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

MJ. Smith said:

Josh Hunt said:

I am curious, how is this issue different for Catholics. Ignorant question, I am sure, please help. 

In Orthodoxy it takes the form of Patriarchal New Testament and the Septuagint as the "preferred text"; in western Catholicism it took the form of the Vulgate as the preferred text. Note, however, the the Vulgate was revised by scholarship and had no definitive text until the Reformation forced the issue. Remember that for two millennia the Anglicans, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, and Oriental Orthodox have happily agreed on the Septuagint as the canon for the Old Testament ... I use "canon" in the sense of "suitable for lessons in worship" and "recommended for personal reading" ... However, it has never bothered them that even within a religious stream, there is not agreement as to what books constitute the Septuagint. And the Oriental Orthodox were quite willing to accept a 27 book canon for the NT and not bother to print or use in worship more than 22 of the books for a millenia and a half. In short, the view of Scripture that requires a definitive canon and a definitive text is tied to a particular interpretation of sola scriptura which is dependent solely on a printed text rather than universal church and tradition. One could mark the divide, perhaps, by asking it scripture is read or proclaimed in worship.

Fascinating. Awareness about such things is just creeping into my awareness.  Thanks for cracking the door open a bit more.

MJ. Smith said:

One could mark the divide, perhaps, by asking i[f] scripture is read or proclaimed in worship.

Well, certainly, in the Tanakh: there is more reference to what we consider to be Scripture being "called" (i.e. spoken). Indeed, the Qaraites (Karaites) identify their chosen distance and separation from Rabbinic teachings and accretions (i.e. Talmuudh) by referring to themselves as "Scripturalists" by their use of the word qaaraa', which means "call" or "call out". When the tohraah was read aloud in the Bible, it is often described as being "called out", and this results in the word many Jews use to describe the Hebrew Scriptures, miq:raa'. [Adding a meim (M) to the front of a verb can turn it into a substantive noun.] Looking at Neh. 8:8 NASB, the word "read" is qaaraa' and the word "reading" is miq:raa'...thus it can be translated as "They CALLED from the scroll, from the instruction of ':Elohhiym, clarifying to give insight so that they understood THE THING BEING CALLED (i.e. the Scriptures)."

Although miq:raa' is used today to refer to the Hebrew Scriptures, TaNaKh: (or simply Tanakh) is more common. It's an acronym word based on the three Hebrew sections of the "Old Testament".

All that said, we must also account for the Bereans, who were described as "searching the Scriptures daily", and this obviously indicates that they had reading matter for daily perusal. Even the terms for "calling" suggest that SOMETHING is being called out, and Neh. 8:8 above shows that this "thing" was a scroll...which obviously had to be read in order to be called out.

I want to add that there is plenty of reason to conclude that YHWH planned for current conditions (ubiquitous Bible reading options, including Logos software) and that what we commonly refer to as "studying" is His fundamental expectation for all who wish to enter His kingdom. Prophecy certainly indicates that will be the case. Worship (which tends to be viewed as collective adulation in song) must be accompanied by intensive reading (to be done individually or in groups).

Parrots can "call out", but that doesn't mean they will be in His kingdom. Wisdom in the form of "insight" and "understanding" are requisite for worship to have any effect at all, because mishandled worship is equivalent to idolatry.

MJ. Smith said:

David Paul said:

NABRE is probably the most common of these in American churches.

It is currently the only permitted translation (Latin rite/novos ordo) except for Children's services. Elsewhere in the world one finds JB, RSVCE, and NRSVCE as the required text. Those of us living near the border may occasionally fudge a bit ...

Which border? The US/Canadian border? I've been curious about what Canadian Catholics use since the NABRE is from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I thought I read somewhere that the NRSV was approved for use in the mass in Canada, is that true, and is that what most people use? And do they mostly use the RSV the mass in English-speaking parts of Europe?

EastTN said:

One book that might be useful is God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible.  What's nice about it is that it discusses the making of the KJV, its literary qualities and its cultural and religious impact without getting into the "KJV-only" debate.  It's a good reminder of why some people still value that translation so greatly.  Understanding that might help build some bridges between the two camps.

I don't know about building bridges, but I'm old enough that I cut my teeth on the KJV, and I think that having that background and familiarity is extremely valuable due to the enormous amount of cultural references that come from the KJV's centuries of English language dominance. These days if you say "mote and beam" you may get a roomful of blank expressions. So I'm glad to have the background, but I only infrequently turn to the KJV these days unless it is one of those rare instances when the NASB fumbles the "literal translation" ball and the KJV is able to recover. One clear example is Rev. 13:8, where the NASB committee caved-in to a textual canard that has become the contemporary fashion.

Comparing Rev. 13:8 NASB with Rev. 13:8 KJV, the KJV retains the EXTREMELY LITERAL interpretation "lamb slain from the foundation of the world" in favor of a translation that does clear violence to the Greek but is similar to a verse four chapters away (Rev. 17:8 NASB). The NASB chooses "written from the foundation of the world in the book". The KJV gets it right because its interpretation is EXACTLY what the Greek says...PLUS there are at least half-a-dozen other verses in the Bible that confirm the idea of the Lamb's death being an established prophetic fact from before creation. So kudos to the KJV (and NKJV) in this case, but overall the NASB is a more literal translation, and since prophecy relies inordinately upon word choice, I prefer the NASB in almost all cases.

David Paul said:

EastTN said:

One book that might be useful is God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible.  What's nice about it is that it discusses the making of the KJV, its literary qualities and its cultural and religious impact without getting into the "KJV-only" debate.  It's a good reminder of why some people still value that translation so greatly.  Understanding that might help build some bridges between the two camps.

I don't know about building bridges, but I'm old enough that I cut my teeth on the KJV, and I think that having that background and familiarity is extremely valuable due to the enormous amount of cultural references that come from the KJV's centuries of English language dominance. These days if you say "mote and beam" you may get a roomful of blank expressions. So I'm glad to have the background, but I only infrequently turn to the KJV these days unless it is one of those rare instances when the NASB fumbles the "literal translation" ball and the KJV is able to recover. One clear example is Rev. 13:8, where the NASB committee caved-in to a textual canard that has become the contemporary fashion.

Comparing Rev. 13:8 NASB with Rev. 13:8 KJV, the KJV retains the EXTREMELY LITERAL interpretation "lamb slain from the foundation of the world" in favor of a translation that does clear violence to the Greek but is similar to a verse four chapters away (Rev. 17:8 NASB). The NASB chooses "written from the foundation of the world in the book". The KJV gets it right because its interpretation is EXACTLY what the Greek says...PLUS there are at least half-a-dozen other verses in the Bible that confirm the idea of the Lamb's death being an established prophetic fact from before creation. So kudos to the KJV (and NKJV) in this case, but overall the NASB is a more literal translation, and since prophecy relies inordinately upon word choice, I prefer the NASB in almost all cases.

David, I'm also old enough to have grown up with the KJV, and like you I tend to prefer the NASB now.  But for purposes this discussion I'd rather not get into a debate over which translation is "best."   In my opinion, the KJV-only debate has generated far too much ill-will and mistrust.  We would all benefit from a better understanding of where the other "side" is coming from - whichever side that might be.