New book for me

Ouellette wrote: "The King James Bible was originally referred to as the Authorized Holy Bible in English of 1611--officially commissioned and authorized by King James" (p. 150).

I am not sure what the source of this statement may be. It is certainly not the title page of the 1611 since that title page did not have the word "authorized" on it.


Ouellette claimed that "the modern versions increase the reading difficulty of the English Bible" (p. 159).

Ouellette claimed that it is a false statement to say that the KJV "is harder to read and understand" (p. 150).

 

And what proof does he give? Riplinger??

 

I think that he referred to the claims of the booklet by D. A. Waite's son that claimed that the reading levels of the KJV are lower than those of other translations. He claimed that the KJV "has a significantly lower average syllable count" (p. 150).

I do not recall that he quoted Gail Riplinger, but she could be the indirect or direct source of some of his claims.

 

Just after some statements where Ouellette claims to disagree with the extreme view or the view held by Ruckman, Ouellette wrote:
"What is the practical difference between a 'divinely inspired Word of God' and a 'divinely preserved Word of God'? None. If God both inspired and preserved His Word, then we can have the confidence that the preserved Word is equal to the inspired Word for all practical purposes today--they are one in the same" (A More Sure Word, p. 156).

This statement suggests to me that the following question would then be valid to ask: Would "for all practical purposes today" Ouellette's view and Ruckman's view be one in the same?

 

I see your point, but if there are items that are verbatim from her, whether she is quoted or not, then it's a fair allegation. Doesn't mean it's true or not. If I quote Grudem or Erickson or Boyce in defending my view of the doctrine of end times, for instance, is it not fair to think that they may have influenced my view? How many of us have heard "Purpose-Driven" jargon and not thought that the person must've been influenced on some level by Rick Warren?

Much of what is bandied about in this discussion in general isn't very "new under the sun." It is what it is. I'm all for rational discussion and unnecessary villianization, but we cannot suspend our brains and pretend that regurgitation doesn't exist on both sides.

 

Thank you, Pastor_Bob.

 

The tenor of the book may be gentler than many KJV-only books, but there are still implied accusations against believers who do not accept a KJV-only view.

Ouellette wrote: "When one sees who is championing the Received Text position, you find believers only" (p. 116).

Ouellette asked: "Do you want an evolving Bible or a solid foundation?" (p. 163).

Ouellette asked: "Do you want a Bible that is preserved or one that is 'being restored'?" (p. 164).


I have not recommended the Critical Text nor translations made from it. I do not think that those believers who do accept the Critical Text would consider Ouellette's claims or accusations concerning it to be very gentle.
After a heading of "Neo-orthodox," Ouellette made some claims about Westcott and Hort.

Under the topic "Why Critical Text and the translations are not to be trusted", here are some sample claims that Ouellette made:

"They weaken or deny vital Bible doctrines such as the deity of Christ" (p. 138).

"They create doubt and confusion about the reliability of the Word of God" (p. 140).

"They are presumptuous, if not dishonest" (p. 141).

"They changed God's Word based on presumed reader preference rather than textual authority" (p. 141).

 

Pastor Bob, that quote should have said I'm all for rational discussion and against unncessary villianization. I hope it's apparent that I'm NOT for villainizing anyone who is not a villain :laugh:

I also probably used "quote" too stringently. One may commit plagarism without directly quoting the source idea, concept, or phrasing.

 

R. B. Ouellette claimed that it is a false statement to say that the KJV “is harder to read and understand” (A More Sure Word, p. 150). As support for his claim, Ouellette asserted that the KJV “has a significantly lower average syllable count” (Ibid.). Gail Riplinger claimed that the KJV’s average was 1.310 syllables per word and that the NKJV’s average was 1.313 syllables per word (Language of the KJB, p. 160). Is that a significant difference?

There are some reasons why the KJV may have a lower average syllable count that have no bearing on whether or not it is easier to read. For example, in most editions of the KJV there are several commonly used words that are divided into two or more words where the exact same word united as one word in another translation may count as a longer, multi-syllable word. Some examples include “to day,” “to morrow,” “for ever,” “for evermore,” “son in law,” “mother in law,” “daughter in law,” and there is a good number of others. A few words may be united in the KJV that are divided into two words in another translation. Overall, because those words divided in the KJV are more commonly used words, they would contribute to giving the KJV a lower average syllable count. Those words do not actually make the KJV easier to read. By the way, some KJV editions would unite some of those words such as “to day” to either “to-day” or “today” so that those KJV editions would have a different average syllable count. The 1611 KJV edition had “shall be” united as one, longer word “shalbe.” More importantly, the KJV has a number of archaic words or words used with archaic meanings that may be shorter or have fewer syllables than their present equivalents. Some examples would include “turtle” for “turtledove,” “vale“ for “valley,” “dearth“ for “famine,” “trump“ for “trumpet,” “tongue“ for “language,” “let” for “hinder,” “anon” for “immediately,” “sod” for “boiled,” “mete“ for “measure,” “still” for “continually,” “by and by” for “immediately,” “ere“ for “before,” “minish” for “diminish,’ and “rid” for “deliver.” While such words may help reduce the KJV’s average syllable count, they do not make it easier to read and understand. These reasons or factors indicate why claims concerning “average syllable count” may be misleading. An argument based on "average syllable count" could be considered a shallow or weak argument.

 

Along with the shallow or weak "lower average syllable count" argument, Ouellette also used the shallow or weak KJV-is-not-copyrighted argument.

Ouellette claimed that it is a false statement to say "the King James Bible is copyrighted" (p. 149).

As noted earlier, he used the weak argument that the Apocrypha "was quickly dropped from later editions" of the KJV (p. 153).

Ouellette used the incorrect claim that "revisions of the King James Bible have been related to printing errors and spelling changes" (p. 153). He seems to be unaware of all the evidence that shows that the KJV translators themselves were responsible for at least some of the renderings that later editors changed.

Ouellette also applies his claims or arguments inconsistently. Ouellette wrote: "I believe that a translator's beliefs should be considered in reference to his translation work with the Word of God" (p. 125). He seemed to condemn some translators that he claimed accepted the doctrine of baptismal regeneration while he ignores the fact that the Church of England translators of the KJV accepted the same doctrine. He seems to be unaware of the actual doctrinal views of the Church of England translators of the KJV.

 

How do you know for sure? KJV-only authors such as R. B. Ouellette should be aware of the fact that Westcott and Hort are condemned for accepting Darwin's theory of evolution and that KJV-only attempts have been made to associate modern translations with evolution through them so that use of the word "evolving" could be considered an implied association with the theory of evolution. In his book, Ouellette does seem to attempt to link modern translations to Westcott and Hort. The word "changing" could have been used instead of "evolving."

The question is also misleading since it seems to ignore the fact that the KJV made thousands of changes in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision and the fact that over 2,000 changes have been made in editions of the KJV. Would Ouellette suggest that the KJV was an "evolving Bible" because it changed the earlier English Bibles of which it was a revision? Is it a valid question if it is applied inconsistently?

By the way, it is wrong for you to claim that it is "dishonest" for me to offer my observation and opinions concerning the various statements and claims made by Ouellette in his book.

 

Yeah, we wouldn't want an inspired translation today now would we?:tongue3:

The One who preserves is the same who inspired.:godisgood:

 

You're only speaking of printer's choices to include or exclude.

 

I would have to agree with him due to the fact that modern English has changed the meanings in current usage all the while maintaining the previous definitions as well. That's more confusing than to simply stick with that which is already established.

I can be gay, but I've never, nor will I ever be a sodmoite. Homosexual? Never! happy in Jesus? Gay!

 

If it is, then both would be correct! Excluding one's view of Ruckman, as to object to anything he says, he is not always wrong!:tongue3:

 

It may just be that great minds think alike!:laugh:

Even the devil isn't wrong about everything, but he's still the devil. Just becuase some demonize others doesn't make them God, nor does it necessarilly mean they are actually a demon.

 

You're starting to repeat yourself.