The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism

Rating:
Summary: Thomas R. (KJB1611) has not read this book!
Review: A response to a previous review:

"Mr. Carson does a good job of defending the modern versions."

Very true.

"Unfortunately, in order to do so, he must misrepresent the KJB only side and make it seem like Mr. Ruckman and Ms. Riplinger are actually representative of the KJB only position, which they are not."

Ruckman and Riplinger are NEVER mentioned in the book, nor are their writings.

"He ignores the scholarship of men like D. A. Waite, D. O. Fuller, Edward F. Hills, etc. to focus on two weirdos, Ruckman and Riplinger."

Carson didn't mention Waite, but he did deal with the theories of Fuller, Hills, Hodges, Ray and Pickering. Carson cannot honestly be accused of employing a straw-man argument. Thomas is either lying in saying he read the book, or lying about the book's contents.

"Of course, since Biblical preservation dictates the KJB only position, since the Textus Receptus is the vast majority text, it is necessary to distort the KJB only position to attack it."

Biblical preservation says nothing about the King James Version. The TR is not the Majority Text. It is never necessary to use a straw-man argument, on this topic or any other, and Carson does not do so. Rather, he deals with the best arguments available in favor of the proposition that the KJV is the best (or only!) Bible translation on earth, and he refutes them calmly and reasonably.

"However, if you want to defend the modern versions, this is as good as you'll get."

Unfortunately, if you are looking for honesty and sanity in KJV-Onlies, Thomas R. is about as good as you will find -- a person who shamelessly fabricates "facts" even though he knows anyone can read the book and discover that he's lying.

I commend D.A. Carson for writing such a calm and irenic book when I consider it's people like Thomas R. that he's responding to. Read the book yourself. Don't let Thomas put you off.

Rating:
Summary: A scholarly and respectful treatment of a thorny issue
Review: D. A. Carson's primary purpose in writing The King James Debate: A Plea for Realism is to refute those who advocate the superiority of the Greek textual tradition behind the King James Version of the Bible. As a consequence, his effort has produced a wonderful primer on textual criticism. The book is divided into two parts: Textual Question and Nontextual Questions. Carson makes every effort to treat the position of his opponents with respect although it is quite evident their position frustrates and even angers him.

The first six chapters are dedicated to surveying the different text-types and their historical traditions. He gives his readers a succinct overview of very complex issues regarding the rise of the four major textual traditions (Byzantine, Western, Alexandrian and Caesarean) and briefly discusses their strengths and weaknesses. Carson also navigates the thorny issue of how variations between these text-types developed.

Carson briefly discusses the origins of the Textus Receptus (TR) and makes the case that the TR is based upon the inferior and late Byzantine text-type. He traces the history of the TR through Erasmus's Greek Testament. He affirms that the KJV translators used the best manuscripts available to them at the time, but subsequent discoveries cast doubt upon the accuracy of the Byzantine text-type vis-à-vis the other traditions. In Chapter 7, Carson methodically summarizes the reasons why the TR is an inferior textual tradition.

Part Two deals with what Carson calls "Nontextual Issues." In actuality, this major division addresses Carson's thoughts on translating scripture. He deals with seven popular arguments some uses to support the superiority of the KJV translation over other modern English translations. Carson respects those who have a deep personal and emotional commitment to the KJV but has harsh words for those who use historically and scholarly fallacious methods to claim KJV superiority over other modern translations. He points out that the KJV is quickly falling out of favor because the Elizabethan English is obscure, confusing and sometime incomprehensible.

Carson includes a lengthy appendix presenting a critique of the book "The Identity of the New Testament Text" by Wilbur N. Pickering. Pickering's thesis is that eclecticism is not a method to be trusted. Pickering objects to the concept of text-typing and supports the majority reading approach to determining the most accurate text. Carson refutes Pickering on eight points. Many of these points refer back to his 14 theses in chapter seven.

D. A. Carson's point-by-point analysis and refutation of the "King James-only" element in American Christianity should be required reading as an introduction to textual criticism. The book is also helpful for anyone entering the pastoral ministry. Carson thoroughly and forcefully presents both sides of the issue with more respect than his interlocutors provide him.

Rating:
Summary: This is an ABYSMAL book!
Review: D.A Carson regards himself as a guru on every aspect of New Testament study, ranging from the Gospel of John, to the translation of the King James Bible. Carson regards himself as a great scholar, and that self belief tends to mislead others. The truth is that Carson's knowledge of the principles of translation, as with his knowledge of the ancient languages, is so poor that he is not qualified to make a comment on the viability of the King James. This is an ABYSMAL book, which finds an excitable puppy dog (Carson) barking at the feet of the master (the KJV). Carson tends to think that the NIV lends itself to memorisation as easily as the KJV. I am not sure if he wrote this while sucking his thumb, but most probably, he did. I will give him $1000 in cash if he can quote five verses of the Bible verbatim to me in the NIV without looking at the text of his much underlined NIV Study Bible. This book will drive any thinking person back to the King James, and for that reason alone, it cannot entirely be ignored.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent refutation of KJV-only heterodoxy by noted exegete
Review: Dr Carson was understandably saddened by having to divert energy from his work of expounding the Word of God to refuting this divisive heterodoxy.

It's a shame that most KJVOs devote far more energy to learning where the modern versions differ from the KJV than in learning what the original Greek and Hebrew teach. Dr Carson in particular has emphatically defended the Deity of Christ far more than any KJVO writer, despite their absurd claims that modern versions undermine this vital doctrine.

I agree with one reviewer that this book has been surpassed by "The King James Only Controversy : Can You Trust the Modern Translations?" by James R. White.

I also agree that it's good to purchase both, because Carson covers more historical issues and common methodological fallacies, and critiques the Pickering thesis about the Majority Text (which should NOT be confused with the so-called Textus Receptus that disagrees with the majority of manuscripts on a number of places).

One obvious fallacy of KJVOs is begging the question: i.e. produce massive charts comparing the modern versions with the KJV, and use this to prove how horrid they are. But this presupposes that the KJV is the standard. In reality, there's nothing to stop hypothetical NIV-only people using the same methodology to prove the superiority of the NIV. But anyway, wake up, KJVOs -- none of the Bible's human authors spoke any kind of English, let alone the archaic variety!

Note that Carson's book was written before Riplinger came on the scene, so how on earth could Thomas claim that Carson was focusing on her?? Rather, he deals with the very people he claims to have ignored! Also, one of his heroes, Waite stocks Riplinger's material, so it's not so easy to distinguish between factions of the KJV-only camp.

Also, his address KJB1611 is misleading because it's almost certain that he uses the Blayney 1769 revision. That's unless his "1611" version contains words like Iesus, hee, loue, and the Apocrypha.

Rating:
Summary: Very Good But A Little Difficult To Use
Review: This book is mostly sound. It was written in 1979 by D.A. Carson, a member of the Evangelical Free denomination. This was three years before the collated Majority Text of Hodges-Farstad, so Carson's treatment dealt primarily with the Textus Receptus.

Carson does a good job showing what's wrong with the KJV Only book. He attempts to not be snide and for the most part succeeds. He successfully points out the problem of double standards used by KJV Only advocates. He is also not "against" the KJV although his opponents accuse him of this.

One weakness is that although this book doesn't do so, Carson has come out in favor of "gender inclusive" translations. This sets up a straw man that KJV Only advocates knock down easily without ever dealing with the issue.

Although I like and recommend this book, I highly recommend either James White's book ("The KJV Only Controversy") or "One Bible Only?" by Central Baptist Seminary.