Customer Reviews

The Facts on the King James Only Debate (The Facts On Series)

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

This Ankerberg/Weldon publication is a must read for anyone particularily those in the KJV only movement.

Contrary to the two reviews I read prior to mine, this book is not anti-KJV, nor is it a blanket recommendation of ALL Bible versions.

In praying and studying through what the authors have written, I've come to realize the flaws in the KJV-only position.

Since the KJV Bible arose from the English speaking dominance of Western European culture, the assumption is made that it is the one and only true Bible.

What about other cultures and other languages? What Bible are they to claim as "the only true Bible?" Is the answer to take the KJV and translate it into their language? Not a bad start but now you would have just another translation! To be accurate, each language needs to go back to the original Greek and Hebrew.

In short, what KJV-only advocates have done is to break the First Commandment, putting the KJ Bible ahead of God himself; they've told God that he can only reveal himself through the English language of the 1600's.

My challenge to KJV-only advocates is this: Why is it that you can explain any verse in the KJV Bible in your own words to someone, yet when honest, God fearing scholars get together and spend hundreds and hundreds of hours in exhaustive study to put together a printed Bible that leads people down the narrow road, that is wrong? And don't give me this foolishness about a lesbian on the NIV literary committee. What did Jesus say to the woman at the well? What about your life? If you are without sin, then go ahead and cast stones if you wish. At least Ankerberg and Weldon were open and honest about it. They also tell just how insignificant her influence was. I ask all KJV-only reviewers to please tell the whole story when giving criticism, not just part of it. This tactic reminds me of writers like Gail Riplinger whose book appears to read more like a Riplinger's "Believe It or Not" book! I pray that she will learn to convict others as the Holy Spirit leads and not out of an unscriptural allegiance to tradition or emotion.

Do you see the hypocrisy here? If KJV-only advocates were true to their title, when someone asks them to explain a verse, the KJV-advocate should simply repeat the verse over and over using the exact KJV language and keep asking the hearer, "Now do you understand it?"

See how ridiculous this is? God does not put a premium on theological knowledge. To both sides I say this. Love thy neighbor! Get involved in people's lives, exposing them to repentance which is Godly sorrow for sin that leads them to the Cross! Show them hope in Christ and by that others will see your fruit. Remember, the Mormons are KJV-only advocates too. Does that make their faith true? Hardly. I don't care if you're a KJV adovcate or not. If you are a hearer or reader of the Word and not a doer of the Word, you are missing the point.

Finally, I am a staunch advocate of the KJV, I believe it should be preserved and used for every generation to come until Christ returns. God, however, is not constrained by cultural traditions such as linguistic style. Yes, we should guard against false teaching/Bibles but we also shouldn't put unscriptural constraints on the Holy Spirit as He leads us to explain God's Word in a manner that others can understand.

Go! Preach the Gospel and live "Not by might, nor by power but by my Spirit," says the Lord Almighty.

Ankerberg and Weldon have done their usual reliable job of gathering the facts and presenting them in a clear and systematic way. Here they take aim at a heterodoxy that's split churches, the crazy idea that the only Bible we should use is one first translated in the archaic language of 1611 (even though the version all KJV-onlyists use is actually the 1769 revision).

They point out words that are just not understood today. Sure, I guess you could produce a KJV dictionary or a KJV with definitions of these archaisms, but why not put the modern understandable words in the main text? It's a sad joke to see preachers use the KJV, then spend most of their sermon explaining what the words mean, when if they'd used a modern version, they wouldn't have had to explain all this. The cynical side of me suspects that this is why many of them still use the KJV -- otherwise there wouldn't be anything left in their sermons!

A&W refute the usual misinformation by the Riplingers of the world about allegedly corrupt versions and texts, and show that good modern versions such as the NIV, NASB and NKJV clearly teach the deity of Christ.

As for this Riplinger claim about a lesbian sympathizer on the NIV committee, this refers to Virginia Ramey Mollenkott. The problem was, Mollenkott once moved in evangelical circles and gave every impression of being one herself. But she started questioning the biblical teachings on the roles of men and women, and eventually apostatized completely. Her slippery slide is documented by Mary A. Kassian in her excellent book "The Feminist Gospel : The Movement to Unite Feminism With the Church". So the NIV hired her as a stylistic consultant in good faith, and dropped her when her heresy became known.

To show that her views didn't influence the KJV on moral issues, and that the idea that the NIV is soft on homosexuality is arrant nonsense, see this extract from Romans 1:24-28

"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator -- who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

Here, homosexual acts are called:

* sinful desires of their hearts

* sexual impurity

* degrading of their bodies

* shameful lusts

* unnatural relations

* indecent acts

* perversion

* the result of a depraved mind that's rejected the knowledge of God.

For more information, I recommend the following books:

* "The King James Version Debate : A Plea for Realism" by D. A. Carson -- covers a lot of historical and methodological fallacies, and critiques Pickering's defence of the Majority text.

* "The King James Only Controversy : Can You Trust the Modern Translations?" by James R. White -- a much more recent book, which gives a good overview of the main issues, interacts with the fallacies of Riplinger and Ruckman, and analyses many key verses in detail.

Within 42 pages, Ankerberg and Weldon effectively manage to detail the facts for why the "KJV Only" (aka KJO) controversy exists, where the KJO argumentation is flawed, how the known ancient and not-so-ancient manuscripts fit into the compilation efforts of the KJV and modern English translations, and expose the dishonesty of a few of the KJO leaders. The analyses supplied by Ankerberg and Weldon reflect objective and scholarly recognition and appreciation of textual criticism, and fair evaluation methodologies. All of this is done in verbage that is not overly academic, thus making it useful for a broad audience. Unlike what has been penned by the KJO advocates, the presentation from Ankerberg and Weldon is without insult, without hostility, and without questionable behavior--a stark contrast from what is presented by Ruckman and Riplinger in their KJO literary works, which do not reflect the love of Christ anywhere. If you do not have time to read D.A. Carson's and James R. White's books, then this educational 42 page book is for you (especially since Ankerberg and Weldon use Carson's and White's books for some of their supportive argumentation). Even if you want more than just a summarizer publication, this is still a nice reference to own.

This book was an excellent summary of the KJV only debate. The authors are both excellent apologists and they have done an excellent job of keeping middle ground on this issue. Presents a nearly flawless prima facie case against KJV onlyism. KJV only people: If you're gonna speak bad about this book, then come up with some kind of factual basis for your argument instead of just making emotional appeals or empty statements.

Love in Christ,

Jackman

Ankerberg & Weldon provide an easy to read summary of what's wrong with KJ Onlyism. Unlike most works I have read on the topic, Ankerberg & Weldon do not start with a preconceived thesis. They go were the facts take them. Also good is that Ankerberg & Weldon quotes from primary sources fairly without distorting them. They also write with love. Bottom Line: If the King James only issue is troubling you, this is the book to get.

These authors are trustworthy guides. This is a very good book for the person who wants a good summary of the issues without having to spend a ton of time.
The simple truth is that ecclecticism is simply and obviously a much better method of determining what was originally written then just mechanically counting the manuscripts. For, manuscripts that are of different text types found in different locations and dated back to different times which agree are likely to be closer to what was originally written. It is simply impossible not to have to acknowledge the existence of text types. One can group manuscripts according to the types of errors which occur, the same variants at crucial passages and the same general pattern of development. That is simply a fact. There does exist this continuum. As a consequence, one cannot simply count manuscripts. For, it is clearly possible for manuscripts which have all of this in common (the same variant readings, the same types of errors...) to be genealogically related to each other and to have one source. In fact, it is likely to be the case. Whereas, a fewer number of manuscripts which are more diverse in terms of variant readings, types of errors, place, dating which agree are quite likely in their agreement to tell us what was originally written, and infinitely more so than numerous copies of the same text type.
This makes it impossible to adopt the KJV only position. For, the KJV readings do not emerge from ecclecticism.
This is not mention the fact that the Greek manuscript from which the KJV was translated (that is when it did not rely upon readings from Latin which are attested in no Greek manuscripts at all) all date from 1000 A.D.
The KJV has necessarily become less accurate as its language has become increasingly obsolete (see Rom 1:28 where homosexuality is "inconvenient" instead of a sin in the KJV).
Further, as a bilingual educator (and bilingual person), the argument that word for word translation is more accurate is simply ludicrous. It is very difficult to conceive of anybody who is truly bilingual to support the latter idea. Certainly, my grandfather, Dr. John Joseph Owens, who was fluent in 26 different languages and a professor of Hebrew for 40 years at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville Kentucky did not hold to KJV only.
The beliefs of Westcott and Hort are simply not relevant to the discussion. The question is if their conclusions were largely correct according to the textual evidence. The answer to that question is clearly yes. Moreover, reformed scholars such as Warfield and Machen did not adopt the position of the superiority of the "textus receptus". Warfield and Machen are obviously unimpeachable. The byzantine text type is not the most ancient text type. It is replete with homoeoteleutons (e.g. one passage may refer to the scribes and the copyist may think in his mind "and the pharisees" (by his mind betraying him) and write down "and the pharisees" despite the fact that this phrase was not in the passage he was copying (rather it was in a parallel passage). When the overwhelming weight of textual evidence make it clear that "and the pharisees" was not there in the passage of the text copied and a parallel passage clearly does have both the scribes and the pharisees, then we can be sure that a homoeoteleuton occurred. This is obviously a secondary feature (similar to harmonization). As this occurs way more in the Byzantine texts than in any other text type, the Byzantine texts are clearly both less reliable and not as close to the original in time.
One will also notice that KJV only people add rules that the Bible does not have (ie. they are legalistic in the extreme).
Therefore, one is much better off outside of a church that promotes the KJV only doctrine.

Here is a quote from John Ankerberg's "The Facts on the King James Only Debate":

"It is true that Mollencott sat on the literary (stylistic) committee of the NIV, but only for a few months. However, she had nothing to do with the translation, and once her sexual views were known, she was asked to resign. On "The John Ankerberg show," Dr. Kenneth Barker, the NIV general editor, stated that no one was aware of Mollencotts sexual preference at the time. (The NIV was finished in 1978; Mollencotts views were not known until 1983.) If the committee had known, "we would not have consulted here at all."

So, a sinister plot to corrupt the Word of God by Satan's secret agents? Or simply a grevious error on the part of well meaning Christians? I don't know about you, but I think I'll go on what I do know rather than silly conspiracy theories.

The book shows the folly of people like Riplinger and others and their shoddy "scholarship".

1. It goes through the basic issues at hand.
2. The accusations and lies and distortions spread about the other versions and the people behind them.
3. Manuscript evidence and many of the tough questions around real Biblical scholarship.

I would recommend you read my other review for the book: Did the Catholic Church Give Us the Bible?

This booklet defends the modern bible versions. Although I agree with most of what was written, I have to disagree with the idea that there were no homosexuals on the translation committee. There were at least two of them.

I think this booklet will give you the "other side of the story" of the Bible version controversy.

"the Facts on the KJV only debate". Is a seriously misleading title. When I bought this book, among others, to decide for myself on this debate and to get both sides of the issue, I have been thoroughly disheartened on my search. The debate is not about which greek text to use per se... and all their derivations, it is about why one should/should not trust most other Authors and their translations. The issue is over the translator's themselves, who they are, and the new/old greek Egytian text's unearthed in the desert, "Philo" ring a bell? This book completely avoids the debate and the Author deals, as all others, with the "Red Herring" of greek texts only, thereby devoiding the debate entirely.
The issue is the validity of the claims that Wescott and Hort are spiritualist, deviners, and into the accult. These facts are not addressed by any detractors of KJV only. Why not?
Another fact never addressed by this book is the, purposeful, change in Isaiah 14. Where Lucifer is correctly translated and then called "son of the morning. All New age bible versions take out Lucifers name and then refer to "HIM" as "the morning star". Problem: Jesus Christ is called the "morning star" in Revelations.
Why is this signifacant? Because Wescott and Hort were leaders in the nineteenth century accult revival and founders of the New Age Movement with Luciferian Helen Blatavsky. Why was Isaiah 14 changed to make Lucifer look like the messiah and savior? Because these New Age versions flow perfectly with Luciferian and Accult beliefs. As Satanist change their language to be more acceptable to everyone, they are openly using Christian terms to do so and go unquestion by most Christian leaders today.
Again I ask, where are the rebuttals to just a few of the thousands of arguments made by the KJV only believers and why do they believe that way? This book claims to answer the debate and the debate is not even mentioned nor is it in any other scholarly book you will find written.
To be fair to the scholars, if we believe Jesus' words, we are warned about the scholars and scribes. It takes the spiritual to understand the spiritual, for they cannot properly understand the debate, and wisdom cannot be gained from knowledge, so it makes sense that they have alot of knowledge yet little wisdom to discern that knowledge.
They cannot properly deal with the debate at hand because scripture itself states, "a little leaven spoils the whole loaf" I do not have to be a linguist to figure out, given the fact of who these translators ARE, that I am to have no association with them. " Can evil and holy have agreement" or
"can a bad tree bare good fruit" Remember the death of the fig tree.
So if you truely understand the KJV only side you will find no help in trying to hear the other side of the debate and you certainly won't get it from this book. All you'll get is some smooth talk that evades the issue entirely. You will do better to research Wescott and Hort, who all your new versions are based off of. Also, research Strongs concordances and the miriad of Lexicons out there so that you can discover for yourself who "Kittle" is, a nazi, and how his accult greek dictionary is the same one that translates all your greek words for you and you will be amazed and you will find no rebuttals or arguments on these issues because they are true. Then decide for yourself who you should trust.
I will quote Moody for you, he say's it best when writing about today's christians. "They are unaware that they are repeating the errors of the past because they do not understand Greek philosophy or Oriental mysticism, or nineteenth century theosophy ie... Luciferianism. They do not know how seriously they have been affected by such thinking (moody press, the agony of deceit 1990} This has infiltrated your bible, it is a fact and most scholars cannot adequately address this issue because the have not the wisdom to understand or discern it. Pray and fast on your journey and may the Lord Jesus Christ bless you with wisdom.

interesting book, full of half truths and shoddy research. Reminds me of the Davinci Code - a nice piece of fiction. This book leaves a lot to be desired other than it gives some information which you can research and refute yourself (any kid in a library could).

Not worth wasting your time or money on. As Romans 1:28 correctly translates "(b)..God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient". Hmmm reprobate means "to refuse to accept"...just like the authors of this book and those who accept this heretical view point.

Do the research yourself, draw your own conclusion, and then as the Lord God says in Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, and let us reason together,.."