“Dear Dr. John: Where Is My Bible?” by Herbert F. Evans

The following documentation is a heated debate in the early 1970s between Dr. John R. Rice (1895-1980) and a courageous layman named Herbert F. Evans (born 1936, age 90) over the inspiration of the King James Bible. Tragically, Dr. Rice denied the inspiration of the KJB, but Herb Evans defended it with passion, as I also do in my ministry. Is there not a cause?

Herb Evans put this dispute into a convenient 17-page booklet titled: “Dear Dr. John, where is my Bible?,” which booklet's contents you are about to read. God bless Mr. Evans! ...

“Dear Dr. 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 titled, “Why Divide His People Over Greek Manuscripts. They Cannot Know About?,” which was published on December 15, 1972 (p. 5)

Dear Brother Evans,

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 AC 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."

Refutation #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. Bynum

“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

END OF BOOKLET

I still have tremendous respect for Dr. John R. Rice (1895-1980), who founded the Sword of the Lord ministry in 1934 to contend for the Christian faith and lead lost sinners to Jesus Christ. The Sword was originally published in Dallas, Texas in the 1930s. They moved to Wheaton, Illinois in 1940. And finally, they relocated in 1963 moved to Murfreesboro, Tennessee. A lot of people don't know that Brother Rice fell down some stairs and severed his olfactory nerve in 1975. This incident significantly impacted his health and ability to smell.

That being said, as much as I respect Brother Rice, I strongly disagree with him that the King James Bible is not inspired or perfect. Pastor Jack Hyles had three mentors: Lee Roberson, Lester Roloff and John R, Rice. Brother Hyles preached approximately 2,000 times with Dr. Rice for 20 years, traveling the country together. It is my humble belief that Pastor Hyles held back on the King James Bible until his mentor went to Heaven in 1980, because that was about the time that Dr. Hyles became King James Bible only.

From listening to Brother Hyles over the years, and from our Saturday evening preacher's boy classes, he indicated that Brother Rice was difficult to get along with at times over their doctrinal differences (e.g., the issue of storehouse tithing). So, I think went Dr. Rice went to Heaven, Pastor Hyles felt like the mantle had been handed to him. I stand with Dr. Hyles and other King James-only believers today who believe that we do have an inspired, perfectly preserved, incorruptible, infallible, inerrant, Holy Bible today in the English King James Bible.

Pastor Jack Schaap's Betrayal Of God's Inspired Word

John 6:63, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”

There is an ongoing raging debate in religious circles over what was inspired by God concerning the Holy Bible. There are three primary theories:

1. THOUGHT INSPIRATION - Some say that God only inspired His thoughts (aka, Dynamic Theory). This includes most of the modern Bible translators, primarily the New International Version (NIV) committee. They deny that the actual Words of God are inspired. It is obvious with such horrible beliefs that you can literally manipulate the Bible to say anything.
2. WORD INSPIRATION - Others, including myself and Pastor Jack Hyles (1926-2001), believe that the actual Words of God are inspired, and when they are accurately translated into another language; such as English, they continue to be inspired. I believe the King James Bible is 100% verbally (Word for Word), and plenary (the whole canon of 66 books) inspired by God, not merely man's best attempt.
3. ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT ONLY INSPIRATION - And then there is a third group, which includes former disgraced Pastor Jack Schaap of the First Baptist Church of Hammond, who believe that God only inspired the original Hebrew, Chaldean and Greek Words. Adherents of this group claim that a translation cannot be inspired. They teach that the King James Bible is a great book, but not inspired, infallible, incorruptible or inerrant.

In 2018, by God's grace, I made this important documentary titled: “The Battle Of The Ages.” My goal in making this video was to gather all the information that I could for a couple months; anything in defense of the inspiration of the King James Bible; and then place it all into one video. I was able to gather enough information to make a 4:19 hour film. ...

The Battle Of The Ages

Pastor Jack Hyles (1926-2001) was the biggest champion of the inspiration of the 1611 authorized King James Bible. Dr. Hyles rightly said, “If you've seen one Westcott and Hort Bible you've seen 'em all.” That is, ALL of the Devil's modern Bible revisions share the SAME corruptions. Case in point...

• https://www.soulwinning.info/bible/matthew_8_2_corrupted.htm
• https://www.soulwinning.info/bible/1_timothy_3_16_corrupted.htm
• https://www.soulwinning.info/bible/psalms_12_6-7_corrupted.htm

Even a young child can clearly see that Satan's paws are all over the modern English Bible revisions. Pastor M.R. DeHaan (1891-1965) said it well...

“Be on guard against any tampering with the Word, whether disguised as a search for truth, or a scholarly attempt at apparently hidden meanings; and beware of the confusion created by the senseless rash of new versions, translations, editions, and improvements upon the tried and tested Bible of our fathers and grandfathers.” —Pastor M.R. DeHaan, 'THE TABERNACLE,' p. 101

One Book stands alone, the inspired KING JAMES BIBLE!

Dr. Jack Schaap Ruined the First Baptist Church of Hammond and Hyles-Anderson College

On a Wednesday evening (March 4th, 2009), Pastor Jack Schaap preached a disturbing sermon at the First Baptist Church of Hammond titled: “What Did God Preserve?” In this bizarre sermon he foolishly teaches that the Bible was not written for a lazy man. According to Dr. Schaap, you have to labor intensely to understand God's Word, and the only way to truly know the truth is to examine copies of original manuscripts in museums in England.

Pastor Schaap errantly teaches that God only inspired the original Hebrew, Chaldean and Greek Words, nothing else. He foolishly says that the King James Bible is a great book, but not without error and not inspired by God.

Pastor Schaap even went as far as to bizarrely say that starting in the fall of 2009 their schools would teach grade-schoolers Hebrew and Greek, and fly some of the kids to England to become linguist scholars, so that they could ensure the next generation would have the truth. Kindly said, I humbly think the guy lost his marbles!

Don't you dare tell me that a sweet dear grandma rocking on her front porch in a rocking-chair, with only a 5th grade education, cannot understand God's Word. God wouldn't leave us at the mercy of Hebrew and Greek scholars, most of whom cannot even agree with each other on the Bible, causing utter never-ending confusion (1st Corinthians 14:33).

Brother Schaap was my teacher for 4 years of Church Education at Hyles-Anderson College. When he preached, he reminded me of what George Whitfield (1714-1770) might have sounded like, who was dubbed: “The Preacher With A Golden Voice.” George Whitefield was known for his powerful oratory and ability to command large audiences, often preaching to thousands without amplification. Jack Schaap was commanding with his voice when he preached. It broke my heart to learn that he wickedly changed his father-in-law's position on the King James Bible at First Baptist Church, which Bible inspiration Brother Hyles said he had dedicated the rest of his life to defending and champion in 1996. So sad, so sad.

Thank God for Pastor David Baker (1967-2024)

Brother Baker and I were ministry friends. After Pastor Jack Schaap in 2009 wickedly CHANGED the church's long held doctrinal position that the King James Bible is inspired, Dr. Baker created a needful website in defense of God's inspired Word called “HACalumni” dot com (the website no longer exists). Thankfully, a few years ago I downloaded his entire ministry website to preserve it for future generations, in case the information vanished, and I am so glad that I planned ahead. I have all of Brother Baker's files.

Here are some of the preserved articles and letters from Pastor Baker's HACalumni website:

1. “The Miniature Bible” - More Proof that the King James Bible is Inspired (by David O’Steen, Pastor of Landmark Baptist Church; Locust Grove, Georgia)
2. Dr. Russell Anderson's Open Letter of Rebuke to Pastor Jack Schaap in 2009
3. Dr. Russell Anderson's Open Letter of Rebuke to Pastor John Wilkerson in 2015
4. THE VOICE - March 2009 - Pastor Jack Schaap Attempts Damage Control After Denying the Inspiration of the King James Bible
5. A Shameful Letter From Dr. Pete Cowling and Pastor Baker's Response
6. Seven Infallible Proofs of the King James Bible’s Inspiration
7. BOOK REVIEW of David H. Sorensen’s God’s Perfect Word and Understanding the Bible
8. The Incredible Shrinking Ministry of Dr. Jack Hyles
9. Letter from Evangelist Jim Vineyard to Pastor Jack Schaap
10. Whatsoever A Man (Jack Schaap) Soweth, That Shall He Also Reap 
11. A Letter From David Baker's Assistant Pastor Steve Wipf To Pastor Schaap
12. Pastor Baker Exposes Errors in Dr. Schaap's Sermon  “What Did God Preserve?”
13. May 13th and 20th, 2009 - Pastor Baker Emails Pastor Schaap
14. Here is a Juicy Series of Intense Letters Exchanged Between Pastors' David Baker and Jack Schaap in 2009:
1. July 9, 2009 - Brother Baker Rebukes Jack Schaap for Denying KJB Inspiration
2. July 16, 2009 - Pastor Schaap Childishly Attacks David Baker's Character
3. A Digital Response From Pastor Baker
4. August 8, 2009 - Brother Baker Denounces Jack Schaap as a Heretic And a Liar
15. September 11, 2009 - A Disgruntled Deacon at First Baptist Church of Hammond Criticizes Pastor Baker for Exposing Pastor Schaap, and Dr. Baker Responds
16. October 10, 2009 - A Concerned Member of the First Baptist Church of Hammond Thanks David Baker for Exposing the False Doctrine Dr. Schaap Taught
17. Professor Gail Riplinger Exposes Dr. David A. Waite
18. Northwest News 2009 - Pastor Keith Gomez Provides Some Helpful Information in Defense of KJB Inspiration (unfortunately he preaches a counterfeit plan of salvation)
19. Dr. James Sightler's Endorsement of Dr. Gail Riplinger's Book, 'Hazardous Materials' (here's the Table of Contents)
20. The Battle For God's Word (Evangelist Allen Domelle)
21. Questions for the Greek Scholar (by Dan Goodwin)
22. Comments from Pastor Baker Regarding Jack Schaap Having Bob Marshall Send Four Men to Question Dr. Gail Riplinger in 2009
23. A Letter From Pastor David Hoffman To Pastor David Baker About The 2009 King James Bible Summit
24. Pastor David Baker's First Letter To Dr. Tom Vogel
25. Pastor David Baker's Second Letter To Dr. Tom Vogel
26. Deceit At The Summit (On July 14, 2009, at the so-called ‘KJV Summit’, Hyles-Anderson College Greek professor Phil Pins presented this chart to garner support for Schaap’s blatant heresy.)
27. August 9, 2009 - Dr. Ray Young Sells Out The Inspiration Of The King James Bible Too
28. Pastor Glen Robinson Exposes Dr. Jack Schaap's Heresy On the KJB
29. Bob Marshall, Ray Highfill And Eddie Wilson Fly to Meet Dr. Gail Riplinger in 2009
30. A Shameful Letter to Pastor Baker from Tom Vogel at Hyles-Anderson College (so no matter how far from the truth your pastor strays, you're just supposed to stay quiet and go along? No Sir! When he was 60 years old, Pastor Jack Hyles himself warned the members of the First Baptist Church of Hammond to “set yourself as a custodian of one to keep this church like it's always been!” That means attacking false teaching!)
31. Alan James O'Reilly Exposes David A. Waite
32. Alan James O'Reilly Exposes Dr. David A. Waite - Part 2
33. Attorney David Gibbs Jr. Interviews Dr. Jack Hyles On The King James Bible
34. A Full Length Sermon by Pastor David Baker: 'King James Bible Inspiration'
35. The Second King James Bible Front (by Pastor Herbert F. Evans)
36. The Proof Is In The Pudding (by Pastor Herbert F. Evans)
37. Titus: Learn Your Hebrew! (nowhere does the Bible tell us to learn the original languages)
38. Dear Dr. John: Where's My Bible? (Pastor Herb Evans disputes with Dr. John R. Rice in 1973 over the inspiration of the King James Bible)
39. Read What Pastor Jack Hyles Advised About Hiring a New Pastor and More Here
40. Pastor David Baker's Letter To First Baptist Church of Hammond in 2009

Tragically, the Bible college that I attended for 8 years and graduated from with honors on the Dean's List in 1993, no longer exists today. It disgusts me that many people at Hyles-Anderson College and the First Baptist Church of Hammond blindly sided with Pastor Jack Schaap. This is sinful human nature to automatically take sides with one's corrupt leaders. Truly the love of money (a job or career) is the root of all evil. I have seen this disturbing trend all my adult life in churches, and it is a sore evil. The heathen world does the same thing. Bad cops protect bad cops. Bad lawyers protect bad lawyers. Bad church staff members protect bad pastors!

Inspiration: Temporal Or Eternal
(Dr. James Sightler, 1937-2019)

Pastor Baker wasn't a perfect man, just as neither are you or myself friend. We are all wicked sinners (Romans 3:10-23; Romans 7:14-25). There but for the grace of God, go I and you. I miss Brother Baker and his Fundamental Baptist Podcast. He did so much to help others for Jesus Christ. For 28 years he worked to help inmates in a prison ministry. Brother Baker had Christ's heart to help the bereaved, downcast and broken sinners of life.

As a young man who still hadn't found the Lord Jesus Christ, David Baker shares his testimony that he was very worldly and had a rough life, getting drunk and living in sin. It is a miracle that Brother Baker ever became a pastor after coming out of such a difficult wicked past. I THANK GOD for my ministry friend, Brother David Baker!!!

We are living in “perilous times” today when preachers are moving targets for haters, critics and the Devil's minions (2nd Timothy 3:1-7). Satan is “the accuser of the brethren” (Revelation 12:10b). As you can imagine, as a fundamentalist Bible preacher I receive my share of hate mail from wicked sinners. It's part of being a Bible preacher! It is Jesus whom they really hate, not me (John 7:7). When you are a Christian, the whole world is waiting for you to fall. Multiply that times ten for a fundamentalist Bible preacher!

Bible preachers are on the frontlines of the battle between good and evil today! I don't see hateful ungodly slanderers attacking company CEOs for the sins and crimes committed by their employees and employees families; Yet, the Devil's crowd blame a pastor for everything bad that anyone who has ever been connected to him in any way does. What hypocrisy!

The inspired Holy Bible sternly warns in Matthew 7:2, “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” Those wicked haters today who overturn every rock, examining every nook and cranny of a man's life, to scrutinize and destroy a preacher's name and testimony will absolutely be subjected to the exact SAME scrutiny by our omniscient and omnipotent God. Woe unto the wicked!

I am so grateful to Pastor Baker for making his HACalumni ministry website, “that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3). I am so glad that I downloaded the website to preserve it. Dear reader, if you think this matter of King James Bible inspiration is a side issue or not worth dividing over, you are a darn fool who is not right with God. If you're not upset, you're not paying attention!!!

Pastor Jack Schaap Lost His Mind

Respectfully said, Pastor Jack Schaap strayed so far away from biblical teaching that he became enamored with sex. To the man with a hammer in his hand everything starts looking like a nail sticking up. And to the man with a perverted mind everything starts looking like sex. For example: Dr. Schaap said that the Hebrew meaning of the word “stuck” means “sexual intercourse” in Psalms 119:31, “I have stuck unto thy testimonies: O LORD, put me not to shame.” That is insane! Pastor Schaap likened the Lord's Supper to sexual intercourse. The guy lost his way somewhere along life's journey as a preacher. There but for the grace of God, go I. That is why for as long as I can remember my favorite Bible verse has been Proverbs 4:23, “Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.”

Whereas Pastor Jack Hyles called the issue of King James Bible inspiration, “The Battle of The Ages” in 1996, his incompetent son-in-law Pastor Schaap in a moment of demon-inspired insanity forever CHANGED the church's long held position on the King James Bible in 2009. But don't take my word for it, read for yourself what Pastor Hyles said about Jack Schaap...

“And brother, any time anybody ever casts any reflection upon the accuracy and the inspiration—verbal inspiration—of this Bible, I'll guarantee you he was inspired by the demons. I'll guarantee you! I don't care if he's got a 'reverend' in front of his name. I don't care if he has a clerical collar on. I don't care what school he's been to. He's of the Devil if he says that the Bible is not verbally inspired by God!” —Dr. Jack Hyles, “Satan's Masterpiece”

Brother Hyles had plainly warned the church not to allow a half dozen men to change what the church believes and preaches, but sadly that is exactly what happened in 2009.

Pastor Jack Schaap foolishly said the inspiration of the King James Bible is a "side issue" which "espouses Catholic doctrine." That is simply false! Brother Schaap was my teacher at Hyles-Anderson College for 4 years of Church Education in my 8 years there (I had Dr. Ray Young for the other 4 years). Dr. Schaap also taught me Basic Homiletics, Advanced Homiletics and Revelation and I will always cherish those memories.

Pastor Jeffrey J. Fugate of the Clay Mills Baptist Church in Lexington, Kentucky, admirably wrote an open letter to Pastor Jack Schaap, reprimanding him for ruthlessly attacking the King James Bible and Dr. Gail Riplinger. I couldn't agree with Pastor Fugate any more! God bless Brother Fugate. By the way, his Commonwealth Baptist College teaches their students that the King James Bible is inspired by God. Commonwealth Baptist College today is the new Hyles-Anderson College, which Dr. Russell Anderson supported at the time of his graduation to Heaven in 2023. Dr. Anderson also attended their Clay Mills Baptist Church for the latter years of his life. I THANK GOD for these dear saints of God and their zeal to contend for the inspiration of the KING JAMES BIBLE!!!

Pastor Jeff Fugate Rebukes Dr. Jack Schaap

In his open letter to Pastor Schaap, Brother Fugate makes these 9 vital points:

1. You say that the King James Bible had “more than 20,000 errors of spelling...” (p. 85).
   “Now, for you technical worriers out there, we understand that there were more than 20,000 errors of spelling and typesetting in the first edition of the 1611 King James Bible.” (Quoted from page 85 of Where Are We Going?)
          The errors of spelling and typesetting in the first edition of the 1611 King James Bible only number in the hundreds. The number 20,000 does not apply to errors of spelling and typesetting in the first edition of the King James Bible. Even King James Bible critics admit this (see David Norton, A Textual History of the King James Bible, Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp, 167-172). No scholar uses the word “errors” when referring to evolving changes to orthography and typography.
2. You say that the King James killed Baptists (p. 53).
   “There are also those men we hold high with respect, and yet they murdered and tortured our Baptist forefathers. Four such men include Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Winthrop, and yes, even King James.” (Quoted from page 53 of Where Are We Going?)
          This is not only another negative statement in an effort to seemingly demean King James, but it is also just downright not true! This is a lie that you have repeated from those that hate the King James Bible! This is the language of the enemy, not one that should be working to strengthen people's faith in God's perfect Bible!
3. You mention that you have a pamphlet entitled, “Why Stand Against The King James Bible?” (p. 58)
   “I am a strong believer in the incorruptible seed (please see my booklet, “Why Stand Against The King James Bible?,” but practically I believe that I can win a soul to Christ without his seeing a Bible.” (Quoted from page 58 of Where Are We Going?)
          I have never read nor seen this pamphlet, but what do you think anyone is supposed to think about you and your position on the King James Bible to even mention this? Do you have such a pamphlet? Do you teach in some way to stand against the King James Bible? Perhaps, I am totally misunderstanding this, and I hope that I am.
4. You use the words “foolishness” and “barbarianism” to describe those who have defended the King James Bible (pp. 84, 86)
   “Because of the amount of foolishness being bantered about on this subject by careless Bible students, such as teaching that the King James Version is inspired...” (Quoted from page 84 of Where Are We Going?)
   “...a multitude of younger pastors who had been looking to us for a role model and leadership but became confused and disenchanted with our near barbarianism.” (Quoted from page 86 of Where Are We Going?)
          Admittedly, there have been some that have had a wrong disposition in their defense of the King James Bible. There are also those that have taken a stand that goes to the right - such as saying that you must be saved by the King James Bible or you are a two-fold child of Hell. However, I will guarantee you that there is a greater need to take a stand for the King James Bible because of the enemies that are printing perverted Bibles than there is a need to stand against the very few that might go to the right in this matter!
          I would rather have someone that is too zealous for God's Word than someone who sows seeds of doubt about God's Word. I am not for wrong either way, but I would be quicker to criticize someone for being negative about God's Word than for being over-zealous! I will take men like the Apostle Peter, who was often over-zealous, than a Rick Warren.
5. You say that it is deceptive and ignorant to teach that the King James Bible is inspired (“Inspiration and Preservation,” sermon, Sunday, November 23, 2008)
          “We become confused when that word inspired is used by these ignorant or deceptive teachers when applied to the KJV. I believe the King James Version was not given by inspiration. It was given by hard work and diligent labor, and I believe that work was providentially superintended by God and that the KJV is the preserved Word of God, as the Scriptures promised that God would preserve His Words.” (Quote taken from “Inspiration and Preservation,” sermon, Sunday, November 23, 2008)
          I believe that my King James Bible is inspired! If you think it is heretical to say that the King James Bible is inspired, then there are many heretics, including myself and the preachers I have already named in this letter. Can you say that men like Bob Jones Sr., Jack Hyles, and others were stating heresy when they said it was inspired?
          Inspiration is more than a method. Inspiration means that the Spirit of God is within the Words. The Bible says, “All scripture is given by inspiration”! It does not say “was” but “is”! You can call me “ignorant,” “naïve,” “rat in the woodpile,” “uneducated” or anything else you want, but I am in good company.
          You always use the word inspiration in the past tense (i.e., “was given”). That is not what the Bible says. The Bible says, “is given by inspiration.” In saying this, you cannot deny that you believe the Originals were inspired but not the Bible we have today. Inspiration means that my Bible is alive! It lost nothing in preservation—including inspiration!
          You try to say that people who believe the King James Bible is inspired believe in “double inspiration.” My answers is, “The Bible never died! It did not need to be inspired again! If it 'was' inspired, then it 'is' inspired.” John 6:63 proclaims “...the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.” 1 Peter 1:23 heralds, “...the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.”
          If you cannot say that your Bible is inspired (not because it was inspired again but because it never lost its inspiration) then you must conclude that only the Originals are inspired. Inspiration with preservation means nothing! Preservation without inspiration means nothing! This is not a matter of semantics. This is a matter of getting it right!
          I have never heard a Baptist preacher say they have a “word of knowledge” (p. 85). Never! Perhaps you have. I do not think this danger exists, but perhaps you have heard this. I have heard some Charismatics say this, but we do not listen to them anyway. They are off on every major Bible doctrine. They would not be right even if they had the Originals!
6. You say “there are nearly two dozen various KJV editions in this country, with more than 100 variant readings.” (“Inspiration and Preservation,” sermon, Sunday, November 23, 2008)
   “At this present time, there are nearly two dozen various KJV editions in this country, with more than 100 variant readings.” (Quote taken from “Inspiration and Preservation,” sermon, Sunday, November 23, 2008)
          I am aware that there are some differences of spelling in some and that we should use the correct one, but I would like to see the list of the “nearly two dozen” different King James Bibles. Once again, however, you cast clouds of doubts over the King James Bible. Why do you work so hard to do this?
7. You say that God's Word does not need defending (p. 86)
   “...our near barbarianism. Cursing, swearing, name calling, and character assassination were all considered fair play to 'defend God's Word.'”
          But God's Word did not need defending; it needed obedience. If we had used the King James Version to build strong, soul-winning, thoroughly indoctrinated churches, our works would have been all the answer that was needed. (Quoted from page 86 of Where Are We Going?)
          What were preachers supposed to do when their people were going to book stores to buy Bibles and they were getting everything from the New International Version to the Reader's Digest Version? If preachers had not taken a firm stand for truth then we would be in an absolute mess today concerning the Bible!
          The Bible tells me to reprove, rebuke and exhort! We are to admonish and warn! We are to cry aloud against transgressions and sins!
          I do agree that we are not to defend and polish the weapon, but we are to use it. But make no mistake, we are also supposed to defend and contend for the faith!
   
8. You quote Dr. John R. Rice as saying that we are to, “...Be a Fundamentalist, But Not a Nut” (p. 44)
   “While Dr. Rice clearly linked the term Fundamentalism to vigorously defending the faith and to aggressive soul winning, he also wrote a chapter entitled 'Be a Fundamentalist, But Not a Nut,' in which he commented on the King James-only position and describes preaching for Dr. Harry Ironside at the famous Moody Church of Chicago. ” (Quoted from page 44 of Where Are We Going?)
          After you give this quote by Dr. Rice you give the example of being a King James only person. Why would you put something like that in a book if you do not want preachers to think that they are a nut if they believe the King James Bible is THE Word of God? Dr. Rice was the preacher who preached the sermon, “Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives and Women Preachers!” If I am a nut for taking a King James Bible only position - then I am a nut!
9. You said to me on the telephone that you would not listen to a woman, such as Gail Riplinger, and learn theology from a woman.
   Gail Riplinger is a woman who holds an honorary doctorate degree from Hyles-Anderson College for her work on the KJB. You sell or did sell her books in the Hyles-Anderson College bookstore.
          You did send four of your men to meet with her for four hours to get her opinion about your teaching. I have a question here, “Had she agreed with your uninspired opinion of the King James Bible would you have quoted her?”
          In light of these things, it appears to me that you are moving to the left of the stand that we, as Fundamentalists, have taken for these many years. I am not interested in moving to the left in any way. I want to remain firm on my position on the King James Bible and our Baptist Heritage. I will remain firm in my position on music that is Christ honoring and godly. I will continue to take a stand against perverted Bible versions, rock music, immodest dress and ecumenicism. I believe that it is time to take a difficult but necessary stand against this movement to the left. I will not be speaking at Pastor's School 2009 nor attending.
          I will be praying that you will recognize that your influence is strong and that you will use it to strengthen that which remains rather than weaken it.

The Ungodly Betrayal of Dr. Russell Anderson (1931-2023)

Sadly, that is exactly what happened, so that since 2009 the church and Hyles-Anderson College no longer believe nor teach that the King James Bible is inspired by God. Dr. Russell Anderson was so upset about the matter that he wrote an open letter to Pastor Jack Schaap in 2009. And also an open letter to Pastor John Wilkerson in 2015 (in this open letter Dr. Anderson demands that they remove his name from Hyles-Anderson College, since they refused to return to their former position that the King James Bible is inspired and without error).

Both open letters from Brother Anderson earnestly pleaded that they return to their former doctrinal position that the King James Bible is verbally (Word for Word) and plenary (the whole canon of 66 books) inspired by God, or else he would withdraw his support of both the church and college, and due to their ungodly rejection of his wisdom Dr. Anderson did just that!

Read for yourself what Pastor Jack Hyles said about the King James Bible.

Again, Brother Hyles warned the church members not to let this happen. Dr. Hyles wisely told each church member to appoint them self as a guardian of one against heresy creeping into the church.

Dr. Hyles warned the church in 1998...

“The biggest split that has ever come will come in the next ten years, if not sooner, over the King James Bible - and it couldn't come soon enough for me. I'm tired of colleges and universities advertising that they 'use' the King James Bible - tell the whole story! Tell everyone that you do not believe that it is inspired word for word.” —Pastor Jack Hyles, from the Wednesday night Bible study titled, “Revelation to Illumination” (1998)

Shockingly, it was exactly 10 YEARS later that his son-in-law Pastor Schaap denied the inspiration of the King James Bible. Dr. Schaap in his retarded stupid ungodly booklet titled, "Where Are We Going?," which was passed out at Pastor's School to over 5,000 delegates disparagingly called King James Bible only believers: "Rats in the woodpile," "Barbarians" and "Ignorant hillbillies." You can read Dr. Schaap's own self defense of his fallacy in this clearly twisted response, in which he is trying to hide behind his alleged "angry" wife and the "angry" deacons for his incompetence of denying the inspiration of the King James Bible.

The First Baptist Church of Hammond are ingrates! Even even giving $8,000,000 of his hard earned money to the Lord to build their new church auditorium in Hammond, they threw Dr. Russell Anderson under the bus in 2009. Then they backed up over him, treating him like a demented crazy old man. Pastor Schaap shamefully rebuked him, when all Brother Anderson did was TELL THE TRUTH.

Dr. Hyles told everyone to guard against changes creeping into the church. If anyone has a RIGHT to speak up it was the co-founder of Hyles-Anderson College. SHAME on the First Baptist Church of Hammond. I had hoped that they would make things right with Dr. Anderson before he went to Heaven, but they ostracized and shunned him.

I have tremendous admiration for Dr. Anderson. He was willing to lose 40 years of built-up prestige, honor and his reputation as the co-founder of Hyles-Anderson College, all to side with the inspired King James Bible. Wow! Who does that! I love that dear man!!! I thank God for Brother Anderson's courageous stand, that cost him everything. The guy literally went from being the most admired man on campus at Hyles-Anderson College (next to Brother Hyles), to being mistreated and shunned as just a crazy old man, a nobody in the eyes of the First Baptist Church of Hammond. All thanks to that wicked jerk Pastor Jack Schaap!

Pastor Schaap's Assault Against Dr. Gail Riplinger

in his childish rage, Pastor Schaap horribly went on a personal vendetta to ruin Dr. Gail Riplinger's good name and reputation, calling her a “serial adulteress” and a “witch.” If that wasn't bad enough, Brother Schaap instructed all his men on staff who were preaching at various churches across the country to slander Miss Riplinger, and they wickedly did. All because as Dr. Jim Vineyard rightly said, “She grabbed him by the short hairs, and it hurt!”

Pastor Schaap had sent a few of his men on his personal jet down to North Carolina to try to get Miss Riplinger to back up his heresy that the King James Bible is not inspired. She refused and sided with the truth! When Jack Schaap found out, like Herod who tried to kill Jesus, Dr. Schaap lost his mind and decided to murder Gail Riplinger with his words.

In fact, Brother Hyles presented Miss Riplinger with an honorary doctorate degree at Pastor's School in 1993 for her impeccable work in defense of the King James Bible. She's not a perfect woman, but she is a humble servant of God. I was present, the year I graduated from Hyles-Anderson, when Miss Riplinger received her honorary doctorate degree from Pastor Hyles. If it weren't for Miss Riplinger, most Baptist pastors today would still be in the dark regarding the history of our beloved King James Bible. I THANK GOD for Miss Riplinger, who is now 78 years old. Our local New Testament churches own her a debt of gratitude.

Shame On Pastor John Wilkerson

Sadly, Pastor John Wilkerson admitted to the whole church during his candidacy (to be their new pastor) in January of 2013, that he is a pastor not a preacher. When asked how he viewed the Devil's modern perversions of the Bible, he shamefully said he thinks it is disrespectful to criticize the modern Bible versions, lest it do more harm than good. What he was really shamefully admitting is that he doesn't see the Devil's corrupt Bibles as a threat. 

What Dr. Wilkerson incompetently said is no different than if you saw a man urinating in the church's nursery milk bottles, but chose not to say anything, lest it offend new mothers and they quit coming to church. I assure you that a corrupt Bible version is infinitely more deadly than a weirdo peeing in milk bottles! Sadly, communist Cuba has more Horsesense today than most pastors. Tragically, if you visited First Baptist Church of Hammond today and looked through the pews on a Sunday, you'd find people using dozens of different Bible versions.

I suppose that Brother Hyles too was being “disrespectful” to people when he preached against the modern Bible revisions. “I come from the future, I bring bad news!”

A deaf man from Long Beach, California, contacted me on Facebook. He said that he's personal friends with Brother Wilkerson. (I stayed at Brother Wilkerson's home for a wedding in the early 1990s. Pastor Larry Chapel did the ceremony. We drove all the way from Chicago and back.) The deaf man told me that John Wilkerson still believes that the King James Bible is inspired, just like Brother Hyles did; but he said the church's leaders control his preaching and insist that he uphold the position Jack Schaap established in 2009. I wrote back and said, “So you mean Pastor Wilkerson is henpecked!” Yep, that is exactly what is going on in Hammond today. Grow a spine, man! God pity a henpecked pastor!

“The only inspired Words of God are in the King James Bible!” —Pastor Jack Hyles (an awesome quote from the needful 1994 sermon: “THE REAL BATTLE!”)

I love Brother Hyles and thank God for his zeal for THE TRUTH. Damn the torpedoes! ...

“Every word in this Bible is inspired by God almighty!” —Dr. Jack Hyles, “A Friend At Midnight”

Sadly, the church members voted 94% to hire Dr. John Wilkerson as their new pastor. He took the position in February of 2013. Pastor Wilkerson has shamefully chosen to continue denying the inspiration of the King James Bible. Consequently, in this open letter to Pastor Wilkerson, Dr. Russell Anderson insisted that they remove his name from Hyles-Anderson College, but they refused. Evidentially they legally don't have to, but God will avenge Brother Anderson.

The King James Bible is Inspired by God

Dear reader, don't anyone dare tell me that we all have to become Greek, Chaldean and Hebrew scholars to understand the truth of God's Word. I reject Dr. Jack Schaap's ridiculous heresy that we must travel to some museum in England to find the truth. I find no fault in the inspired King James Bible!!!

I agree 100% with Pastor Jeffrey Fugate that inspiration means God's Words are living Words! By “inspired,” I simply means that when you read the King James Bible, God's Holy Spirit is speaking to you, not the best efforts by a bunch of sinful flawed translators in 1611. The King James is the ONLY Bible that doesn't attack Jesus' deity and the Godhead.

Hebrews 4:12, “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”

The word “quick” in Hebrews 4:12 means “alive.” When a man writes a book, it is mere words; but the King James Bible are God's living words! Inspiration means that my King James Bible is alive! It lost nothing in preservation—including inspiration! The Bible never died! It did not need to be inspired again! If it 'was' inspired, then it 'is' inspired.” John 6:63b, “...the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”

For Pastor Jack Schaap to teach that the King James Bible is a “great book,” but not inspired by God is to say that it is a DEAD BOOK! Clearly, he believes that the King James has some power to it. So is it half alive? Is it 99% alive? Did you know that deadly rat poison is less than 1% actual poison? The rest is 99% wholesome food that a human could eat and not get sick.

So, don't know tell me that my inspired King James Bible is faulty, less than perfect, full of errors and unreliable. No Sir, God has honored His solemn promise in Psalms 12:6-7 to preserve His “pure words” for us today. English is the fasting growing language on the planet, spoken in more countries than any other dialect. God knows what He is doing!

The Betrayal of Pastor Jack Hyles

By God's grace I enrolled in 1985 and worked my way through Hyles-Anderson College. I finally graduated in 1993 with honors. THANK YOU GOD!!! Brother Hyles is my hero of the faith! Read for yourself what Dr. Hyles taught us students at Hyles-Anderson...

“Students of Hyles-Anderson College, do not give your loyalty to Hyles-Anderson College. You give your loyalty to what we stand for today, and if tomorrow we don't stand for it, you withdraw your loyalty—loyalty to principle, loyalty to right, loyalty to character, loyalty to integrity, loyalty to conviction, loyalty to truth; not loyalty to institutions.” —Dr. Jack Hyles, “Filled With All The Fulness Of God”

And that is exactly what I have done—withdrawn my support of both the First Baptist Church of Hammond and Hyles-Anderson College. It is tragic that Dr. Wendell Evans, Dr. Ray Young and countless other staff members at the church and college didn't follow Dr. Hyles' godly advice. I love and admire those men, but they sold out, for which I disrespect them. Both of those men are still in charge of Hyles-Anderson College today, going along with the betrayal of God, the King James Bible, Pastor Hyles and Dr. Anderson. They are going along with the new heretical position, denying the inspiration of our beloved time-tested 1611 King James Bible, bidding Godspeed to apostasy. It breaks my heart.

“We believe this King James Bible is the ONLY Bible!” —Dr. Jack Hyles, “I Find No Fault In This Man!”

Pastor Hyles taught us to always be willing to move toward the RIGHT, but never to the LEFT. There is a journey of learning the truth for every Christian. Each preacher hones his preaching skills and Bible knowledge as he grows over the years. In the 1960s (in such books as: “Let's Study The Revelation”), Brother Hyles actually corrected the King James Bible, but he woke up and never did it again.

After Evangelist John R. Rice (1895-1980) graduated to Heaven in 1980, Dr. Hyles started championing the inspiration of the King James Bible. Dr. Rice was 31 years older than Brother Hyles (1926-2001), and Brother Rice was not always easy to get along with from what I've heard Pastor Hyles say. I humbly think Pastor Hyles was careful not to offend his friend, with whom he shared approximately 2,000 pulpit engagement over 20 years across the world. 

Unfortunately, Dr. John R. Rice did NOT believe the King James Bible is inspired (but we need to keep in mind that he didn't have access to the internet and all the wealth of information we have today). The ultra-corrupt New International Version (NIV) that shocked and opened the eyes of multitudes of Baptist preachers wasn't published until 1984. Dr. Rice died in 1980. I've read that the whole of man's knowledge doubles every 8 years.

In the awesome 1994 book:, “Attorney David C. Gibbs, Jr. Interviews Dr. Jack Hyles,” Pastor Jack Hyles teaches that every generation must rediscover THE TRUTH for itself:

“Our big battle is over the Bible. For the next ten years it will be an increasingly big battle – I mean over the preservation of the King James text. I think there will be no difference in the next ten years than in the last ten years. Every generation is a part of the same performance – same play, just different actors. Every generation has to rediscover the truth for itself. Every generation has to rediscover the Bible for itself. Every generation has to become fundamental. You are not born a fundamentalist. You become a fundamentalist. Every generation has to come out of its previous generation.” SOURCE

That is why we have the New IFB today. That is, the New Independent Fundamental Baptist movement. They have come out of the dead Old IFB and are starting new churches everywhere that are aggressive about soul-winning, contending for the faith and preaching hard against the wickedness of our generation. I THANK GOD for the New IFB!

As I said earlier, I think if John R. Rice were still alive today, there'd be a good chance he would have moved to the RIGHT and joined the King James-only camp. And with Artificial Intelligence now taking off, man's knowledge will now exponentially skyrocket even further to unimaginable heights over the next 20 years. Literally, A.I. is inventing new breakthrough drugs, better architecture, incredible software, new surgical procedures, amazing robot designs, genetic designs, even new A.I. itself, et cetera. If the Lord tarries His return, and we are still here by God's grace to see the world in 2050 (I'll be 83 years old), I think our minds will be blown. Even now, I am absolutely intrigued and amazed. I really doubt if I'll live to see 83. My Mom went to Heaven at age 65, my Dad 75. I am now age 59. Where did the years go?

Is There Not A Cause?

1st Samuel 17:29, “And David said, What have I now done? Is there not a cause?”

Perhaps you are wondering dear reader why I am seemingly beating a dead horse? I mean, it's been 17 years now since 2009 and Jack Schaap is history. No doubt the First Baptist Church of Hammond would love to see this matter die with Dr. Russell Anderson and Pastor David Baker. NOT A CHANCE!!! I downloaded Dr. Baker's HACalumni ministry website for a very good reason, which is to remain 'A VOICE' for the next generation and beyond.

I will go to seed in this matter of championing the inspiration of the King James Bible. Pastor Hyles (1926-2001) is gone. Pastor Baker (1967-2024) is gone. Dr. Anderson (1931-2023) is gone. My dear ministry friends are in Heaven, “and their works do follow them” (Revelation 14:13b). I am not the mighty eloquent preacher as was Pastor Jack Hyles. I am not the giant of the faith as was Dr. Russell Anderson. Brother Baker's voice has been silenced because he is gone from the earth. Ah, but what saith the Scripture? Ecclesiastes 9:4, “For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.” I am just a dog, but I am alive, praise God. I AM A VOICE!!!

Thank you friend for reading my ministry blog. To God alone be all the praise, credit and glory.

“I would not give, knowingly, one thin dime to a college that does not believe in the verbal inspiration of this Book I hold tonight.” —Pastor Jack Hyles, “YOU MUST GO THROUGH ARABIA”; preached October 11, 1981