I agree with D.A Carson when he thanks James White for finally bringing sanity to this discussion. Some will say that the "beginner" should start some place else, but I strongly advise beginners to start here. Anyone struggling with this issue is not "mature" anyhow and if you are surrounded by those who hold to KJV "only" you will not be having a "mature' conversation with them until they have their eyes opened to the truth. So, it is a win/win and a lose/lose. Read the book. ( )

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. ( )

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. ( )

In this work, James White seeks to counter some of the claims of the more Cultic KJV-only folk, which is why White distinguishes the types of KJV-only proponents in the beginning of the book. White gives a good overview on textual criticism that is accessible to the lay person but also is deep enough to take down popular level KJV-only arguments (there aren’t any scholarly arguments for KJV-onlyism, at least not the type he’s trying to debunk.) Oftentimes, TR-onlyist scholars take personal issues with some of White’s arguments in favor of the Nestle-Åland text, but that’s another issue.The focus of the book is that Cultic KJV-onlyism, an ideological disease that has the symptoms of

You must hear/read from the KJV to be saved.
The KJV is the only Bible for the English speaking people
The KJV is 100 percent perfect and where it differs from the original languages the KJV is correct.
The KJV was re-inspired in 1611, making it better than the Hebrew and Greek we have today (though they would say the KJV is on par with the actual original autographs that the biblical writers wrote themselves.)

The King James is a beautiful translation and you can use it to the exclusion of all others, but don’t make it a salvation issue with your fellow Christians. ( )

A very good summary, with little known historical and textual information, about the controversy about Bible versions. ( )