It's Finally Here: The Ultimate Scale of "Ruckmanite" and Those Falsely-So-Called

The verses that you cite do not state nor teach modern, human KJV-only reasoning/teaching.

Peter Ruckman now tries to claim that scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 includes Bible translations,

Another LIE by logos666. According to HIM, there is not a single human that ever lived who ever believed that any Bible translation was the Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, EXCEPT Peter Ruckman.

I've stated this before and will state it again, I for one DO BELIEVE that translations can be the Holy Scriptures, I will state that I believe that even the ESV, the NIV, the RSV, etc. CONTAIN the Holy Scriptures, BUT those can be shown to have a CORRUPTED underlying text, coming from a different FAMILY of texts. This is why I can take a Catholic Bible and lead someone to Christ. HOWEVER, I don't BELIEVE the Catholic version (as a whole) because of obvious corruption. The 10 commandments is an easy, simple example to understand.
 
Another LIE by logos666.
Incorrect. You fail to prove your allegation to be true. You make a false allegation.

Peter Ruckman claimed: “The word ‘scripture’ in the Bible is ALWAYS used of copies or translations” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 354). Ruckman contended: “If it is SCRIPTURE, God gave it; if God gave it, the method He used was by inspiration” (p. 355).

In his note at Job 32:8, Peter Ruckman wrote: “When we say the KJV is ‘the holy scriptures’ in English (Rom. 1:2), or ‘given by inspiration’ (2 Tim. 3:16), we mean that the Holy Spirit of God guided its translators in their work and then breathed on that Book when they got through with it” (Ruckman Reference Bible, p. 759).
 
I'm sure you are aware that many of the differences between Sinaiticus & Vaticanus are spelling and punctuation. Fortunately we are not left with only those those two manuscripts either.
Is that why Dean Burgon said they disagree with 99% of the majority of extant MSS?

So you'd take a gamble on MSS that only align with 1% of the majority,
meanwhile the KJV aligns with the 99% majority MSS.

The math is not complicated at all.

"Dean Burgon, who is a supporter of the Textus Receptus, has declared that the Textus Receptus needs correction in 150 corrections in the Gospel of Matthew alone
Assuming he's really correct on this, I'll take 150 corrections over 14,800-23,000 any day. The difference isn't even comparable.

Why are we all still talking about this. Is it not obvious that your fairy tale of "KJV-onlyists don't have facts, only subjective reasoning" has been debunked?

Sorry but math isn't subjective.
 
Is that why Dean Burgon said they disagree with 99% of the majority of extant MSS?

So you'd take a gamble on MSS that only align with 1% of the majority,
meanwhile the KJV aligns with the 99% majority MSS.

The math is not complicated at all.


Assuming he's really correct on this, I'll take 150 corrections over 14,800-23,000 any day. The difference isn't even comparable.

Why are we all still talking about this. Is it not obvious that your fairy tale of "KJV-onlyists don't have facts, only subjective reasoning" has been debunked?

Sorry but math isn't subjective.
Are you saying that the KJV aligns 99% with the majority text or with the textus receptus?
 
meanwhile the KJV aligns with the 99% majority MSS.


Your broad-sweeping generalization has not soundly been proven to be true by verifiable specifics--an actual examination and collation of all existing Greek NT manuscripts with specific results giving the actual number of MSS for each individual word of the Greek NT.

The KJV is known to follow readings found in no known Greek NT MSS so clearly those specific readings are not found in 99% of the Greek NT MSS.

The one Greek MSS that was handcopied from a printed edition of the Textus Receptus can hardly be soundly counted as manuscript evidence since it could copy conjectures introduced in a printed edition.

The KJV is known to follow a number of minority readings [readings found in less than 50% of the collated Greek NT MSS] so clearly those minority readings do not align with the 99% majority of Greek NT MSS.
 
Nice, The Gospel of Twisted contains more scripture than Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Bezae combined in the New Versions:

View attachment 978
View attachment 981

I like posting basic info from Wiki because it's like, "even Wiki is aware of that? I guess everyone knows then... Or do they?"

3036 differences between them, 14,800 corrections in just the portion from Petersburg, 23,000 corrections total, many marked as "doubtful".

"Making it one of the most corrected manuscripts in existence
." So not just among Biblical manuscripts; among all manuscripts in existence.

And these New Versionists claim KJV users are the ones who "never present facts". You guys are the ones with all the explaining to do.

Anti-KJV people are basically just tools going along with the pop church culture of the times. Every Christian with half a brain from the 1600's to 1900 would think you're the crazy new cult on the block trying to change their tried and true Bible with these crap-u-scripts. But no, your 300 "New Versions" (marketing pitch: choose the one that suits you best!) are doing a great job in our time, their fruits are really showing in society. Compared to "back in the day", there's no apostasy in the first world at all right now.
So if we start quoting Wiki one paragraph prior to where you started the authority that you cited states:

"For most of the New Testament, Codex Sinaiticus is in general agreement with Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209 and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, attesting the Alexandrian text-type. A notable example of an agreement between the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts is that they both omit the word εικη ('without cause', 'without reason', 'in vain') from Matthew 5:22 "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgement".[n 4]"
 
Your broad-sweeping generalization has not soundly been proven to be true by verifiable specifics--an actual examination and collation of all existing Greek NT manuscripts with specific results giving the actual number of MSS for each individual word of the Greek NT.
Actually it has. It's been proven to align with the majority by collation with all the existing Greek NT MSS by the best: the Nestle Aland Text, which is the standard authority that all MS scholars recognize (and which btw is biased in favor of the NV's, not the KJV, therefore they have no motive to inflate the results in favor of the KJV):

They called the manuscripts that align with the KJV, minus those added for the translation of NV's,
"the majority of all manuscripts"
"readings supported by the majority of all manuscripts"
and other times they also called it the "majority"
-Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th Ed., pp. 51, 55, 46

Now simply take into account Dean Burgon's numbers. The MSS added for the NV's were out of alignment with 99/100 of the majority. That means they were in alignment with 1%. Meanwhile the KJV did not use those MSS, and therefore remained in line with the 99%:

Important: Realize that within the Majority Text, there are of course variations, and even some places where certain of the MSS will agree in part with the Alexandrian-type MSS. This however is separate from the fact that while the Majority Text can vary within itself, it still shares an overall cohesion of 99% when compared alongside Codex B, Aleph, Bezae, and P75, which only align with 1% of that overall majority (disagreeing with 99 of the 100 MSS). That's the math. Those are the numbers provided by Dean Burgon.

Not to mention, the KJV is supported by older texts that include the Peshitta, Vetus Latina, Vetus Syra, Magdalen Papyrus, and readings supported by the church fathers that Erasmus aligned with in rejection of Vaticanus.

(Btw I have to credit Dr. Gene Kim here for this info, I found it in a video on his channel. I believe he's the only one who ever graduated with a doctorate from PBI).

Edit: It should be noted that even James White does not dispute that the KJV aligns with the Majority Text. His debate strategy was instead built upon trying to pull together data that diluted the difference between the Majority Text and the Alexandrian-type, i.e. citing rare Alexandrian-type MSS discovered "outside the Alexandrian area" as reason to rid the location distinction that separates between Byzantine-type and Alexandrian-type, or citing rare readings where a Byzantine-type MS would align in one part with an Alexandrian-type. Unfortunately his approach was one of poor mathematics, as he weighed the variables incorrectly: he tried to use rare exceptions to realign the entire variable set, when in fact their overall relativity to each other was barely adjusted by these significantly fewer exceptions.

The one Greek MSS that was handcopied from a printed edition of the Textus Receptus can hardly be soundly counted as manuscript evidence since it could copy conjectures introduced in a printed edition.
Isolating and arguing against the Textus Receptus is the typical approach; the Textus Receptus was just one of multiple texts that the KJV translators cross-referenced and analyzed. And even still, it is good that the TR did not include the manuscripts that were far more out of alignment with the majority of extant MSS: a 99 out of 100 disagreement is no joke. It's not like you're arguing to defend an 80/100 disagreement with the majority, you're stuck with 99/100. That's an extremely bold stance to take, and you would need ample evidence to outweigh it to successfully defend the NV's.
 
Last edited:
KJV-only posters make claims that their generalizations have been proven when they have not.

KJV-only author J. A. Moorman acknowledged that “only a relative few of the 5555 MSS now catalogued have been collated” (When the KJV Departs, p. 17).

KJV-only author David Cloud maintained that “the extant Greek manuscripts have never been collated and examined in such a way that a majority text could be determined with any degree of certainty” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 207; Faith, p. 692).

John William Burgon as edited by Miller noted that “of multitudes of them [MSS copies] that survive, hardly any have been copied from any of the rest” and that “they are discovered to differ among themselves in countless unimportant particulars” (Traditional Text, p. 46). Peter Johnston wrote: “Yet as Burgon pointed out in the last century each surviving Byzantine manuscript is a genuine individual” (Green, Unholy Hands, Vol. II, p. 10). Wilbur Pickering noted that “the main lesson to be drawn from the variation among ‘Byzantine’ MSS is the one noted by Lake and Burgon—they are orphans, independent witnesses; at least in their generation” (Identity of NT Text IV, p. 42).

Wilbur Pickering asserted: “Rather than lining up in ‘clear streams’ or ‘text-types’ (as objectively defined entities) the earliest manuscripts are dotted helter-skelter over a wide spectrum of variation. Although varying degrees of affinity exist between and among them, they should be treated as individuals in the practice of textual criticism. Until such time as the relationships among the later manuscripts are empirically plotted, they also should be treated as individuals. To dump them into a ‘Byzantine’ basket is untenable” (Identity of NT Text II, p. 28; Identity of NT Text IV, p. 46). Pickering cited that Gunter Zuntz maintained that “the great bulk of Byzantine manuscripts defies all attempts to group them” (Identity IV, p. 39; see also Fuller, True or False, p. 231).
 
Actual evidence indicates that all the printed editions of the Textus Receptus in the 1500’s and 1600’s were not every-word completely identical to the Byzantine text.

Sam Schnaiter and Ron Tagliapietra asserted: “The Textus Receptus (TR), which came from a handful of manuscripts of the Byzantine type, includes a peculiarity here and there not typical of the entire Byzantine family or text type” (Bible Preservation, p. 115).

In the introduction to the Eastern/Greek Orthodox New Testament, Laurent Cleenewerck asserted: “Although based mainly on late manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type, Erasmus’ editions differed markedly from the classic form of that text. In 1,838 places (1,005 translatable) Textus Receptus differs from the Byzantine text-type (Majority Text)” (p. 16).

In footnote 1 of their preface to their second edition, Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont wrote that “the overall text of these early printed editions differs from the Byzantine Textform in over 1800 instances, generally due to the inclusion of weakly supported non-Byzantine readings” (The New Testament, p. i). In his article in an appendix of their Greek text, Maurice Robinson maintained that “the Byzantine Textform is not the TR” (p. 533).
 
Good job ignoring that checkmate mic-drop in post #85.
 
“Although based mainly on late manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type, Erasmus’ editions differed markedly from the classic form of that text. In 1,838 places (1,005 translatable) Textus Receptus differs from the Byzantine text-type (Majority Text)” (p. 16).
This is why you don't just compare the TR to the Majority, you compare the KJV to the Majority. The KJV did not only draw from the TR, neither is its readings identical to the TR.
More importantly, the KJV aligns by far greater percentage with the Majority Text by comparison to the Critical Text.

Again, even James White doesn't dispute this. Which is why his arguments had to center around trying to take down the Byzantine-type text, because he already knows the KJV aligns with the majority far more than the Critical Text of the NV's does. This is why if you watched his debate with Dr. Moorman, he would say, "There's a reason why the Byzantine-type text is the majority!" before then presenting his argument to shoot down both the reliability and the categorical separation of the Byzantine-type text over against the Alexandrian-type.

Again, read post #85.
 
Last edited:
This is why you don't just compare the TR to the Majority, you compare the KJV to the Majority. The KJV did not only draw from the TR, neither is its readings identical to the TR.
More importantly, the KJV aligns by far greater percentage with the Majority Text by comparison to the Critical Text.

Again, even James White doesn't dispute this. Which is why his arguments had to center around trying to take down the Byzantine-type text, because he already knows the KJV aligns with the majority far more than the Critical Text of the NV's does. This is why if you watched his debate with Dr. Moorman, he would say, "There's a reason why the Byzantine-type text is the majority!" before then presenting his argument to shoot down both the reliability and the categorical separation of the Byzantine-type text over against the Alexandrian-type.

Again, read post #85.
How could going back as close to the originals not get you closer than going with a majority of late texts. If I wanted to see exactly what the original 1611 KJV said, would I get closer by taking survey of every KJV Bible in existence in the US and reading the edition held by the majority or would I get closer to the original by taking the 20 oldest editions in existence in the US and then examining them against each other.
 
How could going back as close to the originals not get you closer than going with a majority of late texts.
There are so many reason why. I'm too tired for now to speak on every detail though. Got material for UGC to work on.

Really good stuff coming btw. The bottom line is they're still not the originals, and for various reasons both Erasmus and the KJV translators chose not to include them, and those guys were certainly closer to the originals than Westcott and Hort were by that same line of reasoning. Additionally there's the survivability and recopy-rate of the manuscripts to take into account: some of the Byzantine-type's (the majority's) predecessors eroded faster due to crappier material or were destroyed more often (having to be recopied more often) due to situational use vs. the libraries at Alexandria or the Vatican where an older manuscript could be preserved longer. And I imagine Satan wasn't out to destroy manuscripts edited and used by heretics like Origen or Clement.
 
Last edited:
This is why you don't just compare the TR to the Majority, you compare the KJV to the Majority. The KJV did not only draw from the TR, neither is its readings identical to the TR.
More importantly, the KJV aligns by far greater percentage with the Majority Text by comparison to the Critical Text.

You merely speculate and assume, but you fail to prove soundly what you claim. You don't actually compare all the individual readings that underlie the KJV to any actual majority of Greek NT manuscripts. You do not practice what you preach since you do not actually do what you assert.

Can you provide a list of majority of Greek NT manuscripts for each individual textual reading that would underlie each reading in the KJV to back up your own assertion?
Have you collated and compared any actual majority of Greek NT manuscripts or you only speculating and assuming? Are you contradicting KJV-only authors who asserted that no one has actually collaged any actual majority of Greek NT manuscripts?
David Cloud maintained that “the extant Greek manuscripts have never been collated and examined in such a way that a majority text could be determined with any degree of certainty” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 207; Faith, p. 692).

I have not advocated or recommended the Critical Text nor any English translations made from it.

Do you forget that you are the one who attempted to appeal to vague, generalized textual notes in the Critical Text as the authority for your unproven claims? When KJV-only advocates will allege that the Critical Text is untrustworthy and even corrupt, is it amazing that they try to appeal to its authority?
 
It is for common-core bible-correctors.
As usual, you do not define your term of accusation, and you do not show that you would apply it justly.

Would you suggest that the KJV translators were "common-core bible-correctors" when they made hundreds of changes, revisions, or corrections to the pre-1611 English Bibles?

KJV-only advocates may act as though they are "common-core bible-correctors" as they in effect suggest that the KJV corrects the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. Thus, perhaps you could be guilty of what you accuse others.
 
What I find most fascinating about the entire KJV only exchange in the context of the Ruckmanite world is the fact they don't even stick to it. Ruckman had all sorts of crazy extra-Biblical/KJV doctrines. I'm not a fan of the NIV but I'd follow a guy who used the NIV and only taught what was in it as opposed to a guy who used the KJV but made up extra stuff. When you get down to it there is not much difference between Joel Olsteen and Peter Ruckman when it comes to Biblical doctrines. They both replace Bible with the doctrines of man.
 
Mr. Ugh, do you agree or disagree with this statement from the book "God Wrote Only One Bible" by Jasper James Ray, p. 111: "Greek reveals more than English. How to find the meaning of Greek. First learn the Greek alphabet given below. Then find the root Greek word in Young's Analytical Concordance. Turn to this root word in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, and in English you can easily read the fuller meaning of any Greek word in the Textus Receptus."

This book is currently offered for sale at Ruckman's Bible Baptist Bookstore in Pensacola. On page 110, Ray encouraged readers to purchase a copy of the Greek-English Interlinear New Testament. Why would anyone want to get the New Testament in Greek, since your brilliant genius cult leader Ruckman taught that the English (AV1611) was superior to the Greek text and should be used to correct the Greek?
 
You merely speculate and assume, but you fail to prove soundly what you claim.
You keep parroting this. I do nothing of the sort. I do the opposite. Read what I actually write.

You don't actually compare all the individual readings that underlie the KJV to any actual majority of Greek NT manuscripts.
I don't need to, the Nestle Aland Text already verified it. Nobody disputes this. You didn't read post #85.

You don't think on what people say, you immediately assume they're being subjective if they don't agree with you. Very lazy.
I can tell you aren't taking the time to understand half of what I'm saying, your responses aren't even responding to my points because you missed them.

"Greek reveals more than English. How to find the meaning of Greek.
If we still had the original manuscripts, then yes. We don't. There is less reliability and too many changes and variations between modern compiled Greek texts compared to the KJV. I do not believe the only people God intended to understand what he "really said" are Greek scholars, while keeping all the lay people in the dark. It's out of character with his personality.

Plus the Greek scholars admit they essentially believe the word of God is lost. It's "scattered somewhere among all the extant Greek manuscripts". I read my Bible and believe what it says, I don't doubt every word and wonder "maybe this was translated wrong and didn't really mean that". God is not the author of confusion. Ever learning and never coming to knowledge of the truth.

Occam's razor would help all of them greatly.
 
I do not understand you people on the fff.
How we’re you not convinced 3 pages ago by ugh and twister that their (and Ruckman’s) brilliant arguments are...brilliant???
I know I felt my IQ drop 10 points just by reading their posts...and now I two r a belever.
 
Top