manuscripts being widespread, and the various dates of these manuscripts being from many different centuries, it really makes you appreciate God preserving His Word. God did not use one English version to preserve His Word. If God had done that it would be too easy for man to pervert the text. Kind of like the Mormon Bible - they had to accept whatever Joseph Smith said was on the golden plates (which they never saw). But like the author says, since we have ALL these manuscripts, it actually makes it hard for anyone to go back and change the text. Having All these manuscript actually helps to show what the original text was. Even with the numerous variants the author shows how these variations can be resolved. It actually is a clear road map to the original. It seems that Ruckman wants to be the Joseph Smith of our Bible.
This book is excellent because the author is well prepared to handle the subject. He has clearly well aware of the history and background of the Bible. This book is a mini course in lower criticism and higher criticism. I love his work on Erasmus. He does a great job on showing that Erasmus faced the same opposition when he created his Greek Bible and translation as the people who translated the NIV. I love the history of the Bible and how through the centuries God has raised up men to preserve and translate His Word into the language of the day. The author shows the irony of people who reject the "new" translations, forgetting how they got their own "familiar" translation. This is truly history repeating itself.
This book is enlightening because he has clearly done his homework. He shows the hysteria and in some cases the meanness of some of the KJV only people. He covers verse after verse showing how KJV people try to scare and deceive people into believing that the NIV and other translations have deleted passages. He has so many examples it is mind-boggling. He does a great job showing the great ignorance and the cruelty of the KJV only movement. This book should be a great encouragement to people who are still in bondage of the KJV Only movement. They no longer have to believe the deception of the KJV Only movement.
From reading the many reviews, it is clear that the truth about the KJV Only movement has long been out and people are aware of it.
Thank you, James White Mar 10, 2008
The King James-Only cult is an abomination to Christianity. It has nothing to do with the truth and nothing to do with the advancing the Kingdom of God. The sooner it disappears from this earth, the better.
James R. White's embarrassment. Feb 19, 2008
The writer of the forward assures the reader that "White's treatment is sensitive to the King James Reader as well as the NIV reader." Is it? Anyone who has actually bothered to read Mr. White's book will find the opposite to be the case. Mr. White makes the rather unbelievable statement, "The body of the work will demonstrate that the KJV Only position is forced to make statements about the Bible that in reality undercut the very foundation of the faith itself." As if they could. I've read their materials and I find that not only is this statement unsupportable but those in the KJV Only movement affirm the biblical, historical and foundational truths of the Bible. "I am no friend of those who would seek to undercut the very foundations of the Christian faith. Indeed, it is a concern for the integrity of the faith that drives this reply to the KJV Only position..." Advocates and supporters of the KJV are in no way engaged in a campaign to undercut the foundations of the Christian faith, regardless of what Mr. White may think. Nor does their position in any way compromise the integrity of the faith. "It is very common to find the KJV Only advocates dismissing any appeal to the Greek of Hebrew manuscripts." Actually, I have found the opposite to be the case. I have found KJV Only materials are very willing to discuss the Greek and Hebrew when the situation calls for it. Mr. White's contention that KJV Only advocates are "fuzzy" on the particulars of how we got the Bible should appeal only to those who have failed to read any KJV Only materials. Mr. White contends that "Anglican ecclesiology had an impact upon the KJV's translation" but failed to provide any examples where any Anglican theology has influenced the translation. Mr. White had every opportunity to make the case in his book but for reasons unknown does not. Mr. White wrote, "Misrepresenting others-even those we wrongly feel are in error-is not an option for one who follows Jesus." Yet when reading this book one believes the author is free to make such misrepresentations about KJV Only advocates. The author wrote, "And finally, there is no conflict between obedience to Christ and belief in Christ." One does not have to believe in Jesus Christ in order to obey Him. Unfortunately, Christianity is rife with such examples. When discussing an omission or deletion Mr. White wrote, "Of course, someone might argue that the omission in such a small number of manuscripts could have been due to single scribal error, and such is, or course, a possibility." But, no doubt, far from certain. This leaves one to wonder why he would write such a statement when on the next page he wrote, "The difference between textual criticism done on the basis of facts and evidence, and that done on the basis of conspiracies and prejudgment, is plainly evident." Well, apparently then it's not evident to Mr. White when the proceeding quote is more supposition that factual! What sort of evidence does Mr. White appeal to if all he has is a possibility? On page 174 Mr. White wrote, "...including a reading that has fallen out of the majority of Greek manuscripts." I think Mr. White's cause would best be served if he could somehow show that this had actually happened. Mr. White makes the same mistake in discussing Acts 16:7 by writing, "The phrase `of Jesus' has dropped out of the majority of Greek Texts." He again fails to provide us with any objective reason to believe that this is what has actually happened! Words such as probably, could have, most probably, may be, quite certain, possibility, could have been, quite possible and almost certainly are scattered throughout his book and use of words such as these lead to less than definite conclusions and leaves the reader that Mr. White is engaged in guessing. In this book Mr. White has labeled KJV Only advocates as indoctrinated, anti-intellectual, anti-scholarship and anti-freedom and the like. I find it unsettling that one who calls himself a Christian would describe his fellow believers in such a slanderous manner. Mr. White does a great disservice to his cause by displaying his obvious prejudice against those who advocate the KJV and his doing so leads him to make some rather unsupportable claims. Mr. White could have and should have used his book to help bridge the supposed gulf that may or may not have existed between the two but instead uses the opportunity to push the two parties even further apart.
In closing Mr. White wrote, "Finally, as I said at the beginning, my desire is for the peace of Christ's church." I find it difficult to believe that he is indeed desiring peace if he is willing to mischaracterize his fellow believers as he has done. If he indeed wants peace I can only believe that he will accept it only on his terms.
Instead of this book a better treatment on the subject is Which Bible? (5th Edition) edited by David Otis Fuller.
Great book on a highly debated subject Jan 21, 2008
James White does a great job of explaining the variances from the modern translations compared to the KJV. This book helped my knowledge greatly.
Wondering where all the reviews are coming from... Jan 12, 2008
I looked briefly at the very first reviews of this book. How is it that so many of them are only by "A Customer"? A sensible answer may be that they were truly genuine reviews, but you certainly have to wonder if they were answered by few or a single opposer to this book.
The quick and naughty of this book is that the KJV is a translation like all other translations like RSV, NIV, NASB, etc. While the KJV is based on a handful of more recent texts, the NT for the others are based on older (so closer to the time period of Christ) documents numbering well over 5,000. Handful versus 5,000. It's interesting to note that few or no people bothered to address the fact that the original 1611 KJV had a slew of errors and required revisions over the coming years. White makes this argument and its a solid one.
The only reason I have this 4/5 is you can certainly feel a bit of arrogance in his writing and all of his aim is against KJV. If you truly want to read the correct text, then no translation will do even the KJV. You'll have to learn Greek for NT and Aramaic & Hebrew for the OT. But for everybody else, the best bet is to read unbiased translations (which would be to avoid translations like the Mormon Bible, Jehovah Witnesses, New Jerusalem Bible, perhaps NRSV). Translations like NLT, NIV, TNIV, HCSB, NASB, ESV, and even RSV are generally good choices depending on what you desire of a literal (and sometimes difficult wording) translation or one that flows with the text better but gives up some of it's literal translation for readability. NASB, the extreme end of literal and NLT with perhaps some of the greatest readability.