DEAR
DOCTOR JOHN: Where is my bible?
PREFACE
This
pamphlet is a reproduction of a written dispute between John R. Rice
and a layman Christian because of an article in the December 15, 1972
Sword of the Lord. It is reproduced with the conviction that truly
born again Bible believers, led by the Holy Spirit, have the ability
to judge rightly, when Bible issues are brought before them. Only the
original correspondence is duplicated and that without biased
comments. You dear readers are the judges. The intent of the pamphlet
is to expose the NASV, ASV, and RV (a rose by any other name)
translations as corrupt translations and also to present a case for
the Authorized Bible (King James) being the infallible Word of God.
It is noteworthy that, to the date of printing, my last letter and
telegram to Dr. Rice have not been answered. I extend my deepest
appreciation and thanks to the following men:
1.
David Otis Fuller, Wealthy St. at Eastern S.E., Grand Rapids,
Michigan, Author of "Which Bible" & "NASV and K.J.
Compared"
2.
E.L. Bynum, 1911 34th St., Lubbock, Texas 79411 Author of "Why
we reject this version" tract
3.
Dr. Peter Ruckman, P.O. Box 6036, Pensacola, Florida 32503, Author of
"Manuscript Evidence" & "NASV the Devils
Masterpiece"
4.
J.J. Ray, P.O. Box 77, Junction City, Oregon 97448,
Author
of "God Wrote Only One Bible" & "Eyeopener"
tract
5.
Dr. Edward Hills, Author of "The King James Defended" and
"Believing Bible Study"
6.
Trinitarian Bible Society Tract "The Divine Original"
Herbert
F. Evans, 157
Patties
Place Portersville,
PA
16051 (most recent address - 8/15/03)
Sword
of the Lord Article - December 15, 1972 - p. 5
Why
Divide His People Over Greek Manuscripts They Cannot Know About?
Dear
Brother_________
You
were kind to write me September 25. Please forgive my delay in
answering.
You
asked about my opinion on which group of manuscripts used principally
in the translation of the Scriptures—whether the group used by the
king James Version or the additional manuscripts used in the more
recent versions are most reliable.
I
have read the books by Dr. Peter Ruckman and by David Otis Fuller. I
do not believe the matter has the IMPORTANCE
which they give to it.
The
simple truth is that the more recently found MANUSCRIPTS,
CODEX ALEPH, CODEX VATICANUS
and others MAKE
VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE in
the translations and NO
DIFFERENCE
whatever in the doctrine taught in the Scriptures [Note: for later
reference]. I prefer and use the King James Versions of the Bible
altogether in my preaching, in my devotions, and principally in my
study. I have, for years, checked up with Scriptures in the American
Standard Versions, that is, the 1901 version, and find it very
valuable. And many of the best Bible teachers, including Dr. R. A.
Torrey, and others more recent, have regarded it as the most accurate
of all translations.
I
think it a mistake to divide churches and bring dissension over
questions as to whether Origen set out to pervert the Scriptures, for
example, or whether Wescott and Hort were really liberals who intend
to sabotage the Scriptures. I think they may have made mistakes,
since they were human. I do not believe it is proper Christian
attitude to pass judgement on people’s motives and to make radical
accusations about things which we could not possibly know very well.
In
actual practice I use and prefer the King James Version and think it
ought to he used always in public services because more people are
familiar with it. And certainly I do not believe in using the Revised
Standard Version, the New English Version, the Good News for Modern
Man all of which are modernistic. I do not like Phillips because it
is a paraphrase, not reliable. I do not think we ought to regard the
Amplified Version as a strict translation but more as a commentary.
I have about seventeen English versions of the Bible, and I sometimes
check many of them. I think it is sufficient for us to say we prefer
the King James Version, that we have a GREAT
RESPECT for
the American Standard Version and not to divide people over other
INCIDENTAL
differences. In Jesus’ name, yours, (signed) John R. Rice
*
* *
Dear
Dr. Rice,
I
have read your letter/article, "Why divide Gods people over
Greek manuscripts," in the Sword of December 15, 1972. I have
read the books you mentioned by Peter Ruckman. You emphasize what he
has to say about the Greek, which I have yet to see refuted or
challenged for scholarship or Biblical fidelity, but what about what
he says about the plain English (and demonstrates) of the ASV. Is the
fact that Acts 8:37 is missing— UNIMPORTANT?
Is the fact that Joseph is rendered Jesus’ father in Luke 2:33
INCIDENTAL?
Is the fact that the blood is taken out of Col. 1:14 a cause for
GREAT RESPECT?
Why are the real issues and challenges concerning the subject never
met as other controversial doctrines and subjects? Why so much
evasion? Why the appeal to stop dividing God s people over the NASV
when all of us didn’t bat an eyelash at dividing over the RSV. Is
the deliberate hiding of the issues by many a move to protect the
rank and file Christian from doubts about the Bible? I think the
silence and weak arguments of those in influential position will do
much more harm to weak Christians who could be told they have a Bible
that has been both inspired and PRESERVED.
I have written you before and you said you MISPLACED
my letter. You also said you were very busy, which I believe, but you
have had time to answer modernists and apostates, and I think myself
as a blood bought brother deserve as much consideration. I appreciate
the Sword and hope that I can continue to have confidence in its
fundamental and conservative stand.
Thank
you in Christ, Herbert F. Evans
******************************************************************************
224
BRIDGE AVE BOX 1099,
MURFREESBORO
TENNESSEE 37130
PHONE
A C 615-893-6700
February
2, 1973
Dear
Brother Evans:
Your
letter is before me. I am sorry you did not take to heart the article
in the SWORD OF
THE LORD. You
did not think I had done any research on it and did not think it was
worth your attention. I think you should be more careful about the
matter than that.
You
are scandalized that Acts 8:37 is missing in the American Standard
Version of the Bible. I have before me four copies of the Greek New
Testament. One is the Textus Receptus, or Received Text; one is the
edition of Westcott and Hort; one put out by the British and Foreign
Bible Society combining the work of Nestle, Tischendorf, Westcott and
Hort, and Bernhard Weiss; one is the Nestle Text. In two of these
editions, footnotes very carefully and give any variations with other
widely accepted Greek manuscripts. The Received Text has Acts 8:37,
so does Westcott and Hort. The other two omit it.
Out
of more than 2,300 copies of the New Testament, all of the copies, of
course, and usually copies of copies of copies, all copied by hand,
now and again, not often, somebody made a MISTAKE
in copying or some copyist ADDED
a word of comment and it was later INCORPORATED
into the text; so godly men, earnest students, with an enormous
amount of labor are TRYING
TO FIND the EXACT
wording of the original Greek text.
Many
think that Acts 8:37 was a GLOSS
added by some
copyists. The truth is, I think so, too. It is not like the rest of
the Bible and it SEEMS
to teach DIFFERENT
on the plan of salvation. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of
God is not enough to make one saved. Many people believe that Jesus
is the Son of God and are not saved. I THINK
it is a GLOSS.
However, I DO
NOT MIND it
being in the King James Version of the Bible. If you want it, all
right, but do not put yourself above all the godly men who work much
harder on this than you and think it is not necessarily in the
original text. To arbitrarily worship the King James translation and
to slander everybody who differs is a sorry business.
In
Luke 2:33 the Received Text says "Joseph and his mother”; all
the other three Greek texts mentioned say "his father and
mother.” Now, as I said, I like the King James Version. And, of
course, I know that Joseph was not literally the father of Jesus.
But, of course, also, everybody knows he was His foster father, His
legal father, and acted as His father. And if in the original text it
turns out that the word “father" was used here, that should
not be disturbing to anybody who knows the Scriptures well. In every
one of those New Testament copies, as everybody knows, the virgin
birth and deity of Jesus Christ is very plainly laid out and could
not be misunderstood. But if verse 33 in the original text called
Joseph "his father and mother," then even in the King James
Version verse 41 of the same chapter says, Now his parents went to
Jerusalem every year.
And
in verse 48 Mary said, “Behold, thy father and I have sought thee
sorrowing." And in Luke 4:22, the people who had known Him
nearly all His life said, "Is not this Joseph’s son?"
However, these Scriptures do not mean that Joseph was literally and
physically the father of Jesus but only that he was His foster
father, His legal father, acting as His father.
And
that is the way we use the term all the time. My daughter Elizabeth
and her husband, Dr. Handford, have seven adopted children. All of
them call Elizabeth "Mother" and call Dr. Handford "Dad."
Another daughter of mine, Grace, and her husband, Rev. Allan
MacMullen, have two adopted children. Both of them call them "Dad
and Mother." They are not deceiving anybody, they are not lying;
they are simply using accepted language with a general meaning and
everybody understands it. Why make something else out of statements
in the Bible when the Bible so expressly and repeatedly says that
Jesus was born of a virgin? We are not supposed to think that here
another Scripture means something else.
Now
you may PREFER
one rendering of the Greek text, selected out of some 2,300
manuscripts, with occasional differences. I do not know, except I do
know the scholarship of good men who worked on this and if you were
familiar with the field at all you would know that tremendous labors,
study, scholarship and intensive efforts to find the true text has
been carried on by a multitude of good men and you would not feel
like calling such people crooks and perverts and infidels as Dr.
Peter Ruckman does. Two of these different editions of the Greek New
Testament leave out the word for blood in Colossians 1:14. The
scholars SIMPLY
DECIDED
since many manuscripts did not have that term it was INSERTED
BY A COPYIST
who wanted to make it plain. However, the American Standard Version
is as clear as it could possibly be on the atoning blood, salvation
by faith in the shed blood of Jesus, and it is obvious there was no
intention to change the doctrine nor do any despite to the blood of
Jesus here.
You
may PREFER
to have the term blood put in that verse. Since it is everywhere
taught in the Bible, and since there is not any clear evidence that
it was here in the original manuscripts, then it DOESN’T
MATTER TO ME.
I reserve the right to differ with the American Standard Version. I
do not have the right nor allow anybody else the right to presume
that the translation was done in ignorance or spite or perversion or
infidelity. One who thinks that simply doesn’t know enough about it
to pass judgment.
Now,
the PLAIN,
SIMPLE TRUTH
is that there are many places where you could QUESTION
the translation of the King James Version also. Again I say I
PREFER IT to
any other translation, use it continually, but the translation is NOT
INSPIRED. It
is only the BIBLE
ITSELF that is
inspired.
One
MISTRANSLATION
of the King James Version in Revelation 22:14 would make salvation by
works and it is obviously wrong. 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.” But the Bible
certainly does not teach that anybody earns a right to Heaven by
keeping the commandments. And that MISTRANSLATION
is corrected in the American Standard Version and the translation
there properly is, “Blessed are they that wash their robes, that
they may have the right to come to the tree of life, and may enter in
by the gates into the city." The Episcopalian translators there,
who did not fully understand the doctrine of salvation by grace,
evidently DID
NOT CHECK the
manuscripts carefully enough to get the translation right in the King
James Version. [this is not a matter of translation but a matter of
using the correct Greek Texts]
The
King James Version in Acts 12:4 says, ". . . intending after
Easter to bring him forth." But the word there in the Greek is
"passover” not “Easter." And if you are familiar with
the history you will know that there was not any Easter celebrated,
the term was not even used, until long after New Testament times. In
that case the translation WAS
WRONG. They
did not have any "Easter" in New Testament times. [Note: In
1973, we did not know that the prior English Bibles, for the most
part, used “Easter” even to the degree of the “Jews’ Easter”
and the “Easter lamb.” --Herb Evans]
Now,
following a false teacher, a man with an angry disposition who split
his own church, BROKE
HIS OWN HOME
[SLANDER?]
and now, I
HEAR, is in
worse trouble— following him you have made a big issue about a
doctrine not taught in the Bible at all, that the King James Version
itself is the exact and inspired translation of the Bible. You don’t
know enough to do that kind of teaching and anybody who goes against
the scholarship of all the great Christians in the world without even
decent respect and without considering all the study that has been
done on it has no business dividing brethren and causing trouble in
the churches.
In
Jesus name,
yours,
(signed) John R. Rice
Herbert
F. Evans
2/13/73
Dear
Dr. Rice:
Thank
you for your letter of Feb. 2, 1973. I have read the "Sword"
for over ten years and have recently ordered 2 racks of your booklets
for our church here. Please understand I have no personal ax to grind
with you. However, I must take issue with your article and letter of
February 2, 1973. To begin, I am quoting some strong words from
Spurgeon. In this way you cannot take occasion with me for slandering
good men or putting myself above them.
"The
approved method of the present carnival of unbelief is not to reject
the Bible ALTOGETHER
but, to RAISE
DOUBTS as to PORTIONS of it,
and questions as to the uniform inspiration of it as a whole. C.H.S.
"If
the Book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We
have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but
we shall not set up instead of him a horde of popelings fresh from
college. Are these correctors of Scriptures infallible? ls it certain
that our Bibles are not right, but that the critics must be so? Now,
Farmer Smith, when you have read your Bible, and have enjoyed its
precious promises, you will have tomorrow morning, to go down the
street to ask the scholarly man at the parsonage whether this portion
of the Scripture belongs to the inspired part of the Word or whether
it is of dubious authority . . . We shall gradually be so bedoubted
and be criticized that only a few of the most profound will know what
is Bible and what is not, and they WILL
DICTATE to the
rest of us. I have no more faith in their mercy than in their
accuracy . . . and we are fully assured that our old English version
of the Scriptures is sufficient for plain men for all purposes of
life, salvation, and goodness. We do not despise learning, but we
will never say of culture or criticism, 'These be thy gods, O
Israel.’" C.H.S.
These
words of Spurgeon are my sentiments in general. As for specifics, I
have divided your letter into five categories of appeal in order to
better answer you:
1.
your appeal to the scholarship of godly men
2.
your appeal to errors in the King James Bible
3.
your appeal to my issue not being Bible doctrine
4.
your appeal to dismiss Ruckman s arguments because of his
personality and his personal life
5.
your appeal to following false teachers
1.
Scholarship
Is
it scholarly to say as you do, "Many think Acts 8:37 was a GLOSS
added by some
copyist? The truth is, I think so too." I never considered it
scholarly to be believe what people THINK.
I am Interested in what people KNOW.
Is
it scholarly to say as you do, ". . . it SEEMS
to teach a
different plan of salvation?” This sounds like a contradiction of
your article of December 15, 1972 where you say the codices "make
VERY LITTLE
DIFFERENCE in
the translations and NO
DIFFERENCE in
the doctrine taught in the Scriptures." If It does teach a
different plan of salvation, why would you say, ". . . however,
I DO NOT MIND
it being in the King James . . .”
I
hope it worthy of your attention that Acts 8:37 is in Tyndale’s
Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, The Bishops’ Bible, and
also Martin Luther’s Non-Episcopal Bible. Is it scholarly to say
that “Episcopalian translators 'mistranslated’ Revelation 22:14,”
when the text they used says, “poiountes tas entoias autou?"
The Tyndale Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishops
Bible, the Rheims Bible, and Martin Luther’s Non-Episcopal Bible
agree with the King James rendering? Are you putting yourself above
all these scholars?
Is
it scholarship when, “The scholars SIMPLY
DECIDED since
many manuscripts did not have that term it was inserted by a
copyist?" I must agree it was a SIMPLE
decision, but a scholarly one? No! What about the scholars before
1881 who left the blood in Colossians 1:14? Did scholarship begin in
1881? What about the scholars that disagree with your scholars? Do we
now argue over whose scholars are the best, or the godliest, or who
has the most on his side? The Thessalonicans were noble because they
searched the Scriptures not because they searched the consensus of
the scholars.
2.
Errors in the King James Bible
I
have already covered the supposed mistranslation of Rev. 22:14 and
how it is found in the early English Bibles and Martin Luther s
Bible. I doubt whether Martin Luther was an Episcopalian, and I doubt
he "did not fully understand the doctrine of grace."
Some
people might get the wrong idea about 1 Jn. 2:3, 4; 3:24, Rev. 12:17
and 14:12 which have similar language, but removing difficult
Scripture is not the answer. Besides all this, you say the codices
"make very little difference in the translations and no
difference in the doctrines taught in the Scriptures,” which
contradicts your statement, "One mistranslation of the King
James Version in Revelation 22:14 would make salvation by works and
is obviously wrong." Is salvation by works no difference in
doctrine or little difference in doctrine?
Much
of what you say in reference to Luke 2 and 4:22 is true, but you well
know that there is a great deal of difference between Mary speaking
in a practical vein as you illustrated, the people speaking according
to their limited knowledge, and the NARRATIVE
being changed from “Joseph” to “father,” when it has textual
support and has been around for over 300 years. There is no-good
reason to do this.
Your
best point, I would say, would be in Acts 12:4 where"after
Easter" is better rendered "after Passover." Passover
is in the Received Text. However, are you not stretching your point
here, as both words are used as a chronological reference to the same
period of time. There is no idea of bunnies and eggs implied. If the
best you can do is “Easter,” I remain unconvinced of your
position. *
*Note:
At this early date, I did not know that mostly all pre—King James
English Bibles used “Easter” extensively, even to the point of
the “Jews’ Easter” and the “Easter lamb.”
3.
Issue is not a doctrine of the Bible
“You
have made a BIG
ISSUE about a
doctrine NOT
TAUGHT in the
Bible.”
“.
. . godly men . . . ARE
TRYING TO FIND
the exact wording of the original text.”
“Intensive
efforts TO FIND
the TRUE TEXT
has been carried on by a multitude of good men.”
“.
. .the TRANSLATION
IS NOT INSPIRED.
It is only the Bible ITSELF
that is inspired.”
If
I understand your quotes correctly, you are suggesting the following:
1.
We still do not have the true text yet.
2.
We still do not have an inspired, tangible Bible.
3.
All we have is an uninspired translation and an inexact not quite
true text.
All
scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction . . . that the man of God may
be THROUGHLY
FURNISHED unto
ALL good
works. — 2 Tim. 3:16, 17
Would
ALL,
here, mean even judging the good work of translating? But according
to you a translation cannot be inspired. A translation therefore is
NOT PROFITABLE
for doctrine nor correction, unless you first learn Greek. However,
if we go to the trouble to learning Greek, we still do not have the
TRUE TEXT
or the EXACT
WORDING, and
we are still in trouble as only “INSPIRED
SCRIPTURE”
IS
PROFITABLE.
4.
Dismiss Ruckman’s arguments because of his personality and personal
life
You
appeal to Peter Ruckman’s personal life and personality to
discredit and dismiss his teaching [even though Rice’s booklet on
“Divorce” exonerates Dr. Ruckman]. I have no way of knowing the
truth or falsity or circumstances of your charges [Later, I found out
what his wife had done to him, which constituted grounds]. However,
if what you say is true, the way that you say it, and we should
dismiss his teaching concerning the ASV being a perversion, shall we
also dismiss his teaching of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ or
shall we just dismiss that which you disagree with him about??? Is
not truth the truth no matter who teaches it? In your article and
letter of February 2, 1973, I read your complaints regarding SLANDER,
lack of brotherly love, and lack of right attitudes on the one hand,
and I then read on the other hand about Fundamentalist NUTS
and attacks [SLANDER]
on Ruckman’s personal life, and I can’t help sensing a double
standard somewhere.
5.
Following false teachers
As
far as your suggestion that I am following Peter Ruckman, you should
be more careful as the convictions, which I expressed were mine,
before I read Ruckman’s books. If you remember, I sent you
correspondence that reflected my views dated April 1968 concerning
the Dewey Beegle issue. The books I read by Peter Ruckman are
"Manuscript Evidence" and "The Devil s Masterpiece,
the NASV" printed in 1970 and 1972.
You
neither defined Ruckman’s false teaching specifically nor refuted
it from God’s Word the only authority we may use in correcting
someone’s false doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16,17). I shall now name two
false teachers to you. I will define their false teaching, and I will
refute it.
The
False Teacher: Dr. Hort
The False Teaching: "I
have been persuaded for many years that Mary worship and Jesus
worship have much in common in their causes and their results.”
The
Refutation: Matt. 5:l0 and 1 Tim. 2:5
False
Teacher #2: Dr. Wescott
False Teaching#2: "No
one now, I suppose, holds the first three chapters of Genesis, for
example, give a literal history I could never understand how anyone
reading them with open eyes could think they did."
Retutation
#2: Matt. 19:4
Wescott
and Hort developed the Greek Text that was the basis of the Revised
version (R.V.), the predecessor of the ASV, which is essentially the
same version. Perhaps you will find these two "godly"
(Lord, forgive me) scholars and their false teaching worthy of your
attention.
Well
Brother Rice we certainly do disagree and it certainly is
unfortunate. I hope you do not now consider my views as arbitrary.
Possibly you would consider an expense paid debate with Peter Ruckman
over such a controversial issue???? Yours in Jesus Christ, Herbert F.
Evans
**********************************************************************************
February
15, 1973
Dear
Brother Evans:
Your
letter has come and I am in the office today and so I take a bit of
time to answer briefly.
1.
In the first place, it is fine to quote Spurgeon, but you ought to be
honest about it. For as you surely know that Spurgeon was speaking
about the BIBLE
ITSELF, not
about some particular translation of it. I feel just as he did that
our old English version of the Scriptures is sufficient for plain men
for all purposes of life, salvation, and goodness. And against whom
is Spurgeon speaking? He plainly says “the critics.” No one has
a right to make Spurgeon mean what he didn’t say.
2.
You disdain scholarship and the fact that the devoted Christian
scholarship of the world, at least nine out of ten, disagree with you
about the so-called manuscript evidence, and the radical claim by
Ruckman, Fuller and the Trinitarian Society. And not more than one in
one hundred would go so far as Ruckman does and, I suppose, as you
do, in claiming perfection for the translation of the King James
Version and for all practical purposes claiming inspiration to the
translators. Then why do you quote scholars? And why do you go back
to go over what somebody told you what somebody wrote but what you
did not discover for yourself? If you do not have any faith in honest
Christian scholarship, then don’t quote them or don’t rely on
them.
3.
You didn’t face honestly the claim which you make but which the
Bible does not make— the man—made doctrine that the translation
is inspired and perfect. You still have to deal with that if you are
going to go on that basis.
4.
Why would you go against the Byzantine manuscripts which you profess
to think are true and reliable, I understand, on Acts 8:37 which they
omit?
"It
is true that the critical text omits Acts 8:37 but so do not only the
early papyri, the early uncials, the lectionaries, the Syriac, and
the Egyptian, but the Byzantine cursives themselves the very group of
manuscripts these men professedly are following " (Marchant A.
King in Bibliotheca Sacra, current issue page 39.)
Now
since I do not claim that everybody whoever copied a manuscript or
everybody whoever preached from one or everybody who translated it
was therefore infallibly inspired then I do not have to defend the
manuscripts nor the supposing infallibility of the translation of the
King James Version. That is your dilemma, not mine.
A
debate with Dr. Ruckman? No, the Scripture says, "Make no
friendship with an angry man" (Prov. 22:24). His language, his
spirit, are not the kind with which good Christians ought to
fellowship, in my Judgment, and the very fact that you read his
abusive words and are not offended is very sad. And I have far more
important and better things to do than to enter into such a debate.
And
now let me say again, why do you teach a doctrine not taught in the
Bible? Why not face it honestly—the Bible does not teach that
everybody who quotes the Bible will quote it correctly, everybody who
copies the Scripture will copy it correctly, everybody who preaches
the Scripture will preach it correctly, everybody who translates the
Bible will translate it correctly? There is no such doctrine in the
Bible about any of these things. Why not spend your time on things
the Bible really teaches?
In
Jesus name, yours, John R. Rice
Herbert
F. Evans
Feb.
27, 1973
Dear
Dr. Rice:
Thank
you for your letter of February 15, 1973. I am sorry that you see fit
to discredit my honesty and misrepresent me by editorializing my
comments. I am sorry you avoid most of my letter dealing with the
erroneous charges of Feb. 2, 1973 (letter and article). You charged
me with following Peter Ruckman. You charged Peter Ruckman with being
a false teacher, but you did not define his false teaching nor refute
it with Scripture as one should. You charged the King James
translators falsely by saying they mistranslated Rev. 22:14. You
charged the King James Bible with teaching a different plan of
salvation, contradicting your own statements that the codices, "make
very little difference in the translations and no difference in the
doctrine taught in the Scriptures,” "Do the various
translations differ materially on any doctrine . . . , on the plan
of salvation . . . No, they do not!" p. 355 your book "Our
God Breathed Book the Bible." You do not answer to your
contradiction nor to my defense of your charges against me and
others. Your latest letter of February 15, resorts to
misrepresentation and charges of dishonesty rather than facing the
issues. Nevertheless, I will answer your charges:
Your
#1 Charge:
".
. . it is fine to quote Spurgeon, but you ought to be honest about it
. . . No one has the right to make Spurgeon mean what he didn’t
say . . . Spurgeon was speaking about the Bible itself, not about
some particular translation of it . . . And against whom is Spurgeon
speaking? He plainly says “the critics."
If you reread my letter,
you will find the only comments that I attach to Spurgeon’s are as
follows:
“I
am quoting some strong words from Spurgeon. In this way you cannot
take occasion with me for slandering good men or putting myself above
them . . . These words of Spurgeon are my sentiments in general."
These
words reveal my motive of expressing my general sentiments and
avoiding occasion being taken. I could stop here, as your charge is
unwarranted, but you raise some interesting points. You remind me
that Spurgeon was talking to critics. Very well, let us go a step
farther and find out what kind of critics. Also, let us find out what
kind of Bible he was speaking of:
1.
They were critics who, "raise doubts to portions of the Bible"
2.
They were critics who, "raise questions as to the uniform
inspiration of the Bible as a whole portion of
3.
They were critics who, "are Correctors of Scriptures"
4.
They were critics who judge "whether this Scripture belongs to
the Inspired Word"
5.
They were critics who judge whether a Scripture "is of dubious
authority."
6.
They were critics who "would dictate to the rest of us"
what is Bible and what is not . . .
Now
as far as your other statement, "Spurgeon was speaking of the
Bible itself (?) not about some particular translation of it . . . "
If I understand you correctly, as I have read your view, you mean
the Original Autographs which have taken the form of a mystical
Bible. I cite your statements. Ibid., p. 354, p. 356
“.
. .when we speak of inspiration, we speak of the Original Autographs,
the Original Manuscripts. We have none of the Original Manuscripts .
. . therefore the various translations contain, together, the
eternal, unchangeable Word of God."
I
submit to you that the Bible Spurgeon was speaking of:
1.
could be read by Farmer Smith—“Now, Farmer Smith when you have
read your Bible . . . ”
2.
had portions that could be questioned whether they were part of the
"Inspired part of the Word."
3.
was a Bible some were correcting. "Are these correctors of
Scripture . . .”
4.
was not called "Original Bible"nor"Original
Autographs"nor"Mystical Bible."
5.
The Adjective that was used in the quote was the "OLD
ENGLISH
Bible."
I
hardly think Farmer Smith was reading the Original Autographs or your
Mystical Bible. I hardly think the Autographs were being questioned
as being part of the Original. Inspired Word, nor the Mystical
Bible. I hardly think they were correcting the Autographs or a
Mystical Bible. I submit that you make Spurgeon mean something else
and not I.
Again,
these words of Spurgeon are my sentiments against any kind of critics
that fit the above qualifications, whether they be textual critics,
higher critics, or ordinary curbstone critics.
In
addition, I cite W.A. Criswell from your book. If he meant what he
said, I heartily agree with him.
".
. .with complete and perfect assurance I can pick up my Bible and
know that I read the revealed Word of God. The God who inspired it
[the bible he picked up??? This will eventually haunt the good
doctor—see the last page—the final telegram] also took faithful
care that it be preserved through the fire and blood of the
centuries." Ibid., p. 366
Your
#2 Charge: "You [Herb Evans] disdain scholarship . . .”
"If
you do not have faith in honest Christian scholarship then don’t
quote them or don’t rely on them."
You
misrepresent me as disdaining all scholarship—all Christian
scholarship. However, I am not against all scholarship. I am for
honest Christian scholarship that does not conflict with the Word of
God. I am, however, against conjecture and opinion that masquerade as
scholarship. I disdain doctrinal or unbelieving bias, passed off as
scholarship, and I am against some scholarship that dictates to me
without good reason. You say in your book:
"Unbelief
in Christ and the Bible disqualifies one to translate the
Scriptures." -- Ibid. p. 378,
What
does that do to Dr. Wescott who wrote:
“No
one, Now, I suppose, holds the first three chapters of Genesis, for
example, give a literal history—I could never understand how anyone
reading them with open eyes could think they did."
You
seem to think that I disqualify myself from quoting scholars because
I don’t go along with all of yours. I see neither your reasoning
nor your failure to either affirm the above quote of Wescott as well
as Hort’s or to challenge them, regardless of whether I did my own
research or not.
YOUR
#3 CHARGE: "You [Herb Evans] didn’t face honestly the claim
which you make . . . the man-made doctrine that the translation is
inspired and perfect."
I
wish you were more specific, when you accuse me of dishonesty. My
position is this. The translation that God places his stamp of
approval on is inspired to the extent that things equal to each other
are to the same thing equal. God inspired the Original Autographs
once and for all. He then preserved the Text through a host of
copies. He also preserved and assured their faithful reproduction
into other languages. This in no way implies that the copyists were
inspired nor the translators. This in no way implies that there were
no copyist errors nor bad translations. It does imply accuracy to the
extent that we now have an infallible Bible in our language. By
infallible I mean (1.) free from error (2.) absolutely reliable;
sure; that cannot be mistaken (Dictionary). This does not imply there
are no archaic words nor phrases, nor does it imply that there are no
renderings that can be improved as far as the way we speak today. I
submit however that the modern day Greek and Hebrew nationals would
have a similar problems, if they had the Original Autographs. Your
test for inspiration would “flunk" the Original Autographs!
Your test of inspiration would allow Greeks more of an inspired Bible
than the English.
On
p. 356 and p. 360 your book, you say:
"The
Old Testament Scriptures which Jesus read and loved and quoted, He
had only copies. Scriptures from the writing of Moses nearly fifteen
hundred years before . . ." Ibid., p. 356
“ .
. .The Lord here guarantees even the verbal accuracy of the
translations and copies not of one particular copy nor of the
particular translation but of the inspired Word IN
ALL THEM TOGETHER.”
- Ibid. p. 360
“.
. . therefore the various translations CONTAIN
TOGETHER the
eternal unchangeable Word of God." --Ibid, p. 376
You
charge me with man-made doctrine because of my position on
Inspiration and preservation and all along you have this strange
concept of a Mystical Bible in all the translations. What is worse,
you claim in your book that Jesus faced the same situation and
suppose there were different translations then. Do you find this
doctrine taught in the Scriptures? Do you not have one standard for
me and another for yourself? Why is it not man made doctrine to do
what you do? As follows:
.
. . not a single statement of fact, not a single command or
exhortation, has been missed in our translationS."
[???] Ibid. p. 355
Why
is it all of a sudden man-made doctrine when I drop the "S”
from “translations” of you quote??????
Your
#4 Charge: "Why would you go against the Byzantine manuscripts
which profess to think are true and reliable, I understand, on Acts
8:3 which they omit?
When
did I profess this? Where in all my correspondence did I even mention
Byzantine manuscripts? Edward Hill in his book, "The King James
Version Defended declares Acts 8:37 Non Byzantine. It is included in
the Textus Receptus, however. Even Wescott and Hort’s liberal text
has it. Dr. Hills points out (p. 124, p. l25) that Irenaeus (180),
Cyprian (255), Pacian (370), Ambrosiaser (380), Augustine (400), E2
(7th century). Harclean Syriac Bible, 20 miniscules, the old Latin
and Vulgate all have it.
Your
#5 charge:
"Now
since I do not claim that everybody whoever copied a manuscript or
everybody whoever preached from one or everybody who translated it
was therefore infallibly inspired then I do not have to defend the
manuscripts nor the supposing infallibility of the King James
Version. That is your dilemma not mine . . . 'Why not face it
honestly [where have I heard this before?] . . .the Bible does not
teach that everybody who quotes the Bible will quote it correctly,
everybody who copies the Scriptures will copy it correctly, everybody
who preaches the Scriptures will preach it correctly, everybody that
translates the Bible will translate it correctly? There is no such
doctrine in the Bible about any of these things. Why not spend your
time on things the Bible really teaches."
Why
do you misrepresent me so? When did I ever claim “everybody” who
quoted, preached, copied, or translated the Bible was inspired? The
fact that I condemned certain translations and translators make clear
my position. The whole issue of this correspondence has been over the
corrupt ASV (the issue we have departed from). Better yet, when did I
ever claim that some of the copyists, translators, quoters, or
preachers were inspired???? The Scriptures do not teach the
translators to be inspired. They do teach however, that the
scriptures were preserved. You take issue with what I didn’t say
but avoid what I do say regarding Psalms 12:6,7 and Isaiah 59:21.
Your dilemma is that you do not have a tangible, infallible Bible in
Greek or English.
Summary:
You
say in your letter, "A debate with Dr. Ruckman? No, the
Scripture says, "Make no friendship with an angry man—Pro.
22:24.” I didn’t invite you to make friends with Doctor Ruckman,
I invited you to an expense paid debate. Paul didn’t have to make
friends to dispute in the temple. I think Pro. 22:24 is a bit
overworked here.
You
have chosen to misrepresent ne, discredit my honesty, failed to
answer my defense of your charges, and departed from the real issue
of the ASV being a corrupt Version. If you were right on your
mystical Bible, you still would have to face the issue of corruption
in the ASV versus no corruption in the KJV. The test is going to be
whether you can with your full page ads get God’s people, Bible
believers, to accept the ASV. I say you won’t. God has his stamp of
approval on the KJV.
Yours
in Christ Jesus, Herbert F. Evans
******************************************************************************
March
21, 1973
Dear
Brother Evans:
I
am sorry you did not take more to heart my letter. I do not think an
extensive answer will be profitable: you are not writing to ask for
information but to try to correct me and teach me Thank you for the
effort anyway. Will you note two or three things?
1.
If God s inspiration of the Bible and His promise that Scripture
cannot be broken and that the Scripture endures forever--if that
guarantees the King James translation of the Bible, then it must
guarantee equally some version in every language. You have no reason
to suppose that God has certain methods of dealing with the Bible in
America and doesn’t mind about the rest of it. I do not think you
will claim this, but it is still inevitable: either among every
nation there must be an infallible Bible, without any mistakes in
translation, miraculously guaranteed, or your stand about the King
James Version has no evidence at all.
2.
You say, "The test is going to be whether you can with your full
page ads get God’s people, Bible believers, to accept the ASV. I
say you won’t. God has His stamp of approval on the KJV."
Well
and good. You are saying almost exactly what I have said. I prefer
the King James Version of the Bible. I do all my preaching from it. I
do my private devotional reading from it and my memory work in
thousands of verses and perhaps twenty whole chapters. In all my
counsel I ask people to use the King James Version in their private
devotions and in family worship. I certainly agree that it is the
most useful and best version of the Bible for everybody. That dos not
mean that I claim for it what the Bible doesn’t claim and does not
mean that I slander and abuse everybody who admires the American
Standard Version, even as I do.
I
do not think it helpful for you to keep your mind full of argument,
suspicions and charges. You were kind to write and thank you for
taking the time. I am sure you meant to help me.
In
Jesus’ name, John R. Rice
*
* *
Herbert
F. Evans
April
2, 1973
Dear
Dr. Rice:
Thank
you for your letter of 3-21-73. I agree with you that extensive
answers at this point would not likely be profitable. You evidently
found some profit however, in duplicating your first reply of our
correspondence in the Sword of the Lord. Of course your readers did
not have the opportunity to read the rest of the correspondence. This
seems to be standard procedure with the "Sword" and of
course is your prerogative as editor. However, for the sake of
fairness and objectivity, I hereby request your permission to
duplicate all of the correspondence. [To date 3/15/03, we have not
received permission, but then Dr. Rice did not seek our permission].
No,
you are right, I did not write you as a disciple seeking information.
I thought it clear from the beginning of the correspondence that I
was taking issue. You seem to think it a humbling thing to be taught
or corrected by me. I can’t say that I blame you as I survey and
compare my abilities and accomplishments in comparison to yours. Let
us be clear, however, I did not abuse or slander you (or call you a
fundamentalist nut or radical). I only informed you of your error as
brothers are instructed to do. As I see it, my responsibility to you
is now fulfilled.
As
for your two points:
1.
you say:
"
You have no reason to suppose that God has certain methods of dealing
with the Bible in ‘America’ and doesn’t mind the rest of it .
. . it is . . . inevitable: either among ‘every’ nation there
must be an infallible Bible, without any mistakes in translation,
miraculously guaranteed, or your stand about the ‘King James
Version’ has
no evidence at all.”
Following
your line of reasoning and the rules of logic you have made, I say:
“You
have no reason to suppose that God has certain methods of dealing
with the Bible in ‘the original Greek’ and doesn’t mind the
rest of it . . . it is . . . inevitable: either among ‘other’
nations there must be an infallible Bible, without any mistakes in
translation, miraculously guaranteed, or your stand about the
‘Original Greek Autographs’ has no evidence all.”
2.
I am thankful you still consider the King James Version the “best”
and the most useful.
So why bother with anything inferior? Why not use and recommend only
the best?
Why admire
and recommend an inferior and erroneous version that quotes Isaiah in
Mark 1:2, when all along it was Malachi who said it? (Mal. 3:l) The
"best" version quotes "the prophets.” I thank you
for your response and your time.
Herbert
F. Evans
******************************************************************************
THE
COUP de GRACE
THE
SWORD Friday, April 13, 1973, page 5
“Now
the Lord has prepared things for us, this wonderful truth. Don’t
you see you are going to have to answer to God about the Bible? I
have a miracle in my hands in this Book. I don’t mean the paper. I
don’t mean the leather cover. I have in my hands a message from
God, the infallible, eternal Word of God. And ten thousand years from
now this will still be the Word of God. It abides forever. It is
written in Heaven. Every word of it in the original manuscripts was
breathed out from God. How foolish for me to ignore it! How wicked if
I don’t read it!
Western
Union
MESSAGE
CONFIRMATION COPY
Herbert
F Evans, PC Box 442, Herkimer, NY 13350
3158665292
TDMT Herkimer NY 36 04-12 0557P EST
PMS
Doctor John R Rice—Murfreesboro Tn 37130
Addendum
to my April 2nd letter: I read April 13th Sword Article Page 5. What
version is meant in your statement, "I have in my hands a
Message from God, the infallible eternal Word of God?” --
Herbert F Evans
Christian
Leader Comments on the Debate
“God
has delivered him into your hands . . . you should consider making a
booklet of the letters. I appreciate your sweet gentleman—like
manner in dealing with these issues.” -- E.L. Byum
“It
is always a great blessing to hear the same view—point from a cool,
calculated, legal objective angle. --Dr. Peter S. Ruckman
“It
certainly is a superb way in which you have handled this whole
situation. I don’t see how Dr. Rice has a leg to stand on . . . I
never knew how quickly you can tie people in knots when it comes to
the inerrant, infallibility of the Word of God.” --David Otis
Fuller
You
have done very well . . . to bring these matters to the attention of
those who should be concerned.” --Gordon Mellish, Sec. Bible
Society
“God
bless you for exposing John R. Rice’s position in regard to God’s
Holy Word.” --J. J. Ray
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your questions or comments welcome.