My take is Hyles wanted to be the role model for pastors. For years he championed the busing ministry. Due to oil shortages and changes in the economy, busing fell out of favor. So, he moved over to the KJVO movement.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
John R. Rice, Jack Hyles, and the KJV
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
- Status
But if a portion of the Bible is quoted in Shakespeare, the Bible somehow loses its power, according to what you wrote.
The Bible always remains the same....
timtofly
Well-Known Member
No the Bible looses it's power after translators turn Scripture into just another body of writing like Shakespeare did. The Holy Spirit is not limited because of that. The power is limited because of that.
The Bible is just a book in the regards to power any ways. A human still has to be obedient to God to have any power. Are some translations acts of disobedience would be another angle to look at preservation.
I could not disagree more. If the Bible can lose (not "loose") its power by any means, then that means that God can lose His power, and that is extremely bad theology, and besides, it contradicts the Bible itself in Heb. 4:12, "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
At what point does a translation become an "act of disobedience"? Some people in Norway I know about are doing a translation into Rohingya, a language with no Bible. They are probably doing it with dynamic equivalence from a critical text. Is that disobedience?
timtofly
Well-Known Member
Saying that every translation has power is not the logical outcome of God claiming His Word is all powerful. That would include the works of Shakespeare as well.
Why argue intent on the basis of need?
If a Translation is necessary to correct God's Word that is suspect intent. There is no need to correct God's Word. When a human steps up and says my translation is what God intended and necessary to correct other historical works, that is suspect to God's ability to preserve His Word throughout history.
You did not answer my questions concerning at what specific point a Bible translation becomes disobedient, and whether or not a certain missionary translation is disobedient. I will assume then that (a) you cannot answer, or (b) you don't comprehend the questions, or (c) it upsets your narrative so that you will not answer.
timtofly
Well-Known Member
It would be when the commentary contradicts or changes God's Word. Would one intentionally mislead the readers in their very first ability to read God's Word? If they intend to only push theology, instead of God's Word, then shame on them.
I didn't ask anything about commentaries, but about a missionary Bible translation.
Last edited:
No, would mean not as accurate, but still word of the Lord to them in their native language, and the Holy Spirit will have no problem in getting that message across!
Maybe I should ask a different question, since you won't answer the other one. At what point, then, does the Word of God lose it's power:
1. In the manuscripts of the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.
2. In the early English translations.
3. In the 1611 revision of previous English translations
4. In any translation of the KJV into other languages.
5. In any translation from something other than the KJV into other languages.
6. In any translation from the original languages into a foreign languages.
Surely you must have some kind of criteria for how and when the Bible loses it's power.
And when does the Holy Spirit cease being God in this?
Why are you asking me? Ask him.
It's clear to me that Hyles didn't bring anything new to the KJVO table. seems he simply became Ruckman's homeboy. The KJVO jive he published had been out for awhile.
Given some other aspects of his life after Rice's death, his actions on behalf of the KJVO myth helps show show that the ultimate daddy of it was Satan. instead of seeing what the AV makers wrote in their preface, seems Hyles just took the word of a quack-Ruckman-for it.
Given some other aspects of his life after Rice's death, his actions on behalf of the KJVO myth helps show show that the ultimate daddy of it was Satan. instead of seeing what the AV makers wrote in their preface, seems Hyles just took the word of a quack-Ruckman-for it.
Where did Ruckman get his theological degree from?
BJU according to wiki.
It seems to me that Hyles's position that you can't be saved out of a Bible other than the KJV is distinct and different from Ruckman. I could be wrong, but I am not aware that Peter Ruckman ever taught that.
From all accounts, it seems Jack Hyles descended into a moral abyss in his last years (perhaps some of it was a problem earlier, but hidden, I wouldn't know). However, if we judge any doctrine based on some supporter traveling down a low moral road, we could probably disprove every Christian doctrine.
Bob Jones U.
Ruckman DID definitely teach that the KJV corrects its sources by its "advanced revelation"!
He IMPLIED that salvation comes only from the Gospel as presented in the KJV, saying the KJV is the final authority in all matters of faith & worship. But NO; far as I know, he never outright SAID salvation comes only thru the KJV.
He also taught MULTIPLE plans of salvation!
Actually, to the best of my knowledge, his PhD from BJU was in education. Late in life he claimed a BD and a ThM, but I suspect those were from degree mills, since you can't (or at least I can't) find anything on the Internet or in his books that tell the schools.
- Status