The King James Only Controversy by James White

[AdamL]

I know this is an older book and may have been discussed here before.  I am reading it now for the first time.  I am not finished with it yet but will be soon.  Many may wonder why a person who believes firmly in the superiority of the KJV would choose to read a book like this.  I like to look at both sides of the coin.  I find it very difficult to speak to someone intelligently if you do not have some knowledge of their position.

The author of the Book claims he believes the KJV to be a fine and trustworthy translation but then bashes it and shows how it and the TR are filled with errors.  He then shows obvious bias towards the NIV and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as being the best.

He claims that all the verses not appearing in the "best" versions and manuscripts are actually additions to the text by scribes that were over zealous or simply in error.  So he claims the KJV to actually be in error by adding to the text and that the others are what was in the originals.

Wondering if anyone has anything else to share on the matter, or if anyone has read the book.  Does anyone know of any authors that have addressed and refutated what Mr. White writes in his book?

[LindaR]

 

 

[Heir of Salvation]

3 hours ago, AdamL said:

I know this is an older book and may have been discussed here before.  I am reading it now for the first time.  I am not finished with it yet but will be soon.  Many may wonder why a person who believes firmly in the superiority of the KJV would choose to read a book like this.  I like to look at both sides of the coin.  I find it very difficult to speak to someone intelligently if you do not have some knowledge of their position.

The author of the Book claims he believes the KJV to be a fine and trustworthy translation but then bashes it and shows how it and the TR are filled with errors.  He then shows obvious bias towards the NIV and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as being the best.

He claims that all the verses not appearing in the "best" versions and manuscripts are actually additions to the text by scribes that were over zealous or simply in error.  So he claims the KJV to actually be in error by adding to the text and that the others are what was in the originals.

Wondering if anyone has anything else to share on the matter, or if anyone has read the book.  Does anyone know of any authors that have addressed and refutated what Mr. White writes in his book?

I've read it twice, and frankly, I find it to have little intellectual rigour.

Other "Anti-KJVO's" have IMO far better arguments than White does.  The main problem I have with it is that he never demonstrates his fundamental Thesis, namely, the one where he insists that the scribes "added" through over-zealousness motivated by piety.

Practically half of the book's arguments stem from that one assertion, and he never proves it, or even gives any major reason why anyone should believe it.  It's a bald assertion that he simply allows to hover over the book which he never supports with evidence.  White is a popular writer, especially for the reformed crowd and he's plenty intelligent, I think he probably could have done much better but this book is rather weak IMO.

Edited January 23, 2016 by Heir of Salvation

[AdamL]

You are right.  He never proves that or shows any evidence of scribal error he just keeps saying it over and over again.  Another thing he would say is that it was obvious something was added because it didn't make sense being there, but it just seemed like it was his opinion.

I find it extremely hard to believe that with the great amount of work put in by the KJV translators they would be able to tell an "obvious" addition that is so clear to Mr. White.  

Also as much as he says the KJV is a fine translation he has no qualms about pointing out is "errors" over and over. He constantly shows that the NIV is "far superior".  There is only one instance where he prefers the KJV reading over the modern versions and that is at 1 Tim 3:16.  Although he says the modern versions here are not in error.  He just prefers the KJV.  But he gives absolutely no other readings where the KJV would  be " superior" or errors in the modern versions.  

In my opinion he starts with a very similar premise that he claims KJV folks do.  He says Modern Versions are superior to KJV and then spends the whole book trying to "prove" it.  The book is not balanced at all.

[John81]

This is the typical approach of those who seek discredit the KJB. First, they claim to like the KJB, often claiming it's a good translation, but from that point on virtually everything they say contradicts their opening claim. How can they believe the KJB is a good translation which they like if they find it to be filled with flaws and additions of men?

The claims of the "obvious additions" are constantly stated as if fact yet no facts are presented to support this claim. Supposition and speculation is all they have. As pointed out above, often the only basis they have for claims of latter additions to the manuscripts is because they don't think a particular verse makes sense to them. If they encounter a portion of writing in other works they can't grasp how it fits there do they believe someone else added it to that writing at a later date?

In arguing the KJB contains non-inspired verses they are saying the KJB is flawed and therefore unreliable, whether they admit it or not. As well, by pointing to one or more MVs as being accurate where they claim the KJB to be inaccurate they are in effect claiming the MVs to be superior to the KJB. Taken to its ultimate conclusion their claims can only lead to the position that the KJB is not the inspired Word of God but a man polluted text while their preferred MVs, which they claim get things right, must be the actual inspired Word of God. (Unless, of course, they happen to be of those who claim none of our translations are the preserved Word of God. In that case, they claim the KJB is a lesser translation while their MVs are closer to the pure Word of God.)

In their attacks against the KJB they conveniently ignore their MVs don't agree with one another, often to the point of great contradiction, and therefore their MVs (at the least many of them) must be flawed themselves.

It's clear authors such as this have the intent of disparaging of the KJB coupled with the the promotion of MVs based upon their own "reasoning" alone; no facts involved.

[Critical Mass]

When you think about it though, White's approach to the KJV is not much different than from some in this forum. Don't like an English word used in the KJV than go to the Greek (aka Textus Receptus) to find the "deeper meaning behind the word". It's the same tactic that inevitably leads to correcting the English text. .

[swathdiver]

White is a blind and foolish man.  Jesus never quoted the Septuagint because there are no jots nor tittles in it.  It is a fraud which did not exist until the 19th century, same with the Critical Text which it is part of.   

[Ukulelemike]

On ‎1‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 0:57 PM, Critical Mass said:

When you think about it though, White's approach to the KJV is not much different than from some in this forum. Don't like an English word used in the KJV than go to the Greek (aka Textus Receptus) to find the "deeper meaning behind the word". It's the same tactic that inevitably leads to correcting the English text. .

While some do, indeed, seek to change a text's meaning by going to the 'Greek', often it is done because words in English have changed. I have had times when the English didn't seem to make sense in its straight reading, but in seeking the meaning of the word (in English), in times past, closer to the translating of the KJV,  it DOES, indeed, give a deeper (wider?) meaning to some words, and clarifies it when it made no sense before. This has been mentioned in other posts, as well. For instance, 'wine', in 1828, had a primary meaning of unfermented juice, and a secondary meaning of fermented juice, while today, it just refers to fermented. Many words in the KJV have changed meanings so much, particularly in common use, that to seek the meaning of those words in the past is often to completely MISS why it is there.