New book for me

Dr. Ouelette is pastor of First Baptist church, Bridgeport, MI. They have some kinda association with Messiah BC of Athens, GA. Here's parta the doctrinal statement of MBC:

We believe the Holy Scriptures (66 Books, apocrypha not included) of the Old and New Testaments to be the only verbally plenary infallible inspired Word of God ; inerrant in the original writings, but providentially preserved in its inspired state while maintaining infallibility and inerrancy in the King James Bible. We believe that the King James Bible is the only Bible in the English language that God would have us to use, preach ,teach, study, and memorize from, because it is the God preserved translation of the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus for the English speaking people. The Bible teaches that the providentially preserved Holy Scriptures are and shall remain the only complete unerring and unchanging standard by which all human conduct, creeds and opinions should be tried. (2 Tim. 3:16,17; 2 Peter 1:19-21; Matt. 5:18; John 16:12,13; Ps.119:9,11,89; I Peter 1:23; Rom 15:4; Rev. 22:18-19; Is40:8; Matt. 24:35; Prov 30:5-7; Ps 12:6-7; Matt 4:4; Deut 4:2; John 10:35; Is 59:21)

You can see this statement contains a big dose of opinion & guesswork, and includes the incorrect "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie".

I am quite dubious of a church that has a false doctrine in its "beliefs" statement.

I hope your book is free of hooey such as this.

 

Which church was the doctrinal statement from, the Georgia church?

If the author of the book is of the KJV only ilk, it can hardly be called objective. The KJV only stuff is indeed a false doctrine.

 

On your link, I was able to read the forward of the book, & it appears to be just another re-wording of the same ole stuff. I don't think I'll waste good money on a probably-bad book. If you find anything new in it, please clue us in.

 

Bob, it appears you have made your mind up on the book without anyone commenting on it. If so, why ask anyone's opinion? :laugh:

It seems unfair to say that just because someone believes in KJVO that they cannot be objective. What, MVP people can't be biased?

In all seriousness, he seems kind in the foreword, but then seems anything but balanced in the portion of ch 1 that I read. I'd be curious to read the rest of it to see if it's available.

 

Pastor Bob, why don't you give us some of the more interesting quotes as you go chapter-by-chapter?

 

In the OP, Pastor Bob asked for the opinions of those who have read the book.

So far, it has been those who have not read the book who have blasted the book and author... not even knowing the what the book contains.

Why not honor PB's wishes and not comment on it unless you have read it as he requested?

 

I've not read and yet have done no such blasting.Be careful what you say. You are wrong quite often SFiC. Anyway, have you read the book? If not, why not?Why post here if you haven't read it?

 

Rippon,

Since you were not among the ones blasting Pastor Bob, but rather encouraging him to post his thoughts as he read through the book, my post was not addressed to you.

It was to those who had not even read the book, but so readily attacked it.

 

If I feel obligated, my, thanks for your permission.

Why isn't it enough to like the KJV, and to use the KJV, why does it need to be the only translation for the English speaking people? If you accept this line of thinking, there is a serious question concerning the objectivity of the author.

 

Do you think there is any chance that we could discuss this book without presupposition and prejudice?

 

I believe that is exactly what Pastor Bob was wanting.

Thanks, Roger.

 

I don't have any plans to get the book mainly because my 'to read' stack is quite tall already, so I would indeed appreciate any interesting quotes that Pastor Bob can share with us that might give us a fresh perspective on the topic.

:thumbs:

 

Ovuellette attempt to distance himself from the extreme radical element, but he ends up claiming that preservation applies to a translation [the KJV] and that implying that preservation produces the same exact results as inspiration.

 

Ouellette seems to depend too much on the claims of other KJV-only authors such as D. A. Waite without seeming to have checked out the evidence for himself.

Ouellette claimed that it was a false statement to say that the KJV "was solely based upon the Textus Receptus" (p. 146) which conflicts with his own statement that claimed that "the only English Bible that emerges solely from the Received Text" is the KJV (p. 118). How can both of his statements be correct? Textus Receptus and Received Text mean the same thing.

In addition, Ouellette is ignoring the fact that there are other English translations that are based as much on the Textus Receptus as the KJV is such as the 1560 Geneva Bible, the 1833 Webster's, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists, the NKJV, the 1990 Modern KJV, the 1994 KJ21, the KJ2000. Perhaps he is unaware of the fact that the Geneva Bible is in print today.

 

Ouellette claimed that the Apocrypha was "quickly" removed from the KJV, but a few statements later admitted that some editions of the KJV included it until around the 1820's. That statement is incorrect since there were a number of KJV editions in the late 1800's and even in the 1900's that include the Apocrypha.