James R. White (1) (1962–)

James R. White states his purpose as “a corrective to the ongoing (if dwindling) KJVO movement” and “an introduction to the history and background of the biblical text” (p. 19).

In Chapter One, James White defines King James Only. White’s “Groups” or categories of KJVO is found on pages 23-28.

• Group #1: “I Like the KJV Best”
• Group #2: “The Textual Argument”
• Group #3: “Received Text Only”
• Group #4: “The Inspired KJV Group”
• Group #5: “The KJV as New Revelation”

These categories serve more for polemic purposes than educational ones. They cause readers to understand the KJV controversy incorrectly. Groups 1-3 have compelling legitimate reasons to complain of being called KJV Only. Groups 4-5 fail to include some who are legitimately KJV Only (that is, those who reject the ideas of re-inspiration and new revelation, but nevertheless believe the King James Bible is the only translation that should be used by English-speaking Christians.). “Group # 2” perhaps best illustrates the weirdness of White’s categories. In it, he dumps Majority Text advocates (pp. 24-25) who have compiled Greek texts in distinction to the Textus Receptus, and have made translations in distinction to the King James Version! He admits they are not KJV Only, but still places them within the “range of beliefs within the broad category of KJV Only” (p. 23). Ridiculous.

Not recommended for beginners. White intends this work as an introduction to and explanation of the “King James Only Movement.” At some point, those who are studying the “versions” issue should read this book. However, it will confuse the beginners, and set them up to wrongly understand what does and does not constitute “King James Onlyism”. Problems need to be addressed in the generally accepted categorizations that White has foisted on his readership.… (mer)

The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?, by James R. White, is well written and easy to follow. White clearly disagrees with the traditional KJV-Only position, but he is also quick to emphasize that those who believe the position are still his brothers and sisters in Christ. White tries to minimize his bias, and does a reasonably good job of it. He gives credit where credit is due, and points out inconsistencies, regardless of which side of the debate the argument is promoting.

The first part of the book (the largest part) doesn't need much technical knowledge to understand. The second part of the Book uses some Hebrew and Greek words while discussing Textual Criticism. Have some knowledge in one or more of these areas would be beneficial.… (mer)