Was John R. Rice a Heretic?

On the 400th aniversery of the 1611 King James Version of the Bible, I would like to pose a question to my brothers and sisters who refuse to recognize any other translation: was John R. Rice a heretic? If you do not know of whom I am referring, let me give you a little background information.

Dr. John R. Rice

Dr. Rice, who died in 1980, was one of the most well-known fundamentalist writers and evangelists of the 20th century. He wrote more than 200 books and booklets which were published in many languages and sold all over the world. He condemned the compromise, liberalism, and apostacy being taught at major denominational colleges and seminaries.  He fought for a return to holiness and the fundamentals of the Christian faith. But what I think he will always be remembered for is his founding of the weekly paper, Sword of the Lord.

For the record, I highly respect Dr. Rice. I have in my personal library several of his works published back in the 1960′s. He was a great writer and a great preacher; however, he was not flawless. He said some things back in the day that I have a hard time with. On the other hand, he had some things to say that would shock the average reader of Sword of the Lord and the typical legalist who believes the KJV is the one-and-only perfect, preserved text for the English-speaking world.  Unlike the Sword which continually decries any other translation as dangerous and confusing, Dr. Rice actually recommended the 1901 ASV. OK, would somebody get a glass of water for the fainting KJV-only person on the floor? Dr. John R. Rice, founder and editor of the Sword of the Lord newspaper, actually said that the…

“…American Standard Version, translated in 1901, is perhaps the most accurate of all versions… It takes advantage of the three great manuscripts – the Sinaiticus, the Vatican, and the Alexandrian manuscripts – which were not available when the King James Version was translated.”   from, Dr. Rice, Here Is My Question (Wheaton: Sword of the Lord, 1962), p. 59.

As an overall explanation of his beliefs on the topic of multiple translations, Dr. Rice also stated:

“[There] are many, many translations. The differences in the translations are so minor, so insignificant, that we can be sure not a single doctrine, not a single statement of fact, not a single command or exhortation, has been missed in our translations. And where the Word of God is not perfectly translated in one instance, it is corrected in another translation. And if the Word of God is not perfectly portrayed in one translation, it is portrayed, surely, in the winnowed sum of them all… Have copyists passed on to us any major errors so that in any particular matter we miss the Word of God? There is abundant evidence that they have not. Do the various translations differ materially on any doctrine, any fact of history, any Christian duty, on the plan of salvation, or the Person of Christ, or any comfort or instruction? No, they do not! God has preserved His Scriptures. – from, Our God-Breathed Book, the Bible (Murfreesboro, TN: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1969), p. 355.

Now, according to many legalists, at least to those who refuse to read or use any other translation of the Bible than the King James 1611, Dr. Rice, who had probably been one of their heroes, is now a liberal. Poor guy! He did so much!

I believe that God inspired His Word (2 Timothy 3:16). I believe He gave it to us in the original autographs. I believe that He has preserved copies of those originals in the examples we have of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic manuscripts. What I do not believe is that the King James Version was the one-and-only, forever-settled-as-pure-and-inspired translation. It is ONLY a translation. To say that no other English translation is the Word of God is to say that the Geneva Bible, 51 years older than the KJV, was just a book.

The Kings James Version of the Bible changed the world. We should all be grateful for it. I still use it many times when preaching, and especially when memorizing verses. But even though the KJV was and is a blessing of God, His Word is preserved in the ORIGINAL TEXTS. Anything other than the original languages, including the King James, is a translation.

Our goal should be to use the best translations of the texts at our disposal when we are preaching and teaching, comparing them with each other and the originals, when possible, so that we can better understand how God’s Word should be understood in today’s language. After all, if you can’t understand it, doing you no good is the least of your worries – doing harm because of a faulty understanding based on a changed vocabulary is far worse. That is where the REAL heresy comes from.

But hey, it doesn’t matter which translation, if you are not reading it and studying it on your own, you might as well be reading Harry Potter and the Temple of Whatever. READ your Bible. STUDY your Bible. Let the Holy Spirit guide you as you read and study and then a wonderful thing will happen – you won’t be ashamed in the end (2 Timothy 2:15); you will find light for your path (Psalm 119:105); and you will know how not to sin against God (Psalm 119:11). Even the ASV, ESV, HCSB, or the NIV will tell you that….right, Dr. Rice?

About these ads

47 Comments

Filed under baptist, legalism, translations, Uncategorized

47 responses to “Was John R. Rice a Heretic?

  1. :o Great post. I agree with you. I usually use the NKJV.
    For deep studies a literal version is better, such as KJV, NKJV,
    ASV, or NASB. Dynamic translation such as NIV, while still good for
    reading, are still somewhat a paraphrase which can lead to
    interpretations following a traditional doctrinal position rather
    than letting the Word speak for itself. However, these versions are
    still useful for understanding Scripture, especially in difficult
    to follow portions such as Romans 7. And as you said, nearly all
    the versions still teach the truth of God. What matters is whether
    we read and LEARN FROM the Word, not which translation we
    read.

  2. Thanks for the encouragement. My last attempt at web presence was a web page at freewebs (now webs). But it had a limit of 20 unique pages on the free version, which greatly limited what I could do. This is my first attempt at blogging, so I have a lot to learn about it, yet.

  3. If the KJV was good enough for Paul, it should be good enough for us!

  4. post not working in firefox

  5. pastorshane

    Well firstly, John Rice is not a good example of someone you should look to for sound Biblical teaching. He did not see the clear literal teaching of Election and did not have a clear understanding of the true history of the translation of the KJV. He did not clearly see the sovereinty of God. He had a legalistic stand, anything other than grace is legalism, and he believed it is up to mans ability and decision to be saved, therefore it is not grace but mans will. So here looking at the KJV versus other Bibles, he stated that the ASV was the most accurate, but yet those manuscripts it was translated from were found in a catholic monostary trash can missing all of the Revelation, most of mark, parts of 1st John and 1st timothy. It had ommissions from Hebrews, and verious other missign scripture, so if this is the best then we must not have anything. The word of God changes not, the KJV is the most understandable and accurate because it is the very word of GOD. Find an error in it and I will easily show you that you are mistaken. Praise God we have the word in our own tongue. Only the arminian and the free willer stress the need to defend the perverions they call the bible today. All the other versions take out key words that describe the Lord’s deity, his blood, his pre-existance, His sovereingty, the trinity, sodomy, etc. Just do some simple research and you will discover the truth concerning the word of God. It isn’t left to man to corrupt, God promised it would be kept pure, and would not lose one jot or tittle. He also promised it to be in all tongues. He kept all his promises, just get over it, the KJV is like the Lord is, the same yesterday, today and forever.

    • Well, what can I say? Very interesting, indeed. I have never actually heard from a KJV-only Calvinist, especially one who thought that poorly of Dr. Rice.

      But you know, really, wouldn’t it be interesting to get all the one-and-only translations from all other languages into one set? It would be interesting to compare and contrast the publication dates. I would like to know if the ones in Romania and China were translated before or after 1611. That would be interesting.

      That being said, thanks for stopping by.

  6. pastorshane

    Actually there would not be a good reason to compare other language translations for you to have a sound postition. Because it is the English version we are discussing, and all the new English variance. For one to look at the other tongues and use that as the basis to promote ones stand is on sinking sand. God chose to translate the KJV in the late 1500′s and used 47 devout men to do it. No other work has that as a credential. Plus having the seal of a King appointed by God (for he raises them up and casts them down) and an authorization from a King. The other newer versions (english) used faulty copies and trashed codexes with much missing meterial for someone to claim they are reliable, this is foolish. Plus the Westcott and Hort team were either roman catholic or atheists. They beleived that Mary was sinless and so on. So looking at that alone makes one with a sound mind wonder where is the proof that these texts are defendable. Who are the witnesses one should turn to to recieve the evidence? How credable is it? Finally, the new versions are all translated by the ibs (international bible society), which had every known denomination and belief take part including a known lesbian living in open sin. She was the chief editor of the NIV. I again ask, how credable are these people as witnesses to ask where is the word of the very living God?

    • From a practical standpoint, what were the “husks” the prodigal would have eaten, if he could have? And also, do you change words to fit polite company, or do you use “piss” throughout a while sermon, not to mention “ass?” These are not trick questions, either.

      Pastorshane, honestly, I don’t understand. Where did Jesus or any of the writers say that 1500 years later, and only then, a perfect translation would be printed? Was the Word fallible up to that point, since no other English translation had theoretically been inspired?

      What about Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic? If I walked into your church with a copy of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible Jesus used, along with the Greek N.T., would I be considered a heretic? Would I have to translate aloud in old English?

      Seriously, if you only want to use the KJV, go ahead. I will use it most of the time, too. It is the standard by which I compare all others. But at the very moment you read a verse and clarify the text with a modern word, you have discredited your whole argument. Never explain what a “husk” was (Luke 15:16), and preach about piss (Isaiah 36:12) on a wall (1 Samuel 25:22) as long as you like. For me, the Truth is what matters, even if it’s spelled “donkey,” “urinate,” or “carob pod.”

      Anthony Psalm 57:2

      Sent from iPhone.

      • pastorshane

        The words you are asking about really is not what is being discussed. We are discussing where is the real Bible in english. But to answer your questions, it is like this, everyone knows when taught what he that pisseth on the wall means, it is referring to a watchman that is always vigilant, watchful for the enemy not taking the time to go to a private place to releave oneself thus pissing on the wall, and in that text it is saying the Lord with his judment will take him away which is taking away the alarm that would leave the people vulnerable and this due to sin. Everyone knows what an ass is, especially if they are educated by the pastor. We are to conform ourselves to the word not the word to us. It is the pastor’s job to teach the church. The real problem I am trying to discuss is the diluting of the word that the other versions do. None of the other versions keep to the clear literal teaching of God’s word. they dilute doctrine and in most cases where they say they are clearer they are really more difficult to understand. I use the english of the KJV, english of the late 1500′s and early 1600′s was in the time of its most perfect. Just like the old greek was used for the time to give Gods word the english was used to preserve it for today. To answer the last question, if you were able to read to me in english the orginal manuscripts you will find it is an exact mirror of the KJV. Also, I would say to you that you would never be able to provide those manuscripts to do it with. You say the perfect inspired word of God is in the originals, my question is where are they? They no longer exist! You know this if you have done any study in this area. I have been privileged to teach in verious countries on the subject we are now discussing. I am thankful the Lord has allowed me to do so. But I bring it up for this reason, to say to you that I am not new to the subject. And the argument you pose has little worth in proving your position, it is side stepping the true issue. Which is that the Lord gave His word to us in the form he seen fit, first the Hebrew and Aramaic, then Greek and now English, all those were the perfect word of God. But you will never find the originals in Hebrew or greek, but you can find the KJV in any book store!

      • As intelligent as you are, I am surprised. To say that we do not have the equivalent of the copies of most all the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is to deny so much textual evidence used to prove the Bible is reliable and unchanged by man. Precisely because we can access so many ancient texts is the reason we can refute such truly corrupted translations, such as the New World Translation.

        I respect that you have taught on this subject. I have heard this taught since I was a child. But since then I have become very suspect of the claims that ALL other translations are of the Devil. I am very suspect that any inspiration took place after the last original word was penned. I am suspect of the sources which routinely malign the character of people like Wescot and Hort, yet rarely mention the flaws of any of the KJV translators, yet alone King James. In some people’s eyes, the sheer fact that the translators were not Baptist should be cause for separation from the version! You question the motives of modern translators, which is clearly judgmental, yet fail to mention that King James’s reason was predominantly political.

        I do not deny that the KJV was and is the Cadillac of translations. But it is just that – a translation. Again, to make your argument stick, what determines the criteria for which we judge every other language’s translations? Which Romanian version is the one and only? The ones I hand-delivered to Albanians in 1992, were they the one and only, perfectly-inspired Albanian translation? Which translation should the Spanish-speaking world use? The Mandarin?

        And with regard to my earlier questions, they absolutely apply. As with the Catholic priests of old who only read in Latin, you should only read in old English. If the populace can’t speak or understand it, that’s just tough. Never give in to the temptation to expound on an archaic word. Let the people think that the prodigal only wanted to eat corn husks. For that matter, since the originals are no longer extant, dare not differentiate between “agape” and “Eros.” The Greek was for Greeks. You have a “more sure word.”

        I respect your opinion, sir, but I believe it is mistaken, as I’m sure you consider mine to be. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.

        Anthony Psalm 57:2

        Sent from iPhone.

  7. pastorshane

    I almost forgot to ask! If you cannot hold in your hand the very perfect inspired infallible inerrent word of God, then what parts of what you do have can you rely on? God’s word is perfect regardless of what language it is spoken in or written in. If you beleive that God created man out of the dust of the earth, why do you not then have the faith to believe that he is able to preserve His word in english. The KJV has stood the test of time, no other version has. The geneva even fell away for a long time. It had many errors and only had two translators work on it. A stark difference from the KJV scholars. Saying that the KJV is only a translation is like saying that God’s word is only words. The word -ONLY- implies a lessoning of its position or respect for it. To decrease the Bible regardless where you stand on the KJV issue, is showing a callus position towards the word of God. In other words, my stand is that the Bible I hold dear is reverenced with respect and meditated on everyday. So I do not say ONLY a Bible, I say, it is the Holy Bible. So then your only a translation versions, you can have, I have the Word. Lastly, is it really legalism to say that God’s word should be obeyed? No, legalism has to do with keeping the law. It is not legalistic to obey or demand the obediance to the word of God. Saved folks love the law, and strive to keep it. But of course we are saved by grace and kept by grace not by works. But it is also true that one that is saved by grace will have the works also, faith without works is dead being alone. So legalism may be what you call it, but I call it what it is, true faith and respect towards the very word of God. I beleive the Lord for it, and know he is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him agaisnt that day.

    • For the record, I believe the Bible IS the inspired, infallible, all-sufficient, and completed Word of God. I’m sorry if that shocks some of you. But thanks for the comments.

      • pastorshane

        I did not say the equivilent, I said the originals. But all in all, I enjoyed the conversation, in Christian love. I am glad the textus receptus and the mesoretic texts still have representatives (copies) for they are the real originals, used so much the originals were wore out. The KJV was translated from them not those vaticanus and sianaticus and so on. The debate will go on as long as we wait for the Lord’s return. But the important thing is that the doctrine the Lord left us is not diluted nor erased. I am glad the word endures forever no matter how much the world wants to destroy it. I will always hold to the old but true reliable KJV and never need to go to those other books. Where I lack knowledge the Lord teaches. So may God’s grace be with you and my thoughts shall be with you, and prayers said on your behalf, as I ask that your prayers be said for me, and I say God speed my friend. Maybe one day we will meet face to face and enjoy each others thoughts as we did here tonight. I always love a good debate.

  8. Ramon

    Technically speaking the TR was not in existence when the KJV was published. The KJV was translated from the Stephanus revision of the previous work of Erasmus. The Stephanus text differs in more than 200 places from the Receptus (which by the way wasn’t the original Greek text of Erasmus, but the 2nd edition of the Elzevirs). The KJV has hundreds of variations when compared to the TR, even comparing different KJV editions you’ll find many different renderings among them, so Which is the 100% pure Bible?
    Erasmus had only one Revelation manuscript which was incomplete, the last 6 verses were missing. He back translated those from the Latin Vulgate into Greek. Is that the best manuscript of Revelation? Was Revelation preserved perfectly by God?

    • Ramon, thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment. I truly appreciated it.

      I remember a time when I saw a piece of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It was tiny, but it was the real thing. It was only this tiny little piece of what looked like a flake of tree bark, nothing more. But it was more, and like many other pieces that do exist, from whichever text, there is enough evidence to piece together the original. Even when there are differences between texts, the differences are minor. Even with the differences, there is enough to at least say it was either/or. So yes, personally, I believe that His entire Word meant for us has been preserved.

    • pastorshane

      The Textus Receptus is the text that has been used for 2,000 years by Christians. This is also the text that agrees with more than 95% of the Bible Manuscripts in Koine (common) Greek. It is known by other names, such as the Traditional Text, Majority Text, Byzantine Text, or Syrian Text.
      In his essay Texual Criticism, Dr. Thomas Cassidy writes: “The Traditional text of the New Testament has existed from the time of Christ right down to the present. It has had many different names down through the years, such as Byzantine Text, Eastern Text, Received Text, Textus Receptus, Majority Text, and others. Although no complete Bible manuscripts have survived which would allow us to date the Traditional text to the first century, there is a strong witness to the early existence and use of the Traditional text by the early church in its lectionaries.”
      A few facts showing the respected historical position of the Textus Receptus are in order. Its prominence and respect did not begin in 1611 with the KJV translators. They merely recognized (as others before them had), that the Textus Receptus was God’s preserved word in the original New Testament language.
      CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING-

      • Prior to the 20th century, all English Bibles since Tyndale’s first New Testament (1526) were based on the Textus Receptus. This includes: Miles Coverdale’s Bible (1535), Matthew’s Bible (1500-1555), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Version (1560), The Bishops’ Bible (1568), and the King James Version (1611). [STORY OF OUR ENGLISH BIBLE, by W. Scott]
      • Ancient Versions followed the reading of the Textus Receptus. These versions include: The Peshitta Version (AD 150), The Italic Bible (AD 157), The Waldensian (AD 120 & onwards), The Gallic Bible (Southern France) (AD177), The Gothic Bible (AD 330-350), The Old Syriac Bible (AD 400), The Armenian Bible (AD 400 There are 1244 copies of this version still in existence.), The Palestinian Syriac (AD 450), The French Bible of Oliveton (AD 1535), The Czech Bible (AD 1602), The Italian Bible of Diodati (AD 1606), The Greek Orthodox Bible (Used from Apostolic times to the present day by the Greek Orthodox Church). [Bible Versions, D.B. Loughran]

      Why did the early churches of the 2 nd and 3rd centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the
      15th, 16th and 17th centuries choose Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Texts?
      The answer is because of the following:
      • Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (over 95%) of the 5,300+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.

      • Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.
      • Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the Minority Texts (like Vatican and Sinai) favored by the Roman Catholic Church.
      • Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
      • Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.
      • Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour’s miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood!
      • Textus Receptus was (and still is) the enemy of the Roman Catholic Church. This is an important fact to bear in mind.

      • Well, no one can fault you for coming to the table with only hearsay ;-)

      • pastorshane

        Granted you may consider that hearsay, but actually all that came form a really reliable source. I could take all night and develop a great compelling arguement concerning codex and the like, but it is abvious you haven’t the back ground for me to waste my time. 1611 king James Bible .com is what I quoted from, I wanted to state that because I need not use others writings, but I havent the time tonight to discuss this, so I went to a friends site and used some info he worked hard to acquire. Hearsay is something without a known source, There are more than three witnesses quoted from. You may check the accuracy of my friends site and you will find it is accurate.

      • My friend, you misunderstood me. I said no one can fault you for bringing hearsay to the table. Interpretation in modern English: “Dude, ain’t nobody gonna be able to dis you for being an ignoramus. Some homeboy gonna argue wid you, they better bring it! Cuz you ain’t play’n!”

        Background? Hmmm.

  9. It’s a little late, pastorshane, but I look forward to it. Go with God, and be blessed.

  10. Yes, there was a Bible before the King James,Authorized but it is for the English spianekg world the preserved word of God.(Psalm 12:6-7). God has had his word for every generation but also satan and unbelieving men have had theirs too. This is why Paul said We are not as many which corrupt the word of God. Corrupt versions that add to and take from Gods word do not help anyone but bring the curse of God on those who do it. Revelation 22. Some also seek to make money off of other versions for gain. But the love of money is the root of all evil. Ignorance is one thing , corruption and greed is quite another. Those need to repent of their sins and trust The Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour who are corrupters and greedy. He died for their sins on the cross,and rose from the dead,was seen of men,and went back up to Heaven. Behold the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. Also in the Masoretic text and greek received texts, leave out the Sinaticus and Vaticanus text versions. thank You,very much. Sincerely;

  11. “Was John R. Rice a Heretic? | The Recovering Legalist” was indeed truly engaging and beneficial!
    In the present day society that’s hard to do.

    Thank you, Ted

  12. I wonder if the issue of the KJV that stated Thou must commit adultery was also the Inspired Word of your god?
    Would certainly show that he had a wicked sense of humour, don’t you think? ;)

    Overall, if I were to consider the bible a ”Must Have” on my bookshelf I reckon I’d have Marcion’s version without a moments hesitation.

    • I have actually seen a copy if the “Wicked Bible.” It is a very rare edition, indeed. But, of course, that is why I don’t believe inspiration applies to the printer. Coincidentally and/or ironically, the 1901 RSV that I possess is missing about 6 verses from the Old Testament book of Judges. They were accidentally left out by the publisher because of a family emergency that got him to leave his computer. When he did get back to work, he picked up at the wrong place. So, I was able to purchase a $120 calf skin edition for $20 :-) before it was destroyed.

      I am only going to assume that you are not a follower of Jesus, nor a reader of the Bible, if the only copy you “must have” would be one complied by Marcion. However, major differences aside, thank you for being kind enough to drop by.

      • You have seen a copy? Lucky fish. I’ll bet that’s worth a King’s (James) ranson

        No, I am not a “follower” of Yeshua, but yes I have read the bible and still do, for study purposes.

        I think Marcion had the right idea though. Get rid of that nasty old Yahweh and those silly, recalcitrant Jews. Not that I am anti-semitic like Marcion or Luther.(in case I get pounced upon) I just think they were an ungrateful lot considering all the things god did for them: giving them morals and teaching them not to sleep with animals and not eat shrimps and wiping out whole nations and stuff so’s they could have a decent place to live and all that.
        Just no pleasing some people, right?

        I wonder if Marcion was aware that the author of the Luke he wanted to “clean up” ( remove all the ”Jewishness”) had trawled through a fair amount of Josephus for his inspiration?
        That surely would have given him a dose of apoplexy, don’t you think?

      • Ummm, indeed. Difficult to know how to respond when faced with data like this?

        One often ponders what Christianity would have become were it not for the likes of Constantine, Eusebius and later…everybody’s favorite Emperor, Theodosius.

        Just imagine if Arius was not declared a heretic and they let his belief stand?

        Or if they hadn’t interpolated those verses in Mark?

      • No, the “ummm” is more to do with whether or not I want do take the time to go into this, especially when there are so many scholarly works which could be recommended that could do a much better job. It’s a “choose your battle” kind of thing.

      • Depends if you are going to wade in with any sort of “god did it” premise?
        I’ve had enough of discussing with those Christians who still assert that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. Such folk are, sad to say, by and large ignorant of the history of biblical composition to even have rational discussion.

        It’s like listening to a William Lane Craig lecture: after ten minutes normal people are gnashing their teeth in frustration at his blatant obfuscation.

        However, if this is not your way…then “fire away”, I am all ears and always enjoy learning something new.

      • So, your point is that if I want to argue from the standpoint of the authenticity of Scripture, then all discussion is moot? Some sort of “god did it premise?” Yes, I will affirm that I believe the original autographs were inspired (God did it), and that the gospels were written in the first century. So, I guess it would be wise to move on from this discussion, being that I have therefore disqualified myself. Thanks again for stopping by, but there is obviously no use discussing biblical matters of faith and practice with one who doesn’t even consider one who holds to biblical faith a person capable of rational discussion.

      • ….one who doesn’t even consider one who holds to biblical faith a person capable of rational discussion.

        And you don’t think perhaps that such a response illustrates the point ?

        If all you are going to do is base your arguments on faith and not evidence then you are vindicating what I said.
        Surely you are able to provide evidence of what you believe?

      • To recap, I said: “there is obviously no use discussing biblical matters of faith and practice with one who doesn’t even consider one who holds to biblical faith a person capable of rational discussion.” The whole point of my blog, The Recovering Legalist, is to discuss “biblical matters of faith and practice,” (i.e., legalism and grace), not apologetics. There are others who devote all there time to that area of study. My primary focus is on life lived by believers in Christ, not argue with atheists or self-proclaimed Egyptian deities.

        You picked up the last part of the above quote, but you took it out of context and implied that my faith is foundationless. My point was that since you seemed to imply that if I believed “god did it,” then my opinions were worthless from the start. So, since I do believe in inspiration, it seemed from the tone of your comment that I might be one of the “ignorant” and incapable of “rational discussion.”

        I am hesitant to waste my time providing you with any evidence, since more often than not people like you (atheists, agnostics, militant liberals, and even gods of their own making) come here to antagonize, never intending on accepting any evidence given as legitimate. Whether William Lane Craig believes the same as me or not on different issues, I do not know, but at least he has a doctorate – I do not. I am not a C.S. Lewis, Ravi Zacharias, or John Lennox, either. So, if you want real debate, go to them. ThePoachedEgg.net is a fun place, too.

        Two people can look at the same data and come to different conclusions based on their own presuppositions. Many recoil from the idea of sinful man needing to be reconciled with a holy God. They disqualify any and all evidence to the trustworthiness of Scripture before it is even seen, because they can’t accept the possibility of it being real. Many willfully blind their own eyes to the possibility that the God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New, and that both can actually be reconciled, despite things hard to understand. Some people flat out deny that Jesus could be anything other than, at most, a good man or great prophet, so they continue to crucify him. That being said, if you are half as educated as you seem to be, you know where to find the legitimate scholarly work in support of Christianity. You know all the evidence I could have, already. Yet, I will guess you choose to have faith in your own conclusions. I doubt I will be the one to change your mind.

      • Yes, no doubt you have access to all the usual suspects, and have no doubt read them and think that the likes of Josephus , Tacitus etc were all decent chaps and it would be unthinkable that the church would have ever stopped so low as to alter any text.
        What, Christian interpolations, god forbid, right? …smile.
        Quite
        I stumbled across your blog – cannot even remember where I found the link – and i am always fascinated to read how others view their religion and how they come to the conclusion that as *generally) intelligent adults they consider believing in a man-god that walked on water and rose from the dead is perfectly acceptable yet, a Winged Horse is pure nonsense.
        Odd, don’t you think?

        Anyhow, be that as it may.
        I am curious, have you ever investigated the findings of such world renowned archaeologists Israel Finkelstein and Zeev Herzog?

        It is now accepted by most people (of their relevant fields) across the globe that there was no Hebrews under Egyptian slavery,(as described in the bible) no exodus, no Moses, no sojourn in the desert and no conquest of Canaan.
        Now, as all these tales in the OT are fiction how does this sit with a Christian when they realise that Jesus and Paul both mention these characters from the Pentateuch?
        Why would a god (Jesus) reference a fictional character and his ‘Law’?

  13. Whereas if one is to rely on the Bible for matters of faith and practice, then the King James Version is the only Bible to use. If one does not believe the doctrine of preservation, and that God needs some scholarly help, then any version will do. Until then, God created the heaven, not heavens, and, and divided the heaven into heavens; and God gqave His only BEGOTTEN Son, and not His one and only Son.

    • So, was Dr. Rice a heretic? The founder of the most fundamental newspaper around was not KJV-only, as the post shows. As of yet, no one has addressed that. All you guys have done is tell your side of the argument without even mentioning John R. Rice.

      Anyway, thanks for taking the time to leave a comment, even though I obviously disagree.

  14. ABUOMA B.

    My beloved, nothing is ever going to change the truth that God has preserved his word in the English language only in the old king james 1611. Frankly speaking,If you don’t see the truth it is just because the god of this world has blinded you.
    Your modern versions translate the word virgin to young woman,perverting the virgin birth of our saviour. Are you not ashamed of that,you hired heretic from the pit of hell?
    You can say I’m harsh but the fires of hell will be more harsh on you because these modernists who pervert God’s word have hired a candidate of hell like you to speak good of them.
    Who do you even think you are to copyright God’s word? CAN’T YOU SEE WHY GOD WILL THROW YOU INTO HELL AND LEAVE YOU THERE FOREVER?

    • Abuoma,

      I would like to say “thank you” for taking the time to share your thoughts, however harsh and ill-advised they may be. The fact that you do care about the Bible and and the doctrine of the virgin birth with such high regard is encouraging, despite the fact that you accuse me of being a tool of Satan.

      But I must ask you this, friend: aside from the “doctrine” of preservation being linked to the 1611 (which one, by the way), what other fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith do you think I oppose? You seem to think that since I may use another translation I therefore do not believe or teach the virgin birth, but that is not so. I believe that Jesus is the Christ, was born of a virgin, suffered and physically died on a cross, and physically rose from the dead as He and the Prophets foretold. I have put my faith and trust in Jesus who is fully God / fully Man to save my soul from hell.

      I believe that Jesus is God, not just a man. I believe that He is one with the Father. I believe in the Triune God: the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. I believe in the resurrection of the dead. I believe in a future judgment, after which the lost will be cast into the lake of fire. So, which of these doctrines are not found in other translations? Why is it I can preach each one of these from an NIV, an RSV, an HCSB, etc.? Evidently, you have determined that if one word has been changed to more accurately reflect the original manuscripts, then a whole doctrine taught throughout Scripture has been altered – but you are very wrong.

      You can call me a modernist all you want to, but a modernist would deny the key fundamentals of the faith – I do not. I will NOT be going to hell, “for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day” (2 Tim. 1:12). My question to you, friend, is this: is your salvation a gift of God, or do you earn it? Is it by Grace, or is it determined by your commitment to one particular translation? The message of salvation (the Gospel – the good news) is not that we have one particular translation in the English language, but that God send his Son to be the propitiation for a lost and dying world (1 John 2:2; 4:10).

      Again, thank you for your time. However, your ill-informed, hateful accusations are not appreciated.

  15. Rick

    Show me printed proof or tell me where I can verify these claims I don’t know anyone who can provide proof of your claims but I can tell you of many who will tell you otherwise. I have been in the company of those who preached for him in his church and he preached for in there’s. And all I’ve heard is the opposite.

    • If I do, will you buy me a cup of coffee?

    • Rick

      John R Rice believed in clean living not earning you way into heaven. Listen to his sermons. He warns born again Christians about living loose sinful lives (for the wages of sin is death) and as Paul said I beseech you buy the mercies of God that you present your bodies a living sacrifice. Wow maybe we should simply live what most people call a legalistic life out of pure gratitude for what God has done to reconcile us unto himself. I don’t want to live sinful any more. I want to serve him. I want to represent him in a way the makes people want what I have. I didn’t earn it and I don’t believe JRR taught salvation by works which is the only sure mark for legalism. Certainly living Holy for He is Holy is not being interpreted as legalism. However one of your cited Drs. of the faith was quoted as saying “While touring the area which has a statue of Apollos “I had to fight the urge to pray” when I viewed the statue” because in his words he was another symbol of the pre incarnation of Christ. All I can say is much learning doth make many men made. As far as the versions are concerned. The Word of God is spiritually written and spiritually discerned. Lay down the books, pick up the Book, go to the throne room and wait I say wait on the Lord.

      • Rick, before I take the time to engage you in any further discussion, let’s make something very clear: I do NOT think Dr. Rice preached a “works” salvation. I don’t even understand how you could have come to that conclusion.

        And let me add one more thing. Why is it that I get comments condemning scholarship from people who say things like, “Much learning doth make many men made (sic)?” I find it very hard to take seriously any comment with multiple spelling and grammatical errors.

        But still, the more I think about it the more irritated I am that you, Rick, ask me for sources when Rice’s quotes are clearly referenced; that you chastise me for implying something about Dr. Rice that I did not imply; and, most of all, you criticize my opinion on the basis that I have learned too much! This has put me in a bad mood.

        The point of this whole article is that the late Dr. John R. Rice, a man I admire, was not a KJV-onliest. If you could not discern that fact, then I don’t know what to tell you.

        Good grief! Why do I put myself through this?

  16. It’s simple. The original books of the Bible were God-inspired, the translations are not. I use KJV because that was the only translation available to me in the 1960s in India. Later I did my Master’s in English Literature studying from Old English (Chaucer, Edmund Spencer) thru Shakespeare, John Milton up to modern times. I specially studied History of the English Language. Therefore, I can better understand KJV after my studies than before it. KJV is archaic, and could mislead a modern reader. So, I wouldn’t recommend it though I still use it and preach from it. I understand that Shakespeare and Bacon were prominent in the committee appointed by King James. I can also understand from these authors’ works that I studied extensively that they were not Bible-believing Christians. This brings me back to the point I made at the outset: ‘The original autographs of the Holy Bible were God Yahweh-inspired, the translations are not’. But, despite the few minor errors in translations, a person who studies the Bible in humility and faith can understand it with the aid of the Holy Spirit of God. I know uneducated, illiterate men and women in India who heard God’s Word and understood it well and applied it in their lives thus being transformed in their character and behavior. And, here lies the greatness of God’s glory!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s