These are from the book that i am reading – The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism; By D.A. Carson
1. There is no unambiguous evidence that the Byzantine text-type was known before the middle of the fourth century.
2. The argument that defends the Byzantine tradition by appealing to the fact that most extant manuscripts of the Greek New Testament attest to this Byzantine text-type, is logically fallacious and historically naive.
3. The Byzantine text-type is demonstrably a secondary text.
4. The Alexandrian text-type has better credentials than any other text-type now available.
5. The argument to the effect that what the majority of believers in the history of the church have beleived is true, is ambiguous at best and theologically dangerous at worst; and as applied to textual criticism, the argument proves nothing very helpful anyway.
6. The argument that defends the Byzantine text by appealing to the providence of God is logically and theologically fallacious.
7. The argument that appeals to the fourth-century writing practices to deny the possibility that the Byzantine text is a conflation, is fallacious.
8. Textual arguments that depend on adopting the TR and comparing other text-types with it are guilty, methodologically speaking, of begging the issue; and in any case they present less than the whole truth.
9. The charge that the non-Byzantine text-types are theologically aberrant is fallacious.
10. The KJV was not accepted without a struggle, and some outstanding believers soon wanted to replace it.
11. The Byzantine text-type must not be thought to be the precise equivalent of the TR.
12. The argument that ties the adoption of the TR to verbal inspiration is logically and theologically fallacious.
13. Arguments that attempt to draw textual conclusions from a prejudicial selection of not immediately relevant data, or from a slanted use of terms, or by a slurring appeal to guilt by association, or by repeated appeal to false evidence, are not only misleading, but ought to be categorically rejected by Christians who, above all others, profess both to love truth and to love their brothers in Christ.
14. Adoption of the TR should not be made a criterion of orthodoxy.
Theologian 
Even though Carson’s book has been out for years, it is still a worthy read. I remember back when “The Identity of the New Testament Text” by Wilbur N. Pickering was all the stir arguing for the “Majority Text.” Carson’s appendix addressing Pickering was excellent.
My favorite phrase, “historically naive” in point 2 above.
Posted by Gomarus | October 26, 2006, 12:46 pmI was thinking about getting James White’s book, “The King James Only Controversy,” but thought it might be redundant after reading Carson’s book.
Anyone think it would still be a good read?
Posted by theologian | October 26, 2006, 12:55 pmI have not read Carson, but I did love White’s book. It was the first book I read by him, and turned me on to reading most of his material. Wish I had read both so I could say if it was redundant. I still think White is worth owning.
Posted by Josh | October 26, 2006, 1:49 pmWhite is definitely worth reading, if only because some of his targets are different. For instance, he addresses the hideous book by Gail Riplinger called _New Age Bible Version_. Of course, that book really doesn’t deserve the almost 13 pages that White gives it. However, the Riplinger book has made many waves among those more naive. White completely kaboshes it.
Question for Theologian: how are some of these KJV-only arguments fallacious? I agree completely with Carson and White, by the way. But it might be helpful to spell out how some of their arguments are fallacious. Like the flu, there’s a lot of this going around. 🙂
Posted by greenbaggins | October 26, 2006, 3:27 pmgreenbaggins,
I didn’t want to copy too much of the book for copyright reasons. To get the why-for of any of the theses folks will have to get the book 🙂
Posted by theologian | October 26, 2006, 3:38 pmWell give us your own why for, thats what blogs are for, brother. 🙂
Posted by Josh | October 26, 2006, 5:46 pmo.k., how about this one –
6. The argument that defends the Byzantine text by appealing to the providence of God is logically and theologically fallacious.
One can’t say that God’s providence was effective in preserving the Byzantine text-form and then deny His providence in preserving the Alexandrian text-form. In fact God’s providence was there in 1611 with the production of the KJV and it is here today with the production of modern versions.
Furthermore, it would seem to imply a denial of God’s providence in the first few centuries of the Church as there is no record of any Byzantine text during that period.
What do you guys think?
Posted by theologian | October 26, 2006, 6:05 pmThat is convincing to me. Of course, you are preaching to the choir here. I have argued your line of argument to KJV-only people before, and they cannot answer that logic. In fact, one could take the argument one step further and say something like this: “God intentionally hid away the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts in order to correct the problems that the Byzantine text-form has.” I have seen the most ridiculous poison-well arguments as well. Sometimes they will give a long narrative about how spiritually dark the place was where those two mentioned manuscripts came from. Of course, our entire world was that dark when Christ came. If the manuscripts are somehow corrupted by the place in which they were found, then we have to say also that Christ was corrupted by the place in which He was found. This is not a good place to go. The poisoned-well argument is quite fallacious.
Posted by greenbaggins | October 26, 2006, 6:19 pmI have often heard the argument that God would not preserve His word hidden away somewhere. That’s quite a presumption on God! Especially when we read from the Bible that His word has been lost only to be found later…
Hilkiah responded and said to Shaphan the scribe, “I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD.” And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan. (2Ch 34:15, NASB)
Posted by theologian | October 26, 2006, 6:38 pmThat’s a really great point.
Posted by greenbaggins | October 26, 2006, 7:16 pmI am a bit rusty on the topic, but isnt Erasmus involved somewhere with the 1611 and/or the TR? I remember thinking it was very inconsistant to condemn Rome but hold one of thier scholars in highest esteem for translation.
Posted by Josh | October 26, 2006, 10:53 pmErasmus was involved with the TR, but there is not just one TR. He was not directly involved with the TR that underlies the KJV as that was mostly from the one that Beza produced. He was not what i would consider a militant Catholic, as he sought to reconcile Luther and Pope Adrian VI.
Posted by theologian | October 27, 2006, 1:21 amOk, thanks and wow, you three bloggers (You, Greenbaggins and Gomarus) just completly humble me with your knowledge and attention to detail. This has been a great vacation. Found me three new favorite blogs.
Posted by Josh | October 27, 2006, 8:52 amThanks Josh, that means a lot to me. Just don’t go overboard or i will get embarrassed. 😳
Posted by theologian | October 27, 2006, 12:36 pm