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

The controversy on the later moral problems of Hyles would take several threads to relate. My uncle, Dr. Walt Handford, was a very close friend of Hyles. He heard the accusations from the husband of the accused woman, and it literally incapacitated him for a whole week. He then approached Hyles for his side of it, and was completely rejected. Having obeyed the Scripture in that regard, he then took the news public through an open letter, and the controversy was off and running. Then Bob Sumner published an article in his paper, The Biblical Evangelist, and things exploded from there.

I was involved in the controversy in a small way. As a missionary supported by his church, I was asked to sign a card saying that I completely supported all of the ministries of him and his church. Having 50 supporting churches, I thought that was ridiculous, so he said they would drop our support. He was gracious enough to say they would not do it until our next furlough, was years away. It wasn't that much anyway, but the thing is, they never did drop us! Someone had a conscience there.

 

Certainly not!

 

I still don't really know what you are getting at. I see no comparison with Shakespeare to what you have been saying. Pastors have Scripture quotes in their sermons. Does that make them like Shakespeare?

I still don't know what you are getting at with this. It is impossible for a translation to be a duplicate copy. Ask any translator, secular or Bible translators. Ask any United Nations interpreter. Ask the idiotic Japanese politician who used the word mokusatsu (黙殺) in answer to the Potsdam Declaration, thus insuring that Japan would be A-bombed.

You are mistaken in your understanding of the term "higher criticism." It is not "ingrained in all aspects of Bible interpretation." Evangelicals and fundamentalists do not use higher criticism in their hermeneutics, and it does not refer to "some hidden interpretation" in the originals. I suggest you learn what higher criticism really is: a practice by liberal "scholars" aimed at the authorship, provenance, originality, etc., of the Bible.

And there is nothing "enlightened" about being able to read the original languages. It takes hard work and many, many hours of study. I had my Greek students do a "review program" of the many conjugations of the Greek verb luo (λύω) over the Christmas break, and several have been talking to me in recent days about how they did. You cannot--CANNOT--learn Greek or Hebrew without serious dedication and many hours of hard work. So to say that we advocate "enlightenment" when we stand for the authority of the Bible in the original languages is absurd.

How about the Great Commission? Bible translation into all of the languages of the world is implicit in the Great Commission. Anyone who argues against missionary Bible translation is sinning against the last command of Christ on earth.

This is meaningless in regards to Christ-honoring, Christ-obeying Bible translation. Christ never commanded any specific number of translators. The translation I led from the TR into Japanese usually had just two translators, sometimes 3-5. Why? There are few who are qualified and have the burden. Luke 10:2--"Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest."

 

Well, I certainly do believe this, but I made a number of points--which remain unanswered.

Because I keep asking you questions that you refuse to answer, and refuting your points in ways you refuse to recognize. For example, if you could only figure out what higher criticism actually is.

Tell you what. Here's a link for you to study up on the actual meaning of "higher criticism," as opposed to how you used it: Higher Criticism | Encyclopedia.com

Educate yourself!

 

I've written a certain person for information on this. We'll see if he knows.

Oh, yes, and I almost forgot. BJU revoked his PhD at some point. That doesn't mean he quit calling himself a PhD, though.

 

Apparently his radicalism on the KJV. I have no direct source--just what I heard back in the day.