Featured Jack Hyles Versus John R. Rice

I don't know of any controversy with Walvoord, but there was one with Lewis Sperry Chafer. John R. Rice disagreed with a number of things in Chafer's book True Evangelism. Chafer took the view that the "evangelist" in the Bible was a cross-cultural missionary, and that the vocational evangelist ministry of men like Rice, Moody, Torrey, etc., was not biblical. You can imagine how that went with Rice! He got a bunch of evangelists to sign a document with him condemning the book. At one point he tried to personally buy every copy Moody Press had, but they refused.

 

Something that I have consistently pointed to as the Achilles Heel of the KJVO position is in regards to missions. I was a missionary to Japan for 33 years, and am the lead translator of a new Japanese Bible. (The NT has been published). I know many Bible translators and have corresponded with some of them, and recently spoke at a meeting of Bible translators.

Here is John R. Rice's take on that. He wrote to the above Herbert Evans:
"You have no reason to suppose that God has certain methods of dealing with the Bible in America and doesn't mind about the rest of it. I do not think you will claim this, but it is still inevitable: either among every nation there must be an infallible Bible, without any mistakes in translation, miraculously guaranteed, or your stand about the King James Version has no evidence at all" (from a letter of March 21, 1973, included in Evans' pamphlet).

Usually when I bring that up to KJVO advocates they dodge it: "Well, I'm only concerned with the KJV in English. I don't know about other countries." But that's a copout. Why should there be a perfect Bible translation in English but not Japanese or Chinese or the Madi language of Africa? (A graduate of our seminary is translation consultant to the Madi translation effort.)

 

In the meantime, here is what Jack Hyles said about the matter: "Of all the nations on the face of this earth, it seems to me that God would give the key nation the word of God" (Plains Baptist Challenger, ed. by E. L. Bynum, "Jack Hyles Speaks Out on Bible Versions," Sept. 1984, p. 3).

So the sole argument Hyles had as to why we were given a perfect Bible and other people groups were not is that America is supposedly "the "key nation." This viewpoint has not a shred of biblical evidence for it, and is answered quite well by the previous quote from John R. Rice in the letter to Evans.

There is nothing special about the US. (Sorry, if you believe in American exceptionalism, but that is not biblical.) There are no prophecies about the US, and it is just as evil as Hitler's Germany. Hitler only killed 6,000,000 Jews, but America had over 1,000,000 abortions in 2023 alone (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/19/1238293143/abortion-data-how-many-us-2023). In 2020 there were over 800 abortion clinics in the US--places where the entire goal is to destroy babies, each made in the image of God (What the data says about abortion in the U.S.).

So someone tell me how America and the English language deserves to have the only perfect Bible translation in the world.

 

But Jesus debated the Pharisees.

However much I agree with much of your post, these are the only parts I see that seem to connect with the OP. But I'm not sure how. What are you saying in regards to the English Bible and its relevance to the discussion?

 

Thank you for your unwarranted concern.

John R. Rice was insulted. I am defending him.

But you gave no Scripture telling me why you think debating is unscriptural. I would appreciate you informing me on your position. No need for me to debate you, but your stance is one I've never heard of and I'd like to know where you are coming from.

Concerning Israel, what makes you think I am not keeping up with that? You really have no idea how I spend my time, and your concern is not needed. The truth is, I just got done teaching an 8 week course on the end times in our church Bible Institute, including some updates to the believers on what is currently happening. Here is a ministry run by a friend of mine that is very informative along those lines: Israel Today Ministries | Time is Short, Life is Precious, and Jesus is Coming Soon.

 

Speaking of Israel and my friend's ministry (just a brief excursus), here is a list he wrote that I really love: Who Started the Wars?

Sure, the Six Day War in 1967 technically was started by Israel, but it was a preemptive strike against forces that were preparing and in position to attack Israel. All the other wars were clearly started by Israel's (and God's) enemies.

 

Back to the OP. After Rice died, and Hyles became more and more radical, the influential Fundamental Baptist Fellowship denounced his position on the KJV a resolution printed in the November/December 1995 "Frontline" magazine. For those not familiar with this fellowship, it is mostly men who came out of the old Northern Baptist Convention with the Conservative Baptists, which they then left when those folk compromised on supporting liberal missionaries. They have strong ties to BJU, and their pastors have never taken a KJVO position.

First of all they stated their own position: "The FBF, while recognizing that God has used the King James Version of the Bible in a special way in the English speaking world, reaffirms its belief that the original manuscripts of Scripture are the documents that are inspired by God and that Bible translations can be considered trustworthy only if they accurately reflect the original manuscripts (2 Tim. 3:16)" (p. 31).

This is the classical fundamentalist and evangelical position. It is the position John R. Rice took, and he would have never, ever, compromised his position.

 

I plan to continue this thread, but it won't be for a few days. They are moving my office, and right now my library is almost inaccessible.

 

Good for you. I could tell some stories....

 

I'm going to have to stop posting on this thread for now. My old office is a complete mess, and my new office isn't done yet. I'm working right now either at home or in our Fellowship Hall/dining hall.

Most of the students are coming back tomorrow (the freshmen coming next Thurs.) so I'm going to be busy for a few days. We have a very large freshman class this year, and I'm really looking forward to getting to know them. In the Fall semester I'll be teaching Greek 101, Survey of Church History, and team teaching Pastoral Epistles with my son, who everyone calls "Dr. Paul." It'll be awesome!

I think I've posted enough to prove the OP: Hyles diverged tremendously from Rice's bibliology, and they would be opponents on the issue if they were alive today. I believe John R. Rice wrote some good stuff on preservation, and hopefully I can post some of that later after my office gets moved.

In the meantime, I will answer anyone who posts here as I can.

 

John R. Rice on Preservation

But I believe that God’s miracles concerning the Bible did not end when John wrote the last words of the book of Revelation long after Paul had been beheaded. For the Bible is itself a living miracle. “The word of God is quick and powerful” (Heb. 4: 12). The word quick here means alive. It is the same word used about the living people in the phrase, “the quick and the dead,” in Acts 10:42, in II Timothy 4:1, in I Peter 4:5. The Bible is a living thing. That means that the power of God is in the Word, and it is a living miracle. The things that the Bible does are miraculous things. If the saving of a soul, regeneration, is a miracle, and if that is done by the Word of God, used by the Holy Spirit, then the Word of God is miraculous even today.

Reverent students have long believed, as I do, that the preservation of the Word of God down through these centuries is miraculous and supernatural. How Satan hates the Bible! The conspiracies of Romish priests, burning multiplied thousands of copies, the putting to death of those that harbored the Bible and insisted on reading it—these could not do away with the Word of God. The assaults of the infidels, the attacks of atheists and modernists—these could not do away with the Bible. It could not be lost through mistranslation, through the errors of copyists, through the awful darkness and ignorance of the dark ages. The Bible has been preserved of God. It lives and abides forever. And that preservation is surely a miracle of God, such as other books do not have.

This supernatural, miraculously living Bible may be typified by the pot of manna which was collected and put within the ark of the covenant and there preserved miraculously from spoiling century after century (Exodus 16:32-34; Heb. 9:4). The preservation of that manna, the bread from Heaven, was a living, physical miracle down through the centuries. If God had failed to sustain it miraculously one day, then it would have decayed and ‘stank’ as the manna did that had been kept more than a day by the people. That was an every-day miracle. But the same kind of miracle lives today in the Bible, the Word. It is a miracle Book. It has life in it. It “is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12).

John R. Rice. Prayer—Asking and Receiving. Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord Publ., 1942, pp. 265-266.

 

I'll post one more thing here, and will then respond to anyone who wants to interact, In 1979, John R. Rice wrote an article taking a clear, strong stand against the KJV-Only movement. To me, this proves the statement by Hyles in the OP to be completely wrong. (He did not know Rice as well as he thought he did.) By then, the NASB, NIV, and other modern translations were out there, and Rice did not oppose them.

Here is the article:

SOME QUESTIONS FOR KING JAMES FANS
by Dr. John R. Rice

(Sword of the Lord, 3/30/79

We love the King James Bible. We use it in all our sermons, our books and pamphlets published in millions of copies, in the weekly SWORD OF THE LORD. We recommend it as best for daily use. We have memorized some thirty chapters and thousands of other verses in it. We have large commentaries on Genesis, Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Corinthians and Revelation: all based on the King James text. We have written comments on every chapter in the Bible and almost every principle verse in five years of work, all in the King James Version. My Reference Bible now in preparation by Thomas Nelson Publishers uses the text of the King James Version. So I am a friend of the King James Version. I have probably done more to promote the King James Bible than anyone else in America in many years.

But there are people who fanatically insist that the King James Version was perfectly translated with no errors; if there is a single error in the translation we have no trustworthy Bible. They say God is obligated to have such a perfectly translated Bible which is exactly true to every word of the original autographs. They are wrong, foolishly and perhaps ignorantly wrong, and they are often guilty of railing and unchristian talk and foolish, slanderous statements. Now I shall ask all of these to answer some honest questions.

You need not write to argue with me about it unless you answer these questions. If you don't face these questions honestly, then I am not interested in discussing the matter with you, of course.

1. What accepted Bible commentary, what statement of faith, of any church or denomination states that the King James Version is without error in translation?

There is not one such commentary or statement of faith or statement by a reliable authority that the King James Version is without an error in translation. Not one in the world!

I have a tract before me by Brother E. L. Bynum of Lubbock which claims to be "a resume of Dr. Otis Fuller's book, Which Bible?" I have that book also before me. The tract says, "We as evangelicals believe that Bible to be the verbally inspired Word of God, inerrant -- namely without error. THEN -- we ask, is there one version extant among the multiplicity of versions which is without error today? If there is not then we worship a God who is either careless or impotent to keep His Word pure thru the ages."

In the first place, that statement, claiming to be a resume of the statement of Dr. Otis Fuller in the book, Which Bible? is not correct. It misquotes this good man. Dr. Fuller overstates the case in his book, Which Bible? and is somewhat accountable for all the radicals who rush into controversy on this subject. But he plainly says on page 33, about the translators of the King James Version, "No reasonable person imagines that the translators were infallible or that their work was perfect, but no one acquainted with the facts can deny that they were men of outstanding scholarship . . . . "

All right, the translators of the King James Version were men of outstanding scholarship and quality and character. But "no reasonable person," says Dr. Fuller, would say what Brother Bynum quotes him as saying. And we think it is almost blasphemous to say that if God didn't guarantee every word translated in the King James Version to be correct, then He is "either careless or impotent to keep His Word pure thru the ages." God could have preserved all the original manuscripts, but did not. God is not either "careless or impotent" if He does not do just as some extremist or radical demands.

Again the question, and do not write me on this matter (and I hope you will never say a word to anyone else on the matter) without answering this question honestly: What authorities, commentaries, statements of faith of widely accepted Christian leaders say "that the translators were infallible or that their work was perfect"? That is not sensible and it isn't true.

2. Where in the Bible does God guarantee that any translator of the Bible, anyone who copies the Bible, anyone who preached the Bible, or anyone who teaches the Bible, will be infallibly correct?

There is no such Scripture. The doctrine of infallibility of the translation in the King James is not a Bible doctrine; it is a manmade scheme by some partly ignorant and some partly influenced by bad motives. But unless you can answer this question, don't write me about it, nor approach anybody else about it.

3. If the King James Version is the only perfectly translated Version, without errors, in the English language, then what about the Bishop Bible and the others that it superseded in the English language?

If God was under obligation to make a perfect translation of the King James Version, in 1611, then you mean God was either unwilling or unable to guarantee the translation before the King James Version, before 1611? If God was under obligation to make the King James Version perfect, then why would He leave English-speaking people for 1600 years without a translation they could rely on?

4. If God has obligated Himself, as some fanatics say, to make one translation in English, that is the King James Version, perfectly translated without error, then would not God be obligated to furnish such a translation in every other language also?

The doctrine won't stand unless it stands for every language where the Bible is translated. Of course, that doctrine is not in the Bible. Men made that up. God's Word is "for ever settled in heaven." That is true. And we have God's Word in the King James translation, well translated and reliable and trustworthy, but God did not guarantee there would be no mistakes by the translator.

Now face this: if you claim God is under obligation to have a perfect translation available for us who speak English, He is under obligation to have a perfect translation for others. Does He or not? Do you claim the same for Germany? for France? Japan? What are those translations? Please don't write to argue with me about this unless you answer this question honestly.

5. What about the translation in Acts 12:4 that Herod was "intending after Easter to bring him [Peter] forth to the people."

And the Greek word in Acts 12:4 in all the Greek texts is "Passover" instead of "Easter." There was no "Easter" then, not in the received text or any other. This church celebration which varies a month or more from time to time had not been taken from the heathen religions and made into a Catholic festival then, and the word was not even in existence when that was written in Greek!

Now, is it no mistake to say "Easter" when God said "Passover"? Is that perfect?

6. Again, in Revelation 22:14 the King James Version teaches that one is to be saved and go to Heaven because they "do his commandments."

It says, "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." In that the translation is not correct and that is not really what the Greek says in the original manuscript. The true Bible does not really teach salvation by keeping commandments. In that case it Erasmus, who selected and collected the Greek Received Text, had it that way he was mistaken. I think the correct translation is, "Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city, as it is given in the American Standard Version. But I know that to teach salvation by keeping commandments is contrary to Scripture as truly translated.

7. One great edition of the King James Version of the Bible left out the word "not" in the commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," and had it, "Thou shalt commit adultery."

Did God protect that version from error? In the first hundred years the King James Version has had many corrections and revisions. If it was right before, it did not need the corrections. If it is perfect now, then it was not perfect then.


Why Cannot Fans and Extremists About the King James Version Be Good Christians Also?

It is a sad thing that those in some heresy often err greatly in matters of righteousness also. They write mean letters; they make slanderous charges; they ignorantly jump to conclusions about people; they have suspicions and innuendoes. No, if a man is a good enough Christian to be right on the matter of inspiration, he ought to be a good enough Christian to control his tongue. The Bible says plainly:

"Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou shalt not go: Lest thou learn his ways, and get a snare to thy soul." -- Prov. 22:24, 25.

And again 1 Corinthians 5:11 tells us we are not to eat with "a railer" any more than with fornicators, adulterers, drunkards, etc. So we invite letters provided you write like a Christian, provided you work for fellowship and truth instead of slander and abuse.

One missionary who gets out a tract on this matter used my picture illustration on its cover for which I paid a Christian artist in Glen Ellyn, Illinois to draw for my pamphlet on Verbal Inspiration. Don't you think one who makes a great to-do about the Bible should be ethical and Christian? When one is a railer, a slanderer, or otherwise does not act or speak or write as a good Christian his doctrine is likely to be carelessly or ignorantly wrong, as in this matter.