The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism

Don Carson's book on the use of inclusive language is sane and balanced. It is pleasing that he has been prepared to show some of those in his theological neck of the woods where their understanding of translation issues could be improved.The book is at times rather technical, but even in those challenging sections, there is much to gain, if you can plough through Carson's sometimes less than user-friendly writing style. You will also find Mark Strauss' book "Distorting Scripture" well worth reading.(Both books also deal with the issue of dynamic equivalent versus literal translations in an engaging and helpful fashion.)Carson's introduction about the passions aroused by new Bible translations is entertaining. I liked the quote from Bruce Metzger: "Though in previous centuries Bible translators were sometimes burned, today happily it is only a copy of the translation which meets such a fate."A highlight is Carson's account of his bilingual childhood, and his discovery of the peculiarities inherent in a particular Bible version, when he tried to preach a sermon in French, having prepared it with an English Bible, and vice versa.I also enjoyed Carson's sometimes cheeky ways of showing that our language has changed.Carson has a helpful article in a new book called The Challenge of Bible Translation, in which there are lots of other helpful articles on the issue of translating with a view to firstly preserving the form of the original, or its meaning.Here he refers to presuppositions guiding the production of the ESV and TNIV translations, and gives very helpful guidelines for thinking about issues of bible translation. Well worth investigating that book, too.

Since the news of the release of the TNIV by the International Bible Society and Zondervan, conservative Christians have been inflamed once again over their staunch convictions on this polarizing issue. One camp believes that modern scholars are being motivated by a feminist agenda to re-write the Word of God. Another camp believes that complementarian Christians are promoting their own specialized agenda in their opposition to "gender accurate" translations. Carson does a fine job of diffusing the issue by allowing persons in both camps to understand one another better.This book basically has three sections. The first section describes the crisis that occurred in 1997 when the IBS and Zondervan initially announced plans for a "gender-accurate" update of the NIV. It details the positions of both sides with fairness, including the hasty compromise agreement reached in Colorado Springs. The second section is difficult reading, for Carson describes extensively the painstaking process of Biblical translation from Hebrew/Greek into English. The third section is a rather brief but extremely beneficial summary of the ongoing controversy regarding gender-accurate translations.Carson, as a complementarian, does not endorse all gender-neutral translations, but neither does he condemn them all. Rather, he sees benefit in judicious use of gender-accurate translation when necessary to communicate the initial meaning of the ancient text. He sees value to the NIVI (Gender-neutral translation of the NIV in Great Britain), but highlights instances in which gender translation has been done poorly.I recommend this work highly to anyone, particularly a pastor or a Bible teacher, who is struggling with the recent flood of gender-accurate translations. Carson's goal is to bring understanding and reconciliation to Bible-believing Christians who are divided over this issue of Scriptural semantics. He has assisted me in my own struggle, and will likely do the same for many other believers.

From an excellent author comes a good description of the problems associated with the KJV only position. Carson is a conservative evangelical and very cautious scholar. His writing style is easy and fluid. This book is divided up well and is nicely arranged. END

A response to a previous review:"Mr. Carson does a good job of defending the modern versions."Very true."Unfortunately, in order to do so, he must misrepresent the KJB only side and make it seem like Mr. Ruckman and Ms. Riplinger are actually representative of the KJB only position, which they are not."Ruckman and Riplinger are NEVER mentioned in the book, nor are their writings."He ignores the scholarship of men like D. A. Waite, D. O. Fuller, Edward F. Hills, etc. to focus on two weirdos, Ruckman and Riplinger."Carson didn't mention Waite, but he did deal with the theories of Fuller, Hills, Hodges, Ray and Pickering. Carson cannot honestly be accused of employing a straw-man argument. Thomas is either lying in saying he read the book, or lying about the book's contents."Of course, since Biblical preservation dictates the KJB only position, since the Textus Receptus is the vast majority text, it is necessary to distort the KJB only position to attack it."Biblical preservation says nothing about the King James Version. The TR is not the Majority Text. It is never necessary to use a straw-man argument, on this topic or any other, and Carson does not do so. Rather, he deals with the best arguments available in favor of the proposition that the KJV is the best (or only!) Bible translation on earth, and he refutes them calmly and reasonably."However, if you want to defend the modern versions, this is as good as you'll get."Unfortunately, if you are looking for honesty and sanity in KJV-Onlies, Thomas R. is about as good as you will find -- a person who shamelessly fabricates "facts" even though he knows anyone can read the book and discover that he's lying.I commend D.A. Carson for writing such a calm and irenic book when I consider it's people like Thomas R. that he's responding to. Read the book yourself. Don't let Thomas put you off.

The book was recommended by Walter Martin and I was not disappointed. Carson does an exellent job of reviewing the history of the Bible,and it's compilation. He explains the different manuscripts and how they are weighed together as the bases for some of the major translations. It appears to be a very level presentation in which to inform the reader and allow that person to then decide which version they would feel to be the best to use. He helps to point out that all of the major translations do not suffer in supporting all Christian doctrine.