Are Ruckman's claims concerning editions of the KJV in agreement with each other and factually correct?

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
Peter Ruckman asserted that “this edition [referring to the 1769 Oxford edition by Blayney] has been regarded as the standard copy for 200 years” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, July, 1981, p. 4). Ruckman wrote: “The standard edition was proofread further in 1806, and in 1813 it was published by Eyre and Strahan and printed by Woodfall” (Differences in KJV Editions, p. 5). Ruckman favorably quoted and thus in effect maintained that “the main object” of Blayney’s edition was “to restore the text of the English Bible to its original purity and that this was successfully accomplished” (p. 11). Ruckman claimed that “their printer’s errors were corrected until a pure text was arrived at in 1813, which conformed to the original intent of the AV translators” (p. 13).

Peter Ruckman wrote: “We recommend any edition of the AV (with any number of variations from any other edition)” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, Sept., 1985, p. 3). In this same article, Ruckman commented: “In our group, we hold that ANY edition of the AV is reliable” (p. 2). In this article, Ruckman’s only stated exception from being an edition of the AV was the NKJV. Again concerning the KJV, Ruckman claimed that “any edition will do just fine” (Unknown Bible, pp. 1, 86). Ruckman referred to “any edition in any century” of the KJV (How to Teach the “Original” Greek, p. 119). Ruckman appealed to “a King James Bible (any edition from any year)“ (Difference in KJV Editions, pp. 9-10). Ruckman also referred to “a present copy of the AV, which anyone can buy anywhere” (p. 11). Ruckman claimed that “any edition of the AV (Edinburgh, London, Oxford, Nelson, Cambridge, New York, etc.) is vastly superior to the ‘originals’” (p. 18). Ruckman asserted: “The text of the AV in any edition is the text authorized by the Godhead, and it is the text that the Holy Spirit has continually stamped with His approval, in any edition” (Bible Babel, p. 92). Ruckman claimed: “You can find that word [the word of God] and those words [the words that God wants us to have] in ANY EDITION of an Authorized Version” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 414). In volume one of his commentary on the book of Psalms, Ruckman asserted: “We will leave every ‘jot and tittle: as it stands in the Authorized text” (p. vi).

Peter Ruckman referred to “seven revised copies of the AV (1611, 1613, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1769, and 1850) that result in a purified Book” (pp. 18-19). In another book, Ruckman maintained that “we have the list of the fourteen principle editions of the Authorized Version right here on the desk” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 364). Ruckman asserted that “we have a list which gives fourteen” major editions, and he listed them as “1612, 1613, 1616, 1617, 1629, 1630, 1640, 1660, 1701, 1762, 1769, 1833, 1847-1851, and 1858” (p. 46). In Appendix 21 of his reference Bible, Ruckman listed the principal editions of the KJV after the 1611 as the following: “1612, 1613, 1616, 1617, 1629, 1630, 1634, 1638, 1640, 1644, 1660, 1675, 1680, 1701, 1762, 1769” (p. 1710).

Is Ruckman's claim that the 1813 London edition printed by Eyre and Strahan is free from printer's errors and pure factually correct?

Do all the varying editions of the KJV actually have every” jot and tittle” close enough so that they all can be left as they stand and still agree perfectly?
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
The defenders of Peter Ruckman at this forum cannot demonstrate Ruckman's claims concerning KJV editions especially the 1813 Eyre and Strahan edition to be factually correct since they are not. Perhaps they try to close their eyes to his factually incorrect claims.

While Peter Ruckman may have been better informed about KJV editions then some other KJV-only authors, he was still uninformed concerning some facts and misinformed in some cases.

Here are some verifiable facts from a London KJV edition printed by Eyre and Strahan in 1813 that should demonstrate that this 1813 edition was not pure as Ruckman claimed. More facts could be given.

This 1813 KJV edition still has the error of the wrong person's name "Zithri" at Exodus 6:21 kept uncorrected from the 1769 Oxford edition instead of the correct person's name "Zichri." This 1769 error likely introduced from the last word of Exodus 6:22 would remain uncorrected in most Oxford, Cambridge, and London KJV editions until the 1873 Cambridge edition.

This 1813 KJV edition has "LORD" at Genesis 18:27 from the 1769 Oxford instead of "Lord."

This 1813 KJV edition has "thy progenitors" at Genesis 49:16 from the 1769 Oxford instead of "my progenitors."

This 1813 KJV edition has "LORD" at Numbers 14:17 from the 1769 Oxford instead of "Lord."

This 1813 KJV edition still has "travel" at Numbers 20:14 from the 1769 Oxford instead of "travail."

This 1813 KJV edition still has "Beer-sheba, Sheba" from the 1769 Oxford instead of "Beer-sheba, or Sheba" or "Beer-sheba, and Sheba."

This 1813 KJV edition still has "God" at 2 Samuel 12:22 from the 1769 Oxford instead of "GOD."

This 1813 KJV edition still has "thy companions" at Job 41:6 from the 1769 Oxford instead of "the companions."

This 1813 KJV edition still has "unto me" at Psalm 18:47 from the 1769 Oxford instead of "under me."

This 1813 KJV edition still has "feared" at Psalm 60:4 from the 1769 Oxford instead of "fear."

This 1813 KJV edition still has "in the presence" at Psalm 68:2 from the 1769 Oxford instead of "at the presence."

This 1813 KJV edition still has "part" at Psalm 78:66 from the 1769 Oxford instead of "parts."

This 1813 KJV edition still has "gone to" at Isaiah 15:2 from the 1769 Oxford instead of "gone up to."

This 1813 KJV edition still has "travel" at Lamentations 3:5 instead of "travail."

This 1813 KJV edition still has "the LORD" at Ezekiel 18:25 from the 1769 Oxford instead of "the Lord."

This 1813 KJV edition has the new error "the fishes shall stand" at Ezekiel 47:10 likely introduced in the 1806 London KJV edition instead of the correct "the fishers shall stand."

This 1813 KJV edition still has "a brier" at Micah 7:4 from the 1769 Oxford instead of "as a brier."

This 1813 KJV edition still has "mighty is spoiled" at Zechariah 11:2 from the 1769 Oxford instead of "mighty are spoiled."
 

Twisted

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
12,504
Reaction score
69
Points
48
The defenders of Peter Ruckman at this forum cannot demonstrate Ruckman's claims concerning KJV editions especially the 1813 Eyre and Strahan edition to be factually correct since they are not. Perhaps they try to close their eyes to his factually incorrect claims.

While Peter Ruckman may have been better informed about KJV editions then some other KJV-only authors, he was still uninformed concerning some facts and misinformed in some cases.

Here are some verifiable facts from a London KJV edition printed by Eyre and Strahan in 1813 that should demonstrate that this 1813 edition was not pure as Ruckman claimed. More facts could be given.

This 1813 KJV edition still has the error of the wrong person's name "Zithri" at Exodus 6:21 kept uncorrected from the 1769 Oxford edition instead of the correct person's name "Zichri." This 1769 error likely introduced from the last word of Exodus 6:22 would remain uncorrected in most Oxford, Cambridge, and London KJV editions until the 1873 Cambridge edition.

This 1813 KJV edition has "LORD" at Genesis 18:27 from the 1769 Oxford instead of "Lord."

This 1813 KJV edition has "thy progenitors" at Genesis 49:16 from the 1769 Oxford instead of "my progenitors."

This 1813 KJV edition has "LORD" at Numbers 14:17 from the 1769 Oxford instead of "Lord."

This 1813 KJV edition still has "travel" at Numbers 20:14 from the 1769 Oxford instead of "travail."

This 1813 KJV edition still has "Beer-sheba, Sheba" from the 1769 Oxford instead of "Beer-sheba, or Sheba" or "Beer-sheba, and Sheba."

This 1813 KJV edition still has "God" at 2 Samuel 12:22 from the 1769 Oxford instead of "GOD."

This 1813 KJV edition still has "thy companions" at Job 41:6 from the 1769 Oxford instead of "the companions."

This 1813 KJV edition still has "unto me" at Psalm 18:47 from the 1769 Oxford instead of "under me."

This 1813 KJV edition still has "feared" at Psalm 60:4 from the 1769 Oxford instead of "fear."

This 1813 KJV edition still has "in the presence" at Psalm 68:2 from the 1769 Oxford instead of "at the presence."

This 1813 KJV edition still has "part" at Psalm 78:66 from the 1769 Oxford instead of "parts."

This 1813 KJV edition still has "gone to" at Isaiah 15:2 from the 1769 Oxford instead of "gone up to."

This 1813 KJV edition still has "travel" at Lamentations 3:5 instead of "travail."

This 1813 KJV edition still has "the LORD" at Ezekiel 18:25 from the 1769 Oxford instead of "the Lord."

This 1813 KJV edition has the new error "the fishes shall stand" at Ezekiel 47:10 likely introduced in the 1806 London KJV edition instead of the correct "the fishers shall stand."

This 1813 KJV edition still has "a brier" at Micah 7:4 from the 1769 Oxford instead of "as a brier."

This 1813 KJV edition still has "mighty is spoiled" at Zechariah 11:2 from the 1769 Oxford instead of "mighty are spoiled."
You are SO pathetic. So there are "differences". So what? Save time and get Vance's book "A Brief History of English Bible Translations" and you'll find a slew of modified AV versions. Noah Webster had one too. Big deal.

"First published in 1611 and indisputably the most influential of English Bible translations, the King James Version has exercised incalculable influence on piety, language and literature. This impressive quarto edition reprints Eyre and Strahan’s quarto edition of seven years earlier. “The General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America recommended that this should be adopted as its standard edition”—despite the fact that its text “is very far from faultless”: for instance, Ephesians 4:16 reads “holy body” as opposed to the correct reading of “whole body” (Darlow & Moule 1035). Originally issued as one volume; this copy divided into two at leaf [4M4], the first chapter of Jeremiah. Separate New Testament title page. With Apocrypha. Herbert 1580. Armorial bookplate. Calligraphic contemporary owner inscriptions; family record in first volume. "

 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
You are SO pathetic. So there are "differences". So what?
Is it interesting that a KJV-only advocate seems to think that presenting verifiable facts is "pathetic"?

I acknowledged that there were more differences then just the examples that I cited.

Differences that were listed included errors such as at Exodus 6:21, proving that the 1813 edition was not pure as Ruckman claimed.
 

Twisted

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
12,504
Reaction score
69
Points
48
Is Ruckman's claim that the 1813 London edition printed by Eyre and Strahan is free from printer's errors and pure factually correct?

Do all the varying editions of the KJV actually have every” jot and tittle” close enough so that they all can be left as they stand and still agree perfectly?
"The standard edition was proofread further in 1806, and in 1813 it was published by Eyre and Strahan and printed by Woodfall. The final edition had punctuation revised, alterations made in some italicized words, and alterations made in the heads of the chapters; running titles over the columns had to be adapted to editions of different sizes, fuller translations were put in the margins, and new marginal references added. The variations are divided into three classes: manifest errors of the typesetter in the copy of 1611, manifest typesetting problems in the 1613 edition, and other variations from 1611. In the first class, there are such things as a capital “L” put into Lord in Exodus 14:10. “Shall burnt them” has been corrected to “shall burn them” in Leviticus 4:35. A woman that “travelleth” has been altered to a “woman that travaileth” in Isaiah 13:8 and 21:3; “Sons nor daughter” has been altered to “sons nor daughters” in Ezekiel 14:18; “shewed them by the prophets” has been corrected to “hewed them by the prophets” in Hosea 6:5; “And if ye offer” had been omitted in Malachi 1:8 and has been reinserted in the 1613 edition. “That you remember me” has been altered to “that ye remember me” in 1 Corinthians 11:2. Now, here is what you are to believe if you listen to the apostate fools who “teach Bible” at the average Christian college, seminary, or university (Kenneth Brown, MacRae, or Newman, for example). You are to believe that such genuine revisions, on the correct text, are no different than the revision work done by apostate Conservatives in 1885 and apostate Fundamentalists in 1963. You are to think that since typographical errors in one text were corrected, and better spellings were set up for that one text, that this gives some apostate fool the liberty to get rid of the right Greek text (the Receptus) and then get rid of the right English text (the AV of 1611), and give you in exchange for it the Jesuit Rheims Greek text of 1582 (the RSV). You are a bigger fool than the apostate fool who taught you, if you believe such a thing."

Ruckman, Dr. Peter S.. Differences in the King James Version Editions (Kindle Locations 137-147). BB Bookstore. Kindle Edition.

Ruckman, Dr. Peter S.. Differences in the King James Version Editions (Kindle Locations 125-137). BB Bookstore. Kindle Edition.



"You are to believe that these genuine marks of genuine revision, which the Third Person of the Godhead allowed to take place and then honored the revision without a letup through 300 years, are to be compared with the ghastly perversions of the text done in 1885 (RV), 1901 (ASV), 1963 (NASV), 1952 (RSV), 1970 (NRSV), and 1978 (NIV). In spite of the fact that the ASV went bankrupt in less than thirty years, the NASV went dead in less than fifteen years, the RSV had to be done over in less than twenty-five years, and the NIV has brought about as much “revival” to the English speaking people as Little Black Sambo has; the ministerial student is to believe that these are “revisions” in the sense of the editions of the AV. No one but a professional liar would even postulate such an incredible lie."

Ruckman, Dr. Peter S.. Differences in the King James Version Editions (Kindle Locations 230-241). BB Bookstore. Kindle Edition.

I believe Pete mentions you several times in this booklet.

Ruckman never "claimed" what you say he claimed. Typical.

Anyone wanting the truth, get the booklet and read it for yourself.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
Ruckman, Dr. Peter S.. Differences in the King James Version Editions (Kindle Locations 230-241). BB Bookstore. Kindle Edition.

I believe Pete mentions you several times in this booklet.

Ruckman never "claimed" what you say he claimed. Typical.

Anyone wanting the truth, get the booklet and read it for yourself.
Ruckman's booklet that I accurately quoted had a 1983 copyright with a reprint date of 1994. Ruckman did state what I accurately cited in that earlier edition of his booklet. The edition that I have was printed nine years before my book was even printed in 2003 so clearly Ruckman could not have quoted from me in it. Ruckman did not mention me in the edition of his booklet that I have.

Books have to be reformatted for e-book editions for Kindle so they can also have been easily revised or updated. In the later E-book edition, evidently Ruckman corrected some of his errors in his 1994 edition after he learned some additional facts from my book.

Are you in effect suggesting that Peter Ruckman learned some things from my book?

Did you forget that you in effect tried to suggest that the truth is pathetic?
 

Twisted

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
12,504
Reaction score
69
Points
48
"Ruckman did not mention me in the edition of his booklet that I have. " - Oh yes he did.

The Kindle edition is Copyright 1983. And, no, I'm not suggesting he learned anything from you or your book. (You wrote a book?)
 

Twisted

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
12,504
Reaction score
69
Points
48
"In taking seven revised copies of the AV (1611, 1613, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1769, and 1850) that result in a purified Book—the Book of all books—the number of variations recorded by the collators does not come anywhere near the “70,000” postulated by Bob Jones III in his correspondence with Bible believers. To the contrary, according to the men that collated the versions and dealt with them, the variations were just under 24,000 (this includes chapter heading changes and marginal notes), and not one of them was a rejection of the Received Greek Text of the New Testament or the Received Hebrew Text of the Old Testament. Not one of them was an intentional departure from the original words as written by the AV translators, and if we are to take the Preface of the AV translators at face value—and what Cult member doesn’t make an issue of that in order to avoid dealing with the text!—we have before us genuine updating and genuine revision, in line with the Holy Spirit’s purpose in preserving and giving to us the words He intends for us to have."

Ruckman, Dr. Peter S.. Differences in the King James Version Editions (Kindle Locations 396-405). BB Bookstore. Kindle Edition.
Ruckman, Dr. Peter S.. Differences in the King James Version Editions (Kindle Locations 405-406). BB Bookstore. Kindle Edition.
 

tmjbog

Active member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
274
Reaction score
27
Points
28
"Ruckman did not mention me in the edition of his booklet that I have. " - Oh yes he did.

The Kindle edition is Copyright 1983. And, no, I'm not suggesting he learned anything from you or your book. (You wrote a book?)
I think he is referring to the fact that Ruckman typically sprinkles his writings with insults for those who have the audacity to disagree with his views.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
The Kindle edition is Copyright 1983. And, no, I'm not suggesting he learned anything from you or your book. (You wrote a book?)
Because the same original 1983 date was left on the kindle e-book edition does not mean that the e-book edition was not revised.
Your quotations from the e-book edition would prove that it has differences compared to the printed 1994 reprint edition.

Did you forget the other example from another book where a quotation made by Ruckman was on a different page in a reprint edition, showing that Ruckman's reprint editions had changes even though the copyright date was not changed?

You demonstrate that Ruckman likely did learn something from me since he removed his earlier factually incorrect claim of the 1813 edition being pure in the e-book edition.
 

Twisted

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
12,504
Reaction score
69
Points
48
You demonstrate that Ruckman likely did learn something from me since he removed his earlier factually incorrect claim of the 1813 edition being pure in the e-book edition.
You keep on being delusional.

Thumbs Up.png
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
KJV-only posters refuse to deal with actual facts, but they do seem to like to jump to wrong conclusions.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
The Kindle edition is Copyright 1983.
Because the copyright date was not changed in the Kindle edition is not proof that the its text could not have been revised or updated. My 1994 reprint edition may even have some changes or revisions if it was compared to an original 1983 edition of this same booklet. That was the case with another book written by Ruckman in its reprint edition.

I checked at kindle books, and the ebook edition publication date for this booklet by Ruckman is June, 2011. That is after my book was printed in 2003, and also after someone associated with Ruckman in Pensacola ordered two copies of my book. The fact that you claim that the ebook edition mentioned my name is evidence that the booklet was actually revised since my name is not found in the edition that I have.

The ebook edition is said to have 25 pages while my printed edition (1994 reprint) has only 20 pages. That could suggest that some revisions and additions were made to the ebook edition.
 
Last edited:

Tarheel Baptist

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
7,720
Reaction score
30
Points
48
KJV-only posters refuse to deal with actual facts, but they do seem to like to jump to wrong conclusions.
IF they were able to deal with 'actual facts', they wouldn't be KJV-only.
 

Ransom

Calvinist Mole
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,476
Reaction score
75
Points
48
The Kindle edition is Copyright 1983.
So not only do the KJV-only gang have a time machine to explain their anachronistic arguments, but apparently Twisted also has a 1983-vintage Kindle (filling his basement, of course) to explain why an ebook (which is basically a compressed Web page) can't have been silently edited, because apparently a copyright date in a book is some sort of inviolable law.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
358
Reaction score
22
Points
28
KJV-only posters refuse to deal with actual facts
No, they've posted too many facts but you "anti-everything" people just ignore them.

Meanwhile every argument you provide is at the elementary school level.

Question: Do you really think a Fundamental Baptist forum is the place to try and champion rebellious, renegade causes like "anti-KJV" and "anti-Ruckman".

Shouldn't you be doing this in a Presbyterian or Charismatic forum? You'd find a lot more success there outside your little fringe group of 5 or 6 people here. Which by the way is the reason why no one except your little tree house kids club comes onto these forums.
 

tmjbog

Active member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
274
Reaction score
27
Points
28
No, they've posted too many facts but you "anti-everything" people just ignore them.

Meanwhile every argument you provide is at the elementary school level.

Question: Do you really think a Fundamental Baptist forum is the place to try and champion rebellious, renegade causes like "anti-KJV" and "anti-Ruckman".

Shouldn't you be doing this in a Presbyterian or Charismatic forum? You'd find a lot more success there outside your little fringe group of 5 or 6 people here. Which by the way is the reason why no one except your little tree house kids club comes onto these forums.
Well you seem to like our treehouse.

Fortunately for some of the craziness that goes on in the IFB world, even they view the followers of Ruckman as on the crazy side. Nothing unbaptist about being reasonable minded.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
358
Reaction score
22
Points
28
Screen Shot 2020-04-25 at 1.15.49 PM.png
By the way, might want to change the font of your logo. It might remind rufio and the lost boys of the 1611 english.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
358
Reaction score
22
Points
28
in the IFB world, even they view the followers of Ruckman as on the crazy side.
Hm. Perhaps in your own mind. Like everything else.

All of the most respected pastors in the IFB or in KJV churches similar to the IFB either respect Ruckman (paid homage to him in their own writings), studied under him at one point, or ignore him completely.

Nobody except idiots, saboteur hirelings from other denoms, or the occasional fringe IFB outcast actually bothers to attack him, because they all know about his genius whether they agree with him or not, and they have this thing called a brain that's capable of grasping that 2 or 3 minor, or even non-doctrinally related, positions he held that might've been odd doesn't outweigh that: like trying to use a blueberry to tip the scale of a bowling ball on the other end.

Perhaps they never learned their times tables and dropped out of elementary school, and aren't capable of weighing this obvious scale out for themselves.

"Not true". Uhuh. Think Sam Gipp, James Knox, etc. And btw the largest Baptist channels on YouTube are of pastors who graduated from PBI.
You do realize YouTube channels reach exponentially more followers than Joel Osteen's megachurch, right.

Yeah. As usual. The tree house kids club is blasting off again.
 
Last edited:
Top