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?


Filed under baptist, legalism, translations, Uncategorized

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

  1. 😮 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

    • pastorshane

      How can they all teach the same thing, when they all say something different?

      • Keith Whitehouse

        Have you ever heard of a synonym? they teach about those in grade school. it’s a word that means the exact same thing as another word.

      • Dylan Stewart

        They don’t say anything that much differently. Most of the differences arise in how we translate certain phrases more literally or literarily. Literal translation of the Greek can sometimes be hard to understand, but are most accurate to the text. Literary versions translate those Greek phrases into something that fits our language.

        For instance when I went to Germany, they had a phrase that went something like “I could not extend the water cup out to you” in the German language.
        I had no idea what was being said at first, but after it was explained, the phrase is basically the equivalent of when we say in English, “I could not hold a candle up to you”. Similarly, the translation of a Greek phrase can differ whether it is translated literally or literarily.

        Now there are some differences that exist between versions depending on how one collates manuscripts and the variants within. Variants exist, it is simple fact we have to live with. Thankfully there are only two major variants in the New Testament that include multiple verses. The first is the longer ending of Mark, and the story of the woman caught in adultery in John.

        The earliest manuscripts we have do not contain the longer ending of Mark (Mrk 16:9-20) nor do they contain the Pericope Adulterae; but they do appear in later manuscripts, specifically the Latin texts.
        However, no Christian doctrine whatsoever is affected by these variants.
        You can read a KJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, etc. (except the NWT of course) and you will derive the same understanding of the nature of God, salvation in Christ, and every other Christian doctrine. That is a fact, I assure you.

        Therefore the answer to your question is simple. When you learn Calculus in school does it matter if your textbook differs a little from what is said in another textbook? No, you still derive the same understanding of those mathematical concepts. So yes, things may be different depending on the version, but the important thing is that no accurate version CONTRADICTS anything said in other translations. Differences in versions does not matter. Contradictions matter, my friend.

        I assure you that if you truly believe in the power of God to accomplish His purpose, then you’d have no problem accepting that God can teach the same message in multiple ways.

      • Anonymous


  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.

      • Mara_Natha

        I don’t think pastorshane was arguing about the use of words like “husk”, “piss” or “ass.” Those are irrelevant compared to the real damage done by modern versions. Most modern versions like the ASB, NIV, NRS, etc, use the Westcott and Hort text as the basis for those translations. The W&H is based primarily on the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaticus. The irony of your dislike for the NWT (Jehovah’s’ Witnesses translation) is that it uses the same text! And every translation I’ve come across that uses W&H and the codex’s have at least 300 errors in the New Testament alone. They add to the text, change words or phrases and even omit entire verses. Is it a coincidence that every verse that is changed or omitted involves the Deity of Christ, His once and for all sacrifice, the need for repentance, faith-based only salvation, etc? The only difference between the NWT and the other modern versions you think are okay is that the NWT makes their changes more obvious.


      • Hmmm, I guess I need to go back and look at all those changes. I didn’t know every one had to do with “the Deity of Christ,” … etc.

        Honestly, friend, I’m very appreciative that you took the time to leave a heartfelt comment, but I think you probably worship the KJV more than King Jesus the Victorious Himself. Your arguments, however passionate, are not going to be worth my energy to debate, for you are convinced, regardless of evidence to the contrary, that the KJV is as flawless as the Commandments carved by the finger of God on the mount. I would venture to believe you even believe the KJV is so accurate and settled that it actually corrects the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts. You literally believe that one could never sit down with the combined collection of ancient texts and come up with any translation that would be acceptable unless it read letter-for-letter like Elizabethan English. That alone makes your whole position sound as illogical as the worst alien conspiracy theory. So, since I’m not going to argue with you about the government covering up alien spacecraft at Area 51, neither am I going to debate you over this. Sorry, but I just don’t have time for it. Neither would have Dr. John R. Rice.

      • I don’t want your garbage

        Rick Burton 919-500-3599 crbliv4him@gmail.com 4601 Guess Rd. Durham NC 27712


      • OK… I don’t understand your comment. Maybe I need to go home and get on the computer, not my phone, and maybe better interpret the context.

      • Revelation 19:13

        “but I think you probably worship the KJV more than King Jesus the Victorious Himself.”

        King Jesus IS The Word!

        This issue comes down to this: do you believe in an inerrant Bible or not? If so, which one is it? Because they do NOT say the same thing.

        If you do not believe in an inerrant Bible, or that it is simply not accessible to us, well.. the ramifications of that belief says a lot by itself.

        The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

      • My friend, I’m not going to argue with you, for I’m happy to at least have you stop by and comment. But I would encourage you to do something on your own, regardless of anything you’ve read or been taught. Study and compare as you ask “why?” Open up your KJV and pick any number of verses, then read those same verses in other translations. If they differ beyond “thee” and “thou,” ask “Why?” If there is a difference, there was a reason for the change. Find out what that is. One way you can do that is to pull out your Strong’s Concordance or a free online Bible Study tool like BlueLetterBible.com and study the original Greek or Hebrew words and their meanings. What you find will answer a lot of your questions. You may simply find that the changes made only clarified the Word for modern English.

        If you think I’m wrong about this, that’s your right. However, study just one word – only one! – from the KJV and then get back with me with what you find. The word is CORN. That’s all I ask. If you’re a true student, and not brainwashed, prove it. Look up that one word, CORN, and see what newer translations say instead. Ask why. Find the answer and then come back here and share what you find.

        Again, I’m not going to argue. I’m not gonna get mean with you. I know all you want is to honor God’s Word. Believe it or not, so do I.

        May God bless you as you study His inerrant, sufficient, and powerful Word.

  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.

      • 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.
        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!

  17. I’m leaving a Church because of this KJV onlyism issue. The pastor has written a book on the subject. I assume he uses Psalm 12:7 as a springboard because he has stated the verse is teaching the preservation of the Scriptures. First that is a new teaching being brought into the Church and this is wrong. There is great deception in all this KJV onlyism the truth is not being told. I find it a a very sad thing indeed that the IFB Churches have not lead the way in exposing things like Easter and Christmas for what they really are. I find it most unusual that some will go to great lengths to justify words in the KJV like “unicorn” & “Easter”. I would continue to attend the same Church and just read the Bible I believe the living God of heaven wants me to use despite what some men might say. The reason I don’t is twofold I long for fellowship and desire to more active in the Church. I would enjoy knocking on some doors but fear the day when the KJV only issue arises because I’m not going to lie. I’m not a scholar nor do I have good English skills but I do know how to argue. I will have some very difficult questions that I will ask. But it is also most difficult to worship when a man begins to call my Bible corrupt when I know he is unwilling to tell the whole truth of the matter or just does not know the truth himself. I have prayed with my Bible in hand before it really means a lot to me. I fell in love with my NASB at first read.

    I have many translations with Esword for study. I do know there are poor translation out there today yet to lump them all together is not right. Some of the comments here are a bit shocking in my best opinion. I would address some of these but feel they are more important things. I do thank the Author for the article that really hit home with me. The pastor at the Church I mentioned purchases a number of copies of the “Sword of the Lord” publication and has given several to me from his extras.

    Some want to teach us the Bible can be translated into any language on the planet except modern day English.

    To be honest I need to put this argument behind me. I wrote something on Facebook last night that took a lot out of me plus work and I was drained today and used this to take a day break. My passion is in revival and the need for Christians to become broken. I believe if we seen things as the living God of heaven sees them we all would be on our faces weeping uncontrollably and that is what is needed.

    Isa 34:1 Draw near, O nations, to hear; and listen, O peoples! Let the earth and all it contains hear, and the world and all that springs from it.

  18. Rick Ford

    I sat under Dr Rices ministry many times. I appreciate the artiicle. He preached the Book, unlike many fundamentalist today who preach about the book. It is devisive. I have never preached anything without using the wonderful KJV. Have been preaching 60 years from the kjv but consider myself a King James strongly not a kjv only. Lets stop dividing the body of Christ.

  19. Eric

    “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.” Psalms 53:1

    All who are truly saved will know who the verse is for. That being said, I believe that this issue is important and divisive. Sound doctrine always is, it divides truth from error, and we as Christians are clearly warned that in the last days we would see a departure of the truth(2 timothy 4:1-5). That sound doctrine would not be sought after, but a tickling of the ears would be common place, and a great apostasy would ensue. This is what we see across the board in churches all over the world. So when it comes to the very Word of God, I take it very seriously and I sought for the answer with prayer and study, desiring to cut straight the doctrine of the Word of God(2Timothy 2:15). The KJV is a translation. The KJV was translated using formal equivalence. The KJV was translated from the preserved line of manuscripts, known today as the Hebrew masoretic and the TR or recieved text, the byzantinne manuscripts. This is of course in opposition to the the alexandrian group of manuscripts which all of the new translations are translated from. Some new translation use as the method of translation dynamic equivalency, which clearly is not honoring to the Word of God. Others use formal equivalence such as the NASB, and NKJV. The NKJV is uses an eclectic text, and is translated from some of every family of manuscripts.
    What I believe firmly is that the KJV is the most accurate translation of the Word of God today, and that when I read it, I am reading the very words of God. The KJV is the plenary verbally inspired, inerrant, infallible, preserved Word of God. The reason is due to the doctrine of preservation. That doctrine applies to the copies of copies of the original autographa(2 Timothy 3:16). All scripture or writings is given by inspiration(God breathed) of God. When the Lord inspired his word, the men themselves were not inspired, but the very words themselves were. So that when God preserved His Word, He was preserving the words that were copied over and over again. In the synoptic gospels the Lord quoted from those copies, as well as paul and timothy did later. The issue at hand is what line of manuscripts is the Word of God? My belief is in the byzanntine family, so therefore I hold to a preserved text position.
    However, that being said, I do see clearly that the foundational truths of scripture have not been altered to such an extent that they are no longer presented in certain new versions which honor formal equivalence. What I do see, is that the foundational doctrines of the Bible have been denigrated. Some of the doctrines have also been changed, notice I didn’t say foundational or fundamental. I will give one example and then pose a question. I believe from reading your posts that your saved and you love the Lord. So that presupposes some things such as you believe that God has lifted up his Word above his very name. Also you believe that God is immutable, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. You would also hold to the fact that the Lord cannot change. So that the sum of these doctrines would in fact guarantee that His Word will not have any contradictions in any version or our translated English Bibles. Please take another version other than the KJV and turn to these passages(Matthew 17:15-21) of scripture paying close attention to Matthew 17:21 “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.” The doctrine of fasting in the KJV concerning devil possessed people says in the above verse that “prayer” and fasting was the answer and solution to the disciples problem. So which version of the English translations is the infallible Word of God? The problem is that now you have a group of Bibles saying one specific thing(important thing) concerning the doctrine of fasting and the KJV saying another. Which one is correct? They all can’t be the very plenary inspired, inerrant, infallible, preserved Word of God. That particular doctrine is not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible concerning devil possession. We can’t have contradictions in the Word of God. So with that one example among others I know that the KjV is the very Word of God for the English speaking people, not because of double inspiration, but because of preservation. I would never say or call some of the other versions names or say that you couldn’t be saved out of them, but simply that if you want the most accurate, preserved making it the Word of God, stick with the KJV. I do think there are some other versions that you can glean certain insights from, but that they contain some issues. I believe that we can disagree, but that we should be agreeable in spirit towards each other, sorry for the long post, thank you for your gracious spirit in dealing with a most difficult subject. God bless.

    • Eric, I am not even going to attempt to persuade you one way or another. You did a fine job presenting your argument for the KJV. Thank you for taking the time to comment, for I do appreciate it. I do hope that you will see that even though we may have differing opinions on some issues, it is the Bible alone, the Word of God, that contains the soul-saving gospel of Jesus Christ, the only hope for mankind.

      I hope you visit my blog often 😉

    • I thank you for the openness of your post. Your words seem to have a honest spirit in them. But here is some things I have difficulty with. The KJV is not the standard the source text is the standard. What do we do when the KJV strays from the source text? This can be demonstrated. Why is a microscope put on Modern Translation yet the same microscope is not put on the KJV? According to the word of God this is wrong it’s a “false balance” There are the translators notes of the KJV that demonstrate the KJV is not a word for word translation. Then you have a very old KJV you can read online with the margin notes that also demonstrates this. You also have numerous commentaries and dictionaries that make a note of the margin notes. I could post some things to demonstrate this and really drive my point home but I would have to go to a website to do so. I’m a nobody I will stick with what I know for myself.

      I will mention Psalms 12:7 has been used to introduce a new teaching into the Church and what I find odd about this (about the preservation of the word of God within this Psalm). Is the translators notes and the margin of the KJV would dismiss this new teaching. The second “them” in this verse has been changed from “him” so say the translators notes and the margin of the KJV. The same can be said of “Lucifer” it reads “Day star” in the margin of the KJV. I have no problem with Churches and believers making the KJV their Bible of choice what bothers me is when they will jump through hoops to try and explain why we see the word “unicorn” in the Bible. When we know it is a poor translation. Why not just say so? Why try and defend something that should be pointed out as a error? Deu 33:17 demands a two horned animal. You can even see how the translators struggled with this rendering “unicorns” in this passage trying to stay true to the meaning of the text in my humble opinion.

      I have no problem in pointing out what are translations errors. Some will claim it will be to hard to explain how the Bible is the word of God but yet with some errors in translation and the body will suffer for this. Perhaps more needs to be done in explaining the difficulty in translation of the word of God. A job I would not want. I’m of the opinion we should celebrate the accuracy of the source text we get our Bibles from. I do believe the living God of heaven has preserved His word but it’s been through the many and not through a single copy. The New Testament is the most provable ancient text known to man and the Dead Sea Scrolls give testimony that our Old Testament is intact as well.

      I will close with this I don’t think people who are (in my opinion) are way overboard in this KJV onlyism putting the microscope only on the modern translations. Have any idea how much it hurts when they tell me the Devil had something to do with the Bible I have in my hands at times when I pray. They don’t get it to me it is the perfect word of God just as their KJB is to them. They complain about the margin notes yet don’t tell the whole story as the KJB also has margin notes. They don’t tell the whole story. Please note I mentioned the KJV translators notes I was unable to find them the last time I was at the Blueletter Bible website. Now that I think of it perhaps they have been put together from someone other than the translators themselves from the margin of the KJB. I do know where you can read a old KJB photo copied with the margin notes online with zoom features.

    • GC

      NKJV, Matthew 17:21 “However, this kind does not go out except by PRAYER AND FASTING.” (emphasis mine)

      When I was in college, I sold NKJV Bibles and a Bible in Stories (based on the KJV and geared toward children and those with lesser reading skills, shall we say), door-to-door, in the rural South. I had never encountered the “If the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me” crowd before. I was literally ordered out of houses or off of property for having ANYTHING other than a KJV. Even unwittingly ended up in a brief shouting match with a man the first time I was confronted with this, but after assuring him that I had no idea what all the fuss was about, he and his wife actually invited me inside, made me lunch, and we talked about it for a good hour, with he bringing out, and giving me, all manner of documentation on the matter. I still have most, if not all of that documentation. I readily concede ~some of the arguments, especially as it concerns some of the late modern translations, but I’ve done my own research on the matter over the years, and on the whole, I’m good with my NKJV. I did, however, stop reading my NIV, which was given to me as my first study Bible, while in high school.

      But my favorite memory of that time, where such stridency was concerned, was the day I was sitting on the porch with an entire family, including children. I was getting the KJV lecture and was asked to take my NKJV out for some Bible verse comparison, ala the one mentioned above. I do not remember the specific verses at this late date, but there were four or five, sprinkled among the Old and New Testaments – Isaiah, Matthew, Romans, etc. The young daughter, approx 10yrs of age had her KJV for comparison. I was actually pretty interested to see the differences, myself, being new to all of this.

      One by one, the dad called out verses, and one by one I went to the requested verse. And one. by. one. they were, for all intents and purposes, IDENTICAL. No more different than the difference of the example above. Which is to say, negligible. After the last verse was compared, the daughter, with a look of surprise on her face, turned to her dad and said, “Dad, they’re the same!” Dad didn’t really have anything to say after that. I didn’t change dad or mom’s mind that day, but I left with the knowledge that at least the daughter had caught a glimpse into the reality that KJV was not the only translation that faithfully transcribed the Word, preserving the critical matters of Faith.

      Just wanted to give the comparison from a different translation, as requested, and relate my experiences from a summer of selling Bibles. That being said, I am not looking to engage debate on this matter.

      Peace –

      • GC, I apologize for not approving your comment until now. It was just this morning that I saw it mixed in with the normal “junk” comments, you know, like pingbacks and such. I do appreciate the time you took to tell your story.

  20. Eric

    Sorry for the typos I didn’t proof read.

  21. One man suggested the idea of applying the work of Ivan Panin to our source text to clear up any grey areas. I’m not so sure on all that but it certainly is a way of lighting up such a controversy as the subject here has stirred.

  22. Jesus used the Septuagint (at least that was the translation of His day), so if those King Jamesers REALLY want to be holy and righteous, they’ll get a copy of that.

    Like you said, it’s just a translation – commissioned by King James – nothing magical about it. The first is not always the best.

    • Thanks for the short, non-ranting comment 😉

      I just re-read my post (first time in a long while) and was reminded of something wonderful: the fact that even if though there may be multiple translations, every fundamental doctrine of the faith can be taught from them. I love the “grandma’s recipe” analogy when thinking about this. If we had only one handwritten copy of an old recipe, we might not know for sure if it was 100% correct. However, if we have 1,000 copies, each one with slight variations, it is much easier to know how to distinguish what the original recipe must have been. So, even though we may have multiple manuscripts and multiple translations, that very fact is a testimony to divinely-preserved Scripture!

      Oh, well. My comments are long no matter where I leave them, huh?

  23. bc

    All this energy is a waste and distracts from truth. In a nut shell.
    If you have the Holy Spirit and your faith is strong enough you will read and interpret Gods word correctly in your spirit thats what matters.
    You cannot misinterpret Gods word if read in the Holy Spirit.
    This debate causes division.

    • Thanks for the comment. But, for the record, I wrote this post almost 5 years ago, so it’s not exactly taking up much of my time 😉 However, for others this is a BIG source of division, and that is what’s sad.

  24. My brother in law is one of John R. Rice’s grandsons. I completely agree with your stand on the KJV. I read and study many versions. The NASB, NIV, NLT, ESV and even the…….(gasp) MSG.

  25. willy

    This is a great post. Thank you for making this blog. May God continue to bless you for this 🙂

  26. Jane Michael

    I totally and fully agree! God is able to do so much more than preserve His Word, He writes it on our hearts and provides the Holy Spirit to let us know when we are on the right path—including reading various translations of His Word!
    We serve an Awesome and Holy God 😇🙏❤️
    – Jane Michael, Dayton, Ohio

  27. Bryan

    I respect, apprecite and am thankful for all he did, and I do not believe he was a hectic, but he was for sure a racist. I was young then so I guess it was pretty much known his stance, but reading one of his books it was glaring.

  28. Skip

    Yes, we are all broken vessels. Even the great apostle Peter needed a word of correction from Paul.
    I was in an IFCA Baptist church in the mid 1970s, when my pastor began preaching on what eventually became KJV Only. Although I still value his preaching and the information regarding textual criticism, I believe that he was lead astray by the assumption that no other transation was The Word of God. I remember asking him, as a thirty something, if a sinner could get saved reading the NASB, which was the version I read at that time. To which he replied that they could get saved that way.
    John R. Rice was a man of God, who along with his faults, like the rest of God’s saints, preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Some preach from envy and rivalry but other from goodwill. Nevertheless, Christ is preached.
    I must say that I, too, am a recovering (on-going) legalist. Remember talking with my sons in that time period about…
    I don’t drink
    and I don’t chew
    and I don’t go with the girls that do…
    …and I still struggle with other legalisms that I often subconsciously put above The Gospel of Jesus Christ as necessary prerequisites. Jesus dined with sinners but I don’t want to dirty myself with such ultra-ungodly. I still have a long way to go to be like Christ.

  29. JAL

    I find it very instructive that Jesus did not appear to be as concerned with setting the Masoretic text against the Septuagint or possibly an Aramaic scroll that combined parts of both. It can be clearly seen by comparing the text Jesus read in the synagogue in Nazareth in Luke 4:18-19 with Isaiah 61:1-2. The KJV (pretty much along with most of the other Bibles) follow the Masoretic translation in Isaiah but the scroll Jesus read from has parts of the both the Masoretic and Septuagint. The key is “and recovery of sight to the blind” in verse 18 of Luke 4. This is nowhere in the Hebrew Masoretic which is why it isn’t in Isaiah in the KJV but the scroll Jesus reads contains it. Interestingly, this is one of the few parts of Jesus fulfillment of this passage which is undeniable for those who lived when his miracles occurred. So here is my question, was this truly part of the O.T. scriptures? If not, why did Jesus read this “perverted” version without condemning it as KJV Only people do today with modern “perversions” and “perverted” texts. Wow, KJV Only people are more doctrinally correct than Jesus was. I guess they should tell Jesus to “come out from among them and be ye separate” rather than preaching in a synagogue that used a perverted translation of the Bible….

  30. Ken McDonald

    Well here is the issue. What is your authority? Is it the inerrant word of God? Or is it man’s own noodle? (Brian).

    You see, if I have to rely upon the opinions of men who are just as wicked as myself, then I am in a mess. Rom. 3:4 “…let God be true, and every man a liar.” Every man, including me. I cannot trust anything man says!

    By the way. There are no original autographs around today. The originals of any book of the Bible are not available. So either God preserved His word in-errantly for us today or He didn’t. If He didn’t then He broke His promise of Psalms 12:6-7. If He kept His promise then where are the inerrant words of God today? You see, I must know what God said. Not what a liar thinks He said.

    God bless,
    Ken McDonald

  31. I don’t think Dr John Rice is a heretic. He loves His Lord and his God Jesus Christ and now he is in glory with this Master. I remember so well when I was first converted. I don’t have many books to read to grow spiritually but Dr Rice’s books helped me a lot in the early days of my Christian walk specially how to be filled with the Holy Spirit (and how to win souls by Charles Spurgeon). Probably Dr Rice himself didn’t have much chance to read other books to see the other sign of the coin. We are all imperfect in our knowledge of the Word of God. We need to grow everyday spiritually, biblically, theologically, mentally, and psychologically. My pastor friend loves King James Bible and he still does. He is a die hard KJV believer. I still couldn’t convince him there are other excellent versions of the Bible such as NASB, ESV, HCSB, or NIV, NLT which are excellent to assist us to understand the Bible and expound the Bible. We need to understand that Dr Rice and his generation didn’t have much opportunities to indepth biblical scholarships like today. I hope that our legalism belief system would be transformed into our grace belief system because we are saved by the grace of God! Soli Deo Gloria!
    The Lord Jesus bless us all.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.