In Dr. James White’s book entitled The King James Only Controversy, he goes about to dismantle the KJV-onlyism of Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger with as much grace as he can muster. Still, early in White’s book he makes clear that “there are a number of Biblical translations [he] would personally not recommend”  while at the same time proclaims that he has “no desire to get everyone to read the NAS (New American Standard Bible), or the NIV, or the NKJV (New King James Version), or the RSV (Revised Standard Version) or any modern translation.” 
White appears willing to recommend some English Bibles and refuses to recommend others. In this case, White and others seem to approve of a plurality of English Bibles for English speaking Christians. The question for today’s post is, “Is such a plurality rational, given the theological content of Christian orthodoxy?”
Before we ever get into the nuts and bolts of exegesis, theology and textual criticism there seems to be one glaring question of the elementary sort. How does the Law of Non-Contradiction comport with the espousal of plural Bibles for the English-speaking community?
The Law of Non-Contradiction is one of the most basic laws of logic and it states that:
“A” cannot be “A” and “non-A” at the same time and in the same way.
For example: Peter cannot be Peter and James at the same time and in the same way.
Even though Peter and James bear many similarities (caucasian, male, facial hair, two eyes, two feet, two ears, one nose etc), Peter cannot be Peter and James at the same time and in the same way.
Thus, when asking the question, “What is the word of God in English?” and our options are KJV, ESV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV we seem to run into a simple but exceedingly problematic situation.
To say that the KJV, ESV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV are all the word of God is at best a gross conflation violating the Law of Non-Contradiction.
The Forward of Dr. White’s book begins with these words, “In the age of uncertainty, the last thing we need is the suspicion that the Word of God is somehow faulty and misleading.” 
If Dr. White and those who speak in similar conflations seek to avoid uncertainty and suspicion, they have not done so. Saying that a plurality of canons in English or Greek ARE the word of God is illogical, unreasonable, and unbiblical. The Church is in need of a standard sacred text and scholars and theologians speaking in terms of a plurality of God's word impede that aim and goal. Your move Dr. White and company.
11. Can what is "only a little" false be the object of faith?
No. "[N]othing false can be the object of faith." (Turretin, Institutes, 71)
12. Should the notion of divine creation be an object of faith?
Yes, because the Jesus Christ made it. (John 1:1-3)
13. Should 13.6 billion years be the object of faith?
No. Such a conclusion is based almost entirely if not entirely on human observation which is at best "only a little" false, i.e. not absolutely true.
14. Should 6,000-10,000 years be the object of faith?
No. This also contains an aggregate of human observation.
15. Should 6 days be the object of faith?
Yes, because there can be no doubt via faith that Scripture says 6 days.
16. Why is faith more trustworthy and therefore more certain than observation?
Because faith is a supernatural gift of God which moves the will to move the intellect to assent to the seemingly impossible (e.g. the parting of the Red Sea, the resurrection of the dead, and the feeding of the 5,000.)
17. Example: Should seeing and touching the resurrected Jesus count as faith?
No. Faith is the "substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1) Faith moves the will to move the intellect to assent to the truth that fullness of the Godhead dwells in what appears to be a common Jewish man.
18. When the Creator was manifest in the flesh He was despised, rejected, and crucified because of a lack of faith. Why then is it reasonable to conclude that reason via observation will do any better when view the Creator's creation?
In sum, TE predicates ~13.6 billion years and therefore predicates primarily on human observation. Take away the ~13.6 billion years and the argument for TE disappears. It loses its distinction and ability to oppose other Christian positions on the topic. TE maintains that God created the universe in ~13.6 billion years. Without the "~13.6 billion years" all that remains is, God created the universe. Whereas the Bible says "6 days," therefore by faith the believing community can say with certainty, God created the universe in 6 days. On the one hand, ~13.6 billion years cannot be the object of faith. On the other hand, 6 days can and is an object of faith and is therefore more certain and authoritative.
"Although reason concurs in educing consequences, it does not follow that faith is established by reason; as, although faith cometh by hearing, yet the senses are not the foundation of faith; faith uses reason, is not built on it." (Turretin, Institutes, 40)
See Theistic Evolution (TE) and Six Literal 24 hour Sequential Days (Part I) for the first installment of this argument.
The following is a scrap and thread I chased in thinking about the topic of ultimate beginnings and the larger ecclesiastical discussion on the topic of Creation in Genesis 1.
Theistic Evolution vs. 6 Day Creation
1. Either both of these position are wrong or one is right.
2. Are both equally binding on the saint as revealed truth?
No. See line 1.
3. Both could be wrong but that would lead to either:
A. As the believing community we have not been guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit.
B. Science is wrong.
4. I do not accept either A or B as true.
5. Which is more certain and therefore more authoritative?
A. "6 Days" maintains that "day" means literal 24 hour day thus leaning on Scripture exclusively.
B. TE accepts the observation of ~13.6 billion years + Scripture = God superintended evolution.
6. Why is B more reliable, certain and authoritative than A?
Because B incorporates what we observe.
7. Does what we observe strengthen our position?
It does to a point.
8. Is what we observe absolutely true?
No. It is only a collection of experiences and rational conclusions that fit the current set of accepted facts.
9. Therefore TE as a system must be somewhat false (intrinsically) because of the aggregates of human experience and rationality.
10. How false? To what degree?
Let us assume "only a little."
See Theistic Evolution (TE) and Six Literal 24 hour Sequential Days (Part II) for the conclusion.