More on Rice, Hyles, and the KJV

[Logos1560]

In my opinion, the 1967 book Let's Study the Revelation by Jack Hyles printed by the Sword of the Lord would make it crystal clear that Jack Hyles did change his position on the KJV. The foreword to that 1967 book stated that "this study was begun in 1953" at the Miller Road Baptist Church.

In that 1967 book, Jack Hyles suggested that certain renderings in the KJV could be or even should be "better translated" another way. No one who really believed that the KJV was inspired and perfect could write what Jack Hyles wrote in 1967. From at least 1953 until 1967, this could be considered sound evidence that Hyles held a different position concerning the KJV in those years than he advocated later.

Concerning Revelation 1:5, Jack Hyles wrote" "AND WASHED US" can also be rendered 'And freed us'" (p. 9).
Concerning Revelation 3:11, Hyles wrote: "'Take' could be translated 'receive'" (p. 29).
Concerning Revelation 4:6, Hyles wrote: "They are called 'beasts,' but the best translators call them 'living creatures'" (p. 36). [According to that statement, Hyles claims that some translators were better than the KJV translators].
Concerning Revelation 8:13, Hyles wrote: "The word 'ANGEL' here should be 'eagle'" (p. 50).
Concerning Revelation 13:15, Hyles wrote: "'AND HE HAD POWER' is better translated, 'And to him was given power'" (p. 72).
Concerning Revelation 16:13, Hyles wrote: "The word 'SPIRITS' means 'demons'" (p. 88).
Concerning Revelation 20:13, Hyles wrote: "The word 'HELL' really means 'Hades'" (p. 110).
Concerning Revelation 22:13-14, Hyles wrote: "'Do his commandments' should be translated, 'wash their robes'" (pp. 116-117).

 

[Logos1560]

To follow up on what I posted in the other thread, I have found evidence that Jack Hyles still held a different view of the KJV in the early 1970's than the one he advocated later.

In his commentary on the book of Numbers, Dr. Rod Mattoon, who attended Hyles-Anderson in 1973, wrote:
"In fact, it was Dr. Jack Hyles and Dr. John R. Rice that first taught me about using modern translations in the study of the Bible in 1973, when I attended Hyles-Anderson College" (Treasures from Numbers, p. 501).

Rod Mattoon noted: "Many of you may not have known that Dr. Jack Hyles used to have his devotions from the New American Standard Version. He told us this in October, 1973, on Sunday night at the 6:00 p.m. question and answer service at First Baptist Church in Hammond, Indiana" (p. 502).

Rod Mattoon that there was a Bible professor at Hyles Anderson that would "confirm that Dr. Hyles was not a KJV only preacher when he started the college in 1972" (p. 503).

Rod Mattoon wrote: "If you'll check Dr. Hyles' Let's Study the Revelation, you will also find that many of the Greek word studies in this book come from the New American Version. Dr. Hyles told us that he would read the NASV because it opened up new insights in Scripture for him and helped him in his Bible study" (p. 503).

 

[rlvaughn]

In my opinion, the 1967 book Let's Study the Revelation by Jack Hyles printed by the Sword of the Lord would make it crystal clear that Jack Hyles did change his position on the KJV.

This is quite interesting, but one question comes to mind. Are there some who are asserting that Hyles was always KJVO and that he never changed his position regarding it?

 

[Logos1560]

In the other thread, John of Japan noted:

"Contrary to the above, according to Hyles, he had always held the same position on the inspiration of the KJV, but did not reveal his position to Rice out of respect. He said in a lecture from the 1980's I believe, which was made into a book in 2002, “There were two or three things with which I did not agree with Dr. Rice, but I never told him.” One of those doctrines was that the KJV was an inspired translation which should never be changed or corrected.
Hyles, Fundamentalism in My Lifetime, 152."

 

[rlvaughn]

Hyles, Fundamentalism in My Lifetime, 152.

Thanks. I know I read that, but I guess it did not stick. If Jack Hyles made the claim, there will be some of his followers that believe and promote as "gospel".

Some people, for whatever reason, like to claim that they have never changed in any of their beliefs. To me it is like saying "I have grown in grace and knowledge of the truth."

 

[Yeshua1]

To follow up on what I posted in the other thread, I have found evidence that Jack Hyles still held a different view of the KJV in the early 1970's than the one he advocated later.

In his commentary on the book of Numbers, Dr. Rod Mattoon, who attended Hyles-Anderson in 1973, wrote:
"In fact, it was Dr. Jack Hyles and Dr. John R. Rice that first taught me about using modern translations in the study of the Bible in 1973, when I attended Hyles-Anderson College" (Treasures from Numbers, p. 501).

Rod Mattoon noted: "Many of you may not have known that Dr. Jack Hyles used to have his devotions from the New American Standard Version. He told us this in October, 1973, on Sunday night at the 6:00 p.m. question and answer service at First Baptist Church in Hammond, Indiana" (p. 502).

Rod Mattoon that there was a Bible professor at Hyles Anderson that would "confirm that Dr. Hyles was not a KJV only preacher when he started the college in 1972" (p. 503).

Rod Mattoon wrote: "If you'll check Dr. Hyles' Let's Study the Revelation, you will also find that many of the Greek word studies in this book come from the New American Version. Dr. Hyles told us that he would read the NASV because it opened up new insights in Scripture for him and helped him in his Bible study" (p. 503).

So he moved from KJVP to the KJVO?

 

[Yeshua1]

This is quite interesting, but one question comes to mind. Are there some who are asserting that Hyles was always KJVO and that he never changed his position regarding it?

How many holding to Kjvo chnaged form KjVP to that?

 

[timtofly]

I understood that Hyles championed the KJV. I guess I missed the point he was ever KJVO.

My choice of colleges was Hyles or Trinity in Jacksonville FL. I chose Bob Grey and his ministry over Hyles Anderson. No human is perfect, nor ministry is perfection. The stance on the KJV was a determination in my choice. I thought Hyles Anderson was too weak on the issue. I guess others have a totally different take.

 

[rlvaughn]

I understood that Hyles championed the KJV. I guess I missed the point he was ever KJVO.

Here is one writing on the subject:
The Growing Convictions of Dr. Jack Hyles with Regard to the King James Bible

 

[Logos1560]

Should non-scriptural preferences be called biblical convictions?

Instead of becoming more sound in his beliefs concerning the KJV, Jack Hyles actually became more unsound or deceived in his beliefs concerning the KJV as he starting believing and claiming things that were not true.

To believe something that is not true is by definition to be deceived concerning the thing believed.

 

[Logos1560]

Jack Hyles wrote: "Then, if corruptible seed is used, one cannot be born again. I have a conviction as deep as my soul that every English-speaking person who has ever been born again was born of incorruptible seed; that is, the King James Bible" (Enemies of Soul Winning, p. 47). Jack Hyles also claimed: "This means that the New King James Bible is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible" (Ibid., p. 46). Jack Hyles noted: "If all a person has ever read is the Revised Standard Version, he cannot be born again, because corruptible seed is used" (Ibid., p. 47).

When Jack Hyles asserted his new belief that suggested that use of the KJV is necessary for salvation, was he believing scriptural truth or was he deceiving himself in believing something that was not true?

 

[Salty]

Should non-scriptural preferences be called biblical convictions? ...

How about the doctrine of the Trinity- The Bible does not mention Trinity - yet we consider that one of our most important doctrines.

So I suppose those who believe in KJO - may use that principal.

We will use I Cor 6:19-20 to establish the believe that we should not smoke or drink -
yet others will say we don't truly believe that verse, because as Baptists we love to
be gluttons at our fellowship dinners.

key word = interpretation

BTW - I am KJV-T+

 

[Salty]

When Jack Hyles asserted his new belief that suggested that use of the KJV is necessary for salvation, was he believing scriptural truth or was he deceiving himself in believing something that was not true?

I dont know the answer about that - but we would have to conclude that Hyles believed no one was able to get saved before 1600 AD

 

[Logos1560]

How about the doctrine of the Trinity- The Bible does not mention Trinity - yet we consider that one of our most important doctrines.

The term Trinity does not have to be used in the Bible or in a Bible translation for the doctrine of the Trinity to be taught in the Scriptures. It has not been demonstrated from the Scriptures that a KJV-only view is a Bible doctrine.

By preferences, I refer to matters that would involve Christian liberty, and that do not involve clear Bible commands or instructions.

Romans 14:5
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

 

[Salty]

Logos - I agree with you - but some will consider those items to be solid doctrines.
even if not specifically mentioned in the Bible.

 

[Yeshua1]

I dont know the answer about that - but we would have to conclude that Hyles believed no one was able to get saved before 1600 AD

And that many of us here who use the Nas/Esv/Niv are also lost in our sins!

 

[Salty]

And that many of us here who use the Nas/Esv/Niv are also lost in our sins!

I've heard people say that they have even led Roman Catholics to the Lord by using the Catholic version Bible

 

[Yeshua1]

I've heard people say that they have even led Roman Catholics to the Lord by using the Catholic version Bible

Sure that God has even used the heretical NWT to save people with!

 

[Ziggy]

I've heard people say that they have even led Roman Catholics to the Lord by using the Catholic version Bible

See as exhibit 1, John R. Rice's booklet, "Sermon from a Catholic Bible".

 

[John of Japan]

See as exhibit 1, John R. Rice's booklet, "Sermon from a Catholic Bible".

Copyright 1947, but kept in print as long as Rice was alive, to the best of my knowledge. (He went to Heaven in 1980.) In fact, it is still in print, though the present editor is reportedly KJVO: Sermon from a Catholic Bible

In fact, you can read the sermon online on a KJVO website: A Sermon From a Catholic Bible -by Evangelist John R. Rice

Inconsistency, thy name is KJVO! Here is where the website touts their KJVO position: Thank God for King James Bible ONLYISM!