[.ca] The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (ISBN 0801024277)

Very Good But A Little Difficult To Use:
This book is mostly sound. It was written in 1979 by D.A. Carson, a member of the Evangelical Free denomination. This was three years before the collated Majority Text of Hodges-Farstad, so Carson's treatment dealt primarily with the Textus Receptus. Carson does a good job showing what's wrong with the KJV Only book. He attempts to not be snide and for the most part succeeds. He successfully points out the problem of double standards used by KJV Only advocates. He is also not "against" the KJV although his opponents accuse him of this. One weakness is that although this book doesn't do so, Carson has come out in favor of "gender inclusive" translations. This sets up a straw man that KJV Only advocates knock down easily without ever dealing with the issue. Although I like and recommend this book, I highly recommend either James White's book ("The KJV Only Controversy") or "One Bible Only?" by Central Baptist Seminary.

Misses the target; too short:
Though many people assume D.A. Carson "blows every KJV-only argument out of the water" with this book, it didn't really convince me. I have been KJV only since I was saved (July 1999). Though I did learn some valuable things regarding textual criticism, I still didn't agree with Carson's final conclusion. Even the subtitle, "a plea for realism" gets under my skin. I honestly think that he could have spent more time, and produced more information on this subject (just look at some of his other books like _The Gagging of God_, I think that's the name. I bought that book as well but returned it because it was boring, and not helpful to me.). If you would like a book that presents a better case against KJV-onlyism, then I would suggest buying Dr. James R. White's book on the subject. If you would like good, thorough information that about the KJV issue, I would suggest buying as many of Dean John W. Burgon's books as possible (though he isn't necessarily "KJV only" in today's sense, he is still good on the Majority text, and also the Textus Receptus). :)

Good:
A good book to show why King James Onlyism is a myth. Onlyists hate this book, why? Because it has solid truth that shows them to believe in a man-made myth. Enjoyable reading.

Excellent refutation of KJV-only heterodoxy by noted exegete:
Dr Carson was understandably saddened by having to divert energy from his work of expounding the Word of God to refuting this divisive heterodoxy. It's a shame that most KJVOs devote far more energy to learning where the modern versions differ from the KJV than in learning what the original Greek and Hebrew teach. Dr Carson in particular has emphatically defended the Deity of Christ far more than any KJVO writer, despite their absurd claims that modern versions undermine this vital doctrine. I agree with one reviewer that this book has been surpassed by "The King James Only Controversy : Can You Trust the Modern Translations?" by James R. White. I also agree that it's good to purchase both, because Carson covers more historical issues and common methodological fallacies, and critiques the Pickering thesis about the Majority Text (which should NOT be confused with the so-called Textus Receptus that disagrees with the majority of manuscripts on a number of places). One obvious fallacy of KJVOs is begging the question: i.e. produce massive charts comparing the modern versions with the KJV, and use this to prove how horrid they are. But this presupposes that the KJV is the standard. In reality, there's nothing to stop hypothetical NIV-only people using the same methodology to prove the superiority of the NIV. But anyway, wake up, KJVOs -- none of the Bible's human authors spoke any kind of English, let alone the archaic variety! Note that Carson's book was written before Riplinger came on the scene, so how on earth could Thomas claim that Carson was focusing on her?? Rather, he deals with the very people he claims to have ignored! Also, one of his heroes, Waite stocks Riplinger's material, so it's not so easy to distinguish between factions of the KJV-only camp. Also, his address KJB1611 is misleading because it's almost certain that he uses the Blayney 1769 revision. That's unless his "1611" version contains words like Iesus, hee, loue, and the Apocrypha.

Defends a poor Greek Text and translation principle:
The bulk of this book deals with Greek text types. Carson compares the "Critical Text" (CT, UBS/ Nestle-Aland text) to the "Textus Receptus" (TR). And he presents why He believes the CT is to be preferred to the CT. More importantly, he does not discuss the Majority Text (MT). Since the MT was first published after this book came out this is understandable. But it should be noted that some of Carson's arguments would only apply to the TR but not to the MT. For instance, Carson discusses 1John 5:7,8 in a couple of places in his book. The "extra" words in this passage are in the TR, but not in the CT. But they are also not in the MT. Of these three texts, I prefer the MT to TR and either of these texts to the CT. It is not possible to evaluate each of Carson's arguments for the CT in a short review. However, I address the kind of arguments Carson presents and even quote from Carson book and from many others by CT advocates in my book "Differences Between Bible Versions." A smaller section of this book is discusses translation principle. Carson appears to prefer a "dynamic equivalence" form of translating (as seen in the NIV, NLT, and many others) to formal equivalence (seen in the KJV, NKJV, NASB). In my book I detail the many potential problems with dynamic equivalence, and recommend instead formal equivalence or even a literal translation method. Carson's main argument against a more literal style of translation is that he claims it is too awkward to read. However, most people find a version like the NKJV to be more than readable. In addition, I produced the "Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament" (ALT). And my translation is even more literal than the NKJV. But a common comment I have received in regards to my translation is that it is surprisingly easy to read. So it really is not necessary to alter the word of God to make it readable. And altering God's actual words is exactly what dynamic equivalent versions do. I give many examples in my book of where such versions add words without any indication they have done so, omit words from the text they are supposed to be translating, alter the grammatical forms of words, insert ideas foreign to the Scriptures into them, and interpret rather than translation. All of these changes make these versions more like commentaries on the Bible rather than actual translations. The adding, omitting, and altering of words is in contradiction to the doctrine of verbal inspiration and the commands and warnings in Scriptures not to alter God's words. And worse, the reader of such a version has no way of knowing when ideas are being added to the Scriptures or where the text is being interpreted rather than translated. And what if the translators are wrong in their interpretations of Scriptures? This is a very important issue. So before making a decision, it would be prudent to study all sides. Carson presents the pro-CT, pro-formal equivalence viewpoint while my book presents a pro-MT/ TR, literal/ formal equivalence view. Both books disagree with KJV onlyism, but there are many KJV onlyist books and Web sites to look at. I deal with arguments from many of these in my book.