by David J. Stewart | August
2014
I stand 100% with Dr. David Otis Fuller
(1903-1988) on this issue! Critics of the correct King James only position
continually bolster up great men of God like Dr. John Rice (1895-1980) to
support their heretical position that modern Bible versions are reliable.
Before his death in 1980, Dr. Rice had received numerous admonitions from
peers in the clergy concerning the danger of modern Bible versions, but
Brother Rice was not convinced before his death.
Here's one
such article by a King James only critic, attempting to use Dr. Rice's
words to support modern corrupted Bible versions. I'd like to make several
important observations here on this subject:
-
Dr. Rice went to Heaven in 1980
before the satanic New International Version (NIV) went public in 1984.
It wasn't until the NIV came out that many preachers started to wake up,
seeing how Satan was progressively moving the ancient landmark to corrupt the
printed Word. 1st Peter 1:23 teaches that the Word of God is incorruptible.
Men can corrupt the printed Word, but they cannot corrupt the living Word.
Jesus came to earth as the incarnate Word (John 1:1-3,14), the sinless Lamb of
God.
-
Even Dr. Jack Hyles (1926-2001) was
not King James only in his position prior to the NIV's publishing in 1984.
-
If you read the preceding link that
I've provided to the criticism of King James only Christians, you'll read a
quote provided by Dr. Rice in which he states that the word Easter in
Acts 12:4 should be Passover. I love and admire Brother Rice, but He is
wrong! The King James Bible is correct to interpret the word Easter as
such, and
here is Biblical proof! Passover is wrong in Acts 12:4 of modern
versions of the Bible.
-
Every preacher adjusts his views and
positions as he learns more and grows in grace. No young preacher knows it
all, even though he may wisely adopt the teachings of older preachers who've
studied the Bible much longer. No two preachers agree on everything. For
example: Dr. John R. Rice believed in a Young Earth Creation; whereas, his
successor Dr. Curtis Hutson (1934-1995) believed in an Old Earth Creation (gap
principle).
I side 100%
with Curtis Hutson on the issue.
-
We must always remember that even
the wisest, most scholarly and godly of men are still flawed human beings. The
inspired Word of God is our only authority! Matthew 4:4, “But he
answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by
every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” This is why it is
so critically important that we have every Word of God, undiluted. All
modern Bible versions are corrupted. Only the precious King James Bible truly
uplifts, honors and
boldly
proclaims the deity of Jesus Christ. Check out all the
Corrupt Modern Bible Versions And Their
Omissions! Don't you dare claim to love Jesus if you're using a perverted
Bible that removes every mention of people
worshipping Him.
-
The chairman of the Old Testament
who translated the New International Version was an open homosexual. No
wonder he removed the word “sodomite” from the Bible completely. It is
wickedness to remove the word sodomite from the Bible, which is the
Biblical term for a homosexual. Romans 1:25 says that the wicked “change the
truth of God into a lie.” Homosexuality is a horrible sin, just as are all
sins. Any sin can be forgiven in Christ, but this does not mean embracing the
homosexual lifestyle as being acceptable or legitimate. The NIV Bible is of
the Devil, translated and endorsed by homosexuals.
-
If you love Jesus, then you're not going to use a
perverted Bible version that
diminishes His deity, removes the Godhead and removed the blood of Jesus 15
TIMES!
If Dr. John R. Rice were still alive on earth
today, I am convinced that he would take an uncompromising stand as I am, as
a preacher, against the perversion of modern corrupt Bible versions. The NIV
took the Bible version issue to a whole new level. Now the new NIV 2011 has
been published, which is gender neutral,
no longer calls the Holy Spirit a “He,”
wives are no longer commanded to obey
their husbands, et cetera.
Read
This Carefully All You King James Bible Critics, And Then Read It
Again, Prayerfully
Bible colleges like Bob Jones
University (BJU) allow different versions of the Bible. Should it be
surprising that Bob Jones has changed their moral standards from when they
first opened their doors in 1927? In their recent 2013-2014 student catalog,
BJU allows female students to wear pants on campus and dress pants to
church? It is one thing for Christians to sin as human beings, it is another
thing to lower one's standards in sinful compromise. BJU didn't allow pants
back in 1927 and neither did Moody Bible Institute (MBI) in 1889 when they
opened their doors.
After I recently mentioned in
public that Christian ladies ought not wear pants, a Bob Jones' pastor
called me “OLD SCHOOL.” Yes sir I am old school, and plan to stay that way,
which is what God's Word teaches. The “NEW SCHOOL” is sinful compromise,
allowing the heathen world to influence our moral standards in churches and
Bible colleges. It's a shame that Amish, Apostolic Pentecostals and Mormon
women have higher standards of modesty in dress than Independent Baptists
do. 1st Timothy 2:9 and Deuteronomy 22:5 are still in the Bible. Neither the
church, the world, nor any Bible college should set our moral standards, but
the inspired Word of God. With the changing Bibles we are witnessing
changing morals in our churches. I'll stick with the unchanging King James
Bible.
THE UNCHANGING CHURCH IN A CHANGING WORLD (a great MP3 sermon by
Dr. Harold Sightler)
The following is an excellent explanation of
Biblical fundamentalism by Dr. Jack Hyles (1926-2001) and the need for
Ecclesiastical separation . . .
The term
"fundamentalist" is a relative one, like
"conservative" or "liberal." As it applies
to organizations and denominations,
"fundamentalists" would define those who
hold to original doctrines and convictions
and standards of a movement. This means that
at the beginning of a movement all of its
adherents would be fundamentalists. However,
movements change. Denominations change. As
they do, those who hold to the original
doctrines and convictions fight for their
preservation and for the return of the
movement to its fundamentals. History tells
us that these attempts have failed. Finally
realizing that their hopes are futile, a
group will pull out of the original movement
or denomination and organize another
according to the original dogma, standards
and convictions of the apostate group. When
this happens, the new group can be labeled
"fundamentalists."
Hence, to
be a fundamental Methodist would not be the
same thing as to be a fundamental
Presbyterian. To be a fundamental Baptist
would not be the same thing as to be a
fundamental Episcopalian. The important
thing to note here is that the term
"fundamentalist" is one that has been given
to those who pull out and return to the
original intents, purposes and doctrine of
the group that they feel has gone liberal.
. . . It
is rather popular to define the term
"fundamentalist" as one who believes the
fundamentals; for example, one who believes
the verbal inspiration of the Bible, the
deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the
vicarious death, the bodily resurrection and
the second coming. Now, to be sure, such a
one believes the fundamentals, but the term
"fundamentalist" probably should not be
ascribed to him if he is still a member of
an apostate denomination.
The term "fundamentalist" is given not
to those who simply believe the
aforementioned fundamentals but to those who
have separated themselves from those who do
not. This
brings the doctrine of separation into focus
as a vital and necessary part of being a
fundamentalist. . . .
[emphasis added]
SOURCE:
WHAT IS A FUNDAMENTALIST? (chapter 15 from
Dr. Jack Hyles' life-changing book,
BIBLICAL SEPARATION)
I recently found an article on the internet attacking the Sword Of The Lord
for changing Dr. Rice's position on the Bible. May I say that I firmly
believe that The Sword Of The Lord has done the right thing, the godly
thing, and I am thankful for their fire and zeal for truth. Instead of
following the agendas of our generation, the Sword has stood for what is
right. No doubt they'd make more money if they dipped their sails in sinful
compromise, by selling other versions of the Bible. God's curse is upon the
Bible corrupters behind the New International
Version (NIV) and the Holman Christian
Standard Bible (HCSB). Both of these versions of the Bible are
perversions of the Scriptures. God only wrote one Book!
I think Dr. Curtis Hutson
(1934-1995) and Dr. Sheldon Smith has done a wonderful thing by taking the
Sword Of The Lord in
a King James only stance on the Bible. Dr. John R. Rice (1895-1980) founded
the Sword Of The Lord in 1934. I firmly believe that if Brother Rice were
alive today that he'd be King James only. It must be considered that Dr.
Rice graduated from this life and went to be with the Lord in 1980. So
Brother Rice never saw the NIV published in 1984 that butchers the Bible
mercilessly! In 1980 neither Dr. Jack Hyles nor other mighty fundamentalist
preachers were King James only yet. It wasn't until faithful preachers saw
what the Devil was doing, that is, changing the Bible incrementally through
never-ending new versions, that they woke up and took a stand for the
inspired King James Bible. And so, America's true men of God stood with the
King James Bible, which is the ONLY reliable Bible that we have in the
modern English-speaking world.
Dr. Otis Fuller was ahead of his
time spiritually, one of the few preachers, along with Dr. Al Lacy, who saw
what the Devil was doing before others awoke to the battle. Eventually
Brother Hyles and Dr. Hutson saw what was going on and joined with Dr. David
Otis Fuller on his King James only position (which is clearly God's
position). Don't you tell me that modern Bible versions produced by
homosexuals on the translating
committee—who remove the word sodomites
and attack the deity of Jesus Christ, and remove the word godhead
entirely—don't you dare defend those wicked butcherers!!!
Here's the criticisms of
the Sword I found on the internet, if you want to read some nonsense...
DR. JOHN R. RICE'S REPLY
TO DR. DAVID OTIS FULLER ON THE KJV
with an introduction and analysis by Bob L. Ross
It has been about thirty years (1975-2005) since Dr. John R. Rice
(1895-1980) published his letter to Dr. David Otis Fuller in The Sword
of the Lord, expressing his difference concerning Fuller's perspective
on the King James Bible. Dr. Rice used the KJV and had a very high
regard for it, but he was not in the mold of the phantasmagoria which
was spawned in the latter half of the 1900's, referred to as "King James
Onlyism." We stock and sell many of Dr. Rice's writings, and many of
them present his attitude about the KJV and other translations; he took
a stand against KJVOism and those who promoted it in its early stages.
He opposed the views of Fuller, Peter Ruckman, E. L. Bynum and their
followers.
The letter to the late Dr. Fuller, author of a couple of books which
helped in developing KJVOism (Which Bible? and True or False?), was
published in the November 28, 1975 issue of The Sword of the Lord, on
pages 3 and 12, and it would have probably been buried there forever had
we not called attention to it a few years ago. But in the summer of
1996, after watching the drift of the Sword toward the ditch of "King
James Onlyism," I thought it was time that somebody at least should
point out the departures being made from the original Sword's position
under Dr. Rice when it had the "fire" in its masthead artwork.
Dr. Rice's successor, the
late Dr. Curtis Hutson, did away with the "fire" [who knows why], and
Hutson also was one of the first to take the rabbit path to "KJVOism."
Along with Jack Hyles, Hutson jumped-on the Gail Riplinger bandwagon,
and reportedly bought and mailed a thousand copies of Riplinger's book
to preachers affiliated with the Sword. Hyles said he read but "did not
understand" the book by Riplinger (Rev. 2:20), but I have no idea if
Hutson understood it or not. I hope Hutson did not understand it, for I
would hate to know that he understood and endorsed the contents. If Dr.
Rice were alive today, he would be unwelcome by the preachers who are
promoting Riplinger's book, such as Hyles, Wally Beebe, Bill Grady,
Donald Waite, Texe Marrs, Peter Ruckman, Larry Phillips and others.
After Hutson's death, Hyles announced a Pastors School for March 18-21,
1996 at which he would, in effect, beatify the King James Bible and
indict, convict, and sentence all other versions. He called it "The
Trial of the Century!" He also decided that Mrs. Riplinger should be
elevated to "Doctor;" and since he had years ago given a similar
"degree" to Dr. Rice's horse, named MacArthur, I suppose Hyles figured
that if a horse deserved such a degree, it would not be below his
standards to give one to Mrs. Riplinger. He even made some facetitious
remark about ordaining her to preach, and he might as well have done so,
since she has been speaking at a number of alleged "Bible believing"
churches and conferences where they give lip-service to the KJV but
disregard what it teaches about women usurping public ministry (Rev.
2:20).
Dr. Rice must have been doing the proverbial act of "rolling over in his
grave" as he witnessed Hutson and Hyles, two of his choice proteges,
engage themselves in these shenanigans. At the Sword, finally, Hyles was
evidently bridled from buying space for those outlandish full-page ads
in the Sword, such as the one where he and some other men are shown in
military uniforms with a tank, and Hyles is referred to as "Our General"
(Sword, May 31, 1996, page 22). Sometime later, Hyles was no longer on
the Board of the Sword.
READ MORE:
Dr.
John R. Rice's Reply To Dr. David Otis Fuller On The KJV
I
cannot speak for Brother Rice, because he is no longer with us; but I can
say that Brother Rice was always willing to CHANGE his position when he was
wrong. Brother rice admittedly changed his doctrinal position on the signs
of Christ's return. Whereas Dr. Rice used to teach that there are signs, he
eventually changed his view and stated that the Bible says what it means,
that is, there are NO SIGNS of Christ's return.
Having said that, I believe that Dr. Rice would
have changed his position on the King James Bible. Remember, Dr. Jack Hyles
wasn't King James only either until after the NIV was published, woefully
desecrating and tampering with God's Words. Faithful preachers like Dr. Al
Lacy and Dr. David Fuller woke other preachers up to the issue. Only a fool
would defend the corrupt modern perversions of the Bible. John 3:16 in all
modern Bibles removes the word “begotten,” claiming that Jesus is God's one
and only Son. That's a lie! John 1:12 says that every believer is a son of
God (an adopted son of God - Galatians 4:5).
John R. Rice's books addressed the Revised
Standard Version (RSV) and earlier versions that seemed helpful (and were to
an extent), but Satan had an agenda, that is, to continue publishing new
Bible versions to REMOVE THE ANCIENT LANDMARK. Proverbs 22:28, “Remove
not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.” In ancient times,
landmarks were used to designate the survey of the land (showing who owned
what). When a man died, sometimes dishonest neighbors would take advantage
of an unsuspecting widow and her children by moving the landmark a little at
a time. Over time the thieves would steal much land away from their
neighbor.
This is exactly what Satan is doing to us with
the Bible. The Devil keeps moving the landmark (God's Word) a little at a
time, until eventually no one has ever heard about the Godhead, nor do they
know what Calvary means, nor do they think Jesus is God in the flesh as 1st
Timothy 3:16 says (if you have a King James Bible). Those believers who grew
up with the King James Bible might find modern versions helpful as a
commentary (I won't use them); but those people today who've never read a
King James Bible, are doomed to the doctrinal corruption of the new
versions. You won't find the word “godhead” in modern Bibles. Since the word
“Trinity” is not found in the Bible, the word godhead is critically
important.
Don't be fooled by the Devil my friend. God
only wrote one Book and you have it in the inspired King James Bible!!! The
way you can tell is simple. Which Bible of all the versions doesn't tamper
with the doctrine of Christ? That's right, the King James! Which Bible still
calls homosexuals SODOMITES? That's right, the King James! Which Bible still
teaches that Jesus is the only BEGOTTEN Son of God? That's right, the King
James! Which Bible is the ONLY version not copyrighted by some greedy
company with exclusive publishing rights? That's right, the King James
Bible!!!
It's not that hard to figure out my friend! The
question is, do you want THE TRUTH, or a watered-down substitute? Do you
want a double-edged SWORD (Hebrews 4:12), or a plastic knife? Do you want
dynamite, or snap-n-pops? Do you want the brutally honest Words of God, or
an imposter that caters to the
transgendered agenda of lesbians and homosexuals? The choice is obvious! Do
you want the preserved purity of the King James Bible, or the perversion of
modern translations?
“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common
salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you
that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once
delivered unto the saints.” —Jude 1:3
