This book, along with D. A. Carson's on the same topic, are two essentials on the subject of King James Onlyism that I highly recommend. James White goes into much more detail refuting the KJV-Only arguments than Carson, but the information contained in both books effectively addresses just about all the points KJV-Only proponents (especially the more ludicrous arguments from those on the extreme end of KJV-Onlyism like Peter Ruckman, Sam Gipp, Gail Riplinger, et. al). It is a shame that "jensen75" grossly mischaracterizes James White's stance on the King James Bible for he has never shown nor has "contempt of the KJV/AV." Quite the contrary; White recognizes the King James Bible as a legitimate translation. He just does not accept the erroneous belief that the King James Bible (AV1611) is the ONLY legitimate translation. This tends to infuriate the more extreme proponents of King James Version Onlyism. However, James White has even addressed this on his website. In short, The King James Only Controversy contains accurate and thorough examinationsand refutations of KJV-Only beliefs and should be a valued addition to any Christian's library, especially those confronted by proponents of the King James Only position. ( )

“Why is the KJV Bible the only Bible you can trust?” “The KJV 1611, that’s the book for me. The very words of God.” Statements such as these are far too common in the odd cornucopia that is American Christianity. Certain Christians have combined an ignorance of bibliology with an ardent desire to defend the Bible and have spawned a group of followers so virulent and so committed that they have infected churches all around the world with their insidious misunderstanding of the very Scriptures themselves. Enter James White’s clear and compelling book, The King James Only Controversy. White takes the Onlyists head on and refutes their divisive theories systematically. His convincing work is thoughtful and careful in dealing with an issue that rarely receives scholarly attention because the conclusions drawn by the proponents of KJV Onlyism are so absurd. Not only is the position itself radically indefensible, the adherents are largely very closed to debate, and often secluded among their followers. Combine this herd mentality with a simultaneous desire to spread their strange doctrines, and the need for a defense is clear. White guides his readers through a veritable minefield of errors and oddities, stopping along the way to debunk the folly of KJV Onlyism by examining the aberration historically, theologically and exegetically. In addition to his apologia, White provides an invaluable lesson to his audience; upon finishing his work they now understand where and how their precious Bible came into being.
Perhaps the most insightful section of White’s book is his explanation of the history of the text of Scripture. Many KJV Onlyists present a very vocal revision of the TR, so White spends two chapters the history lesson which draws an amazing parallel between modern day KJV Onlyists delusions of the A.V. 1611 and their historical counterparts. Upon each translation of the Bible, the “traditional” text found many defenders, who raised the same questions that KJV Onlyists raise today. As White explains the historical cycles related to Jerome’s translation and then Erasmus’ translation, the reader is shown the same basic pattern. Traditionalists question the new translation as undermining the word of God, centuries pass, and the new translation becomes the traditional translation, and as language in which the Bible is read changes and the Bible is brought to new areas and peoples, it must again be translated. The same weary cycle begins again, except now the traditionalists have adopted the text that was once considered modern. Whites wise historical warning should serve well to guard against future cries of “ESV Onlyism” and the like.
Theologically, White pokes numerous holes in the KJV Only movement as well as helpfully critiquing the theological accusations of those who would attack the “modern versions.” As White uncovers the misquotations and considers them in their original context the reader is shown that the NASB is not attempting to undermine the incarnation or the sonship of Christ, rather it is the KJV Only camp that misunderstands the theology as well as the text. KJV Onlyists cry of “manifold serious theological perversions” are shown to be nothing of the sort as White displays how the incarnation is clear in the text of scripture and has not been edited or deleted from the modern translations. White’s opponents take no prisoners though, one popular KJV Only cartoonist (I am not making this up) writes on his web site, “You must decide whether or not you believe God has kept this promise: Did He preserve His Word throughout the generations? Or did He not? That decision will lead you to one of two Bible texts.” This is followed by a cartoon illustrated discussion of the perversions of the Alexandrian school and the purity of the TR. As this strange and often sordid diatribe against the so-called enemies of God’s word continues, the reader is shown that the Bible they hold in their hands cannot be trusted unless it was published by a group of Anglicans in 1611. Their case is pressed forward by their continual use of the word “scholar” as a synonym for “enemy of the preservation of God’s Words.” White decimates this argument with the help of Athanasius and a true scholars grasp of historical theology. White concludes that the modern translations are theologically vindicated, regardless of the name-calling.
Not only does White tackle the historical background that has been skewed in this debate and the various theological accusations leveled wrongly against the modern translations, but White superbly exegetes the problem passages raised by KJV Onlyists. Employing the original languages and assembling many helpful charts, White quotes extensively from his opponents taking their accusations on one by one. They claim that the NASB text is ambiguous on the deity of Christ, so White handles Philippians 2 in careful detail. They claim that the prophesies of the messiah and the virgin birth have been undermined by the modern versions, White takes them to the Hebrew employing exegetical acumen as he demonstrates the strength of the word of God, not relying on one particular English translation.
One would think that this brand of cultish Christianity would have died out with the dunderheads that began it, but the KJV Onlyists are alive and well. Many church members have been exposed to this sort of doctrine and many could be led astray because of the lack of understanding on the transmission, translation, and source of the Scriptures. Even if James Whites book transformed every KJV Onlyist into a repentant carrier of the MacArthur Study Bible (in its new NASB edition, of course), The King James Only Controversy would still be a useful tool for the student of the Bible. White insists on clarity, and as he explains a basic grid of translation and preservation the reader is given an indispensable guide to bibliology. His work would continue to be valuable as an introductory work to recommend to anyone who desires to understand the history of the Bible.

Not a personal favourite of mine. Interesting as background reading regarding textual matters, but as James White progresses on in this book, I find him to be more of an anti-KJV/AV (although he indicated in his preface that he was against the KJV-Onlyists) and his manner elsewhere (on aomin.org) further shows his contempt of the KJV/AV.

I thought James White gave much good information for people that are new to the subject. He brings up some good arguments against the KJV-Only position.

There were two faults that I found with the book and his arguments. The first was that he spent more time refuting some of the more silly arguments (which I guess is needful), and I would have rather spent more time considering the meat of the issue. The second problem I found was that while he may have arrived at his conclusion using valid arguments, once he got there, he tries to persuade people by using bad arguments. He even went so far as to say that in a certain case if the KJV Translators were alive today they would have translated a particular word differently than they did.

This book does a good job at presenting the modern critic's view of the New Testament, and should make KJV-Only people re-think their position and to make sure that they know why they hold the belief that they hold. ( )

Covers the topic thoroughly and leaves practically no stone unturned. ( )