Customer Reviews

Which Bible?

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

I have been a Bible Student for some 35 years. After reading Dr. Fullers' book: "Which Bible?", I was glad that my Bible of choice has been the Authorized King James Version since my youth. Dr. Fuller, acting as Editor, has put together a marvelous exposition of Historical and Spiritual Truth relating to our Holy Bible. The information in the pages of this book isn't common knowledge among christians, even though it should be. Nothing is more important than Gods Word and with the factual and historical information given to us by Dr. Fuller, we can read our KJV Bibles with confidence, knowing that the same God who Inspired the Word, is able to Preserve the Word to all generations. I recommend this book to all students of Gods Word. It is without a doubt the best souce available for all those who are honestly seeking the truth on this subject. (dbufkin@rocketmail.com)

This book provides an exhaustive review of where and how the King James (KJV) Bible came into being. It reviews the manuscripts (the Received Text) from which the KJV originated. Also Fuller exposes and compares the Received Text with the Westscott-Hort Text. Biblical proofs and apologetics are examined concerning the KJV.

It is perhaps the best book that I have read concerning the topic of which bible should I use for my spiritual guidance. The information is very informative and rewarding to the bible student.

The reproduction of the work, "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated" by Benjamin Wilkensen is the most prized aspect of this book, though the articles by Edward F. Hills and Hoskier are informative as well. Get a hold of it, and keep your King James Bible, too.

Forty years after the first edition was published, this book is still an excellent introduction for laymen into the complex and eye glazing topic of textual criticism and more importantly an excellent argument for why it is so important.

If you would read the Bible in order to decide for yourself what it is all about, it matters greatly whether or not you are reading an accurate translation and that depends largely on whether the manuscripts in the original languages chosen to base the translation upon are accurate copies or not. Too many people, including too many of the negative reviewers of this book, seem to think it is merely a dispute between the English of the KJV and the English of any of the more modern versions, but the true distinction is between the Greek New Testaments (and to a lesser extent the Hebrew Old Testaments) used to base the translation upon.

The KJV was based on what is called the Received Text or the Byzantine Text or the Majority Text, so named because some 95% of all hand copied manuscripts ever found agree with its readings while virtually all subsequent English translations are based upon the Westcott-Hort Text or the Nestle Text or the Alexandrian Text, which is based on only 5% of all hand copied manuscripts ever found, which differ considerably from the 95% majority (and each other). The problem is that if these minority manuscripts are defective or, worse, deliberately altered (and this book presents a mountain of evidence showing precisely that), it is like using a heavily Bowdlerized "children's" edition of a book to correct its first edition. A stream of manuscript copies discarded and laid aside as faulty in the 5th Century by people with access to far older manuscripts than we have today has been almost literally dug up and used to "correct" the majority of manuscripts on little more basis than personal whim, the astonishing arrogance that these puffed up textual critics are wise enough to choose the correct readings based on no more evidence than their "educated" opinions!

There is a very revealing comparison and contrast between the conduct of the KJV translators and that of the Revisers; the former with their careful translations, checking of translations, and rechecking of translations, the latter with their secrecy and straight party line votes after all but fact free debates.

Note: A number of the arguments made by negative reviewers of this book suggest that they never read it (or perhaps read an earlier edition then the 5th edition I read). For example my edition is pretty thoroughly footnoted. Another strange quibble is the repeated breathless announcements that Benjamin C. Wilkinson, author of "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated", which makes up about half of this volume, was a Seventh-Day Adventist!

So?

The issue is not upon which day Christians should be celebrating their Sabbath but rather which Bible we should be reading in order to figure that out.

As this book reminds us, the defenders of the KJV going all the way back to the Revision itself have never had their arguments (and more importantly their facts) successfully refuted, from which we are entitled to conclude much, and this book is mercifully free of the inerrant translation nonsense that too many modern KJV defenders have been taken in by, nor is it a repudiation of scholarship but rather a champion of scholarship that actually examines the evidence instead of theorizing in spite of it.

Note: The argument continues in True or False? The Westcott-Hort Textual Theory Examined and Counterfeit or Genuine? Mark 16? John 8?.

David Otis Fuller has surprised many who had respect for long and effective pastoral ministry in Michigan. While many of his other works reflect good research, open disclosure, and sound scholarship, this book reflects sloppiness at best and deceitfulness at worst. Why no footnotes disclosing sources and proving his points? Why no disclosure of who Wilkenson really is? Considering that Fuller quotes and copies more from more him than anyone else in this book (almost half of this book) why did Fuller not disclose that Wilkenson was a 7th Day Adventist? Furthermore, he identifies him as a godly pastor which would lead the reader to think that he must be of the same cloth as Fuller theologically. Is that possibly deceitful?

Doctrinally, as in independent Baptist, I find too much to question and to disagree with in its pages to be able to consider it safe reading for any novice. For the mature, it serves as a good representation of a schismatic view which has caused much unwise division between many believers. It is dangerous and should not be disseminated for any other purpose than to serve as a historic example of bad scholarship which helped launch a misguided movement upon well meaning people.

This is an incredible compilation of writings by various authors and with comments by the editor throughout. The question is: which Bible is the best translation and which Greek and Hebrew witnesses are the best. Fuller cites Robert Dick Wilson, Zane Hodges, Terence Brown, Henry Coray, Edward Hills, George Sayles Bishop, Sir Robert Anderson, Herman Hoskier, Alfred Martin, and Benjamin C. Wilkinson. Every honest seeker of truth should read this book. It is the best of the best in proving the Textus Receptus as being the best Greek text and in proving the King James Bible as being the best English translation from that text. Don't let the naysayers persuade you that this book isn't worth reading. Read it for yourself and let the Holy Spirit guide you. Fuller admits that he doesn't agree with every point upon which his authors write and neither does he necessarily agree with their interpretations in other areas of theology which are not discussed in this book (such as eschatology). The book is well footnoted with relevant footnotes (unlike Metzger and Erhman's book which is extensively footnoted with irrelevant footnotes - they never back up their most controversial claims, but only footnote things are are generally accepted or they twist the original author's intent through a footnote knowing that few people actually check footnotes). I also recommend Floyd Nolen Jones' book Which Version is the Bible?, Forever Settled by Jack Moorman, and The Causes of Corruption of the New Testament Texas by John W. Burgon. Those who discard this as a cult-like King James only argument are sadly misled.

This is a "must read" for anyone who is seriously interested in learning why the KJV is the preferred translation of the Bible. I am sorry that it is out of print, so you will have to settle for the best used edition you can find. WARNING: If you are a fan of the Nestle text, you not like this book, but you really should read it.

While the chief thrust of this remarkable little book is concerning the so called King James Version; yet I found its coverage of the historic use of the so called Received Text, and some of its early translations, e.g., the Old Latin, by so many of the non-Catholic Christians and their churches throughout Europe, and in the British Isles, to be very interesting. All in all it makes a good case for the superior quality and authority of the Received Text and those translations founded upon it, culminating in the King James Version of 1611. An informative and useful read. I highly reccomend it to all who are interested in this topic at all.

Thank you. Larry L. Burton, West Point, Kentucky

This is an excellent work detailing the preservation and distinction of the Majority text family. It traces who used the Majority Text and who persecuted them for it. Also, it confirms the purity of the Majority Text as opposed to the Minority Texts.
This book deals with the big issue in the which Bible debate - which family of texts are our English Bibles translated from.
It has completely changed my perspective and my choice of Bibles to study and revere.

Which Bible? consists of two parts. The first half of the book is a collection of 11 essays on various aspects of the debate, from "The Greek Text of the King James Version," to "A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory." This assortment was very interesting, especially to get more of a cross-section of the viewpoints held by those who oppose the Westcott-Hort method of criticism. There is no cookie-cutter stereotype to stuff all "KJV-onlyists" into. Many qualified people oppose the modern approach to biblical texts for many different reasons.

The latter half of the book contains "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated," by Benjamin Wilkinson. This was a broad historical portrayal of the history of the Received Text, and its opposition through the centuries. It details events in church history and how the various texts fit into that context. Especially interesting were the details regarding Roman Catholic persecution of Christians who refused to use their corrupted text, as far back as the days of Augustine. Certain portions of this section seemed to jump and skip around, but for the most part it was a straight-forward account, and provided an important context to frame the current questions.

Which Bible? is one of the best, almost as good as Edward Hills' "The King James Version Defended." I would definitely recommend it.