What do you think?
Rate this book
A More Sure Word: Which Bible Can You Trust?
Have you ever wondered why there are so many different kinds of 'Bibles' on the shelves at the average Christian bookstore? Do they really all say the same thing? And most importantly, which one truly represents the authoritative Word of God? Do we even have a correct Bible in English that we can trust as the Word of God? This book addresses a very sensitive subject with kindness, candor, authority, and biblical support. Every page points believers to the most biblical, the most logical, and the most historically sensible position regarding the true Word of God for English-speaking people. Writing in a style and with a spirit that touches the life of the average believer, this book is perfect for new Christians or those seeking to cut through the scholarly semantics to the true heart of the matter in which Bible should we place our complete confidence as the authoritative Word of God?
216 pages, Hardcover
First published May 7, 2008
28 people are currently reading
60 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
September 30, 2014
A Sincere Thanks
I believe R.B. Ouellette made a sincere effort to write with a gracious spirit; and from what I can tell about the publisher and editors of this book (West Coast Baptist College and Paul Chappell), that gracious spirit shouldn’t be a surprise. Ouellette writes,
I accept these words as a gift from brother to Christian brother; they are much appreciated. I will attempt to write this review with similar grace.
A Roundabout Critique
Indeed, I want to be very careful, because I happily agree that there are “King James Only” men and women whose godly zeal and growth in grace are very admirable. And I owe much to some of them, particular ones who taught me. But I still came away from this book deeply grieved.
I could give a thorough review of Ouellette’s book, and I have. It’s in the extensive notes I made on the Kindle version, which was kindly given to me by a West Coast Baptist College administrator and teacher. Out of Christian love for that brother I read every page patiently and with careful attention, and I ended up, Kindle tells me, with 107 highlighted passages and 99 notes. Frankly, however, I don’t think any of those notes is likely to help anyone who agrees with Ouellette.
And I’ll tell a story to illustrate why I think so. My sophomore year of college, I went on a “date” with a girl to a formal outing in which we all participated in a murder mystery. We were supposed to write down the clues that were provided to us and vote at the end of the night on whodunnit. It was fun, sort of an Agatha Christie feel. But my date and I were the only couple, I think, who couldn’t come up with a unified answer when it was time to turn in our cards guessing who the murderer was. She had faithfully scribbled down all the clues and was fairly certain she had nailed the perpetrator. I, however, smelled a rat. There were just too many details—the footman was in the library and heard a scream, the duchess claimed she was fixing her hair in the powder room at the time of the murder, the car was red, the cat was a Manx, the carpet stain formed a ring, the perfume was Chanel No. 5—on and on and on. There was just no coherent way to put it all together given all the other gaps in my knowledge about the case. So I threw my hands up and said the butler did it. (And for once in my life, I won something!)
I get the same feeling—follow me here—when I read Ouellette and other literature defending exclusive use of the KJV and the superiority of the Textus Receptus. I feel like I'm being snowed under with countless details about the Lucianic Recension, scribal practices, translation theories, ancient versions and lectionaries, and scattered examples from modern Bible translations. It’s all quite complicated and detailed, and I'm just a little incredulous that people without specialized training in these areas can really follow it all (more on this in a moment). In the end I really feel like I’m being asked to take Ouellette’s word for it that his interpretation of all those details is correct. (That’s especially true since I frequently wrote “Footnote?” in my notes—a good number of his assertions are not footnoted, and those that are typically point to pro-KJV literature.) There must be people who scribble down all the clues Ouellette provides and then feel confident that they’ve nailed the right answer (and nailed the perpetrators who deny it). But I smell, if not a rat, then a snow job.
If I were to supply all my notes, or organize them into a detailed review, for most readers it would probably boil down to my word against Ouellette’s. That’s because, despite Ouellette’s insistence that “it doesn’t take a scholar to understand the big picture of the Bible discussion,” I don’t see any way around a simple fact: if you can’t read Greek, you’re simply going to have to take someone’s word for that big picture. Because the big picture can only be formed by extensive understanding of the details. And those details are—both sides agree this far—written in Greek.
Greek and the Layperson
Listen to what I’m not saying: I’m not saying laypeople are unintelligent or incapable of forming good opinions on the matter of the Bible’s text and translation. I am only saying that I leave it to my mechanic to fix my car. I leave it to doctors to diagnose my illnesses. On many important issues that affect my life, I do what homework I can but leave the issue, ultimately, to trustworthy authorities.
Ouellette tries to argue that any “distinction…between the ‘learned’ and the ‘laity’” is “Nicolaitanism” (Rev. 2:6, 15). Even though the Bible never defines this term, Ouellette informs us (with no footnote) that it “carr[ies] the idea of lording over the people or the laity.” What he fails to mention is that the only way someone could possibly know the meaning of that word is if they read Greek—or if they trust someone who does. (Nikao means "conquering" in Greek, and laos means "people"—but the Bible doesn't actually say that's what the Nicolaitans were doing.)
I don’t think it should be controversial for most Christians to admit that they don’t read Greek. So I think the real question about the New Testament text for most Bible-believing Christians is “Whom do I trust?” On the complicated and difficult issues of Greek lexicography and textual critical canons and manuscript families you’re going to have to trust someone. Should it be Ouellette?
I say trust your pastor. Trust your God-given spiritual authorities (1 Pet. 5:5; Heb. 13:17). Yes, do your own reading. Yes, do your own thinking. Ask questions. Don’t follow blindly. Don’t cede all your spiritual responsibilities to your church leaders, but just humbly admit it: you don’t read Greek, and you’re going to have to take someone’s word for it on matters relating to the Greek text of the New Testament. And that’s okay. Not every member of the body of Christ is gifted to be a Bible translator or Greek scholar.
English and You
I’d like to focus my critique of this book instead on something you are an expert in: contemporary English. Perhaps you don’t think you’re an expert. Perhaps your grades in English class suggest otherwise. But when it comes to spoken English, think how many Chinese students would gladly give up all their worldly possessions to speak English like you do. You began mastering English very early on. By age 3, or even earlier, certain ways of saying things sounded “funny” to you—you just knew they weren’t right. You would never have made the errors of some of those Chinese students: “I mother love very well you.” You might say something like, “I maked this finger painting, Daddy!” But even that “error” is actually just a logical extension of the rules you were mastering (namely that adding “-ed” to the end of a verb puts it in past tense). You just hadn’t learned the exceptions. By age 10 at the absolute latest, you had.
When you hear a foreigner speaking English, you pick it up instantly. She doesn’t talk like I do. You can even distinguish global and regional English accents; you know British English (“Cheerio!”) from Australian English (“G’day, mate!”), and you know Southern English (“y’all”) from Minnesota English (“dooncha knoow”). Sure, you still make grammar errors even as an adult (mainly in writing and not so much in speech), but you almost literally never say anything that other English speakers can’t understand, unless you do it on purpose! You are a master of spoken English. (My three-year-old son insists for some reason, “I don’t speak English!” but his very assertion disproves his argument.)
So you know—you know, without having to trust some other authority—that the King James does not speak your language. It certainly fits, broadly speaking, in the same era as the English you speak, the one called by linguists “Modern English.” It is not totally unintelligible, and it’s definitely pretty. But it’s foreign, not so much because it comes from Britain, but because it comes from 400 years ago. Nobody in America—and nobody in Britain—speaks or writes like that anymore.
So I was shocked—just astonished, bamboozled, dumbfounded, stunned—when Ouellette made this little (unfootnoted) assertion, even though I've seen it countless times before (always without a footnote) in KJVO literature:
You probably don’t know Greek. If the Greek of Hebrews is more difficult than the Greek of Revelation, you will just have to take someone else’s word for it. But you do know English. You know Ouellette is wrong. Don’t let “recent evaluation” (by whom? by what method?) or computer grading scales deny what you can’t not know: the KJV is unnecessarily hard to read. I simply can't fathom how Ouellette can say this with a straight face:
Have you ever read a modern Bible translation? Has he? Ouellette’s unfounded assertion about readability is the one statement that grieved me most in a book which constantly had me shaking my head. I preach weekly in an evangelistic bus ministry, and I preach to black and white adults who are on the lower rungs of American society. Few of them have good education. Now, they’re not dummies! They have capacities I could never hope to have. But reading is not one of them. They cannot read the KJV, and I feel very defensive for them whenever an R.B. Ouellette comes along and tells them they must. Can a 62-year-old woman with an eighth grade education be expected to learn a 400-year-old form of English before she can read her Bible?
Ouellette says, “The English language reached its literary peak in the early 1600s. While the English language has changed, it has primarily deteriorated since that time.” So why doesn’t he speak in Jacobean-era English at home, or in his sermons, or in this book? Why does he use punctuation the KJV translators didn't use, like quotation marks? Ouellette is taking God’s words away from the weakest people by encasing them in a language even he doesn’t speak. Does the Bible tell us that languages have “literary peaks”? Should missionaries translate Bibles into historical literary forms of Indonesian or Filipino instead of the forms people actually speak in Indonesia and the Philippines today?
Listen to how often KJV preachers have to give synonyms for KJV words. That's an implicit recognition that it's time to update the KJV. If the real problem with modern translations is their use of the TR—and even of "dynamic equivalency" translation practices (Ouellette doesn't seem aware that the NASB is actually more literal than the KJV)—then why not make a translation of the TR into modern English?
But Ouellette simply dismisses the idea of making a new translation of the TR:
Dear KJVO brothers, go ahead and take your pastor’s word for it when he says that the TR is the best Greek text. We’ll never get anywhere arguing about it, because neither of us is an expert. But dear brothers, demand that your KJVO leaders get together and make a translation of the TR into English you can read. They don’t like the NKJV, which is already a translation of the TR? Fine. Make another one. The KJV is indeed an excellent translation, but a translation into a form of English that no one will ever speak again, and that no one can read with full understanding today, even with the help of a dictionary.
If I say, "Ouellette demonstrated to me over and over again that he had no real understanding of the complicated Greek issues he was talking about," those on Ouellette's side will just dismiss me. They'll trust him instead of me. And that's to be expected; I don't blame them. But please, please don't let him look you in the face and tell you that the KJV is easier to read than the ESV. I love you, my brothers in Christ, and I urge you to see that only an extreme partisan could ever claim that the KJV is easier to read than the ESV, NASB, NKJV, or HCSB.
You deserve—you need—a translation of the best Greek texts (whatever you think those are) into the language you actually speak. Not slang, not dumbed-down street talk, but standard American English—the kind you hear on the nightly news. I urge you with all my heart: read a modern translation all the way through. Rather than shaking your faith, it will strengthen it—because God will be speaking to you in your heart language. You'll gain clarity on countless verses you didn't know you were missing before. This has been my experience, and that of my wife and many others I know.
I love the KJV, and I'll never lose it. But even Ouellette says that "The New Testament was written in what has been called 'Koine' Greek—the language of the common people." He's right. There was another form of Greek available, a higher and more literary, classic form. But God didn't employ that. He used the language of the common people. Why can't your Bible translation?
I believe R.B. Ouellette made a sincere effort to write with a gracious spirit; and from what I can tell about the publisher and editors of this book (West Coast Baptist College and Paul Chappell), that gracious spirit shouldn’t be a surprise. Ouellette writes,
I want to have charity and grace enough to state that someone who disagrees with the position of this book could still be a biblical fundamentalist. Godly men may disagree and yet still be greatly used of the Lord.
I accept these words as a gift from brother to Christian brother; they are much appreciated. I will attempt to write this review with similar grace.
A Roundabout Critique
Indeed, I want to be very careful, because I happily agree that there are “King James Only” men and women whose godly zeal and growth in grace are very admirable. And I owe much to some of them, particular ones who taught me. But I still came away from this book deeply grieved.
I could give a thorough review of Ouellette’s book, and I have. It’s in the extensive notes I made on the Kindle version, which was kindly given to me by a West Coast Baptist College administrator and teacher. Out of Christian love for that brother I read every page patiently and with careful attention, and I ended up, Kindle tells me, with 107 highlighted passages and 99 notes. Frankly, however, I don’t think any of those notes is likely to help anyone who agrees with Ouellette.
And I’ll tell a story to illustrate why I think so. My sophomore year of college, I went on a “date” with a girl to a formal outing in which we all participated in a murder mystery. We were supposed to write down the clues that were provided to us and vote at the end of the night on whodunnit. It was fun, sort of an Agatha Christie feel. But my date and I were the only couple, I think, who couldn’t come up with a unified answer when it was time to turn in our cards guessing who the murderer was. She had faithfully scribbled down all the clues and was fairly certain she had nailed the perpetrator. I, however, smelled a rat. There were just too many details—the footman was in the library and heard a scream, the duchess claimed she was fixing her hair in the powder room at the time of the murder, the car was red, the cat was a Manx, the carpet stain formed a ring, the perfume was Chanel No. 5—on and on and on. There was just no coherent way to put it all together given all the other gaps in my knowledge about the case. So I threw my hands up and said the butler did it. (And for once in my life, I won something!)
I get the same feeling—follow me here—when I read Ouellette and other literature defending exclusive use of the KJV and the superiority of the Textus Receptus. I feel like I'm being snowed under with countless details about the Lucianic Recension, scribal practices, translation theories, ancient versions and lectionaries, and scattered examples from modern Bible translations. It’s all quite complicated and detailed, and I'm just a little incredulous that people without specialized training in these areas can really follow it all (more on this in a moment). In the end I really feel like I’m being asked to take Ouellette’s word for it that his interpretation of all those details is correct. (That’s especially true since I frequently wrote “Footnote?” in my notes—a good number of his assertions are not footnoted, and those that are typically point to pro-KJV literature.) There must be people who scribble down all the clues Ouellette provides and then feel confident that they’ve nailed the right answer (and nailed the perpetrators who deny it). But I smell, if not a rat, then a snow job.
If I were to supply all my notes, or organize them into a detailed review, for most readers it would probably boil down to my word against Ouellette’s. That’s because, despite Ouellette’s insistence that “it doesn’t take a scholar to understand the big picture of the Bible discussion,” I don’t see any way around a simple fact: if you can’t read Greek, you’re simply going to have to take someone’s word for that big picture. Because the big picture can only be formed by extensive understanding of the details. And those details are—both sides agree this far—written in Greek.
Greek and the Layperson
Listen to what I’m not saying: I’m not saying laypeople are unintelligent or incapable of forming good opinions on the matter of the Bible’s text and translation. I am only saying that I leave it to my mechanic to fix my car. I leave it to doctors to diagnose my illnesses. On many important issues that affect my life, I do what homework I can but leave the issue, ultimately, to trustworthy authorities.
Ouellette tries to argue that any “distinction…between the ‘learned’ and the ‘laity’” is “Nicolaitanism” (Rev. 2:6, 15). Even though the Bible never defines this term, Ouellette informs us (with no footnote) that it “carr[ies] the idea of lording over the people or the laity.” What he fails to mention is that the only way someone could possibly know the meaning of that word is if they read Greek—or if they trust someone who does. (Nikao means "conquering" in Greek, and laos means "people"—but the Bible doesn't actually say that's what the Nicolaitans were doing.)
I don’t think it should be controversial for most Christians to admit that they don’t read Greek. So I think the real question about the New Testament text for most Bible-believing Christians is “Whom do I trust?” On the complicated and difficult issues of Greek lexicography and textual critical canons and manuscript families you’re going to have to trust someone. Should it be Ouellette?
I say trust your pastor. Trust your God-given spiritual authorities (1 Pet. 5:5; Heb. 13:17). Yes, do your own reading. Yes, do your own thinking. Ask questions. Don’t follow blindly. Don’t cede all your spiritual responsibilities to your church leaders, but just humbly admit it: you don’t read Greek, and you’re going to have to take someone’s word for it on matters relating to the Greek text of the New Testament. And that’s okay. Not every member of the body of Christ is gifted to be a Bible translator or Greek scholar.
English and You
I’d like to focus my critique of this book instead on something you are an expert in: contemporary English. Perhaps you don’t think you’re an expert. Perhaps your grades in English class suggest otherwise. But when it comes to spoken English, think how many Chinese students would gladly give up all their worldly possessions to speak English like you do. You began mastering English very early on. By age 3, or even earlier, certain ways of saying things sounded “funny” to you—you just knew they weren’t right. You would never have made the errors of some of those Chinese students: “I mother love very well you.” You might say something like, “I maked this finger painting, Daddy!” But even that “error” is actually just a logical extension of the rules you were mastering (namely that adding “-ed” to the end of a verb puts it in past tense). You just hadn’t learned the exceptions. By age 10 at the absolute latest, you had.
When you hear a foreigner speaking English, you pick it up instantly. She doesn’t talk like I do. You can even distinguish global and regional English accents; you know British English (“Cheerio!”) from Australian English (“G’day, mate!”), and you know Southern English (“y’all”) from Minnesota English (“dooncha knoow”). Sure, you still make grammar errors even as an adult (mainly in writing and not so much in speech), but you almost literally never say anything that other English speakers can’t understand, unless you do it on purpose! You are a master of spoken English. (My three-year-old son insists for some reason, “I don’t speak English!” but his very assertion disproves his argument.)
So you know—you know, without having to trust some other authority—that the King James does not speak your language. It certainly fits, broadly speaking, in the same era as the English you speak, the one called by linguists “Modern English.” It is not totally unintelligible, and it’s definitely pretty. But it’s foreign, not so much because it comes from Britain, but because it comes from 400 years ago. Nobody in America—and nobody in Britain—speaks or writes like that anymore.
So I was shocked—just astonished, bamboozled, dumbfounded, stunned—when Ouellette made this little (unfootnoted) assertion, even though I've seen it countless times before (always without a footnote) in KJVO literature:
Recent evaluation shows the reading level of the King James Bible to be fifth grade, as a whole—many individual passages would be lower. The modern Bibles are shown to be between sixth and ninth grade levels as a whole. The modern versions claim to increase readability when in reality, they often make readability more difficult.
You probably don’t know Greek. If the Greek of Hebrews is more difficult than the Greek of Revelation, you will just have to take someone else’s word for it. But you do know English. You know Ouellette is wrong. Don’t let “recent evaluation” (by whom? by what method?) or computer grading scales deny what you can’t not know: the KJV is unnecessarily hard to read. I simply can't fathom how Ouellette can say this with a straight face:
The modern versions increase the reading difficulty of the English Bible.
Have you ever read a modern Bible translation? Has he? Ouellette’s unfounded assertion about readability is the one statement that grieved me most in a book which constantly had me shaking my head. I preach weekly in an evangelistic bus ministry, and I preach to black and white adults who are on the lower rungs of American society. Few of them have good education. Now, they’re not dummies! They have capacities I could never hope to have. But reading is not one of them. They cannot read the KJV, and I feel very defensive for them whenever an R.B. Ouellette comes along and tells them they must. Can a 62-year-old woman with an eighth grade education be expected to learn a 400-year-old form of English before she can read her Bible?
Ouellette says, “The English language reached its literary peak in the early 1600s. While the English language has changed, it has primarily deteriorated since that time.” So why doesn’t he speak in Jacobean-era English at home, or in his sermons, or in this book? Why does he use punctuation the KJV translators didn't use, like quotation marks? Ouellette is taking God’s words away from the weakest people by encasing them in a language even he doesn’t speak. Does the Bible tell us that languages have “literary peaks”? Should missionaries translate Bibles into historical literary forms of Indonesian or Filipino instead of the forms people actually speak in Indonesia and the Philippines today?
Listen to how often KJV preachers have to give synonyms for KJV words. That's an implicit recognition that it's time to update the KJV. If the real problem with modern translations is their use of the TR—and even of "dynamic equivalency" translation practices (Ouellette doesn't seem aware that the NASB is actually more literal than the KJV)—then why not make a translation of the TR into modern English?
But Ouellette simply dismisses the idea of making a new translation of the TR:
Sometimes people ask the question, “Couldn’t we update the Word of God and use two for the word twain?” Would we be changing the Word of God? It is possible to update God’s Word without changing what God said. If it’s not possible now, it would not have been possible in 1611. To change twain into two would not be changing what God said. In this case, we are not dealing with concepts, we are dealing with synonymous words. Yet, there is a more pressing question that must be answered first: Do we need a new translation? I do not believe so. Friend, we have an accurate, literal translation (formal equivalency) of the Word of God from the right text in English.
Dear KJVO brothers, go ahead and take your pastor’s word for it when he says that the TR is the best Greek text. We’ll never get anywhere arguing about it, because neither of us is an expert. But dear brothers, demand that your KJVO leaders get together and make a translation of the TR into English you can read. They don’t like the NKJV, which is already a translation of the TR? Fine. Make another one. The KJV is indeed an excellent translation, but a translation into a form of English that no one will ever speak again, and that no one can read with full understanding today, even with the help of a dictionary.
If I say, "Ouellette demonstrated to me over and over again that he had no real understanding of the complicated Greek issues he was talking about," those on Ouellette's side will just dismiss me. They'll trust him instead of me. And that's to be expected; I don't blame them. But please, please don't let him look you in the face and tell you that the KJV is easier to read than the ESV. I love you, my brothers in Christ, and I urge you to see that only an extreme partisan could ever claim that the KJV is easier to read than the ESV, NASB, NKJV, or HCSB.
You deserve—you need—a translation of the best Greek texts (whatever you think those are) into the language you actually speak. Not slang, not dumbed-down street talk, but standard American English—the kind you hear on the nightly news. I urge you with all my heart: read a modern translation all the way through. Rather than shaking your faith, it will strengthen it—because God will be speaking to you in your heart language. You'll gain clarity on countless verses you didn't know you were missing before. This has been my experience, and that of my wife and many others I know.
I love the KJV, and I'll never lose it. But even Ouellette says that "The New Testament was written in what has been called 'Koine' Greek—the language of the common people." He's right. There was another form of Greek available, a higher and more literary, classic form. But God didn't employ that. He used the language of the common people. Why can't your Bible translation?
April 20, 2022
I was really hoping this book would solve all my questions and understanding of this issue. Dr. Oullette is a phenomenal preacher, but this book was not what it could have been. Unfortunately, any time an example was made of changing key doctrines the worst possible example was referred to which seemed intellectually dishonest to me. For example “All Scripture” 2 Timothy 3 referred to the ASV 1907 which is not widely used says “every Scripture of God”.
This would be no big deal, but this was the ground work for all versions. The assumption is that every one who uses and every other version wants to crumble your understanding of inerrancy.
I was disappointed with very little attention, if any paid, to the Greek or the development of the “textus receptus”. This book strengthened my belief in the word of God, but did not help very much in resolving the controversy.
This would be no big deal, but this was the ground work for all versions. The assumption is that every one who uses and every other version wants to crumble your understanding of inerrancy.
I was disappointed with very little attention, if any paid, to the Greek or the development of the “textus receptus”. This book strengthened my belief in the word of God, but did not help very much in resolving the controversy.
August 29, 2025
An accessible book that concerns the topic of God's Word being preserved in the English language best in the King James Version (or Authorized Version) Bible, because it is based on the Received Text which is based on the Bible promise that God is supernaturally involved in protecting and propagating His Word, not just inspiring it (pg. 43). The two texts that are considered as far as the Word of God is concerned in the English translations are the Received Text (also referred to as the Traditional Text, Preserved Text, Byzantine Text, Antiochian Text, Syrian Text, Textus Receptus, Western Text, TR) and the Critical Text (also referred to as the Eclectic Text, Minority Text, Egyptian Text, Alexandrian Text, Westcott and Hort Text, Nestle-Aland Text, and UBS Text). The King James translators' approach that was taken was that of formal equivalence which sought to create a literal word for word translation and left "interpretation" up to the reader, whereas for the Critical Text translators a dynamic equivalency approach was taken in which the translators interpreted the concepts rather than translating the exact words (pg. 43). Received Text supporters have historically believed the Word of God literally, and believed it to be preserved and infallible. Critical Text supporters have historically believed the Word of God to be the work of men and have approached it allegorically (pg. 120). It's noteworthy that the Received Text is substantiated by more than 35,000 manuscripts found in various languages and from a multiplicity of cultures and eras, as well more than 1,000,000 quotes from early church leaders that further support the Received Text (pg. 159). The Critical Text is traced to a relatively few obscure manuscripts (pg. 101), and it leaves out many words that are essential to the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith, in particular, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, salvation, the resurrection, the trinity, and others (pg. 65). Ultimately, the basic conflict between the two texts on which all English Bible versions are sourced comes down to we either have a "preserved Word," or we have a "being restored Word."
August 5, 2022
This book had gross errors, and misrepresentations in it. It doesn't address the real issues, and frames the argument in a deceptive, non-objective way. It will prey on people who aren't familiar with the arguments, but it will not provide them with any substantial claims to bring against the "Modern translations".
July 21, 2023
Ouellette's book is a wonderful explanation of the issues of Bible translation, manuscript evidence, the differences between the Critical text and the Received text of the Bible, and why all these things matter in the long run. His main concern is answering the question that countless hungry, seeking individuals have: "Why are there so many Bible translations available, and which one is the right one?" There are many works that delve into the subject of the inspiration, preservation, and translation of God's Word, but none of them are as succinct and accessible as Ouellette's book. Its brevity and easy reading make it a suitable primer (and an excellent summary of the main issues) into the world of Bibliology for any reader. I might add that the author presents his arguments in a fair and balanced manner, free from ad hominem attacks or bad attitudes.
If you are interested in Bibliology or Bible translations in general, this book should find its way into your library. Don't pass it by!
If you are interested in Bibliology or Bible translations in general, this book should find its way into your library. Don't pass it by!
July 31, 2019
So glad I read this again! He tackles this hard subject with a very kind spirit. He shows you both sides of the argument. Definitely a book that should be reviewed every few years to keep your mind fresh!
April 3, 2021
This book is well-researched, logical, and completely devoid of the malice with which this topic typically generates. I freely recommend this book to anyone on either side of the Bible translation question!
July 6, 2021
Written with love for all Christians, regardless of the English version they use, Dr. Ouellette makes excellent arguments as to why the most reliable version is the KJV. He does so in a non judgmental way.
January 13, 2024
For Further Reading on this subject, I'd recommend "King James Onlyism: A New Sect" by James D. Price, and "The King James Only Controversy" by Dr. James White.
The author of "A More Sure Word," R. B. Oulette, makes a good attempt at presenting the case for the superiority of the Authorized Version. However, one who's well-informed on the subject of Bible Translation might easily note that 1. The arguments used against the use of the Majority and Critical Texts in Bible translation, may easily be flipped against the exclusive use of the Received Text, as well as the Authorized Version; and 2. The arguments used in favor of the Received Text may also be just as easily flipped in favor of the use of the Critical Text.
Among the many logical inconsistencies within this work ...
Oulette admits that the King James translators may not have been the most spiritual of individuals, while criticizing the less spiritual positions and opinions of modern translators.
He accuses Westcott & Hort, etc., of having a bias against the TR, while communicating a bias against the MT/CT himself.
He accuses the MT/CT translators of creating doubt as to the reliability of certain passages of Scripture, while failing to acknowledge that the MT/CT have mechanisms which actually affirm the nature of certain passages, reliable or not.
He criticizes the use of rationalism in modern translations, while failing to acknowledge the influence of the Vulgate and Rome, in such instances as the translation of Revelation 22 from Latin to Greek for inclusion in the TR by Erasmus, and the retention of the Johannine Comma by Erasmus in the TR.
He also misrepresents key terms, such as "extant," which he claims means "existent" manuscripts, when in reality, it refers to manuscripts which NO LONGER exist. This error shows, for this reader, that this work is meant to be less of a scholarly work, and more of a work in defense of a historically undefensible position.
And in a number of instances, Oulette uses intentionally vague language to reinforce his point (as KJV-Onlyists are known to do) that all translations, as well as their sources, are unreliable, because, as Fundamentalists typically assert, "the King James is the preserved Word of God for the English speaking people."
----
"A More Sure Word" is a good work to read, if one wants to get a handle on the flawed reasoning of the stubborn King James Onlyist, and reinforce their trust in the Providence of God in ...
- Inspiring the Autographs - the Extant Manuscripts - of the Holy Scriptures;
- Preserving His Word, AS HE HAS PROMISED TO DO, through Modern Translations which faithfully conform to the content and meaning of the Inspired Source Texts; and doing so through the accurate translation and transmission of the Manuscripts available to us throughout the centuries, including the MT, CT, and TR; and ...
- Employing faithful, diligent, trustworthy scholars in both ancient and modern times, to verify and reinforce the truest possible representation of the content of the Extant Texts, as they were most likely written in their time.
My review is 2 stars out of 5, because I find the book extremely useful in readily refuting the King-James-Only position, and I believe it can be handily used by others to do so, as well.
The author of "A More Sure Word," R. B. Oulette, makes a good attempt at presenting the case for the superiority of the Authorized Version. However, one who's well-informed on the subject of Bible Translation might easily note that 1. The arguments used against the use of the Majority and Critical Texts in Bible translation, may easily be flipped against the exclusive use of the Received Text, as well as the Authorized Version; and 2. The arguments used in favor of the Received Text may also be just as easily flipped in favor of the use of the Critical Text.
Among the many logical inconsistencies within this work ...
Oulette admits that the King James translators may not have been the most spiritual of individuals, while criticizing the less spiritual positions and opinions of modern translators.
He accuses Westcott & Hort, etc., of having a bias against the TR, while communicating a bias against the MT/CT himself.
He accuses the MT/CT translators of creating doubt as to the reliability of certain passages of Scripture, while failing to acknowledge that the MT/CT have mechanisms which actually affirm the nature of certain passages, reliable or not.
He criticizes the use of rationalism in modern translations, while failing to acknowledge the influence of the Vulgate and Rome, in such instances as the translation of Revelation 22 from Latin to Greek for inclusion in the TR by Erasmus, and the retention of the Johannine Comma by Erasmus in the TR.
He also misrepresents key terms, such as "extant," which he claims means "existent" manuscripts, when in reality, it refers to manuscripts which NO LONGER exist. This error shows, for this reader, that this work is meant to be less of a scholarly work, and more of a work in defense of a historically undefensible position.
And in a number of instances, Oulette uses intentionally vague language to reinforce his point (as KJV-Onlyists are known to do) that all translations, as well as their sources, are unreliable, because, as Fundamentalists typically assert, "the King James is the preserved Word of God for the English speaking people."
----
"A More Sure Word" is a good work to read, if one wants to get a handle on the flawed reasoning of the stubborn King James Onlyist, and reinforce their trust in the Providence of God in ...
- Inspiring the Autographs - the Extant Manuscripts - of the Holy Scriptures;
- Preserving His Word, AS HE HAS PROMISED TO DO, through Modern Translations which faithfully conform to the content and meaning of the Inspired Source Texts; and doing so through the accurate translation and transmission of the Manuscripts available to us throughout the centuries, including the MT, CT, and TR; and ...
- Employing faithful, diligent, trustworthy scholars in both ancient and modern times, to verify and reinforce the truest possible representation of the content of the Extant Texts, as they were most likely written in their time.
My review is 2 stars out of 5, because I find the book extremely useful in readily refuting the King-James-Only position, and I believe it can be handily used by others to do so, as well.
September 10, 2024
I want to be as fair as I can be...
I went into this book expecting to take notes on valid arguments, historical evidence, and theological points that I hadn't heard that point to the KJV being the best English translation. I've had aspects of my theological framework completely flip as I've gotten older and become more educated, so I was open to this being the same.
Dr. Ouellette made great points about unity and the dangers of malice in these conversations. I greatly appreciated that. But regarding the substance of his arguments? I found myself thinking "that's simply not accurate," "that isn't relevant to the KJV vs. modern translation discussion," and "this argument FOR the KJV is the exact type of argument I'd use against it." It was just... Incredibly vague? Dr. Ouellette was stressing the importance of doctrinal integrity, and it is important, but when pulling out verses to demonstrate how they've been diluted, he pulled them out of their original context. Hearing that the ESV changed a verse from saying "God" to saying "He" sounds bad initially until you look at the passage and see that every verse around it is referring to God. In a book about the English language as it relates to the Bible, I was surprised by the lack of understanding as to how pronouns work.
Otherwise, there were just a few weird parts. Can't really call them glaring flaws, but I don't think they hold up particularly well:
-Saying that modern translations complicate the vocabulary of the KJV and then referring to them as a "Reader's Digest Condensed Version" on the same page seems very contradictory
-Ouellette pointed out that there's no harm in changing out words for more modern, synonymous words, like "twain" to "two," but even though that's okay in his eyes, he still thinks it's not needed.
-The KJV is simply not an easier translation to understand than modern translations. I know people more well-read and spiritually wise than I who struggle to read the KJV. I've led groups where many members stopped reading the Bible altogether because they couldn't understand the KJV. Much of Dr. Ouellette's heart in this book comes from a desire for people to have easy access to God's Word. It's admirable, and I believe the KJV is still a valid translation. But if your translation is driving away the average English-speaker, I have to wonder: Is it "a more sure Word"?
I went into this book expecting to take notes on valid arguments, historical evidence, and theological points that I hadn't heard that point to the KJV being the best English translation. I've had aspects of my theological framework completely flip as I've gotten older and become more educated, so I was open to this being the same.
Dr. Ouellette made great points about unity and the dangers of malice in these conversations. I greatly appreciated that. But regarding the substance of his arguments? I found myself thinking "that's simply not accurate," "that isn't relevant to the KJV vs. modern translation discussion," and "this argument FOR the KJV is the exact type of argument I'd use against it." It was just... Incredibly vague? Dr. Ouellette was stressing the importance of doctrinal integrity, and it is important, but when pulling out verses to demonstrate how they've been diluted, he pulled them out of their original context. Hearing that the ESV changed a verse from saying "God" to saying "He" sounds bad initially until you look at the passage and see that every verse around it is referring to God. In a book about the English language as it relates to the Bible, I was surprised by the lack of understanding as to how pronouns work.
Otherwise, there were just a few weird parts. Can't really call them glaring flaws, but I don't think they hold up particularly well:
-Saying that modern translations complicate the vocabulary of the KJV and then referring to them as a "Reader's Digest Condensed Version" on the same page seems very contradictory
-Ouellette pointed out that there's no harm in changing out words for more modern, synonymous words, like "twain" to "two," but even though that's okay in his eyes, he still thinks it's not needed.
-The KJV is simply not an easier translation to understand than modern translations. I know people more well-read and spiritually wise than I who struggle to read the KJV. I've led groups where many members stopped reading the Bible altogether because they couldn't understand the KJV. Much of Dr. Ouellette's heart in this book comes from a desire for people to have easy access to God's Word. It's admirable, and I believe the KJV is still a valid translation. But if your translation is driving away the average English-speaker, I have to wonder: Is it "a more sure Word"?
August 30, 2025
Very kind and generally Christlike when sharing his opinions. But way too many unsubstantiated claims, out of context quotes, and general lack of respect for the historical, real-life transmission of the Bible. Assumes his ideas of preservation, inspiration, etc are undisputed facts. All to protect this novel idea that modern English speakers should only be using and trusting a 400 y.o. translation of the Bible. Defending the indefensible is hard, especially if one is interested in being a purveyor of the truth.
February 22, 2024
Wow! This book was a tremendous help to me to confirm so much that was already in my mind and in my beliefs, yet I did not know how to articulate it. This book will serve as an invaluable resource going forward!
September 6, 2021
At least Ouellette's language is kind.
August 6, 2022
Great book!
Works like this will become more and more important as doubt is cast on the preservation of God’s word, to defend the Byzantine texts and their authenticity.
Works like this will become more and more important as doubt is cast on the preservation of God’s word, to defend the Byzantine texts and their authenticity.
February 7, 2025
Insightful and engaging. I really appreciated the author’s gracious tone throughout the book.
April 26, 2021
Written in a great spirit from a King James position. A rare find from my experience
June 9, 2015
Great study and clarification of the King James position
Thankful for the presentation of this issue from both a scriptural and historical perspective. A much needed book for our day.
Thankful for the presentation of this issue from both a scriptural and historical perspective. A much needed book for our day.
September 19, 2013
I have read many books on this subject over the years, but this by far is the easiest and best laid out. Written with a humble spirit and a desire to teach it is an easy read for any church member.
March 24, 2013
Well written, with a humble spirit and a desire to inform rather than beat the reader into submission. Written for a lay reader with little or no background on this topic.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews