Jack Hyles Versus John R. Rice

[John of Japan]

I know this is off topic but wasn't there a debate between John R Rice and John Walvoord? There was some kind of controversy, I read about many years ago online but difficult to find.

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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.)

 

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[xlsdraw]

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.

I don't do KJVO debating. I really don't do any debating. The scriptures condemn debate. However, I will render my conditional perspective.

First, I believe in the Sovereignty of God. How God chooses to implement His Will is up to Him.

Secondly, based on personally believing: in a pre-trib rapture of the Church, followed by a literal 7 year Tribulation, followed by Christ's Triumphant return with His Church to conquer and set up His Millennial Kingdom; my discernment is as follows.

I believe that the way has to be paved for the emergence of the Antichrist Kingdom since his time is so short.

I believe that the Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39 Gog-Magog Alliance of nations war has to occur in order for the Antichrist to emerge for several reasons.

I believe that Alliance includes: Russia, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Libya, Ethiopia, North Korea, China and likely several other nations that these nations have significant influence over.

The occurrence of the Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39 accomplishes several things.

First, It undeniably reintroduces the open display of Supernatural power. God will wield it in the crushing of these nations And both the good (the Two Witnesses of God) and the bad (the Beast and the False Prophet) will openly wield Supernatural power in the Tribulation.

Second, the crushing of the Gog-Magog Alliance of nations leaves the world in the hands of the Liberal nations, including Israel. With godless Communism debunked and Islam neutered.

Since, the world will now Know that there is a God that protected Israel from the Gog-Magog Alliance of nations, the Antichrist will sanction the building of the Third Temple in Jerusalem. Himself desiring to occupy it in due time.

The English language is currently the international business language and is the language that is being taught around the world. The teaching of the English language is mandatory in many countries. Remember that the Antichrist will control commerce.

Again, with the Antichrist Kingdom being so short, it makes a lot of sense that one language would be predominant when the Antichrist emerges.

If the Gog-Magog Alliance of nations war occurs soon, I think that translation may be a much lesser factor than the universal teaching and utilization of English. Especially, with Babel as a typology of the Tribulation, where there was a universal language.

Another interesting tidbit, Again with the thought that the Antichrist will control commerce. North America is the only food producing continent that God allowed to exterminate it's fearsome breed of Locust.

Again, I'm of the inclination that the Gog-Magog Alliance of nations war is staged to occur. God could delay that indefinitely, or God could also pull the trigger immediately.

 

[John of Japan]

I don't do KJVO debating. I really don't do any debating. The scriptures condemn debate.

But Jesus debated the Pharisees.

The English language is currently the international business language and is the language that is being taught around the world. The teaching of the English language is mandatory in many countries. Remember that the Antichrist will control commerce.

If the Gog-Magog Alliance of nations war occurs soon, I think that translation may be a much lesser factor than the universal teaching and utilization of English. Especially, with Babel as a typology of the Tribulation, where there was a universal language.

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?

 

[xlsdraw]

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?

I'm not on a campaign to defend your grandfather or condemn Hyles. I liked them both. I honestly don't like the tenor of a thread like this.

Considering the times, I think what you are doing with this thread is a waste of your time.

You could be kept quite occupied just with what's unfolding daily with Israel and her multitude of enemies.

God is Sovereign and no measure of debate is going to amount to a hill of beans.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm not on a campaign to defend your grandfather or condemn Hyles. I liked them both. I honestly don't like the tenor of a thread like this.

Considering the times, I think what you are doing with this thread is a waste of your time.

You could be kept quite occupied just with what's unfolding daily with Israel and her multitude of enemies.

God is Sovereign and no measure of debate is going to amount to a hill of beans.

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[RobertB]

For those who don't know the background, John R. Rice (1896-1980) was a leading fundamentalist; in my view he was one of the founding fathers of the movement, author of over 200 books and pamphlets. He strongly opposed the KJVO movement.

Jack Hyles (1926-2001) was a megachurch pastor and preached together with JRR for many years in the local and national Sword of the Lord conferences on soul winning and revival. Until 1980, Hyles never took a KJVO position, but after Rice's death, Hyles became a radical KJVO advocate, even touting the perfection and inspiration of the KJV. He was influenced in changing his position by Al Lacy and Gail Riplinger.

I'm currently reading a book about Jack Hyles by Bob Gray, Sr., a close disciple of Hyles, with the title, When Principle Was King, with the subtitle, The Life Principles of Dr. Jack Hyles. (Note: This is not the same infamous Bob Gray arrested for molesting children.) In it, Gray says, "Dr. Hyles often said to me, that if Dr. John R. Rice was alive today and was facd with all of the information and the floding of perversions, he would, also, land n his feet concerning the KJB. How could Dr. Hyles make that statement? Because Dr. Hyles knew the character of Dr. Rice!" (p. 375).

I'm here to tell you that the statement by Hyles was utterly and completely false. How would I know? First of all, I'm the grandson of JRR. Secondly, I wrote a biography of JRR for which I did copious research. In this thread I will back up everything I say from what he is in print saying. Not only was he not KJVO, he opposed Ruckman and others who took the position Hyles took.

Hyles was heretical on many doctrines, mainly the KJVOnlyism, but also the Holy Spirit as well as several others. And he was an arch legalist. Like many, I was enthralled with him as a baby Christian back in the early 80s, but then I grew up - thankfully before all the scandals broke.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[John of Japan]

Hyles was heretical on many doctrines, mainly the KJVOnlyism, but also the Holy Spirit as well as several others. And he was an arch legalist. Like many, I was enthralled with him as a baby Christian back in the early 80s, but then I grew up - thankfully before all the scandals broke.

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

 

[John of Japan]

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 of Japan]

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[JD731]

This article with it's name calling is an assumption by the author that he himself has perfect understanding. It causes me to assume the premise that he could correct the errors because to claim errors he must know where they are. Then, after his edits, we of course would have a perfect English Bible.

God does not have to give anyone a knowledge of himself in words. Twenty five hundred years passed before he wrote the first word, yet all those people before Moses, who wrote the first word a man wrote, were without excuse because God gave them the witness of creation, he said. The people, Israel, who had the words of God and could hear them and read them could have a relationship with God and this made them far more responsible to God and that fact is plainly taught to us in Romans chapter two and three.

Ro 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

(By the way, that is a true statement. No one but Jews have written the scriptures, both Old Testament and New Testament.)

If you want to see this principle of responsibility in real time, compare these two men. One without the word of God and one with the word of God.

Ge 4:8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
Ge 4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

Nu 15:32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

This is the same God in both these scenarios. I would think killing ones brother would deserve the death penalty far more than gathering sticks on the sabbath day. This just proves to me that God is the same throughout history in character but surely not in actions. God is a God of transitions and the more revelation of himself he gives the more responsible we are to believe and obey him. In the two cases above, Cain was guilty of violating his consciousness of right and wrong by his action but he did not disobey a commandment of God. The man gathering sticks was guilty of both. It remains today that we still have the testimony of creation who declares the glory of God but we have also a complete record of God's redemptive purposes of mankind in his own words. To argue that we do not is just plain unbelief in the investment God has made in our redemption and in the relationship he desires to have with us. What else do we have to gender this relationship but his words. He asks us to believe them. It is by them we will be judged. In them is life, he says.

God has directly inspired men by giving them his spoken words and even speaking through them as they were filled with his Spirit during the apostolic era and then charging them to write them so they could be the foundation of our faith. He did this in only two languages, Hebrews in the Old Testament for Israel and Greek in the New Testament for the nations. The number two is the number for testimony in the economy of God and he is faithful to himself.

Joh 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
Ex 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
Ex 25:22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

But everybody ought to know by now that God likes the number three and always associates it with himself and his divine nature. It is everywhere in his testimony and the languages he chose to reveal himself to the world is no different.

2Co 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. (how many words? every word)

1Co 14:29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. (the prophets are those who spoke to us)

1Co 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one (of the three) interpret.

God has written his word in three languages, Hebrew, Greek, and English thus maintaining the trinitarian signature on his written word, in my opinion, and the English is his interpretation of the Hebrew and the Greek. It all makes sense to me. There are many haters who testify differently.

I think that John R Rice was wrong in his assessment of the KJV, of KJV believers, and the ways of God in his article above.






.

 

[Conan]

This article with it's name calling is an assumption by the author that he himself has perfect understanding. It causes me to assume the premise that he could correct the errors because to claim errors he must know where they are. Then, after his edits, we of course would have a perfect English Bible.

God does not have to give anyone a knowledge of himself in words. Twenty five hundred years passed before he wrote the first word, yet all those people before Moses, who wrote the first word a man wrote, were without excuse because God gave them the witness of creation, he said. The people, Israel, who had the words of God and could hear them and read them could have a relationship with God and this made them far more responsible to God and that fact is plainly taught to us in Romans chapter two and three.

Ro 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

(By the way, that is a true statement. No one but Jews have written the scriptures, both Old Testament and New Testament.)

If you want to see this principle of responsibility in real time, compare these two men. One without the word of God and one with the word of God.

Ge 4:8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
Ge 4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

Nu 15:32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

This is the same God in both these scenarios. I would think killing ones brother would deserve the death penalty far more than gathering sticks on the sabbath day. This just proves to me that God is the same throughout history in character but surely not in actions. God is a God of transitions and the more revelation of himself he gives the more responsible we are to believe and obey him. In the two cases above, Cain was guilty of violating his consciousness of right and wrong by his action but he did not disobey a commandment of God. The man gathering sticks was guilty of both. It remains today that we still have the testimony of creation who declares the glory of God but we have also a complete record of God's redemptive purposes of mankind in his own words. To argue that we do not is just plain unbelief in the investment God has made in our redemption and in the relationship he desires to have with us. What else do we have to gender this relationship but his words. He asks us to believe them. It is by them we will be judged. In them is life, he says.

God has directly inspired men by giving them his spoken words and even speaking through them as they were filled with his Spirit during the apostolic era and then charging them to write them so they could be the foundation of our faith. He did this in only two languages, Hebrews in the Old Testament for Israel and Greek in the New Testament for the nations. The number two is the number for testimony in the economy of God and he is faithful to himself.

Joh 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
Ex 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
Ex 25:22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

But everybody ought to know by now that God likes the number three and always associates it with himself and his divine nature. It is everywhere in his testimony and the languages he chose to reveal himself to the world is no different.

2Co 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. (how many words? every word)

1Co 14:29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. (the prophets are those who spoke to us)

1Co 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one (of the three) interpret.

God has written his word in three languages, Hebrew, Greek, and English thus maintaining the trinitarian signature on his written word, in my opinion, and the English is his interpretation of the Hebrew and the Greek. It all makes sense to me. There are many haters who testify differently.

I think that John R Rice was wrong in his assessment of the KJV, of KJV believers, and the ways of God in his article above.






.

You attribute errors of text and translation to God. He is not responsible for your errors in understanding.

 

[JD731]

You attribute errors of text and translation to God. He is not responsible for your errors in understanding.

Well Conan, I did not post my comments to provoke argue. I just think JR Rice was wrong about some things he said in his article. I made some points I think are relevant to a perfect God who is dramatically different than the one you present here. If you are right, and maybe you are, then I am in big trouble at the judgement. That is all I have to say about it.

 

[Conan]

Well Conan, I did not post my comments to provoke argue. I just think JR Rice was wrong about some things he said in his article. I made some points I think are relevant to a perfect God who is dramatically different than the one you present here. If you are right, and maybe you are, then I am in big trouble at the judgement. That is all I have to say about it.

You have a fantastic, highly accurate Bible. By far it is better than most Bibles out there. In fact I cannot think of a more accurate one to recommend in place of it. But it is not always right. It is not always the last word. It does not have a perfect Text. Nor is it's Translations always the best. Overall fantastic. Yet not perfect in all points. There is room for improvements. Thank you.

 

[37818]

God's given word is inerrant.
Translations are not inerrant.