Jack Hyles Versus John R. Rice

[Logos1560]

I just think JR Rice was wrong about some things he said in his article..

Perhaps John R. Rice had more spiritual wisdom and discernment than you have so that you are the one wrong. You are not an infallible pope.

You have failed to demonstrate that the Scriptures state or teach your human, non-scriptural KJV-only opinions.

 

[John of Japan]

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

This is inaccurate. Luke is generally agreed to have been a Gentile.

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.

...snip

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.

Not only do you contradict yourself, you are mistaken. The Word of God was originally written in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

There is not any Biblical evidence whatsoever for the existence of the English language in Bible times; therefore your supposition is pure human invention. But if you want to line up the English Bible with the original manuscripts, why not add all of the other 1,000s of Bibles in different languages along with the English Bible? Why is not the Japanese Lifeline New Testament perfect and inerrant? The Spanish Reina Valera? The French Louis Segond? The Chinese Union Version?

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.

John R. Rice was right on target with his assessments.

 

[JD731]

Perhaps John R. Rice had more spiritual wisdom and discernment than you have so that you are the one wrong. You are not an infallible pope.

You have failed to demonstrate that the Scriptures state or teach your human, non-scriptural KJV-only opinions.

I am really not trying to convince anyone that the KJV Bible is the word of God. If God cannot do it who am I to try it. Every man is responsible and God says he allows heresies to test his people. I have been involved with modern Baptists on this forum long enough to know and understand that when I quote from a Bible I believe, their Bibles may not say the same things. Therefore we do not believe the same things. But I will quote this;

1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

It is really difficult for me to logically reason that God approves of the current situation of 150 different English Bibles since the year 1901 (the year the ASV was published and incidentally the same year as the birth of the modern tongues movement in Topeka KS) when in my Bible (maybe not yours) God says the following;

1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
(Since Paul is invoking the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in this particular request, it might as well be the Lord Jesus Christ who said the words)

If your favorite Bible says something besides this, maybe that is the reason we do not agree about Bibles.

But I will not derail this thread. I only entered the conversation to say I disagree with some of the points JR Rice made in his article that was posted. What I get from his statements of why he prefers the KJV is not because he believes the words strong enough to defend them. He gave several reasons for his position but faith was not one of them. I honestly think that you, like him, cannot say you take your position because you believe God.

Having said that, I sure would not want anyone to think I am defending Jack Hyles. With all the deficiencies I think JR Rice had, I still believe him to be miles ahead of Jack Hyles.

 

[JD731]

This is inaccurate. Luke is generally agreed to have been a Gentile.

Maybe. I have read the arguments for them and could make them myself but my scholarship would not negate what God said in Romans 3, that to the Jews were given the oracles of God. I am going to go with that. Maybe some of the later translators who agrees with you would soften the language and make it ambiguous enough to have Luke to be a gentile. He wrote two rather large books of the Bible.

Not only do you contradict yourself, you are mistaken. The Word of God was originally written in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek

.

You may have a point and you may not. Aramaic is not referencing a people group as the Hebrews, the Greeks, and the English. The Hebrew OT was translated into Greek (not that it was a particularly good thing) and the Greeks had the entire Bible from which to learn about God. The English speaking nations have the entire Bible translated into their language. One must ask himself if a Jew writing about the future times of the gentiles, would write a few words in Aramaic would discount the fact that God has chosen three great languages as a consistent practice of his to showcase his trinitarian nature in all that he does. I am guessing you would answer yes and would not agree that his ways with his Bible would have anything to do with the trinity. That is where you and I would disagree for sure.

There is not any Biblical evidence whatsoever for the existence of the English language in Bible times; therefore your supposition is pure human invention. But if you want to line up the English Bible with the original manuscripts, why not add all of the other 1,000s of Bibles in different languages along with the English Bible? Why is not the Japanese Lifeline New Testament perfect and inerrant? The Spanish Reina Valera? The French Louis Segond? The Chinese Union Version?

Have the Spanish, the French, the Japanese, the Chinese ever believed those Bibles were perfect and inerrant? If they do not believe that about those Bibles why would you ask me to believe it? I believe my Bible is perfect and inerrant and I do not know what it is that you would like for me to doubt about it and why my doubting it is so important to so many.

Concerning English in Bible times, I cannot recall the Greek language being mentioned in the OT times. You may correct me if you know of it. However, in the providence of God he used Alexander of Macedon to Hellenize the world in preparation for his New testament to be written in that language and spread abroad after the Jewish nation rejected him and his kingdom. Later when transitions in world power and influence and language transitioned by his same providence, he prepared the Bible in the language of the people who would read it and believe it and carry it to others. God knows things and directs things so aa many of us can be saved as possible.

Here, I believe is the transition in the economy of God from the church having a Jewish character to having a gentiles character in about 67 AD. This is the end of God evangelizing the Jews as a people.

Acts 28:17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.
18 Who, when they had examined me, would have let me go, because there was no cause of death in me.
19 But when the Jews spake against it, I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had ought to accuse my nation of.
20 For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.
21 And they said unto him, We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came shewed or spake any harm of thee.
22 But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.
23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
24 And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.
25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,
26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

The gentile nations are in the west and the Bible believers in the west speak English and that is where God has sent his church and to whom God has given his Bible.

John R. Rice was right on target with his assessments.

John Rice was not right but he was not a bad man and I will be careful how much I criticize him. I am carrying his booklet, What must I do to be saved" in my car to hand out to people because it is a true and powerful presentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. One should not think I am condemning John R Rice because I think he was wrong on some things he said or that I think he was shallow in some subjects of the Bible. He was a man who was used greatly of God because he was willing to be used, I think.

 

[Logos1560]

I believe my Bible is perfect and inerrant and I do not know what it is that you would like for me to doubt about it and why my doubting it is so important to so many.

Your choice to believe claims for the KJV that are not true does not make them become true. The 1611 edition of the KJV was not perfect and inerrant since it had several errors in it that would later be corrected. Believing claims that are not true indicates that someone has deceived themselves. Believing claims that are not true does not indicate faith in what God actually revealed and stated in the Scriptures given by direct inspiration to the prophets and apostles. God did not state your non-scriptural KJV-only opinions. You do not demonstrate that anyone asks you to doubt what God actually gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

The KJV itself does not state nor teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611. Over 2,000 changes, including some corrections, have already been made to the original 1611 KJV edition in present varying post-1900 editions of the KJV.

 

[JD731]

Your choice to believe claims for the KJV that are not true does not make them become true. The 1611 edition of the KJV was not perfect and inerrant since it had several errors in it that would later be corrected. Believing claims that are not true indicates that someone has deceived themselves. Believing claims that are not true does not indicate faith in what God actually revealed and stated in the Scriptures given by direct inspiration to the prophets and apostles. God did not state your non-scriptural KJV-only opinions. You do not demonstrate that anyone asks you to doubt what God actually gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

The KJV itself does not state nor teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611. Over 2,000 changes, including some corrections, have already been made to the original 1611 KJV edition in present varying post-1900 editions of the KJV.

Thanks for making my point. It is about faith. I believe the words and you don't. You can have a thousand Bible translations but if you don't believe any of them, what does it matter?

What do you think about what has been said so far about John R Rice and Jack Hyles? Do you have an opinion?

 

[Logos1560]

Thanks for making my point. It is about faith. I believe the words and you don't.

You missed the point. Blind faith in non-scriptural human KJV-only opinions is not faith in the Scriptures or in what God said. You believe human KJV-only opinions that are not true and that are not Scriptural. God did not say to believe completely the textual criticism decisions and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.

You choose to believe inaccurate, Church of England-biased renderings in the KJV that are not faithful to the preserved words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. You choose to ignore the truth that the KJV has no English word/rendering for many original-language words of Scripture. You may choose to believe errors introduced by printers into your one of the many varying editions of the KJV that have some words different from other varying editions.

 

[JD731]

You missed the point. Blind faith in non-scriptural human KJV-only opinions is not faith in the Scriptures or in what God said. You believe human KJV-only opinions that are not true and that are not Scriptural. God did not say to believe completely the textual criticism decisions and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.

You choose to believe inaccurate, Church of England-biased renderings in the KJV that are not faithful to the preserved words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. You choose to ignore the truth that the KJV has no English word/rendering for many original-language words of Scripture. You may choose to believe errors introduced by printers into your one of the many varying editions of the KJV that have some words different from other varying editions.

All faith is blind faith;

2 Cor 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight)

What do you think about the Rice/Hyles comparisons?

 

[Logos1560]

All faith is blind faith;

Not true. Faith in what God revealed and said is not blind faith.

It can be concluded that sound biblical faith would come by hearing, receiving, believing, doing, or following the truth of God's Word (Rom. 10:17, Mark 4:20, Luke 11:28, Luke 8:21). The word of God (Rom. 10:17) is the word of faith (Rom. 10:8). Would the hearing in Romans 10:17 be one that receives or accepts the word of God and obeys it, or could it be a superficial hearing that may refuse to obey it (James 1:22-23, James 2:14, James 2:17, Matt. 13:13, Rom. 2:13)? It should be clear that the hearing in Romans 10:17 does not mean being a hearer only. Can a hearing of faith (Gal. 3:2) be connected to obeying the truth (Gal. 3:1)? Could biblical faith be soundly linked or connected to an acknowledging of the truth (2 Tim. 2:25)? The Scriptures directly connect faith and truth (1 Tim. 2:7 where the KJV has the Latin-based rendering “verity”). Can biblical faith or the logic of faith involve rejecting the truth or would rejecting the truth indicate a dead faith or a misplaced faith in the wrong thing? To say that a person has sound faith in something is to say that he acknowledges or accepts the truth concerning that something. The Scriptures directly connect the Greek verb translated “believe” and the Greek verb translated “know” at John 6:69 where the 1560 Geneva Bible rendered them “believe and know”. While the KJV itself usually translated this Greek verb as “know” (94 times) [also “known” (45 times), “knew” (30 times)], here it translated it with a be verb and an adjective—“are sure.”

Charles Spurgeon wrote: "Faith is not a blind thing; for faith begins with knowledge. It is not a speculative thing; for faith believes facts of which it is sure" (All of Grace, pp. 46-47).

KJV-only author Roy Branson asserted: “God never asks for blind faith” (KJV 1611, p. 15).

Glenn Conjurske noted: “People speak of ‘blind faith,’ but the faith of the Bible is not blind” (Olde Paths, May, 1997, p. 115). James D. Price declared: “Biblical faith is not blind faith; it is not irrational or unreasonable but founded on knowledge” (King James Onlyism, p. 418). Fred Butler wrote: “God does not call us to a blind faith, but to a faith grounded in objective truth” (Royal Deception, p. 28).

KJV defender David Norris asserted: “Faith will rest on the truth or it will rest on a lie” (Big Picture, p. 119).

KJV defender Edward F. Hills noted: “Faith cannot tell you one thing and reason another. Faith and reason are not separate from each other” (Believing Bible Study, p. 217).

Andrew Ballitch noted: “The word of God alone is the foundation of a right conception of faith” (Gloss & the Text, p. 130).

 

[JD731]

Not true. Faith in what God revealed and said is not blind faith.

It can be concluded that sound biblical faith would come by hearing, receiving, believing, doing, or following the truth of God's Word (Rom. 10:17, Mark 4:20, Luke 11:28, Luke 8:21). The word of God (Rom. 10:17) is the word of faith (Rom. 10:8). Would the hearing in Romans 10:17 be one that receives or accepts the word of God and obeys it, or could it be a superficial hearing that may refuse to obey it (James 1:22-23, James 2:14, James 2:17, Matt. 13:13, Rom. 2:13)? It should be clear that the hearing in Romans 10:17 does not mean being a hearer only. Can a hearing of faith (Gal. 3:2) be connected to obeying the truth (Gal. 3:1)? Could biblical faith be soundly linked or connected to an acknowledging of the truth (2 Tim. 2:25)? The Scriptures directly connect faith and truth (1 Tim. 2:7 where the KJV has the Latin-based rendering “verity”). Can biblical faith or the logic of faith involve rejecting the truth or would rejecting the truth indicate a dead faith or a misplaced faith in the wrong thing? To say that a person has sound faith in something is to say that he acknowledges or accepts the truth concerning that something. The Scriptures directly connect the Greek verb translated “believe” and the Greek verb translated “know” at John 6:69 where the 1560 Geneva Bible rendered them “believe and know”. While the KJV itself usually translated this Greek verb as “know” (94 times) [also “known” (45 times), “knew” (30 times)], here it translated it with a be verb and an adjective—“are sure.”

Charles Spurgeon wrote: "Faith is not a blind thing; for faith begins with knowledge. It is not a speculative thing; for faith believes facts of which it is sure" (All of Grace, pp. 46-47).

KJV-only author Roy Branson asserted: “God never asks for blind faith” (KJV 1611, p. 15).

Glenn Conjurske noted: “People speak of ‘blind faith,’ but the faith of the Bible is not blind” (Olde Paths, May, 1997, p. 115). James D. Price declared: “Biblical faith is not blind faith; it is not irrational or unreasonable but founded on knowledge” (King James Onlyism, p. 418). Fred Butler wrote: “God does not call us to a blind faith, but to a faith grounded in objective truth” (Royal Deception, p. 28).

KJV defender David Norris asserted: “Faith will rest on the truth or it will rest on a lie” (Big Picture, p. 119).

KJV defender Edward F. Hills noted: “Faith cannot tell you one thing and reason another. Faith and reason are not separate from each other” (Believing Bible Study, p. 217).

Andrew Ballitch noted: “The word of God alone is the foundation of a right conception of faith” (Gloss & the Text, p. 130).

Good Grief, man. You spend all your time and energy telling us what you do not believe. I happen to believe you when you say you do not believe any Bible. I am the only person on this web-site who does.
I read Spurgeon's own words in one of his publications where he said "Calvinism is the gospel." Tell me why I should believe he knows about faith when he knows no more about the gospel than to say something like that. Calvinism in it's basic form is the T.U.L.I.P.

Mark 11:22
And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

The definition of faith is given in the scriptures.

He 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith is a temporary principle of divine testing of man in the absence of the presence of God and will come to an end at some point for us all.

Proof:
1 Cor 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; (some outside force will stop them) whether there be tongues, they shall cease; (they will run out of steam and come to a stop) whether there be knowledge, (some outside force will stop them) it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.(Both prophecy and knowledge are partial and not full)
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. (so, the perfect thing will bring a fullness of that which is now only partial)

What is the perfect thing that will end partial knowledge and partial prophecy?

It is the eternal state when we who are saved will be face to face with our savior, Jesus Christ, and we will know all things and have no need of prophecy or faith.

KJV now and then verse.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Faith, hope, and charity abides now, but faith and hope will end but charity is the eternal principle and therefore the greatest.

So, a more biblical definition of faith than your men gave whom you quoted is this.

Faith is the principle that one must exercise in God, who has perfect knowledge, while he himself has a lack of perfect knowledge.

This is what Paul prayed for in this prayer;

Eph 3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,
21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

If this prayer could have been answered by Christ dwelling in our hearts without a Bible, then he would not have written one and commanded that we read it, study it, and believe it, We must have something to believe in the absence of something we can see or learn about in some other way and if I had to learn this from your commentaries I would never know it..

Do you have an opinion about the comparisons of the ministries of Jack Hyles and John Rice?

 

[xlsdraw]

Good Grief, man. You spend all your time and energy telling us what you do not believe. I happen to believe you when you say you do not believe any Bible. I am the only person on this web-site who does.
I read Spurgeon's own words in one of his publications where he said "Calvinism is the gospel." Tell me why I should believe he knows about faith when he knows no more about the gospel than to say something like that. Calvinism in it's basic form is the T.U.L.I.P.

Mark 11:22
And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

The definition of faith is given in the scriptures.

He 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith is a temporary principle of divine testing of man in the absence of the presence of God and will come to an end at some point for us all.

Proof:
1 Cor 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; (some outside force will stop them) whether there be tongues, they shall cease; (they will run out of steam and come to a stop) whether there be knowledge, (some outside force will stop them) it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.(Both prophecy and knowledge are partial and not full)
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. (so, the perfect thing will bring a fullness of that which is now only partial)

What is the perfect thing that will end partial knowledge and partial prophecy?

It is the eternal state when we who are saved will be face to face with our savior, Jesus Christ, and we will know all things and have no need of prophecy or faith.

KJV now and then verse.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Faith, hope, and charity abides now, but faith and hope will end but charity is the eternal principle and therefore the greatest.

So, a more biblical definition of faith than your men gave whom you quoted is this.

Faith is the principle that one must exercise in God, who has perfect knowledge, while he himself has a lack of perfect knowledge.

This is what Paul prayed for in this prayer;

Eph 3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,
21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

If this prayer could have been answered by Christ dwelling in our hearts without a Bible, then he would not have written one and commanded that we read it, study it, and believe it, We must have something to believe in the absence of something we can see or learn about in some other way and if I had to learn this from your commentaries I would never know it..

Do you have an opinion about the comparisons of the ministries of Jack Hyles and John Rice?

You are not alone in most regards. I determined a long time ago that this is a fruitless battleground, full of zealous knuckleheads pushing their errors.

You truly are wasting your time and energy here.

 

[Conan]

The editors of the 1769 Oxford edition undertook, therefore, to regularize the use of italics by italicizing all words of the translation which did not have a counterpart in the text of Stephens 1550. Consequently, modern editions of the King James version are much more heavily italicized than the original: In Matthew, the 1611 edition uses roman type 69 times, whereas the more exact 1769 edition uses italics 384 times. The reader should be aware of the fact that the King James version is not, strictly speaking, a translation of Estienne 1550; and so in some cases the modern italics are misleading if used as an indication of the readings upon which the version is based. For example, in Mark 8:14 the modern editions italicize the words the disciples because they are not in Estienne, but it is evident that here the King James translators were following, as usual, the text of Beza 1598, where the words hoi mathetai are found. The following is a complete list of such cases

Abbreviations:
S - Stephens 1550
B - Beza 1598
E - Elzevir 1624
C - Complutensian Polyglot 1522
Er - Erasmus 1527
Vul - Clementine Vulgate 1592
Tyn - Tyndale 1535
Gen - Genevan Bible 1560
Bish - Bishops Bible 1568


Mark 8:14 Modern editions italicize the disciples, in accordance with S E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon B.
Mark 9:42 Modern editions italicize these, in accordance with S B E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon C Vul.
John 8:6 Modern editions italicize as though he heard them not at end of verse, in accordance with S B E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon C S1546 S1549 and the Bishops' Bible.
Acts 1:4 Modern editions italicize them after assembled together with, in accordance with S E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon B.
Acts 26:3 Modern editions italicize because I know, in accordance with S E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon B.
Acts 26:18 Modern editions italicize and before to turn, in accordance with S E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon B.
1 Cor 14:10 Modern editions print the words of them in ordinary type, in accordance with S B E. But the text of 1611 had them in italics, in accordance with Vul.
Heb 12:24 Modern editions italicize that of before Abel, in accordance with S B E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon Er.
1 John 3:16 Modern editions italicize of God after love, in accordance with S E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon C B.
Rev 11:14 Modern editions italicize and before behold, in accordance with S. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon B Vul.
Rev 19:18 Modern editions italicize both before free, in accordance with S B E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon C


Changes in the King James version

 

[JD731]

You are not alone in most regards. I determined a long time ago that this is a fruitless battleground, full of zealous knuckleheads pushing their errors.

You truly are wasting your time and energy here.

I have tried to remind L1560 that the creator of this thread wanted to discuss the relationship between Jack Hyles and JR Rice, but to no avail. He does not discuss other subjects, I think I weighed in only after an article was posted that was written by JR Rice concerning KJV Bible believers. Looking back I see that my participation was unwise because his teaching has become the only doctrine that almost all Baptists of whatever stripe are in total agreement. It is the only one.

 

[Logos1560]

Perhaps John R. Rice had more spiritual wisdom and discernment than you have so that you are the one wrong. You are not an infallible pope.

You have failed to demonstrate that the Scriptures state or teach your human, non-scriptural KJV-only opinions.

I directly already mentioned John R. Rice and his sound views.

Jack Hyles unwisely changed his views after John R. Rice passed away.

Jack Hyles' very own 1967 book Let's Study the Revelation clearly contradicts the claim of Hyles where he tries to suggest that he held the same position on the inspiration of the KJV in 1967 as he advocated sometime after 1980.

Concerning Revelation 4:6, Jack Hyles wrote: "They are called 'beasts,' but the best translators call them 'living creatures'" (Let's Study the Revelation, p. 36).

Concerning Revelation 8:13, Jack Hyles wrote: "The word 'ANGEL' here should be 'eagle'" (p. 50).

Concerning Revelation 10:5-7, Jack Hyles wrote: "The angel declares that time (better translated 'delay') should be no longer" (p. 58).

Concerning Revelation 13:15, Jack Hyles wrote: "AND HE HAD POWER" is better translated, 'And to him was given power' (P. 72).

Concerning Revelation 20:13, Jack Hyles wrote: "The word 'HELL' really means 'Hades,' which is the place where the souls of unsaved people burn" (p. 110).

Concerning Revelation 22:13-14, Jack Hyles wrote: "'DO HIS COMMANDMENTS' should be translated 'wash their robes'" (pp. 116-117).

Jack Hyles' book ENEMIES OF SOUL WINNING with chapter 5 entitled "False Bibles--an enemy of soul winning" was published in 1993 after he changed his view.
The first printing of Jack Hyles' book entitled THE NEED FOR AN EVERY-WORD BIBLE was in 2003, after Jack Hyles (1926-2001) died.

 

[John of Japan]

Maybe. I have read the arguments for them and could make them myself but my scholarship would not negate what God said in Romans 3, that to the Jews were given the oracles of God. I am going to go with that. Maybe some of the later translators who agrees with you would soften the language and make it ambiguous enough to have Luke to be a gentile. He wrote two rather large books of the Bible.

The "oracles of God" meant the Old Testament. There was no New Testament at the time. The "oracles of God" as preached by Stephen in Acts 7:38 clearly meant the OT, since none--zero--of the NT books had been written at that time. Therefore, the three other places in the NT (including your reference in Romans 3:2) also meant the OT. Your point is clearly mistaken. Luke was a Greek (his name is Greek, certainly not Hebrew), and wrote two books of the NT, because in the NT God wanted all of mankind, including us Gentiles, to know the Word and the Gospel.

You may have a point and you may not. Aramaic is not referencing a people group as the Hebrews, the Greeks, and the English.

At the time the Scriptures were written, Hebrew and Aramaic were languages spoken by specific people groups. However, "the English" is not a people group, nor has it ever been one. It is a language used by many people groups in North America, Africa, etc. For example, the official language of Cameroon is English, but it is a very different culture than the US (I've been there), and no missiologist would call the US and Cameroon a single people group.
A people group may or may not be identified by its single language. Hebrew and Aramaic identify people groups, but English does not.

The Hebrew OT was translated into Greek (not that it was a particularly good thing) and the Greeks had the entire Bible from which to learn about God. The English speaking nations have the entire Bible translated into their language. One must ask himself if a Jew writing about the future times of the gentiles, would write a few words in Aramaic would discount the fact that God has chosen three great languages as a consistent practice of his to showcase his trinitarian nature in all that he does. I am guessing you would answer yes and would not agree that his ways with his Bible would have anything to do with the trinity. That is where you and I would disagree for sure.

Forgive me, but this is a very strange paragraph. I'm not even sure what you mean. There were various complete (OT & NT) translations of the Bible long before the KJV. What about Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation, 4th century? What makes the KJV superior to that translation? Logically, the Vulgate could be the so-called "third language" of your so-called trinity. How is English superior to Latin? The Latin language is a splendid one, superior to English, without all of the mixup of the Anglo and Saxon languages to produce the mess of the English language.

Have the Spanish, the French, the Japanese, the Chinese ever believed those Bibles were perfect and inerrant? If they do not believe that about those Bibles why would you ask me to believe it? I believe my Bible is perfect and inerrant and I do not know what it is that you would like for me to doubt about it and why my doubting it is so important to so many.

There have been many Bible versions that folk claimed were inerrant. The LXX was thought by many to be inerrant, so there was an "onlyist" movmement for it. Augustine chastised Jerome for daring to try to replace the LXX with his new Latin translation. Like modern KJVO advocates, Augustine insisted that Jerome should have translated from the LXX. (Correspondence of Augustine and Jerome concerning the Latin Translation of the Scriptures).

In Japan there are those who insist that the Bungoyaku (文語訳, Classical Translation) is the only Japanese Word of God. In China, there is an "onlyist" movement for the Chinese Union Version (和合本), complicated by the two different words for "God." I could go on; there have been other onlyist movements.

Concerning English in Bible times, I cannot recall the Greek language being mentioned in the OT times. You may correct me if you know of it. However, in the providence of God he used Alexander of Macedon to Hellenize the world in preparation for his New testament to be written in that language and spread abroad after the Jewish nation rejected him and his kingdom. Later when transitions in world power and influence and language transitioned by his same providence, he prepared the Bible in the language of the people who would read it and believe it and carry it to others. God knows things and directs things so aa many of us can be saved as possible.

The Greek language goes back 1000s of years before Christ: Greek Language and Linguistics: Linear B.

Here, I believe is the transition in the economy of God from the church having a Jewish character to having a gentiles character in about 67 AD. This is the end of God evangelizing the Jews as a people.

Why AD 67?

The gentile nations are in the west and the Bible believers in the west speak English and that is where God has sent his church and to whom God has given his Bible.

The Gentile nations in the West also speak French, German, and many other languages which have a longer history than English. Your logic can be duplicated for any European language more easily than for English. Old English did not develop until the fifth century, while other European languages were around long before that. Ulfilas translated the Bible for the Goths in the 4th century, so why is not German the third language of your Biblical trinity? And I've already spoken of the Vulgate, translated over 1000 years before the KJV. So why would God wait over 1000 years to produce the third language Bible after the Hebrew and Greek when He could have used the Ulfilas translation or the Vulgate?

John Rice was not right but he was not a bad man and I will be careful how much I criticize him. I am carrying his booklet, What must I do to be saved" in my car to hand out to people because it is a true and powerful presentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. One should not think I am condemning John R Rice because I think he was wrong on some things he said or that I think he was shallow in some subjects of the Bible. He was a man who was used greatly of God because he was willing to be used, I think.

Good thoughts.

 

[John of Japan]

You are not alone in most regards. I determined a long time ago that this is a fruitless battleground, full of zealous knuckleheads pushing their errors.

You truly are wasting your time and energy here.

For someone who claims not to want to debate, your words are quite inflammatory. So, you get to calls us names, but then run away?

 

[xlsdraw]

For someone who claims not to want to debate, your words are quite inflammatory. So, you get to calls us names, but then run away?

My words are not inflammatory. They are accurate.

You know full well that the participants in these "debates", including yourself, are not going to budge one iota. Not on this thread, nor any thread. Hence these "debates" are indeed fruitless exercises. Actually, as a Christian, I find them disgusting.

What is inflammatory is the nature and tone of these "debates".

You seem to be under the delusion that your grandfather's legacy is under attack and that it's your calling to defend it in a place so flawed as this. Very few posters here are pre-trib Fundamental Baptists.

In the pre-trib Fundamental Baptist churches that I'm affiliated with, your grandfather has an excellent reputation, as does Jack Hyles and Lee Robertson. As does, Shelton Smith and my retired pastor, Mickey Carter. We don't denigrate Rice nor Hyles nor Robertson nor Smith. And neither should you. But yet you do.

But don't worry, the host of other posters on BB, that despise and denigrate Fundamental Baptists, will continue to support your "position". Carry on.

Does Hyles Anderson College, the Pastor of it's home church, and the Fundamental Baptists church community know what you're doing here on the BB?

If you want to pm me your name and contact information, I can point them to this thread. Surely you have nothing to hide, right? Don't you think they should know?

 

[John of Japan]

My words are not inflammatory. They are accurate.

What I specifically objected to was your name-calling: "knuckleheads." What am I, Curly of the Three Stooges?

You know full well that the participants in these "debates", including yourself, are not going to budge one iota. Not on this thread, nor any thread. Hence these "debates" are indeed fruitless exercises. Actually, as a Christian, I find them disgusting.

Actually, I have been taught and changed my mind many times here on the BB.

What is inflammatory is the nature and tone of these "debates".

You seem to be under the delusion that your grandfather's legacy is under attack and that it's your calling to defend it in a place so flawed as this. Very few posters here are pre-trib Fundamental Baptists.

I have no idea what you mean here. I've made some friends here. Twice good men have sent me books that blessed them.

As for my grandfather's legacy, indeed it has come under attack here, including when I first joined the BB years ago. And I defended it then and will continue to defend it. Are you seriously objecting to someone defending their own grandfather? Really?

In the pre-trib Fundamental Baptist churches that I'm affiliated with, your grandfather has an excellent reputation, as does Jack Hyles and Lee Robertson. As does, Shelton Smith and my retired pastor, Mickey Carter. We don't denigrate Rice nor Hyles nor Robertson nor Smith. And neither should you. But yet you do.

But don't worry, the host of other posters on BB, that despise and denigrate Fundamental Baptists, will continue to support your "position". Carry on.

Who in the world have I denigrated? No one that you have mentioned. I know personally and admire them all, except for Mickey Carter, who I do not know. (I knew Dr. Lee Roberson the best.) On this thread, I have specifically disagreed with the KJV position of Jack Hyles, but where did I attack him personally?

Does Hyles Anderson College, the Pastor of it's home church, and the Fundamental Baptists church community know what you're doing here on the BB?

If you want to pm me your name and contact information, I can point them to this thread. Surely you have nothing to hide, right? Don't you think they should know?

I know Pastor Wilkerson personally and have had some good interaction with him. Last time I saw him he greeted me warmly and burst out with "John R. Rice's grandson!" (I think he hugged me also, but at my age the memory gets hazy.) I believe he told me that he had read my book on John R. Rice, as have other fundamental Baptist leaders. I preached for his brother once, who has also read my book and had me set up a table to sell it in his church lobby.

And before you ask, the leadership of where I minister for the Lord knows I am here on the BB, and the site is not blocked by our administration.

But why would Dr. Wilkerson care what I am discussing here? You know, many who love Dr. Hyles do not agree with his position on bibliology. And I clearly delineate situations between Dr. Rice and Dr. Hyles in my book on Rice, backed by letters in the John R. Rice Papers at Southwestern Bptist Theological Seminary. I also some difficulty I had personally with Dr. Hyles. I have not hid.

It's pretty easy to figure out exactly who I am and where I minister just by looking at my profile and googling me. Some have done so. You are welcome to do so and tell Pastor Wilkerson whatever you want. Have at it if it floats your boat. In fact, just look at the foot of this post and you will see a link to the biography of John R. Rice I wrote. And my name is John Rice Himes. Tell that to whoever you want to.

 

[John of Japan]

How odd. Someone who says they never debate, apparently thinking it is un-Christian to do so, is perfectly willing to call people names, and threaten to expose me to people. I actually just had a laugh thinking about it.

Oh, and by the way, John R. Rice (whose blood runs in my veins) was a champion debater in college, and back in about 1937 a book was published of a debate he had with a Church of Christ preacher. He loved debate! Some of his books are composed of debates he had through letters with liberals and others.

 

[xlsdraw]

How odd. Someone who says they never debate, apparently thinking it is un-Christian to do so, is perfectly willing to call people names, and threaten to expose me to people. I actually just had a laugh thinking about it.

Oh, and by the way, John R. Rice (whose blood runs in my veins) was a champion debater in college, and back in about 1937 a book was published of a debate he had with a Church of Christ preacher. He loved debate! Some of his books are composed of debates he had through letters with liberals and others.

I sincerely doubt that your grandfather was as prideful and arrogant as you are.