It's their preference & it's beautifully written.
#256: Matchett-PI: “’King James Version Only’ proponents are religious kooks”
#266: Blogger: “How open of you”
#492: Guenevere: “That is so not true”
I never argue with tin-foil-hats (either the “true believers” in the global warning crowd, nor any of the others). I’ll merely present the facts, and let the reader (who may be interested) decide whether or not the “KJVO” crowd are tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists or not. bttt
Dethroning the King James Advocacy
A review of James White’s The King James Only Controversy
by Kristi http://www.tektonics.org/books/whitekjvorvw.html
There has been a civil war of sorts raging among some Christians for the past two to three decades (some may justifiably argue it has been going on for several more decades than that). Unless you have been living under a rock and have not noticed the proliferation of “King James Only” (sometimes called “Authorized Version Only,” or, “A.V. Only”) websites, books, and tracts, you should already be aware of this issue and what it involves.
For those of you who are not familiar with this KJO (King James Only) movement, I will give a (hopefully) brief summary here. An in-depth construction, of course, is detailed within The King James Only Controversy by author James R. White.
White is careful to differentiate the ideological differences and reasonings of those who adhere to KJOism; not all “KJOers” hold identical views.
At its core, King James Onlyism is a belief system held by individuals (most of whom, as far as this reviewer has noticed, are Neo-Fundamentalist, very conservative, Independent Baptists) who maintain that “modern” Bible versions, such as the N.I.V. and N.A.S.B., among the many other versions, cannot be trusted. Various reasons are given for this by King James Only proponents, but the one most frequently cited are those that are based upon— someone call F.B.I. Special Agents Scully and Mulder— conspiracy theories.
It is alleged by “KJOers” that a long list of conspirators, such as-— New Age Believers, Roman Catholics, ancient Alexandrians, Origen, Satan, homosexuals, liberal scholars, conservative Christian scholars, Gnostics, and ancient Greek philosophers (why they have not included little green aliens, the “Cigarette Smoking Man,” or “the second man behind the grassy knoll” is puzzling)— have all inserted false teachings into the modern versions, the modern texts, and the Alexandrian manuscripts, or else have deleted verses in the attempt to distort God’s Word and to lead people astray.
Even those who are not terribly interested in this debate should read White’s book to familiarize themselves with the history of our Scriptures. As White points out, too many Christians are, unfortunately, ignorant of this process. This ignorance makes them susceptible to becoming convinced of the claims of King James Onlyists. Ignorance of this issue also makes one less adept at intelligently responding to, and refuting, certain arguments of skeptics who say that the Holy Bible (regardless of whatever version is being discussed) is “just another religious book” or a collection of myths and is not reflective of a work that was, in the very first copies, divinely inspired.
White explains how our Bibles are based upon texts, with the texts, in turn, being based upon ancient Hebrew- and Greek- language manuscripts. These manuscripts (and there are literally thousands of them) are copies of the Autographs. The Autographs are no longer in existence, which many in the KJO camp find troublesome, but White demonstrates that this is really not a problem and is no reason to uphold the KJV 1611 as the ONLY Bible for the English-speaking peoples or to insist that the KJV 1611 alone is “God’s Word”—
-—Nor, should I add, is it a solid argument for atheists or other non-Christians to question the trustworthiness of the Bible. This reviewer has visited websites by skeptics who misuse the fact that we no longer have the Biblical Autographs to “prove” that the Bible is not God’s Word, or to “prove” that the copyist (scribal) errors within the manuscripts, or the translational errors within Bible versions, are synonymous with errors of a scientific, historic, or theological sort, which they are not. It is apparent that this argument comes about usually because the non-Christian is ignorant of textual criticism and the like, as are many KJOers.
Concerning the chapters in White’s book that deal with manuscripts and textual issues, I felt somewhat confused and found myself having to re-read this material. It is hard for me to determine how much (if any) of this confusion should be attributed to White’s writing style or to the fact that I had never before read about these issues which are, at first glance, not easily grasped due to their complexity. Looking back, I suspect it is more of the latter and not the former.
Contrary to the many reviews by KJOists of this book, White does not “attack” the King James Version; he quite clearly states that the KJV is in fact God’s Word and that his book is not written to “run down” or to throw doubt on the KJV. As White correctly surmises and explains, only the Autographs are totally without error, but that Bible versions, which are translations of the underlying manuscripts, are without error only to the degree that they accurately reflect those manuscripts.
Other issues addressed in The King James Only Controversy include: explanations of textual criticism, the differences between lower and higher textual criticism and the role lower textual criticism plays in the Biblical writings; information on the Alexandrian and Byzantine manuscripts; Erasmus’ Greek text (called the “TR,” or Textus Receptus), background on Westcott and Hort and their significance in the KJO debate; the distinction between Translational verses Textual differences; and information that the modern versions have not “deleted,” “omitted,” or in any way down-played certain teachings or beliefs (e.g., Christ’s divine nature).
Particularly helpful are some of the last chapters within the book. One of these lists the specific verses that KJOists often bring up in debate as “proof” that the people who have worked on the modern versions have, in some insidious, demonic plot, removed verses and doctrines from the Scriptures with the malicious intent of twisting or destroying God’s Word. White gives detailed reasons— ones which are sensible and not in the least demonic or conspiratorial— for why these verses are either not included, or why they are placed in foot notes or in brackets, and shows that where a verse may be “left out” in one area, a virtually identical verse can be found elsewhere in the same Bible version.
The “Question and Answer” section near the end is also very helpful. White has collected some of the more frequent arguments leveled against the modern Bible versions (some examples of which are-— modern versions have copyrights; Westcott and Hort were supposedly evil, heretical men; doesn’t Pslams 12: 6-7 support KJOism; wasn’t there a homosexual on the N.I.V. committee, etc.), and he has refuted these points. The end-notes of every chapter contain more useful information and should not be overlooked.
Sadly, and as White documents in The KJOC, the King James Only movement is largely marred by dishonesty and name calling. He spends at least one chapter describing the key leaders in this movement (e.g., Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger), and how they misrepresent, misquote and lie about just about everyone and everything.
Often with KJOists, as White discusses, historic facts are twisted, misapplied or invented (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus was found in a monk’s closet and not in a trash can); and quotations from the books of others are, by use of “creative” editing on the part of KJOers, made to appear as though the author believes one way, when in fact, the author believes something entirely different. (White gives more than ample evidence and examples of all this in his critique of Gail Riplinger’s New Age Bible Versions book, and he also documents the fradulent or inaccurate aspects of Peter Ruckman’s writings.)
Lastly, and perhaps worst of all, some within KJOism find it necessary to engage in ad hominem. It is either said out-right or suggested by many King James Onlyists that those who do not share their KJO belief are either “Alexandrian Cult Members,” “heretics,” “apostates,” “Bible Haters,” or any number of the many other derogatory, insulting terms they typically use.
For a well-researched, honest, fair, and level-headed look at the King James Only debate and the subjects related to it (such as textual and manuscript concerns), one can do no better than starting with James White’s book, The King James Only Controversy.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1556615752/tektonministries