John R. Rice, Jack Hyles, and the KJV

[Logos1560]

This shows that by that time Hyles had taken the position of Ruckman, that the KJV is inspired and inerrant. However, to my knowledge, Hyles never said that you should correct the Greek and Hebrew from the KJV, as Ruckman taught. That is the logical conclusion of Ruckman's position.

In that respect, Jack Hyles did not state the logical conclusion to which some of his own KJV-only statements would lead. Jack Hyles came to regard the KJV as his final authority although I have not found where he directly stated it. Jack Hyles declared: “We must have a final authority” (Need for an Every-Word Bible, p. 33), and he referred to “the Bible—our final authority” (p. 42). It would be clear from other statements by Hyles that the only Bible he regarded as perfect and thus his final authority would be the KJV. When the KJV is regarded as the final authority, that would make it superior to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages, in effect correcting the Hebrew and the Greek.

In another respect, Jack Hyles became more extreme than Peter Ruckman. While Peter Ruckman did claim that the KJV was incorruptible seed, I have not found where he made a claim of no salvation without use of the KJV. Thus, on the claim relating to salvation, Jack Hyles could be considered more extreme than Peter Ruckman.

 

[Logos1560]

The following is another example of assertion or claim by Jack Hyles that is more extreme than those of Peter Ruckman.

Jack Hyles asserted: “Do you mean if there is just one word wrong in the Bible, you have to throw everything else away?’ That’s exactly what I mean” (Need for an Every-Word Bible, p. 39).

Peter Ruckman wrote: “We recommend any edition of the AV (with any number of variations from any other edition)” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, Sept., 1985, p. 3). In this same article, Ruckman commented: “In our group, we hold that ANY edition of the AV is reliable” (p. 2). In this article, Ruckman’s only stated exception from being an edition of the AV was the NKJV. Again concerning the KJV, Ruckman claimed that “any edition will do just fine” (Unknown Bible, pp. 1, 86). Ruckman referred to “any edition in any century” of the KJV (How to Teach the “Original” Greek, p. 119). Ruckman appealed to “a King James Bible (any edition from any year)“ (Difference in KJV Editions, pp. 9-10). Ruckman also referred to “a present copy of the AV, which anyone can buy anywhere” (p. 11). Ruckman claimed that “any edition of the AV (Edinburgh, London, Oxford, Nelson, Cambridge, New York, etc.) is vastly superior to the ‘originals’” (p. 18). Ruckman asserted: “The text of the AV in any edition is the text authorized by the Godhead, and it is the text that the Holy Spirit has continually stamped with His approval, in any edition” (Bible Babel, p. 92). Ruckman claimed: “You can find that word [the word of God] and those words [the words that God wants us to have] in ANY EDITION of an Authorized Version” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 414).

 

[John of Japan]

Hyles' autobiography relates how he told a NKJV committee to their faces that what they were doing was wrong. Says Rice was present and ended up resigning from the oversight committee himself.

Okay, I ran down that incident in the book by Hyles, Fundamentalism in My Lifetime. Hammond: Hyles Publications, 2002, 159-160. This book is the result of a series of lectures by Hyles to his students about the men who influenced him and great men he had known.

Sam Moore of Nelson wanted a NKJV, asked Rice & Hyles to be on the “overview committee.” Hyles turned it down but Rice agreed. Later, Hyles went to a meeting he thought was about SS material, but it was about the translation. Attendees included: Theodore Epp, W. A. Criswell, Max E. Jarman (Jarman Shoe Co.) was in charge.Scholars were there from Dallas.

Jarman asked Hyles for input, & Hyles said,p. 160— “Mr. Jarman, I don’t even believe in what you are doing with the Bible. I believe you are doing wrong; I believe you are making a mistake."

“One of the professors from Dallas Seminary said, “Well, that’s showing a bad spirit.” Hyles replied, “I didn’t agree to this committee. Why don’t you men stop trying to rewrite a bunch of Bibles and all of us go soul winning this evening?”

Hyles says he then turned to Dr. Rice and said, “Dr. Rice, you haven’t got any business being on this committee either.”

They took a break. Hyles wrote, “I walked out of the meeting, never feeling more lonely in my life. Dr. John walked up to me, put his arm around my shoulders, and said, 'Dr. Jack, you are right. I am resigning this committee.' To this day, I remember thinking, 'That’s greatness.'"

I have doubts as to whether is is exactly how it went down, but I've seen no account anywhere else about this meeting or about an "overview committee" for the NKJV. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but as already documented, Hyles was known for embroidering stories.

 

[John of Japan]

In that respect, Jack Hyles did not state the logical conclusion to which some of his own KJV-only statements would lead. Jack Hyles came to regard the KJV as his final authority although I have not found where he directly stated it. Jack Hyles declared: “We must have a final authority” (Need for an Every-Word Bible, p. 33), and he referred to “the Bible—our final authority” (p. 42). It would be clear from other statements by Hyles that the only Bible he regarded as perfect and thus his final authority would be the KJV. When the KJV is regarded as the final authority, that would make it superior to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages, in effect correcting the Hebrew and the Greek.

In another respect, Jack Hyles became more extreme than Peter Ruckman. While Peter Ruckman did claim that the KJV was incorruptible seed, I have not found where he made a claim of no salvation without use of the KJV. Thus, on the claim relating to salvation, Jack Hyles could be considered more extreme than Peter Ruckman.

You are correct. And one of his followers wrote that book, Final Authority, by Bill Grady.

Good point about Hyles being more radical than Ruckman. I think that is the end zone of the KJVO movement: you can't get saved without the KJV. That would mean that in many countries and cultures, no one is saved because they don't have a "KJV equivalent" in their language. As I've written here before, there has only been one NT translation printed in all of Japanese history that was from the TR (Stephanus, not the approved one). It's out of print, so according to Hyles doctrine, no one is getting saved in Japan nowadays--unless it's through the "John and Romans" of our new translation.

 

[John of Japan]

The following is another example of assertion or claim by Jack Hyles that is more extreme than those of Peter Ruckman.

Jack Hyles asserted: “Do you mean if there is just one word wrong in the Bible, you have to throw everything else away?’ That’s exactly what I mean” (Need for an Every-Word Bible, p. 39).

Peter Ruckman wrote: “We recommend any edition of the AV (with any number of variations from any other edition)” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, Sept., 1985, p. 3). In this same article, Ruckman commented: “In our group, we hold that ANY edition of the AV is reliable” (p. 2). In this article, Ruckman’s only stated exception from being an edition of the AV was the NKJV. Again concerning the KJV, Ruckman claimed that “any edition will do just fine” (Unknown Bible, pp. 1, 86). Ruckman referred to “any edition in any century” of the KJV (How to Teach the “Original” Greek, p. 119). Ruckman appealed to “a King James Bible (any edition from any year)“ (Difference in KJV Editions, pp. 9-10). Ruckman also referred to “a present copy of the AV, which anyone can buy anywhere” (p. 11). Ruckman claimed that “any edition of the AV (Edinburgh, London, Oxford, Nelson, Cambridge, New York, etc.) is vastly superior to the ‘originals’” (p. 18). Ruckman asserted: “The text of the AV in any edition is the text authorized by the Godhead, and it is the text that the Holy Spirit has continually stamped with His approval, in any edition” (Bible Babel, p. 92). Ruckman claimed: “You can find that word [the word of God] and those words [the words that God wants us to have] in ANY EDITION of an Authorized Version” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 414).

Good post.

I'm thinking that this was probably just the typical Hyles "over the top" rhetoric, and he might not have been that radical in private. However, his followers, preacher boys and others, would not have known that, and would have taken his statements all the way.

 

[Logos1560]

according to Hyles, he had always held the same position on the inspiration of the KJV, but did not reveal his position to Rice out of respect. .

In my opinion, the 1967 book Let's Study the Revelation by Jack Hyles printed by the Sword of the Lord would make it crystal clear that Jack Hyles did change his position on the KJV. The foreword to this 1967 book stated that "this study was begun in 1953" at the Miller Road Baptist Church.

In that 1967 book, Jack Hyles suggested that certain renderings in the KJV could be or even should be "better translated" another way. No one who really believed that the KJV was inspired and perfect could write what Hyles wrote in 1967. From at least 1953 until 1967, this could be sound evidence that Hyles held a different position concerning the KJV.

Concerning Revelation 1:5, Jack Hyles wrote" "AND WASHED US" can also be rendered 'And freed us'" (p. 9).
Concerning Revelation 3:11, Hyles wrote: "'Take' could be translated 'receive'" (p. 29).
Concerning Revelation 4:6, Hyles wrote: "They are called 'beasts,' but the best translators call them 'living creatures'" (p. 36). [According to that statement, Hyles claims that some translators were better than the KJV translators].
Concerning Revelation 8:13, Hyles wrote: "The word 'ANGEL' here should be 'eagle'" (p. 50).
Concerning Revelation 13:15, Hyles wrote: "'AND HE HAD POWER' is better translated, 'And to him was given power'" (p. 72).
Concerning Revelation 16:13, Hyles wrote: "The word 'SPIRITS' means 'demons'" (p. 88).
Concerning Revelation 20:13, Hyles wrote: "The word 'HELL' really means 'Hades'" (p. 110).
Concerning Revelation 22:13-14, Hyles wrote: "'Do his commandments' should be translated, 'wash their robes'" (pp. 116-117).

 

[John of Japan]

In my opinion, the 1967 book Let's Study the Revelation by Jack Hyles printed by the Sword of the Lord would make it crystal clear that Jack Hyles did change his position on the KJV. The foreword to this 1967 book stated that "this study was begun in 1953" at the Miller Road Baptist Church.

In that 1967 book, Jack Hyles suggested that certain renderings in the KJV could be or even should be "better translated" another way. No one who really believed that the KJV was inspired and perfect could write what Hyles wrote in 1967. From at least 1953 until 1967, this could be sound evidence that Hyles held a different position concerning the KJV.

Concerning Revelation 1:5, Jack Hyles wrote" "AND WASHED US" can also be rendered 'And freed us'" (p. 9).
Concerning Revelation 3:11, Hyles wrote: "'Take' could be translated 'receive'" (p. 29).
Concerning Revelation 4:6, Hyles wrote: "They are called 'beasts,' but the best translators call them 'living creatures'" (p. 36). [According to that statement, Hyles claims that some translators were better than the KJV translators].
Concerning Revelation 8:13, Hyles wrote: "The word 'ANGEL' here should be 'eagle'" (p. 50).
Concerning Revelation 13:15, Hyles wrote: "'AND HE HAD POWER' is better translated, 'And to him was given power'" (p. 72).
Concerning Revelation 16:13, Hyles wrote: "The word 'SPIRITS' means 'demons'" (p. 88).
Concerning Revelation 20:13, Hyles wrote: "The word 'HELL' really means 'Hades'" (p. 110).
Concerning Revelation 22:13-14, Hyles wrote: "'Do his commandments' should be translated, 'wash their robes'" (pp. 116-117).

Thanks for this helpful post. It certainly does prove that, contrary to what the Cindy Schaap biography says, Hyles did change his position, and was not always KJVO. I did mention the book earlier in the thread, I believe, but I threw it away when we came back from Japan.

 

[John of Japan]

Okay, I ran down that incident in the book by Hyles, Fundamentalism in My Lifetime. Hammond: Hyles Publications, 2002, 159-160. This book is the result of a series of lectures by Hyles to his students about the men who influenced him and great men he had known.

Sam Moore of Nelson wanted a NKJV, asked Rice & Hyles to be on the “overview committee.” Hyles turned it down but Rice agreed. Later, Hyles went to a meeting he thought was about SS material, but it was about the translation. Attendees included: Theodore Epp, W. A. Criswell, Max E. Jarman (Jarman Shoe Co.) was in charge.Scholars were there from Dallas.

Jarman asked Hyles for input, & Hyles said,p. 160— “Mr. Jarman, I don’t even believe in what you are doing with the Bible. I believe you are doing wrong; I believe you are making a mistake."

“One of the professors from Dallas Seminary said, “Well, that’s showing a bad spirit.” Hyles replied, “I didn’t agree to this committee. Why don’t you men stop trying to rewrite a bunch of Bibles and all of us go soul winning this evening?”

Hyles says he then turned to Dr. Rice and said, “Dr. Rice, you haven’t got any business being on this committee either.”

They took a break. Hyles wrote, “I walked out of the meeting, never feeling more lonely in my life. Dr. John walked up to me, put his arm around my shoulders, and said, 'Dr. Jack, you are right. I am resigning this committee.' To this day, I remember thinking, 'That’s greatness.'"

I have doubts as to whether is is exactly how it went down, but I've seen no account anywhere else about this meeting or about an "overview committee" for the NKJV. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but as already documented, Hyles was known for embroidering stories.

Here is a list of the "Oversight Committee" for the NKJV: NKJV Translators - Article

I don't see on it Epp or Jarman mentioned by Hyles. To be fair, though, this had to have been later than the meeting Hyles was talking about, since Curtis Hutson is on there, who took over from Rice as president of the Sword of the Lord.

 

[Logos1560]

Here is a list of the "Oversight Committee" for the NKJV: NKJV Translators - Article

The New King James Version In the Great Tradition by Arthur L. Farstad has an Appendix C which listed "Commonwealth Oversight Committee" (pp. 151-152) and "North American Overview Committee" (pp. 152-156). Over sixty names are listed for the North American Overview Committee. Curtis Hutson is listed, but John R. Rice and Jack Hyles are not. Other members listed include Jerry Falwell, Elmer Towns, Henry Morris, Tim LaHaye, Adrian Rogers, Truman Dollar, and W. A. Criswell.

Under this heading "North American Overview Committee", Arthur Farstad wrote:
"Two large meetings of the North American Overview Committee met at Nashville and Chicago in 1975 to assist in preparing guidelines for the NKJV. Nearly all felt the project was worthy of the time, money, and effort that would be invested" (p. 152).

Arthur Farstad wrote: "The vast majority of the people who attended either the Chicago or Nashville meeting agreed to become members of the North American Overview Committee" (p. 32).

Perhaps some attended a meeting that did not agree to become a member.

 

[rlvaughn]

Here is a list of the "Oversight Committee" for the NKJV: NKJV Translators - Article

I don't see on it Epp or Jarman mentioned by Hyles. To be fair, though, this had to have been later than the meeting Hyles was talking about, since Curtis Hutson is on there, who took over from Rice as president of the Sword of the Lord.

At that link it says:

Two large meetings of the North American Overview Committee met at Nashville and Chicago in 1975 to assist in preparing guidelines for the NKJV. Nearly all felt that the project was worthy of the time, money, and effort that would be invested. Members of this committee included:

This below it has:

Dr. Curtis Hutson ~ President
Sword of the Lord ~ Murfreesboro, Tennessee

But by my calculations, Hutson would not have been the President of the Sword of the Lord in 1975, would he? Was not even the associate editor until after 1975 I think. Maybe he was there, but the way he was designated is wrong?

 

[timtofly]

So to the KJVO like him, the true power to save resides in the Kjv, and not in the Holy Spirit?

The Holy Spirit is not in a translation. Does the Holy Spirit use Shakespeare to evangelize? Who decides what the Holy Spirit uses? To say the Holy Spirit can use a modern translation would mean Shakespeare could be on par equally as both have scripture in them.

 

[Logos1560]

The book The New King James Version In the Great Tradition by Arthur L. Farstad which has an Appendix C that listed "Commonwealth Oversight Committee" (pp. 151-152) and "North American Overview Committee" (pp. 152-156) was published in 1989.

Perhaps it could be possible that the members of the overview committee were asked for their bibliographical information for Farstad's book at a date later than 1975 so that some members may have given their later positions sometime after 1980 rather than the ones that they may have had in 1975.

 

[rlvaughn]

The book The New King James Version In the Great Tradition by Arthur L. Farstad which has an Appendix C that listed "Commonwealth Oversight Committee" (pp. 151-152) and "North American Overview Committee" (pp. 152-156) was published in 1989.

Perhaps it could be possible that the members of the overview committee were asked for their bibliographical information for Farstad's book at a date later than 1975 so that some members may have given their later positions sometime after 1980 rather than the ones that they may have had in 1975.

Thanks. That seems a likely possibility that would explain the discrepancy.

 

[Jerome]

It's what was put out when the complete NKJV was published in 1982!

seen in 1982 issue of Christianity Today

Note the "deceased" after several who'd died while still associated with the project:

Boyce Blackwelder [1913-1976]
Huber Drumwright [1924-1981]
Batsell Barrett Baxter [1916-1982]



Frequently Asked Questions About the NKJV - Thomas Nelson Bibles

"Throughout the entire editing process, the work was regularly reviewed by the clergy and lay advisers on the British Oversight Committee and the North American Overview Committee"


Farstad's book, p. 32, says:

"Jarman, a distinguished retired businessman...headed up the North American Committee"

and

"a small handful of those who did come [to the intial meetings in 1975] felt they could not participate in the work"


Nelson publisher Sam Moore in his autobiography gives a "partial list" of those at the initial meetings of the NKJV North American Overview Committee in 1975:

B. Clayton Bell
D. Stuart Briscoe
Robert Coleman
W.A. Criswell
Mary C. Crowley
Millie Dienert
Jerry Falwell
Peter E. Gillquist
William S. Glass
Ben Haden
Richard Halverson
Howard G. Hendricks
E.V. Hill
D. James Kennedy
Jay Kesler
Tim F. LaHaye
Harold Lindsell
David L. McKenna
J. Robertson McQuilken
Jess C. Moody
Harold J. Ockenga
Lloyd John Ogilvie
Luis Palau
J. Dwight Pentecost
John R. Rice
Adrian P. Rogers
Elmer Towns

 

[John of Japan]

At that link it says: This below it has:
But by my calculations, Hutson would not have been the President of the Sword of the Lord in 1975, would he? Was not even the associate editor until after 1975 I think. Maybe he was there, but the way he was designated is wrong?

To the best of my knowledge, Hutson did not take the reigns of the Sword until 1980. Dr. Rice had a heart attack in March, I think it was, and was sickly the rest of the year, going to Heaven in December. Hutson led the National Sword Conference that year. Rice wanted everyone to sing a song, "I'm So Glad I'm a Part of the Family of God," I believe it was, and had the words passed out. But Hutson decided against it, and forbade it.

 

[John of Japan]

The Holy Spirit is not in a translation. Does the Holy Spirit use Shakespeare to evangelize? Who decides what the Holy Spirit uses? To say the Holy Spirit can use a modern translation would mean Shakespeare could be on par equally as both have scripture in them.

That doesn't make sense. The KJV is a translation, right? So you are saying the Holy Spirit can't use the KJV? Or are you saying the KJV is the original of the Scriptures, and it has been forever preserved in Heaven from before the foundation of the world? (Jack Hyles said something like this.) So, maybe the Greek NT and Hebrew OT were translated from the KJV? I am sorry for being dense, but I don't get hat you are trying to say.

 

[John of Japan]

The book The New King James Version In the Great Tradition by Arthur L. Farstad which has an Appendix C that listed "Commonwealth Oversight Committee" (pp. 151-152) and "North American Overview Committee" (pp. 152-156) was published in 1989.

Perhaps it could be possible that the members of the overview committee were asked for their bibliographical information for Farstad's book at a date later than 1975 so that some members may have given their later positions sometime after 1980 rather than the ones that they may have had in 1975.

Hutson pastored a megachurch before taking the reigns of the Sword. So maybe that figures in as the original reason he as chosen. Then, like you wrote, perhaps the committee list was updated to show that he had taken over the Sword.

 

[timtofly]

That doesn't make sense. The KJV is a translation, right? So you are saying the Holy Spirit can't use the KJV? Or are you saying the KJV is the original of the Scriptures, and it has been forever preserved in Heaven from before the foundation of the world? (Jack Hyles said something like this.) So, maybe the Greek NT and Hebrew OT were translated from the KJV? I am sorry for being dense, but I don't get hat you are trying to say.

The Holy Spirit is not limited, using the writings that contain the Word of God. Nor is every translation 100% the Word of God. No the Holy Spirit does not have to "inspire" every translation. How the Holy Spirit works is not to be confused in preserving God's Word. That would be the act of God Himself preserving His Word, despite human involvement.

It is only humans trusting the words of other humans if their claim is an inspiration, or if they are led by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit works inside of us to make such confirmation acceptable.

 

[Yeshua1]

You are correct. And one of his followers wrote that book, Final Authority, by Bill Grady.

Good point about Hyles being more radical than Ruckman. I think that is the end zone of the KJVO movement: you can't get saved without the KJV. That would mean that in many countries and cultures, no one is saved because they don't have a "KJV equivalent" in their language. As I've written here before, there has only been one NT translation printed in all of Japanese history that was from the TR (Stephanus, not the approved one). It's out of print, so according to Hyles doctrine, no one is getting saved in Japan nowadays--unless it's through the "John and Romans" of our new translation.

And yet the Holy Spirit "somehow" has even managed to save lost sinners thru "bibles" such as the Living, Message , and Good news!

 

[Yeshua1]

That doesn't make sense. The KJV is a translation, right? So you are saying the Holy Spirit can't use the KJV? Or are you saying the KJV is the original of the Scriptures, and it has been forever preserved in Heaven from before the foundation of the world? (Jack Hyles said something like this.) So, maybe the Greek NT and Hebrew OT were translated from the KJV? I am sorry for being dense, but I don't get hat you are trying to say.

The Kjv being eternal sound more like Islam and their Koran!