Featured John R Rice vs. Jack Hyles

For many years, Jack Hyles was not KJV-only. That shows clearly in his 1967 book Let's Study the Revelation printed by the Sword of the Lord. In that book, Jack Hyles suggested that certain renderings in the KJV could be "better translated" another way. Concerning Revelation 22:13-14, Hyles wrote: "'Do his commandments' should be translated, 'wash their robes'" (p. 117).

As I understand it, Jack Hyles did not publicly endorse or become KJV-only until after the death of John R. Rice. If that is incorrect, someone please let me know.

It may have possibly been after the story in the Biblical Evangelist involving his secretary that Hyles joined the KJV-only camp, or it may have been through the influence of Gail Riplinger and her book. If I recall correctly, his interview with Gail Riplinger at one of his conferences may be around the beginning of the time he indicated support for a KJV-only view. I do not recall the year of that interview, but it was likely around 1993.

Hyles' 1993 book Enemies of Soul Winning has a chapter entitled "False Bibles--An Enemy of Soul-Winning" that shows an acceptance of an extreme KJV-only view. I am not aware of it if any one of his earlier books reveals a clear acceptance of a KJV-only view.

Jack Hyles wrote: "I have a conviction as deep as my soul that every English-speaking person who has ever been born again was born of incorruptible seed; that is, the King James Bible" (p. 47).

 

I think they had different moral standards. Hyles was charged with many personal and moral indiscretions, and I'm not aware of any such regarding John R. Rice.

An article at JackHyles.com mentions a sermon that shows he was strongly leaning that way in 1984. This would be nearly four years after John R. Rice died.

The sermon can be found HERE.

 

You are correct. Jack would never have gone against John R. Rice while he was alive. JRR was clearly not KJV-Only, as you well know (just mentioning it for others who might not know), endorsing the American Standard Version. He was roundly attacked for that by such underwhelming sources as Herbert F. Evans in Dear Dr. John: Where is my bible? (sic) and often by the ever-nasty Peter Ruckman.

In 1970, when Ruckman published his first major book, JRR had already taken the position that “A perfect translation of the Bible is humanly impossible,” in his 1969 book, Our God-Breathed Book—The Bible (p. 377). He further wrote, “The scholar and the preacher would do well to have the American Standard Version at hand and to consult it when necessary, but generally would do well, we think, to use the King James Version in the pulpit, in memory work, and in class teaching, since it is actually the translation of the mass of people. And the beauty of its language is not equaled in other translations, we think” (ibid, p. 383).

 

You are correct. There was never a hint of scandal or moral or ethical failure in the life of John R. Rice. I knew him better than anyone outside the family, and I can say that I never saw any such hint of scandal in his life, though he was human and made mistakes.

 

How would he have felt about the Nas/Esv then?

 

That last quote is close to sheer idol worship ofa translation, as do not think peter meant the Kjv when he penned down those words!

 

As far as the translation methods of those two versions, he would not have opposed them, since he preferred literal versions. he did like the ASV, but was already old when the NASV came out, so I'm not aware that he ever commented on it. He was, of course, long dead when the ESV appeared.

Sorry to say, he was not well informed in the area of textual criticism, so he makes some mistakes in that discipline in his book Our God-Breathed Book, the Bible. So he did not approach the translation issue from that angle.

 

Since he preferred the formal versions, he would not have liked the Niv or Nlt probably, and what mistakes did he make in textual areas?

 

Just want to comment further, noticing that my "I'm not aware" phraseology could have seemed equivocal to someone. I originally meant that phrase to signal that I did not know John R. Rice personally -- even though he loomed large in our homes through his paper!

 

In Our God-Breathed Book the Bible, in his chapter "God Preserves His Eternal Word," he showed no sign of the differences in text types. He also did not appear to know the debates about the pericope adulterae and the longer ending of Mark.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't take your statement as a criticism.

 

I'm with you on that one.

 

Interesting to me, in that I just read about that briefly last night HERE. (In Discordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant Battles Over Translating the Bible. Peter Johannes Thuesen, Oxford University Press, 1999)

 

My fondest memories of Dr. Rice was when he would preach at my home church back when I was a teenager. He would have Sunday lunch at our pastor's home and then play with our pastor's children afterwards. Dr. Rice was a humble man and had a compassionate heart. One of my greatest joys as a pastor's wife many years later was to have Mrs. Rice to our church to speak. I've often wondered how Dr. Rice would have handled Jack Hyles' scandal. I have to think he would have stood for what was right and would not have tried to sweep it under the rug.

 

Newspaper clipping from 1976, a press conference:



"BAPTIST LEADERS PROTEST — Dr. Jerry Falwell, Lynchburg, Va., left, and Dr. Jack Hyles, Hammond, Ind., listen as Dr. John R. Rice, Murfreesboro, Tenn., comments on alledged attempts by the Jimmy Carter campaign organization to keep off the air a syndicated religious program containing criticisms about Carter's Playboy Magazine interview. Falwell said the Carter campaign had been contacting radio station by telegram and telephone asking them not to use the program."