Featured A Kind Of Review

About five years ago I was reading through a book in the local public library. I took extensive notes.
It was authored by John Richard Rice --known as John R. Rice. The year of publication was 1958.
On the front cover were these words : The Bible the Word of God, Perfect, Eternal, Unbreakable, Verbally-Inspired. Jesus Pronounced It Infallibly Correct. Our Translations Reliable. Christianity Stands or Falls With The Bible.

My first impression was that this book needed lots of editing. There is poor grammar throughout the work. So that will be my first category --instances of poor grammar.

"How do I know that the translations of the Scriptures which I have in English are well done?" (p.355)
"Weymouth's translation is some better than Moffatt's, but the notes are often wrong and unreliable." (p.391)
"That would help to settle the questions about style, vocabulary, personalities expressed as men wrote down the Scriptures." (p.180)
"How reconcile these two truths..." (p.187)
"That ignores the far ahead predestination..." (p.197)
"There is always some limitations and control of the human authorship...."(p.220)
“...they will pretend to some kind of inspiration...." (p.261)
"God someway...." (p.279)
"...now it is often drougth...." (p.298)
"The once populace city...."(p.300)
"All have aspired the world empire." (p.305)
"And practically all the scientists of of his day were agreed with that poor doctor." (p.319)
"It speaks with a certainty and dogmatic authority that do not fit the uninspired writings of men." (.340)
"Two of the most devoted and godly men I know were Dr. H.A. Ironside...and Dr. George W. Truett...." (p. 247)

Both mean were deceased by the time he wrote the above. He should have said "I have known"...

I will have to include other examples of his poor grammar within other categories.

 

It is interesting that JRR contradicted himself in his estimation of certain scholars. In that same year of publication of this book he published another book on the subject of predestination.

In the book under review he calls Benjamin B. Warfield a "tremendous scholar." (p.51)
"Warfield, wise and devoted scholar." (p.203)
"What a mighty scholar was Warfield!" (p.289)
He calls Charles Hodge the "greatest of the Calvinistic theologians." (p. 87)
He recognizes Loraine Boettner as a "popular, scholarly Reformed scholar."
But in that very same year of 1958 he called Dr.. Boettner "a narrow-minded, warped sectarian."
"Where among all of them was a mighty, exact scholar like Calvin? We should be as logical and mentally honest as Calvin." (p.289)

 

Now I will move on to his view of translations.

First, his take on the KJV :"One archaic word in three or four chapters does not faze any interested reader." (p.381)

I dare say that the use of obsolete words occurs more often than that.

"We have the Berkeley Version by Version by Verkuyl, a modern one-man translation." (p.391)

It would have been interesting to listen to his view of the translation instead of those bare words.

Regarding the RSV :"It is a new translation in modern speech...." (p.383)

But he went on to say that "It's often merely a paraphrase." (p.383)

The word paraphrase can be taken a number of different ways. However, it's normally used as a means of disparagement. Again, the ESV is based on the RSV. In many places the wording is identical. The ESV is promoted as "essentially literal" so it's kind of funny.

Well, it was six years old at that time and the "speech" was kept largely old-fashioned. Just witness the ESV's "speech" which retained much of the RSV's English usage.

"So Anglican J.B. Phillips will translate 'elder' as 'priest.' " (p.377)

No, he did not. JBP translated it as elder (s)? Why would JRR make up something like that?

 

Your comment above has nothing to do with the post I made.

Oh? It's just my sole opinion?

 

JRR's take on some verses.

"If liberals, leave out 'begotten' in Jn 3：16，which seems to be weak scholarship...." (p.377)

Hmmm, weak scholarship you say. Most translations do not use the word begotten in that verse because it is inaccurate. "One and only" as the NIV renders it is superior and intelligible.

JRR made some remarks on Acts 2:38. He complains that the phrase "so that your sins will be forgiven is wholly unjustified... This is a sample of ... putting one's interpretation into the translation instead of literally saying exactly what the original Scriptures said." (p. 389)

Most translations use "for" but a number use "so" causing no loss of meaning. His condemnation of translations not using his form of words is indeed entirely unjustified. "Saying exactly what the original Scriptures said" is not a possibility. Our translations are approximations at best.

Regarding Luke 1:3 he insists that the proper translation should be 'Having had perfect understanding of all things from above...'

??? Luke 1:3?!

 

JRR's theological aberrations:

"God does not usurp the will of man.” （p.186)

The above is one of his cardinal principles. Man must have his autonomy. God has no authority in that realm per JRR.

"We do not know if Esau was saved or not." (p.184)

This proves that JRR did not approve of Romans 9."Balaam may have been a saved man...." (p.214)

Ah, no. He used black magic and never repented.

But then Rice says on page 221 :"Balaam died with the enemies of God."

"So by devious ways, Paul came to Rome first and went by them later to Spain." (p. 218)

"What does he mean by :devious ways？ Is he attributing some sin to Paul's actions?

 

Unique, special, one of a kind. "Take Isaac, your only son."

 

Mysterious statements by JRR:

Regarding J.I Packer :"He is against the 'Anabaptist' position of independent local churches not following denominational tradition." (p.402)

Huh? Among other things he said above, Anabaptists are not Baptists.

Then he comments on Packer's book :Fundamentalism and the Word of God.

Rice says that Packer "tries to avoid the reproach that goes with belief in the Bible."

That is just pure bunk. A complete falsehood.

“He is against premillennial truth and against revivals and evangelism."

Packer doesn't hold to Rice's eschatology, so that means he denies important truths.

Packer is not against true revivals like the Great Awakening or the Revival in 1949 on the Isle of Lewis.
Packer is against manufactured "revival meetings。”

And certainly Packer is all for evangelism. His book Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God should lay that lie to rest.

"He is a sheep among the goats."

That's so stupid of Rice to say.

Rice's staments are found on page 401.

"Jonah and the whale" (pages 109 and 121)

Rice sounds like a kid who doesn't know the Bible very well.

 

It means I made a typo.

 

A typo vs. mountains of poor grammar is ironic? That must pass for South Texas humor.

 

Now on to JRR"s view of biblical inspiration, or more specifically his understanding of the dictation theory.

"The Bible is not composed of what men have seen, it is not the report of witnesses.‘ （p.57)

Really? No part of Scripture is the eye-witness account of what men heard and saw? Absurd.

This next quote has rather poor English, but for Rice it explains his view to the best of his ability.
"But the kindred truth, that the Bible is through men and the writers somewhat participated in it, yet the Scripture is wholly God-breathed and perfect even to the words in the original autographs and not colored or formed by any human sources, ought to have been worked out and have become solidly known and affirmed long ago." (p.225)

Did the writers merely "somewhat participate" in the authorship?

Were the personalities and writing styles of the various writers suppressed?

"The men who wrote the Bible were no more authors of it, literally, than Mary was the creator of Jesus." (p.235)

Writers = authors.

We can say that God is the ultimate Author of the Scriptures --but humans were indeed instruments of His choosing to do the writing.

"Suppose I dictate a letter to a secretary. That means I tell her word-for-word what to write. Well, did not God tell men who wrote the Bible word-for-word what to write?" (p.286)

It sounds like JRR held to the dictation theory. Indeed, look at the following:

"If God gave the words, that is dictation." (p.277)

W.H. Griffth Thomas had said God breathed into those writings. JRR said that was a mistake. "God did not breath on men's words. He breathed out His own words through men." (p.279)

It seems JRR had a disconnect with what Thomas actually said.

 

Miscellaneous items:

"Many years ago Bible-believing people worked out and came to understand and to agree to the theology that Jesus Christ is both God and God, without making Him sinful or limiting Him more than He limited Himself." (pages 224,225)

"Agree to"? JRR couldn't bring himself to say that more than a millennium ago Christian scholars summarized biblical truths regarding the God/man --Jesus Christ. These creeds, such as the Nicene and Athanasian were foundational for the strengthening of Christians throughout the centuries.