Vous voulez voir cette page en français ? Cliquez ici.

Have one to sell? Sell yours here
Tell the Publisher!
I'd like to read this book on Kindle

Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.


Baker Publishing Group
3.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (76 customer reviews)

Available from these sellers.


Amazon Price New from Used from
Paperback CDN $14.08  
Paperback, April 1 1995 --  
Join Amazon Student in Canada

Book Description

April 1 1995
Addresses the debate over the trustworthiness of Bible translations which has troubled the church for centuries.

Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought

Product Details

Product Description

About the Author

James R. White is the author of several acclaimed books, including The King James Only Controversy and The Forgetten Trinity. He is an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, director of Alpha and Omega Ministries—a Christian apologetics organization, an adjunct professor with Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, and a professor of apologetics with Columbia Evangelical Seminary. He and his family live in Phoenix.

Inside This Book (Learn More)
Browse and search another edition of this book.
Browse Sample Pages
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index | Back Cover
Search inside this book:

Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store

If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store. Learn more

What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?

Customer Reviews

Most helpful customer reviews
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Read Dr. Jones' Book March 25 2004
By robert
If you want the other side of the issue, "Which Version Is The Bible?" by Floyd Nolen Jones is an excellent resource.
This book documents maticulously how the traditional Greek New Testament text (which is the basis of the historic versions by Tyndale, Luther, Coverdale, KJV, and others) was cast aside by revisionist in 1881.
Also carefully documented is the process which produced the radically different Greek text of the modern versions including an analysis of textual criticism. The completely unscientific basis of the methods of textual criticism are also exposed, and evidence that the traditional Greek text is actually much older than the newer critical text of the modern versions is presented.
The work is carefully footnoted and includes a complete and comprehensive bibliography and index.
Was this review helpful to you?
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Researching the facts July 7 1999
By A Customer
Correcting error with error is never wise. While individuals are free to differ on the topic of translations, we are not free to violate truth with inaccuracy. Dr. White, in his attempt to correct the KJV movement, offers several blunders of his own. Here are just a few:
1) White sites Dr. Kurt Aland's statement regarding the tenacity of a textual variant as evidence of his (White's) view of preservation (p. 48). The fact that Dr. Aland was not referring to preservation does not seem to bother Dr. White. Nor does the fact that textual scholars believe some readings have been lost through the process of transmission.
2) White sites that Dr. G. S. Paine as evidence that the KJV translators undertook the task in order to receive favor from the Crown (p. 70). However, Paine (who is a better writer and scholar) says nothing of the kind.
3) White claims that no one printed the KJV for the first 100 years of its existence except for the Royal Printer (p. 244). The fact that both Oxford and Cambridge Universities printed the KJV within that time frame seems to have escaped White's knowledge. As does the fact that the KJV was printed in other countries long before 1711.
4) White claims there were no homosexuals on the NIV translating committee (p. 245) and then notes that Dr. Virginia Mollenkott (a practicing lesbian) served as English stylist for the NIV. Are we splitting hairs here?
5) White claims the KJV translators were inconsistent in their translation of 2 Peter 1:1 and 1:11 (p. 268). However, he never notes that the Greek text used by the KJV translators was Beza's text and does not read as he presents.
6). White claims the KJV translators would have translated 2 Corinthians 2:17 as "peddle" and not as "corrupt" if they were alive today (p.
Read more ›
Was this review helpful to you?
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Helpful, but biased Feb. 4 2003
I found this book very interesting, as Mr. White did a good job explaining "manuscripts," "text types," and "textual variants." I believe the KJV is the best version, not only for accuracy but for its poetic beauty; KJV verses are easier to memorize (they 'sound Biblical'), and church members using many versions make it more difficult to read along with the minister. I do agree with Mr. White that the Johannine Comma does not belong in 1John5, "Easter" is a clear mistranslation in Acts12:4, and that the arguments put forth by the extreme KJV Only people are kind of bizarre. However, while Mr. White does an effective job addressing the extreme KJV Only people, he does not adequately deal with 'normal' pro-KJV people. For example, the two times he mentions Dean Burgon (who he admits is one of the "true scholars of the first rank"-p.91), he agrees with him both times (once where Burgon said the Textus Receptus needed revision, and the other where he grants Burgon's support of the KJV in 1Tim3:16). I realize his purpose is mainly to address the extremists, but he should not put forth argument after argument in favor of the texts underlying modern versions without presenting and dealing with 'normal' contrary views. There are many intelligent pro-KJV arguments from people besides Ruckman and Riplinger-why not present them?
Every textual variant, according to Mr. White, is the result of an expansion of piety, harmonization or parallel influence; furthermore, "Whenever one finds a number of different variants, one can be sure that the shorter reading (that of the modern texts) is the best, as it gave rise to all the others that are found in the manuscripts"(p.185).
Read more ›
Was this review helpful to you?
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars White's Book Soils the Hands July 5 1999
By A Customer
Although I agree with James White in principle -- that the KJV is simply one of many good translations -- his book displays a lack of understanding of the depth of this issue. His statements lapse far too freqently into emotionally-charged harangues belittling his opponents (attacks on their intelligence, guilt by association, etc.). Very infreqently did he seem to endeavor to comprehend their viewpoint. Regardless of whether I agree with his view, this alone is enough to render his conclusions suspect. In failing to crawl outside of his own paradigm -- even for a moment -- White has created not a text which refutes KJV-Onlyism but a slim justification for his own opinions (which are sometimes unfounded). Better books already exist on the topic, so don't purchase this one.
Was this review helpful to you?
Want to see more reviews on this item?
Most recent customer reviews
1.0 out of 5 stars This book is a deception
I purchased this book thinking that it would be about the "modern translations". My hope was to find an objective source of information that would provide a balanced presentation... Read more
Published 10 months ago by Allan Pearson
5.0 out of 5 stars Undoubtedly the best book on this, sometimes, divisive issue.
In my lifetime I have graduated from the RSV (the Relatively Sound Version), to the NIV and now the ESV. Read more
Published on Sept. 17 2011 by rossuk
3.0 out of 5 stars Discover the whole KJV controversy on a bright new side.
I was curious about this title because I have heard often that the King James version of the Bible is so more trustworthy than anything else. Read more
Published on Jan. 22 2010 by Canadianladybug
4.0 out of 5 stars Funny You Should Mention The Ruckman/White Debates...
...because it wasn't White that backed out.
Read Ruckman's own words:
Tsk Tsk Tsk Ruckman.
Published on June 22 2004 by WrightJeff
1.0 out of 5 stars Unscholarly, Unsound and Dishonest
These are the appropriate terms to describe James White's shameless book of pure satanic subtilty-Gen 3:1, 2Cor 11:1-2. Read more
Published on May 31 2004 by "restore2christ"
4.0 out of 5 stars Excellent, but one important point missing...
Every Christian who believes that the Bible is God's Word should read the first part of this book, whether they agree with the author's stance or not, or whether they are... Read more
Published on April 26 2004 by Coleman Yee
5.0 out of 5 stars Are you sick and tired of the KJO crowd?
If you are sick and tired of the dogmatic(mostly uninformed) KJO crowd telling you things like "if it ain't King James, it ain't bible" and touting that "all the... Read more
Published on April 17 2004 by "hypercontrarian"
5.0 out of 5 stars Not so much about Ruckman and Riplinger
What caught my attention is the lack of time spent on Ruckman and Riplinger. Dr. White stays focused in each chapter and sets up the reader by taking them through the history of... Read more
Published on April 15 2004
1.0 out of 5 stars Wrong crowd to follow,these Modern bible believers.
The last reveiwer is pointing one finger at the KJV only crowd and as always three more are pointing toward him. Read more
Published on Dec 22 2003
5.0 out of 5 stars Did the Critics Even Read This Book?
After reading this fine, wonderful book I decided to look at some of the reviews here at Amazon, and I just wonder if those who hated it actually read it? Read more
Published on Sept. 18 2003 by Amazon Customer
Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

Look for similar items by category