an overlooked KJV edition

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Logos1560, Nov 9, 2004.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Peter Ruckman claimed that "by 1852 every edition of the King James Bible on the market was the AV of 1611 as to the Greek New Testament it came from, and as to the English translation of that eclectic text. There are no insertions of ASV or NASV readings, or RSV, or NRSV readings anywhere in any edition. The readings that are exclusively 'Alexandrian' do no appear in any edition" (DIFFERENCES IN KJV EDITIONS, pp. 3-4).

    Are these claims or statements by Peter Ruckman true or false? Have KJV-only authors such as Ruckman examined all editions of the KJV printed before 1852?

    Visit this topic later to learn about an edition of the KJV published before 1852 that shows that Ruckman's claims are incorrect.
     
  2. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ruckman needs to get his ruck sack and get out of town.
     
  3. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    This kind of double-speak shouldn't surprise anyone.

    First we were told that "things which are different are not the same".

    Then we were reminded that we should believe "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" which is indeed a truth but we were not told which of the various and differing editions of the KJV contains "every word" proceeding out of the mouth of God.

    Also we were told that these criteria apply only to the MVs and not the various revisons/editions of the King James Bible which are actually all the same in spite of their differences.

    Later we were told that the differences among the MVs are greater in kind and number which logically lead us to the conclusion that God makes little mistakes but not big ones.

    This was followed by a rant that our logic is/was flawed.

    Finally the dilemma was solved: the errors (at least 200 of them) are actually inspired and should be looked upon as "advanced revelation".

    Which in reality brings us full circle: which KJV AV is the real Bible and when will we get the ex cathedra pronouncement on the remaining 200 or so "advanced revelations"?

    HankD
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    If I remember correctly, Rick, there were quite a few "private editions" of the Bible in English, made by individuals using various sources, with their accuracies varying wildly. There may still be some of these editions floating around as family heirlooms or local museum pieces.
     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The edition of the KJV I was referring to
    was published first in 1841 in London. There
    was also a second edition or printing of this
    KJV edition later in 1841 or in 1843.

    The title page of this second printing has
    the following title: THE HOLY BIBLE CONTAINING THE AUTHORIZED VERSION OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS with many thousand emendations [People's Edition]. The first printing noted that it had "twenty thousand emendations."

    Laurence Vance, a KJV-only advocate who was and may still be associated with Peter Ruckman,
    listed this 1841 edition of the KJV in his book and noted that it "contained the text of the Authorized Version but 'with twenty thousand emendations'" (BRIEF HISTORY OF ENGLISH BIBLE TRANSLATIONS, p. 46). Thus, Ruckman had available the information to know that his statements were incorrect so he could correct them. It may have more than "twenty thousand" changes which may be while the title in the second printing was changed to "many thousand."

    I came across a copy of this edition of the KJV in a college library. It is listed in T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule's HISTORICAL CATALOGUE OF PRINTED EDITIONS OF HOLY SCRIPTURES (p. 356). I checked some verses in it and know that it has some readings that Ruckman would label "Alexandrian" and some that are found later in the ASV and other translations. Thus, this KJV edition proves that Ruckman's statements quoted in the first post in this topic are false.

    A few example renderings in this 1840's KJV edition in the New Testament are:

    "the prophet Isaiah" for "the prophets" (Mark 1:2)
    "their purification" for "her purification" (Luke 2:22)
    "Simon Peter" for "Simeon" (Acts 15:14)
    "robbers of temples" for "robbers of churches" (Acts 19:39)
    "church of the LORD God" for "the church of God" (Acts 20:28)
    "fruit of the light" for "fruit of the Spirit" (Eph. 5:9)
    "those who wash their garments" for "they that do his commandments" (Rev. 22:14)
     
  6. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Had not heard of this version. HAD heard that everything Ruckman said is false, but that is another matter! [​IMG]

    Thank you for sharing.
     
  7. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    Logos: "Peter Ruckman claimed that "[...]There are no insertions of ASV or NASV readings, or RSV, or NRSV readings anywhere in any edition. The readings that are exclusively 'Alexandrian' do not appear in any edition" (DIFFERENCES IN KJV EDITIONS, pp. 3-4).

    Logos: Are these claims or statements by Peter Ruckman true or false?

    Demonstrably false. Some time ago, I posted a comment that the phrase "raise the dead" in the KJV Mt 10:8 was clearly an "Alexandrian" reading, being supported by the strong Alexandrian witnesses Aleph B C* N 0281 33 892 L-2211 (with minimal support from Alexandrian-Caesarean witnesses such as f1 f13 565 700).

    The Byzantine text that normally underlies the TR omits the phrase, as someone else recently pointed out (although no TR edition lacks the phrase, due to Erasmian influence from the Vulgate).
     
  8. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    Ah, yes, a Latin Vulgate "advanced revelation"!

    HankD
     
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    In the Old Testament of this 1841 edition of the KJV, it has "waters" for "mules" (Gen. 36:24),
    "the prince of Midian" for "the priest of Midian" (Exod 2:16), "three thousand chariots" for "thirty thousand chariots" (1 Sam. 13:5),
    "twenty and two years old" for "forty and two years old" (2 Chron. 22:2), and "the mountain mice" for "the conies" (Prov. 30:26).

    Does Ruckman's statement that his group would accept any edition of the KJV "with any number of variations from any other edition" suggest that he would accept this 1841 edition?
     

Share This Page

Loading...