Featured John R. Rice, Jack Hyles, and the KJV

Depends on what Hyles said. If Hyles had said, "I follow Ruckman," I don't think he would have never been invited to preach with Rice again. As I mentioned above, by 1979 there were cracks in the friendship.

 

Hi, Tom. Nice to hear from you. Glad you are enjoying the thread. More to come.

 

Now, when it comes to John R. Rice, many KJVO proponents have a problem. Many refer to Yankee Stadium as "The House that Ruth Built," since his fame coincided with the development of the stadium. Likewise, southern Fundamentalism might be called, "The House the Rice Built," because of his tremendous influence in the movement. (Nathan Finn of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, proves this in his 2007 Ph.D. dissertation, "The Development of Baptist Fundamentalism in the South, 1940-1980.") To this day, most independent Baptists have many Rice books in their library. The truth is, many SBC pastors do also. In the library at Southwestern BTS, they have a reproduction of Adrian Roger's library with numerous books by Rice in it. Rogers himself said in a book by his wife that the most influential book in his life was Rice's Prayer: Asking and Receiving (Joyce Rogers. Love Worth Finding, 123).

So, the great majority of independent Baptists have been blessed by Rice's ministry. Thus, to attack Rice to many is to attack God's man, to attack Fundamentalism, to deny the blessings of God on the movement. Therefore, the KJVO advocate who has been blessed by Rice will say that if he were still alive he would be on their side. For example, David L. Stewart wrote, "I firmly believe that if Brother Rice were alive today that he'd be King James only" (Dr. John R. Rice And King James Onlyism).

However, whenever Rice interacted with KJVO advocates, he argued strongly against an inspired, inerrant translation. One man who took him on was Herbert Evans, a missionary to Mexico as I understand it. He wrote a pamphlet in 1976, Dear Dr. John: Where Is my bible (sic)? The pamphlet is a series of letters exchanged between Rice and Evans on the issue. Unfortunately, Evans published the letters without Rice's permission, which is unethical. (You can publish such things anonymously, but should not publish something under their name without permission.) In the "Preface," Evans thanks several TR advocates such as Fuller and Hills, but also Peter Ruckman.

Evans starts out by taking Rice to task about a response in the Dec. 15, 1972, issue of The Sword of the Lord, to a letter Rice had received (without naming the writer). In the letter by Rice, he clearly says he doesn't see the importance of the issue as stated by Ruckman and Fuller, whose books he had read. On the other hand, he takes a clear and strong stand against liberal versions such as the RSV, New English Bible, and Good News for Modern Man. Rice spends much effort in response, writing a three page letter to Evans explaining his position. Evans goads Rice over and over, until finally Rice gives up in disgust and doesn't answer the last letter by Evans. So Evans sends a telegram demanding an answer! My point here is, there was little chance of Rice becoming KJVO, even if he had lived another ten years! He had made himself clear on the KJVO position many times.

Rice's final words to Evans show the measure of the man: "I do not think it helpful for you to keep your mind full of argument, suspicions and charges. You were kind to write and thank you for taking the time. I am sure you meant to help me" (March 21, 1973, Rice to Evans).

 

Now, for some years after Rice died, Hyles took advantage of his friendship with Rice. (He did so personally to me once or twice as a missionary supported by the church.) To me the most shocking thing he did was that in his First Baptist "Pastor's School" he offered prizes to the pastors bringing the most people to the conference. The prizes were a car and a diamond ring once owned by Rice. He put an ad in the Sword of the Lord of Jan. 31, 1992, which said about the car, “This is the car that John R. Rice drove for the last few years of his life. It has been reconditioned and is in excellent running condition. It is a ’76 Buick Electra. What a treasure! Some church will drive this home after Pastors’ School. You will be amazed that the actual mileage on this car is 32,774.” About the diamond ring, he claimed it was worth $5,000. The ad said, “This diamond was once in a man’s ring setting and was given to Dr. John R. Rice by Dr. Jack Hyles years ago at a Pastors’ School. When Dr. Rice went to Heaven, Mrs. Rice placed it in a woman’s ring setting. What a treasured possession for some church or pastor or pastor’s wife!” Now I know for a fact that John R. Rice never wore such an ostentatious $5,000 diamond ring. To be fair to Hyles, he often did give gifts to Rice and his wife. At any rate, needless to say, the Rice family was not happy about this exploitation of our patriarch.

In the meantime, Hyles had come out as a 100% KJVO leader. In a 1984 sermon, Jack Hyles said, “I don’t like the Statement of Faith that says, ‘We believe the Bible is the Word of God in the original manuscripts.’ In the first place, there are no original manuscripts anywhere in the world tonight, none. If the word of God was only in the ‘original manuscripts,’ there is no word of God available for mankind today."
Jack Hyles, “Jack Hyles Speaks Out on Bible Versions.” “The Plains Baptist Challenger” newsletter 33/9, ed. by E. L. Bynum (September, 1984): 1-2.

This was only four years after the death of his mentor and father figure. Do you get the picture? This statement is in direct opposition to his mentor just four years after Rice’s death. Not only that, it completely misses the fact that the original, hand-written manuscripts of the translators of the KJV do not exist either! Hyles was a very intelligent man. It seems to me that he either had not thought through the issue, or was taking this position for the results that might attend to it.

 

No, I don't watch such shows.

 

Thanks for the quotes. You beat me to it (though I don't have the Revival Fires book). Obviously, the positions your quotes show is quite radical, and far from John R. Rice's position.

 

This shows that by that time Hyles had taken the position of Ruckman, that the KJV is inspired and inerrant. However, to my knowledge, Hyles never said that you should correct the Greek and Hebrew from the KJV, as Ruckman taught. That is the logical conclusion of Ruckman's position, but Hyles did not appear to articulate it in his book that you have quoted, The Need for an Every-Word Bible (2003), though I admit I have not read the whole book through.

 

Rice would have been disappointed in several of the positions Hyles took on the KJV. First of all, he would have been very disappointed at the position of Hyles that the KJV is perfect. Rice wrote, "A perfect translation of the Bible is humanly impossible. The words in one language do not have exactly the same color and meaning as opposite words in another language, and human frailty and imperfection enter in. So, let us say, there are no perfect translations. God does not inspire particular translations, although He may illuminate and give spiritual wisdom to the translator" (Our God-Breathed Book, the Bible, 1969, p. 376).

Secondly, the position that Hyles took as Logos has quoted in post #34, that no one can get saved through a different version than the KJV, is directly in opposition to the position of John R. Rice. Rice printed a pamphlet in 1947, Sermon from a Catholic Bible, and through it many Catholics were saved. He would have been shocked and very disappointed at Hyles saying no one could get saved through any other version. I know what he would have said: What about versions in other languages?

 

Just to be clear here, John R. Rice did not approve of most modern versions. Here is what he wrote on several of them in his book, Dr. Rice, Here Is my Question (Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord, 1962).

"I constantly use the King James Version. Practically all of my memory work is done in it. Because of its beautiful, stately language and because it is loved by common people everywhere, I find it best to preach and quote from this version, unless some passage is more clear in another version" (p. 59).

"I prefer the more literal and exact translations. All expanded and amplified translations tend to be somewhat an interpretation. And that is more true generally of the modern translations which take liberties with the text, for example, doing away with a Hebrew or Greek idiom, to fit modern speech. For example, Phillips Translation is a sorry paraphrase, inaccurate, irreverent. Phillips is openly an unbeliever in the authority and infallible inspiration of the Bible. He feels perfectly free to put in words or even whole sentences to make the meaning appear as he wants it to appear" (p. 59).

"The American Standard Version, translated in 1901, is perhaps the most accurate of all versions. it does not take the place of the King James Version, but in many places it has genuine help. Of course there are some mistakes, but many of the scholars who prepared it were devout Christians and believers" (p. 59).

"Phillips Translation is a sorry paraphrase, inaccurate, irreverent. Phillips is openly an unbeliever in the authority and infallible inspiration of the Bible. He feels perfectly free to put in words or even whole sentences to make the meaning appear as he wants it to appear (p. 59).

"I think the Williams Translation of the New Testament is generally accurate and good, better perhaps than other one-man translations of the New Testament. It gives very careful attention to the tenses of the Greek verbs and is especially helpful on some difficult passages" (p. 60).

"I do not advise the Christian to use Moffatt's Translation or Weymouth's or Goodspeed's. They are all right for scholars to have at hand, perhaps, but they are prepared by modernists, and sometimes the notes and even the translation will be wrong" (p. 60).

"The Amplified New Testament is a reverent translation which many lay people find interesting. It has the great limitation that it is partly a translation and partly a commentary, and that always leaves room for mistakes by the translator. For that reason I do not especially like it. But those who translated it intended for it to be true to the original text and to exalt Christ, and I do not think it will lead anybody especially wrong in doctrine" (p. 60).

"The New English Bible is scholarly and in colorful modern speech. But it is a free translation, sometimes a paraphrase, translated partly by unbelieving modern scholars, and I believe it is not reliable" (p. 60).

"On the whole, the Berkeley Version of the Bible is a good version compared to others in modern speech. However, I do not think the language is as beautiful as the King James Version, and I do not think it is as accurate as the King James Version and the American Standard Version" (p. 60).