Rating: 
Summary: Many Misrepresentations By Reviewers....Excellent Book
Review: Many books have been written about this particular controversy. Nearly all of them have been for pastors or scholars. Now there is a book for the layman to understand there really shouldn't be such a fuss. James White does a very good job discussing whether the KJV is the 'only real Bible' and he writes from the conservative standpoint of inerrancy.
Many reviewers have really done nothing more in their reviews than slander Mr. White. One reviewer went so far as to claim that White has no final authority - which demonstrates to me that the reviewer either didn't read the book or didn't understand what he read. White dealt with that very accusation in the pages on Ruckman and Riplinger.
The book has a weakness or two which detract from it being a five-star work. It seems to primarily interact with the extreme wing of the KJV movement. Although White acknowledges the existence of varying degrees of KJV Onlyism, he deals primarily with three: Edwards Hills (mainstream) and two fringe lunatics, Riplinger and Ruckman. Although there are admittedly more scholarly ways of dealing with Hills, White brings the discussion of textual criticism down to the level of the everyday believer.
I recommend this book heartily. It might also help one's understanding to get debate tapes from White's ministry with D.A. Waite and Gail Riplinger. White makes the issues easy to understand.
Rating: 
Summary: Would Like to see a Revised Edition
Review: The controversy regarding the reliability of modern translations of the Bible, especially in comparison to the King James Version, has been incredibly divisive, often splitting churches and even families. A lot has been said, and even more will be said, in the seemingly never-ending debate over Biblical translations and text families. Without a good understanding of the issues involved, a pastor can easily lead his congregation astray; at the very least, he will be uninformed about an issue that has no small importance to his church. The reliability of the Bible that we read is of utmost importance to Protestant Christians, whose faith is based on the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura. James White's book The King James Only Controversy, has been one of the key sources for people who are engaged in correcting the error that is King James Version Onlyism (KJVOnlyism).
This book is written to be very accessible to anyone who is looking for good information about the debate. White's purpose is not to engage in intellectual discussion of the issue; he is seeking to give the average reader basic knowledge so that they can understand the issue and its implications to Christians. He also makes an effort to refute many of the more popular arguments of the KJVOnly apologists.
White goes to great lengths to make this book accessible to lay readers, even including textual criticism information as an Appendix (labeled `Part 2' in the book) so that readers who want more information on this particular topic can investigate further, but people who do not want this depth of information can enjoy the book without it. I think that this book, if given to the average KJVOnly who really wants to have an open mind about the subject, it will succeed in showing them the flaws of the King James Only position.
This book is not without its shortcomings, however. I was disappointed at the very abbreviated treatment of the Comma Johanneum, since this is one of the areas of tremendous conflict in the debate. White does not address the argument that Cyprian quoted the comma, even though this is an argument that is often used - and rather easy to refute. He does not address the presence of the comma in Codex Brittanicus. He ignores the alleged use of the verse by Eugenius at the Council of Carthage in 485. These are all arguments that KJVOnlies can and will use, and readers of White's book will be aware of them - or will be made aware of them.
Another flaw in this book is the amount of time taken in refuting Ruckman and Riplinger. Any reader ignorant of the controversy would believe that these two are the only two people who are writing anything about the King James Bible. The charts are geared toward Riplinger's book - even copying the style in some places. White often refers to his debates with both Riplinger and Ruckman. Considering the ease with which these two are dispatched, it is a wonder that there is a KJVO controversy at all! If only all King James Only advocates were this easy to dispatch, this uneducated. Most real KJVOnlies have distanced themselves from both Riplinger and Ruckman. David Cloud is one example, but he is not mentioned in the book. D.A. Waite is mentioned quite a bit, and is refuted quite handily, though he is also one who has been left on the fringe recently by KJVO advocates. The names mentioned most in the index of the book are Westcott and Hort (together), Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, Erasmus, D.A. Waite, and Bruce Metzger. There are many more KJVO writers out there; it would not have been difficult for White to have found some who were more mainstream.
The material in the book is very informative, and is useful, especially for someone who is unfamiliar with the controversy. Unfortunately, the information presented in the book - including White's anecdotes concerning Ruckman and Riplinger -- is widely available on the Internet for free. I admit that this information was hard to obtain in 1995 - perhaps White would release an updated version of the book, so that we can all benefit from the past 9 years of scholarship and debate in this field.
Rating: 
Summary: James White answers critics of modern Bible translations
Review: The increase in number of modern translations of the Bible has generated a backlash among many older and less informed bible readers, who feel that the King James Bible, or AV 1611, is the only english translation needed. Indeed, some feel that the KJV is THE Bible, re-inspired by God in 1611, and that therefore not only are modern translations unnecessary, but un-Godly, works of the Devil made to lead the faithful astray. Dr. White uses historical facts to show how this controversy has arisen with other translations (including the KJV), and modern scriptural analysis to demonstrate the soundness (and the flaws) of recent translations. He then addresses the key accusations of the KJV believers scripture by scripture, showing that their position is not only unfounded, but unreasonable. I highly recommend this book to anyone wishing a better understanding of where the english Bible in their hands, whatever the translation, comes from.
Rating: 
Summary: Unscholarly, Unsound and Dishonest
Review: These are the appropriate terms to describe James White's shameless book of pure satanic subtilty-Gen 3:1, 2Cor 11:1-2. I do not say the man is "of the devil", but remember, Our Lord rebuked Peter and said "Get thee behind me Satan". I'm afraid James White is speaking the thoughts of the devil in this book. A sign of a false teacher is "good words and pretty speeches"-Rom 16:17-18, and this book certainly qualifies, and James White is quite the slick-tongued deceiver.Its sad to read the positive reviews. These people are CLEARLY uniformed. There is NO WAY to be well read in church history or manuscript history and view James White's revisionist book as anything other than trash, plain and simple. He lies about nearly everything he touches on! While he talks a big talk, he has refused to debate the man he attacks AND MISREPRESENTS, Peter Ruckman. Ruckman offered to pay all his expenses to fly down to his Bible school in Pensacola to debate "errors" in the Authorized Version. White never went, he squirmed his way out of it. Ruckman would have squashed him, White knows it, and so avoided Ruckman. I'm not crazy about everything Ruckman has said and done, but he is the creation of all the Bible correctors and KJV haters, who not only attack the Word of God, but have also viciously slandered Bible believers for years. They created Ruckman by being mean to him for a long time. Now they whine about how he treats them. They have reaped what they have sown. They are hypocrites.
Rating:
Summary: Unscholarly, Unsound and Dishonest
Review: These are the appropriate terms to describe James White's shameless book of pure satanic subtilty-Gen 3:1, 2Cor 11:1-2. I do not say the man is "of the devil", but remember, Our Lord rebuked Peter and said "Get thee behind me Satan". I'm afraid James White is speaking the thoughts of the devil in this book. A sign of a false teacher is "good words and pretty speeches"-Rom 16:17-18, and this book certainly qualifies, and James White is quite the slick-tongued deceiver. Its sad to read the positive reviews. These people are CLEARLY uniformed. There is NO WAY to be well read in church history or manuscript history and view James White's revisionist book as anything other than trash, plain and simple. He lies about nearly everything he touches on! While he talks a big talk, he has refused to debate the man he attacks AND MISREPRESENTS, Peter Ruckman. Ruckman offered to pay all his expenses to fly down to his Bible school in Pensacola to debate "errors" in the Authorized Version. White never went, he squirmed his way out of it. Ruckman would have squashed him, White knows it, and so avoided Ruckman. I'm not crazy about everything Ruckman has said and done, but he is the creation of all the Bible correctors and KJV haters, who not only attack the Word of God, but have also viciously slandered Bible believers for years. They created Ruckman by being mean to him for a long time. Now they whine about how he treats them. They have reaped what they have sown. They are hypocrites.
Rating:
Summary: Leaves much to be desired.
Review: This is undoubtedly the best book available supporting the position that no English translation is perfect or infallible. It approaches the subject on a scholarly level that could be convincing to the unlearned or to those who hold to the author's position. However, it does have problems that need to be addressed.
In many books that argue a specific point, an author usually accuses his/ her opponent(s) of doing certain things that ultimately discredit them from consideration. The author specifically points out these things and gives examples to prove his point. Two examples of this would be Pickering's "The Identity of the New Testament Text" and Burgon's "The Revision Revised". However, in many cases, an author is guilty of doing some of the same things he accuses his opponents of doing in the same book(s) he wrote to discredit his opponents.
Everyone has/uses biases and assumptions, whether valid or not. These biases and assumptions shape the way one thinks and are sometimes used to argue a point. Mr. White has a definite bias regarding textual variants, textual transmission, translation, etc. (see Chapter 3 of his book). This bias is based on several opinions or theories he holds to. He could argue that his biases are based on "sound principles", but this is beside the point. Mr. White has a theory on textual variants that he assumes is correct based on his learning. When a variant is presented to him, he automatically explains it through this theory (bias). When a "KJV-only" person is presented with a variant, he automatically explains it through his belief (bias). Both have a "bias" as the standard, and always go by that bias when confronted with issues of translation, variants, etc.
If anyone would read his book several times through, a very definite set of problems surfaces over and over again. These problems caused me to question Mr. White's honesty, integrity and character. These problems are listed below.
The author has a double standard when dealing with groups or individuals.
The author misrepresents people.
The author frequently does not give full/objective evidence when defending his position or attacking his opponents.
The author's assumptions are based on scholarship that is humanistic.
The author has no proof for many of the statements he makes.
The author has no tangible final authority.
The author has little biblical or scriptural foundation for his beliefs.
Upon reading his book, one finds that most of his opinions and arguments are based on either some authority other than the bible or his own personal beliefs. He has the arrogance to make the following assumptions. These assumptions contradict clear passages in the bible whether in English, Greek, or Hebrew (Genesis 3 for example).
Satan never in 6,000 years of biblical history influenced anyone to change anything God said.
No intentional textual corruption ever survived to make it into any existing greek texts.
Only the original writings of the biblical authors were inspired and inerrant.
With these assumptions, he has the liberty to thrust on the laity his theory of transmission/preservation. This theory is based on the following points:
People make mistakes and so we will find mistakes in the text of the bible.
People who copied texts sometimes added words (whether conscious of it or not) to make a passage match another passage.
People added to a text (whether conscious of it or not) to honor God or Jesus.
People sometimes combined two readings to make a fuller reading.
The transmission of the biblical text is the same as any other book.
The older reading is probably the better one.
If a reading has no variants, it must be the original.
Most of these points are based on a humanistic approach (Westcott and Hort) to textual transmission (TO ERR IS HUMAN, Chapter 3), and the belief that God used this to preserve His Word. Does anyone notice in all of this a lack of a biblical foundation? White does use 1 Thes 5:21 (Prove all things) as a support for his questioning of how we got the KJV (13), but he uses a humanistic approach as his method of proof. Are we not to prove all things with the Word? Are we not to live by the Word of God as Jesus stated? Why would I use a secular theory to judge the bible? Is this the scriptural thing to do?
Regarding White's belief about no one being influenced to try and corrupt the biblical text, White does not tell the reader about those in the early church who were concerned about corrupters of the Word. I will give a couple of quotes to demonstrate this.
Gaius (AD175-200) speaks of the source of corruptions that survive in the early papyri:
"The Divine Scriptures these heretics have audaciously corrupted.laying violent hands upon them, under pretense of correcting them." Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 323
Eusebius (Eccleastical History), citing Clement of Alexandria:
"The worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected originated within one hundred years after it was composed."
He did not tell the reader about some contemporary scholarship's comments on early textual variations/changes.
Colwell (What is the Best New Testament Text?, p.119)
"The first two centuries witnessed the creations of the large number of variations known to scholars today.in the manuscripts of the New Testament most variations, I believe, were made deliberately."
G.D. Kilpatrick (Atticism and the Text of the Greek New Testament, pp 125-131)
"Deliberate changes in all text types appear to antedate A.D. 200..as distinct from errors..all categories of deliberate alteration.are present in both groups.Tatian is the last author of make deliberate changes.the vast majority of deliberate changes were older then A.D. 200.they came into being in the period A.D. 50-200."
With these statements and the bible itself as witness to the possibility, how could White believe only what he stated in Chapter 3 of his book, and that no one was ever influenced to make changes to corrupt a text, and that this corruption was never passed on in the manuscript tradition?
White accuses his opponents of using double standards (107). Does he use double standards in his book? White attacks Erasmus for being a catholic who believed in some heretical catholic doctrine, but then uses Jerome and Augustine as authorities (12, 13). He doesn't tell the reader that Jerome and Augustine were catholics who believed the same heretical doctrine that Erasmus did. He also doesn't tell the reader that one of the committee members for a United Bible Societies' text* (a text similar to the Nestle-Aland text) is a catholic (Carlo M. Martini). He implies that we should not trust a catholic scholar (especially Erasmus pp. 84-85), but does not tell the reader that catholic scholars accept Nestle's text (25th edition) as the standard for their bibles (Jerusalem and New American) and that the catholic church uses translations based on this text. Based on his implication stated above, if the catholic church accepts it, why should we?
* The Greek New Testament, Edited by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren, Third Edition, United Bible Societies, copyright 1966, 1968, 1975
He frequently does not give full/objective evidence when defending his position or attacking his opponents.
I will give several examples below:
He says that his opponents use tradition (9-10) to support their views, but does not tell the reader that the committee who produced Nestle's 27th edition wrote the following, "The criteria used for determining the text are traditionally those of internal and external criticism,." (49) Is their tradition superior? What basis (biblical?) do we use to determine if their tradition is better than ours? Since they do not tell the reader what these criteria are, how can we know that they are superior? How can we apply them "with an appropriate sense of balance?" if we don't know what they are, Mr. White?
2. He does not tell the reader that there are Greek authorities that contradict his Greek authorities. He stated that the word only-begotten (m o n o g e n e s) is an inferior translation. (259) He gave three authorities he believes are final. I have Greek authorities that contradict his authorities. Who's right?
m o n o g e n h s-only begotten, only born, from m o n o s and g e n o s.
Moulton, "The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised, " 1978, pp. 272
m o n o g e n h s-only born, i.e. sole:-only (begotten, child)
"Strongs Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible", p. 49
What is interesting about this is his support for translating m o n o g e n e s as "unique." He does not give other authorities that have a different translation for g e n os. That is, he says that only begotten is from the greek words m o n o and g e n os, and should be translated as "unique." He says that only begotten is inferior (in a footnote on page 259) because he has support from three authorities that give a different translation. I have two lexicons that give different translations for g e n os than the ones he uses, who's right?
g e n os, offspring, progeny, family, kindred, lineage, race, nation, people, kind, sort, species
Moulton, The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised, 1978, p. 79
g e n os (g i n o m a i ), race, offspring, family, stock, nation, kind, sort, species
Thayer, Thayer's English Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, 1978, p.113
White's translation may also have a doctrinal motive that may lie in his reformed beliefs (Calvinistic). To get rid of references to the Incarnation being what is meant by only begotten, some scholars translate the word differently (White) or try and make only begotten mean something else. Take, for instance, W.E. Vines explanation of only begotten:
"In John 3:16 the statement, 'God so loved the world that he gave his Only Begotten Son,' must not be taken to mean that Christ became the Only Begotten Son by Incarnation."
"The Expanded Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words," p. 812
This may also be the reason Thayer translates m o n o g e n h s as "only son".
Thayer, Thayer's English Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, 1978, p.417
Another example of not giving full/objective evidence is found on pages 113-114 regarding the translation of the greek word k a p h l e u o n t e s into "corrupt". White's greek support on page 125 is not objective. The following greek authorities give translations that differ from White's authorities.
"k a p h l e u o n t e s, nom. pl. masc. part. pres. . k a p h l e u w
k a p h l e u w , fut. e u s w , to be a retailer, to huckster; to peddle with; to deal paltrily with, or to corrupt, adulterate."
Moulton, The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised, 1978.
"Hence some suppose that k a p h l e u e i n t o n l o g o n t o u q e o u in 2 Cor. Ii. 17 is equiv. to to trade in the word of God, i. e. to try to get base gain by teaching divine truth. But as peddlers were in the habit of adulterating their commodities for the sake of gain .k a p h l e u e i n t i was also used as synonymous with to corrupt, to adulterate; and most interp. rightly decide in favor of this meaning (on account of the context) in 2 Cor. ii 17, cf."
Thayer, Thayer's English Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, 1978.
Vine has some interesting comments to make about the word k a p h l e u w . He states that "hucksterizing" would be a more appropriate translation, but also states that the word involves, "the deceitful dealing of adulterating the word of truth.to make base gain." "The Expanded Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words," p. 234
I find it surprising that "scholars" such as Dr. Bruce Metzger would say that White's book is "scholarly and accurate, and its examination of opposing viewpoints fair." Either Metzger did not really read the book thoroughly, or he is a liar.
|
