By Dr. John R. Rice
- Are you saved?
- Statement of Faith.
- King James Bible believer
- M.A.D. = Mid-Acts Dispensational
- Pre-Trib Rapture
- KJV Sites
- Dispensational Sites
- Errors of Hyper Dispensationalism (Acts 28)
- Sinner's Prayer = False Gospel
- Campbellite "Church of Christ" heresy
- "Time for Truth!" John Davis
- Why I am not a Baptist
- The Hebrew Epistles
- More than one gospel
- What is right division? (2 Tim. 2:15)
Thursday, April 23, 2015
SOME QUESTIONS FOR KING JAMES FANS By Dr. John R. Rice (heretic)
Here is a review of an article written many years ago by a heretic named John R. Rice (long deceased). I have inserted my comments in black font.
--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell
SOME QUESTIONS FOR KING JAMES FANS
By Dr. John R. Rice
By Dr. John R. Rice
We love the King James Bible. We use it in all our sermons, our books and pamphlets published in millions of copies, in the weekly SWORD OF THE LORD. We recommend it as best for daily use. We have memorized some thirty chapters and thousands of other verses in it. We have large commentaries on Genesis, Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Corinthians and Revelation: all based on the King James text. We have written comments on every chapter in the Bible and almost every principle verse in five years of work, all in the King James Version. My Reference Bible now in preparation by Thomas Nelson Publishers uses the text of the King James Version. So I am a friend of the King James Version. I have probably done more to promote the King James Bible than anyone else in America in many years.
[Ol' John Rice spends his first paragraph trying to butter up the audience into making them think that he is not really attacking the King James Bible because he "loves" it and "uses" it because it is his "friend". What a joke! Answer me this: if you had a "friend", that you "loved" and "used", would you right an article about them in your newsletter explaining what you believe are FAULTS with that friend? Of course not. Rice was just trying to excuse himself for USING the Bible without BELIEVING it.]
But there are people who fanatically insist that the King James Version was perfectly translated with no errors; if there is a single error in the translation we have no trustworthy Bible. They say God is obligated to have such a perfectly translated Bible which is exactly true to every word of the original autographs. They are wrong, foolishly and perhaps ignorantly wrong, and they are often guilty of railing and unchristian talk and foolish, slanderous statements. Now I shall ask all of these to answer some honest questions.
[I am one of those "fanatics". Ol' Johnny forgot to mention that he does not believe that ANY English version nor ANY Hebrew/Greek text or manuscript is infallible (see Dr. Rice Here Is My Question and his book on Inspiration of Scripture). Dr. Rice denies the doctrine of INSPIRED-PRESERVATION as found throughout the Bible in Joshua 1:8, Isaiah 30:8, 40:8, 55:10-11, 59:21, Psalms 12:6-7, 100:5, 117:2, 119:89-91, 119:160, 1 Peter 1:23-2:2, Matthew 5:17-18, 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, John 6:63, 10:35, 17:17, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, and Ephesians 5:26-27. The promise of preservation is found in all of those scriptures and it said that GOD is the preserver, not man (Ps. 12:7). Rice did not even mention those FACTS. He just gave us a bunch of flim-flam about nothing and hoped we would go along with him. That is #1 sign of the Scholarship Onlyism that the Alexandrian Cult is infected with.]
You need not write to argue with me about it unless you answer these questions. If you don't face these questions honestly, then I am not interested in discussing the matter with you, of course.
[Of course we will answer the questions (1 Thes. 5:21, 1 Pet. 3:15), but Rice never did answer the charges against him by Bible believers. (you should obtain a copy of Dear Dr. Rice, Where is My Bible? by Dr. Herb Evans)]
1. What accepted Bible commentary, what statement of faith, of any church or denomination states that the King James Version is without error in translation?
[What the heck is an "accepted Bible commentary" and what do these questions have to do with anything? Back in John R. Rices day they did not have internet, but nowadays you can look up KJB believing church directories per state. For example: http://biblebelievers.com/churches/ ]
There is not one such commentary or statement of faith or statement by a reliable authority that the King James Version is without an error in translation. Not one in the world!
[Who the heck decided which commentaries of statements of faith were "reliable authorites". Surely not Dr. Rice? Are you the judge in such matters? I thought a reliable statement of faith was one that lined up with the BIBLE? Try the commentaries published by Bible Baptist Book Store, Daystar Publishing, Discerning Times Publishing, and a dozen others.]
I have a tract before me by Brother E. L. Bynum of Lubbock which claims to be "a resume of Dr. Otis Fuller's book, Which Bible?" I have that book also before me. The tract says, "We as evangelicals believe that Bible to be the verbally inspired Word of God, inerrant -- namely without error. THEN -- we ask, is there one version extant among the multiplicity of versions which is without error today? If there is not then we worship a God who is either careless or impotent to keep His Word pure thru the ages."
In the first place, that statement, claiming to be a resume of the statement of Dr. Otis Fuller in the book, Which Bible? is not correct. It misquotes this good man. Dr. Fuller overstates the case in his book, Which Bible? and is somewhat accountable for all the radicals who rush into controversy on this subject. But he plainly says on page 33, about the translators of the King James Version, "No reasonable person imagines that the translators were infallible or that their work was perfect, but no one acquainted with the facts can deny that they were men of outstanding scholarship . . . . "
[So now Fuller is the authority? Come come good Doctor, where is "all authority" as spoken of in Titus 2:15? Is it you? Fuller? WHO? Can it be found in a book (Bible) right now? Can it be put in my hand? Fuller was a Textus Receptus man at the time he wrote Which Bible? but later (after writing his other books) became a KJB man. And by the way, nobody ever said that the AV 1611 translators were infallible. Just like we never said that Moses, David, Paul, or Peter were infallible. They were all instruments that GOD used to do the preserving (Ps. 12:7). ]
All right, the translators of the King James Version were men of outstanding scholarship and quality and character. But "no reasonable person," says Dr. Fuller, would say what Brother Bynum quotes him as saying. And we think it is almost blasphemous to say that if God didn't guarantee every word translated in the King James Version to be correct, then He is "either careless or impotent to keep His Word pure thru the ages." God could have preserved all the original manuscripts, but did not. God is not either "careless or impotent" if He does not do just as some extremist or radical demands.
[Another sign of Scholarship Onlyism, gassing about quotes and books rather than the Scriptures alone.]
Again the question, and do not write me on this matter (and I hope you will never say a word to anyone else on the matter) without answering this question honestly: What authorities, commentaries, statements of faith of widely accepted Christian leaders say "that the translators were infallible or that their work was perfect"? That is not sensible and it isn't true.
[Ah ha! The great fundamentalist, the great soul winner, the great defender of the faith, JOHN R. RICE refers to non-scripture writings as "AUTHORITIES". He was a polytheist of the worst sort. John Rice did not count the scriptures as "all authority"l (Titus 2:15, 2 Tim. 3:15-17). Instead, he believed in MUTIPLE NON SCRIPTURAL "AUTHORITIES". Which is why John R. Rice has been correctly called by Dr. Peter Ruckman "the biggest Bible blockhead that ever lived". Amen and amen!]
2. Where in the Bible does God guarantee that any translator of the Bible, anyone who copies the Bible, anyone who preached the Bible, or anyone who teaches the Bible, will be infallibly correct?
[ Dr. Rice denies the doctrine of INSPIRED-PRESERVATION as found throughout the Bible in Joshua 1:8, Isaiah 30:8, 40:8, 55:10-11, 59:21, Psalms 12:6-7, 100:5, 117:2, 119:89-91, 119:160, 1 Peter 1:23-2:2, Matthew 5:17-18, 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, John 6:63, 10:35, 17:17, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, and Ephesians 5:26-27. The promise of preservation is found in all of those scriptures and it said that GOD is the preserver, not man (Ps. 12:7). Answer me this: where in the Bible does God guarantee that any book outside of the Bible would be considered an "authority"? HUH?]
There is no such Scripture. The doctrine of infallibility of the translation in the King James is not a Bible doctrine; it is a manmade scheme by some partly ignorant and some partly influenced by bad motives. But unless you can answer this question, don't write me about it, nor approach anybody else about it.
[No scripture? Ricce must have never read his Bible: Joshua 1:8, Isaiah 30:8, 40:8, 55:10-11, 59:21, Psalms 12:6-7, 100:5, 117:2, 119:89-91, 119:160, 1 Peter 1:23-2:2, Matthew 5:17-18, 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, John 6:63, 10:35, 17:17, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, and Ephesians 5:26-27.]
3. If the King James Version is the only perfectly translated Version, without errors, in the English language, then what about the Bishop Bible and the others that it superseded in the English language?
[They were close (better than your ASV, they were almost identical to the KJB), but were not yet pure. What do old English translations have to do with anything?]
If God was under obligation to make a perfect translation of the King James Version, in 1611, then you mean God was either unwilling or unable to guarantee the translation before the King James Version, before 1611? If God was under obligation to make the King James Version perfect, then why would He leave English-speaking people for 1600 years without a translation they could rely on?
[I did not say that nobody before 1611 had a perfect Bible. But even if I had said that, that still wouldn't be as bad as what Rice is saying. Rice slanders KJB believers of denying the world a perfect Bible until 1611, but Rice is denying the world a perfect Bible FOREVER. ("But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth..." (Gal. 4:4)]
4. If God has obligated Himself, as some fanatics say, to make one translation in English, that is the King James Version, perfectly translated without error, then would not God be obligated to furnish such a translation in every other language also?
[I never said that God was "obligated" to do anything. I just gave the scriptures on perfect preservation. But I'm glad you brought this up, because GOD did say that He wants His word to go to all nations (Rom. 16:26).]
The doctrine won't stand unless it stands for every language where the Bible is translated. Of
course, that doctrine is not in the Bible. Men made that up. God's Word is "for ever settled in heaven." That is true. And we have God's Word in the King James translation, well translated and reliable and trustworthy, but God did not guarantee there would be no mistakes by the translator.
[Rice just called the KJB the "Word" of God, but then said it had mistakes in it! What a heretic! The qualifications for the word of God is that it is PURE (Ps. 12:6) and true from the beginning (Ps. 119:160). It must be TRUTH to qualify as the word of God (John 17:17).]
Now face this: if you claim God is under obligation to have a perfect translation available for us who speak English, He is under obligation to have a perfect translation for others. Does He or not? Do you claim the same for Germany? for France? Japan? What are those translations? Please don't write to argue with me about this unless you answer this question honestly.
[Yes God wants His word to go to all nations. Which is another reason why the English 1611 is infallible. It makes sense that God would use a very world wide used language such as ENGLISH. ("...the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith" (Rom. 16:26)]
5. What about the translation in Acts 12:4 that Herod was "intending after Easter to bring him [Peter] forth to the people."
And the Greek word in Acts 12:4 in all the Greek texts is "Passover" instead of "Easter." There was no "Easter" then, not in the received text or any other. This church celebration which varies a month or more from time to time had not been taken from the heathen religions and made into a Catholic festival then, and the word was not even in existence when that was written in Greek!
[Rice simply does not know what he is talking about. No Greek Text says "passover" in Acts 12:4. They all say "pascha". Pascha has historically been used by Greeks to mean BOTH "passover" and "easter". There is no Greek word for Easter other than pascha! The Greek word Pascha means Easter. Check ant Greek source. Buy an Oxford Greek Dictionary, a Greek Easter card, or go to Google Translate.com . Rice when it comes to knowledge about Easter/Passover/Pascha, John R. Rice didn't have a clue.]
Now, is it no mistake to say "Easter" when God said "Passover"? Is that perfect? [God did not "passover", He said "pascha" which means EASTER primarily in Greek. Even Luther translated "pascha" as "ostern" throughout his entire German Bible.]
6. Again, in Revelation 22:14 the King James Version teaches that one is to be saved and go to Heaven because they "do his commandments."
It says, "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." In that the translation is not correct and that is not really what the Greek says in the original manuscript. The true Bible does not really teach salvation by keeping commandments. In that case it Erasmus, who selected and collected the Greek Received Text, had it that way he was mistaken. I think the correct translation is, "Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city, as it is given in the American Standard Version. But I know that to teach salvation by keeping commandments is contrary to Scripture as truly translated. [The KJB is correct as salvation in the Tribulation is by faith+works as proved dozens of times on this blog.]
7. One great edition of the King James Version of the Bible left out the word "not" in the commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," and had it, "Thou shalt commit adultery."
Did God protect that version from error? In the first hundred years the King James Version has had many corrections and revisions. If it was right before, it did not need the corrections. If it is perfect now, then it was not perfect then.
[God used the translators to preserve His inspired words, He did not lead/guide the printing press. And there have been no revisions in the KJB as far as translation is concerned, only changes in spelling and printers errors.]
Why Cannot Fans and Extremists About the King James Version Be Good Christians Also?
[John R. Rice just said that anyone who is a "fan" of the KJV "cannot" be a good christian. Ain't he something?]
It is a sad thing that those in some heresy often err greatly in matters of righteousness also. They write mean letters; they make slanderous charges; they ignorantly jump to conclusions about people; they have suspicions and innuendoes. No, if a man is a good enough Christian to be right on the matter of inspiration, he ought to be a good enough Christian to control his tongue. The Bible says plainly:
"Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou shalt not go: Lest thou learn his ways, and get a snare to thy soul." -- Prov. 22:24, 25.
[Tell it to the cussing/swearing/cursing anti-KJB fellow named BOB ROSS. John R. Rice pretends that all KJB fans are rude/crude and that anyone who is not a KJB fan is not like that. I know plenty of people that are NOT King James Bible fans that are RUDE also. This proves nothing.]
And again 1 Corinthians 5:11 tells us we are not to eat with "a railer" any more than with fornicators, adulterers, drunkards, etc. So we invite letters provided you write like a Christian, provided you work for fellowship and truth instead of slander and abuse.
[Says the guy that uses a Book he doesn't believe, refers to non scripture as "authorities", and says that anyone who is a fan of the KJV is not a good christian. You is preachn' to yo'self Doctuh' Rice.]
One missionary who gets out a tract on this matter used my picture illustration on its cover for which I paid a Christian artist in Glen Ellyn, Illinois to draw for my pamphlet on Verbal Inspiration. Don't you think one who makes a great to-do about the Bible should be ethical and Christian? When one is a railer, a slanderer, or otherwise does not act or speak or write as a good Christian his doctrine is likely to be carelessly or ignorantly wrong, as in this matter.