|
|
|
|
|
|
HomeShop at BookSurgeLiterary CriticismA Juror's Verdict: On the King James Only Debate |
|
|  |
| Customer Reviews: | | Average Customer Review: ( 2 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
3 of 4 found the following review helpful:
 A Jurors Verdict on A Jurors Verdict Sep 28, 2010
By John Russell
First to state my position. I am not a "King James Only" but "Pro King James". I was expecting a balanced presentation of the issues.
Hardly a Jurors verdict, but well researched hence the two stars. You could tell from the first "verdict" (p.53) how the debate would conclude. The book goes on to include the weakest and most irrelevant arguments of the KJVO position (eg. Acts 12:14 Passover vs Easter, and the "Archaic" words : I think the KJ21 is an advance)
Both "camps" are overwhelmingly trinitarian, so included in the debate is the question as to which side is more trinitarian than the other. As a (non trinitarian) Christadelphian, I find that part of the debate amusing, but on balance (a Jurors verdict?) I find that the Modern Versions take that title.
There are no bouquets for the KJVO's, and no brickbats for the MV's. Amazing! In most debates "virtues" and "faults" are found on both sides, and it is then a matter of determining which side has the most of one and the least of the other. In this book the MV's clearly win. Lions 13, Christians Nil!
The MV's for example fail to explain where God's preserved Word was from the first century until 1881. Do the MV's in any case believe in Divine inspiration? The answer seems to be no for the latter if you accept (p.49) that "either Matthew or Luke made a mistake".These questions are not addressed
by the author.
Although I disagree with their trinitarian views, I find EF Hills and JW Burgon the best advocates of the KJ "cause". Perhaps more thought need to be given to their arguments than was the case in the book.
0 of 1 found the following review helpful:
 Fair and balanced treatment Jul 03, 2010
By J. Archer
"gentle curmudgeon"
This is an excellent short study of the history of our Bible and of the various English translations and versions we have today. It is fair and balanced. Perhaps the best comment is contained in the author's verdict: "Perhaps if we could get past all the arrogance and self-seeking agendas we might realize that both methodologies have value. It is certainly reasonable for a Christian to have both a word-for-word translation and a phrase-for-phrase translation when studying the Word of God."
The literal approach is certainly essential for determining doctrine, but because of changes in language over the years, there is value in also consulting a dynamic equivalent translation. This book provides a common sense approach to the subject.
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
