Kjv only

How about this:

https://www.logos.com/product/144705/authorized-the-use-and-misuse-of-the-king-james-bible

Outside of Logos, last time I looked there were some well written Thesis on the topic from both sides of the debate, can't honestly say that I have ever read anything truly neutral on this though. Quite a few quote an Ian Paisley book that from memory has "Old Sword" in the title which is out of print.

For those advocating the KJV, or more accurately in many case Textus Receptus, the best of the Thesis available, in my opinion, are the ones that don't rely on a character assassination of Westcott and Hort but focus on the methodology of textual criticism i.e. they discuss theory rather than attack the person.

On the other side the best ones avoid the obvious personality debates and again focus on textual theory usually the external support i.e. the Church Fathers.

Graham Owen said:

... Quite a few quote an Ian Paisley book that from memory has "Old Sword" in the title which is out of print.

I believe the Ian Paisley book you're thinking of may be My Plea for the Old Sword.

This book is short and, in my estimation, helpful.  

https://www.logos.com/product/30964/the-king-james-version-debate-a-plea-for-realism

EastTN said:

Graham Owen said:

... Quite a few quote an Ian Paisley book that from memory has "Old Sword" in the title which is out of print.

I believe the Ian Paisley book you're thinking of may be My Plea for the Old Sword.

That'll be the one, thanks.

Graham Owen said:

...One thing that looking into this reinforced for me was the importance of reading the pages in any Bible before Genesis where textual basis and translation approach are outlined. I believe that the information contained in the opening pages is really useful and makes using the different translations much easier.

I strongly agree.  Thank you for making that point.

Daniel Yoder said:

This book is short and, in my estimation, helpful.  

https://www.logos.com/product/30964/the-king-james-version-debate-a-plea-for-realism

This has been my "go to" since the early 80's. D.A. Carson is as irenic as always in this presentation.

Graham Owen said:For those advocating the KJV, or more accurately in many case Textus Receptus, the best of the Thesis available, in my opinion, are the ones that don't rely on a character assassination of Westcott and Hort but focus on the methodology of textual criticism i.e. they discuss theory rather than attack the person.

It seems to me that the greatest motivating factor in the KJV only debate is the desire to circumvent the entire need for textual criticism. There are all kinds of assumptions and presumptions that undergird people's perception of the Bible, and part of why these generally anchorless starting points are so crucial and imperative for so many is because they believe that 1) exercising more than a handful of brain cells at any given moment is a work of the flesh (i.e. deep thinking is bad, as are situations that require it), and they are 2) subject to extreme fear of anything that calls their "belief" and "faith" into question. Christians, in general, succor reams of unsubstantiated platitudes that they confuse with legitimate Biblical perspective. Thoughts like "the Bible's message is so simple that a child can understand it" and "God is not the author of confusion" become "anchors"...but they are free-floating anchors unconnected to Biblical truth. If you believe that "God provides certainty", whatever that means, then you can interpret that to mean that any suggestion that a person may need to weed through the difficult task of becoming familiar with issues of textual criticism, a phenomenon that is the antithesis of certainty, is a work of the devil. If you believe that "God wants us to have peace of mind", peace of mind is most quickly reasserted by just declaring that the "old, old book" (KJV) is the only one people need bother their little heads over. Ironically, to "support and prove" this position, a handful of apologists develop elaborate arguments that are themselves something other than simple. C'est la vie.

Of course, one way to circumvent the issue of "which English Bible is best and/or acceptable" is to just learn to study and read the original languages. But that requires more than just a handful of brain cells and so making such a suggestion is a work of the devil...besides "God would never require anyone to learn an unfamiliar language in order to know Him." Speak Your Platitude With Attitude!!

Daniel Yoder said:

This book is short and, in my estimation, helpful.  

https://www.logos.com/product/30964/the-king-james-version-debate-a-plea-for-realism

Per the Logos page above, this is the one to beat: "the most formidable defense of the priority of the Byzantine text yet published in our day."

https://www.amazon.com/Identity-New-Testament-Text/dp/0840757441 

Per the reviewers, it smashes up modern day criticism.  

The historian in me wants to recommend that you go back to where it all started.  The entire KJV-Only movement began with an old Seventh-day Adventist college president named Benjamin G. Wilkinson in 1930 when he published his book “Our Authorized Version Vindicated” which is readily available online.  Even though this happened during the years when SDA theology was at its most legalistic as its leaders were trying to impress the fundamentalists of the day with their own rigidity and extremism, the majority of SDA scholars and leaders at the time felt his book was just too extreme and problematic so they almost immediately published a rebuttal (I believe it’s called “Objections to Our Authorized Version Vindicated”).  Wilkinson later published his reply to their objections (I think it was called “Answers to Objections to Our Authorized Version Vindicated”) and that was it.  All other KJV-Only teachings are built on the foundation that Wilkinson created.  (I own facsimile reprints of all three volumes but do not know if the second two are as readily available as the original as the publisher of my copies died around 5-6 years ago.)  I’ve been told more than once that Wilkinson was so extreme in his views that none of his children had any desire to remain in the SDA denomination after becoming adults but that he eventually had a deathbed conversion where he repented of his legalism and found Christ in his final hours.  He is still extremely popular among some of the far-right fringe Adventist members who want to hold on to the extremes of the 1920-1950 era of SDA theology, while most mainstream Adventists who understand the gospel of grace have little-to-no use for him or his materials today.

SineNomine said:

David Paul, do you have a book recommendation in light of your theological considerations?

The only book(s) I have read on the subject were dead tree versions, and they have been mentioned above (White...possibly Carson?). I think they are available in Logos. Taken as a whole, I find the subject tedious. Like I said, I think the whole issue is more about psychology than it is about theology. The whole complex uncertainty related to textual criticism and trying to determine the "real" text gives some people the shakes. Uncertainty about YHWH terrifies people. People want to believe that ':Elohhiym can't be pinned down, and yet they want to believe that they somehow have pinned Him down, like a bug on a board. On the other hand, when things regarding "how He does what He does" get uncomfortable, people quickly agree to rely on the old trope of "mysterious ways"...or, as I said, platitudes (sayings that sound religious and/or Biblical but are just presumptions that can't hold up to scrutiny).

Denise said:

Per the Logos page above, this is the one to beat: "the most formidable defense of the priority of the Byzantine text yet published in our day."

https://www.amazon.com/Identity-New-Testament-Text/dp/0840757441 

Per the reviewers, it smashes up modern day criticism.  

Oh, this one looks much more fun and effective...I just love the strategy of insisting that all opposing views are the work of SATAN!

Plus, he's got advanced degrees! He must know what he's talking about!!

SineNomine said:

(I don't. As a Catholic, the KJV-only arguments are just-sit-back-and-watch debates, preferably with popcorn, for me. But this thread has been helpful for me nonetheless.)

How about setting up a debate between a KJV-only proponent and a Latin Vulgate only proponent? That might attract both a Protstant and a Catholic audience.

http://www.dtl.org/versions/article/vulgate.htm