One of Peter Ruckman’s teachings that often goes ignored consists of teaching that the KJV can correct the main source its New Testament came from—the Textus Receptus (TR). Since there are some cases when the KJV does not follow the TR to the letter, Ruckman has no choice but to teach this as part of holding to the inerrancy of the KJV in order to remain consistent. Over the years we’ve had many Ruckman defenders state that when Ruckman says the KJV can correct the Greek, he is not referring to the TR, but rather the Critical Text. In this article, we shall document what Ruckman teaches regarding this in his own words, proving his defenders wrong.
In the following quote Ruckman mixes various TR editors with Critical Text editors and advocates:
Observe how accurately and beautifully the infallible English text straightens out Erasmus, Griesbach, Beza, Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Trench, Vincent, Davis, Wuest, Zodhiates, Elzevir, and Stephanus with the poise and grace of a swan as it smoothly and effectively breaks your arm with one flap of its wings. Beautiful, isn’t it? If the mood or tense isn’t right in any Greek text, the King James Bible will straighten it out in a hurry. (Ruckman, Peter. The “Errors” in the King James Bible. Pensacola, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1999, p. 353.)
In the above list, the editors Erasmus, Beza, Elzevir, and Stephanus represent the Textus Receptus. In the next quote Ruckman expresses similar sentiment:
To blazes with “THE GREEK TEXT.” It is so inferior to the English text they are not worthy of standing on the same shelf. I put Nestle, Hort, Aland, Metzger, Alford, Souter, Erasmus, Stephanus, Elzevir, and the rest on a shelf below my original edition of the Authorized Version from 1613. (Ruckman, Peter. The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship. Pensacola, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1988, p. 338)
In this quote, Ruckman presents the TR as being practically worthless:
Never use the Textus Receptus to settle anything; THE BOOK will settle it. (Ruckman, Peter. How to teach the Bible. Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 2000 reprint, p. 15)
In some of his teachings, Ruckman uses convoluted arguments that are hard to follow. In the following case he goes to the other extreme, using a simplistic argument:
Now, “Ruckman” believes that the KJV, the Book he holds in his hand, is the Final Authority in all matters of “faith and practice.” That means when Erasmus disagrees with Beza, the AV decides which reading is correct. When Stephanus differs with Elzevir, the KJV tells you which one to follow. And if you have to choose between the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and the AV text, if you stick with the AV text, you will be right every time. (Ruckman, Peter. Bible Believers' Bulletin. Feb. 2008, p. 1)
The above simplistic approach actually leaves us with more questions than it answers. For example:
- How can he prove that is the biblical view and not merely his personal opinion?
- What about foreign language Bibles?
- What about before 1611?
- What about the rare cases in which there are slight differences between KJV editions?
These are the types of questions that strike at the heart of Ruckmanite teachings about the KJV. Do not expect Ruckmanites or Ruckman himself to be specific when pretending to answer those questions. Here is a quote from Ruckman in which his answers to some of these questions are as vague as can be:
If the King James reading is with Beza (where he disagrees with Erasmus) we take Beza. If the King James reading agrees with Erasmus but doesn’t agree with Stephanus, we take Erasmus.
We have a standard of final authority by which we judge Greek manuscripts. It’s a King James 1611 Authorized Version. That is our final authority. That is final. Not even our opinion about it is final. It itself is final. This makes Bible-believing Christians the only Christians in the world, as far as we know, that have a final authority that isn’t just somebody’s opinion. When the King James wasn’t around, then certainly God gave those Christians, in their language, a Book for their final authority; but when you consider the majority of human beings instead of a minority, you can see why He finally gave them a Bible in the universal language of the Twenty and Twenty-first Centuries—English. That’s our final authority. You say, “Which edition?” That is very simple: any edition. You say, “Well, what do you do when the two don’t agree?” They wouldn’t have to agree as long as they didn’t contradict. (Bible Believers' Bulletin March 2008, p. 12)
Notice how worthless the following answer was from the above quote: “When the King James wasn’t around, then certainly God gave those Christians, in their language, a Book for their final authority;” It was essentially a non-answer to a question that Ruckmanites can’t answer. Ruckman teaches that “the A.V. 1611 is necessary to recover the original text…” (Manuscript Evidence, 1970, p. 120) Too bad for those who lived before 1611 or speak other languages!
Also Ruckman’s “any edition” of the KJV is another attempt at avoiding specifics. When Ruckman critiques disagreements between the KJV and other translations, he treats those disagreements as contradictions. However, if there are disagreements between KJV editions, they cannot be contradictions. Ruckman loves changing the rules when they would otherwise invalidate his arguments.
At times Ruckman acknowledges that there are differences between editions of the TR. Observe how he proposes dealing with these cases:
“Well, when Erasmus, Colinaeus, Stephanus, Beza, and Elzevir disagree among themselves, how do you know which reading is right?” God the Holy Spirit let you know the correct text by the one on which He put His approval—the King James Authorized Version of 1611 (cf. Jer. 36:32). (Bible Believers' Bulletin Nov. 2011, p. 3)
Now, “Ruckman” believes that the KJV, the Book he holds in his hand, is the Final Authority in all matters of “faith and practice.” That means when Erasmus disagrees with Beza, the AV decides which reading is correct. When Stephanus differs with Elzevir, the KJV tells you which one to follow. And if you have to choose between the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and the AV text, if you stick with the AV text, you will be right every time.
(Ruckman, Peter. Bible Believers' Bulletin Feb. 2008, p. 1)
Wasting time with Greek and Hebrew never did anything for a Bible believer but make an infidel out of him. (Ruckman’s Bible References: Personal Notes on Salient Verses in the Bible, p. 85)
If any doubt were to remain as to whether Ruckman believes the KJV corrects the TR, the following statement will remove all doubt:
Correct the Greek Textus Receptus with the AV, exactly as you would correct the Alexandrian text with the AV—always. (Bible Believers' Bulletin
Jan 2006, p. 5)
Many Ruckman defenders will insist that Ruckman believes in studying the Greek, and takes it seriously. However, the following quote demonstrates that any study of the original languages by Ruckman is done with an ulterior motive in mind:
Use “the Greek” where it will magnify, apply, glorify, and explain the infallible English, and where it doesn’t, pass it like a beer can on the highway. (The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship. 1988, p. 343)
Ruckman accuses virtually everyone else of also “correcting the Greek with the English,” and therefore accuses them of hypocrisy for criticizing Ruckman on this matter. Notice this example:
… is setting himself up as a “savior” and “liberator” from “Ruckmanism” when the dirty rotten hypocrite has been correcting the TR all of his life with a King James Bible. He has been a “Ruckmanite” for more than twenty years. (Bible Believers’ Bulletin Aug. 1998, p. 7)
Now notice an example of how he accuses his detractors of “correcting the Greek with the English:”
There is no “God” in Stephen’s death in Acts 7:59 in ANY TR Greek manuscript. …has been correcting Acts 7:59 every time he mentioned it in or out of the pulpit; any pulpit. (Ibid., p. 7)
In the above case involving Acts 7:59, “God” is in italics in the KJV, but Ruckman does not point that out. See how Ruckman continues to berate one of his detractors accusing him of doing exactly what Ruckman is criticized of doing:
Can we correct “the” (a lying misnomer) TR Greek with the English? Yessiree, buddy boy! We sure can if YOU can. Don’t think you are superior to any of us when it comes to “executive privilege.” You have done it all of your life, you lying hypoctrite, and your attempts to force others, now, to adopt your profession—which is a lie—or else be branded as a “Ruckmanite” only shows what an inferior stripling you are. (Ibid., p. 7)
Ruckman tries to present correcting the Greek with the English as something normal and commonplace, practiced even among those he labels as Alexandrians. It is an attempt to make the concept sound innocent to condition his readers to think of his strange views as not being so strange after all. It is unfair to portray his detractors of practicing “correcting the Greek with the English,” when many of them do not consider the KJV to be absolutely inerrant or given by inspiration.
Ruckman’s simplistic approach is to arbitrarily decide that the KJV is superior to the source it came from, thereby invalidating the serious study of Greek and Hebrew, the various editions of Greek and Hebrew texts, and the Bible manuscripts. Ruckman’s easy way out appeals to those who are intimidated by the thought of diligent study of the biblical languages and associated manuscripts. Ruckman believes he has single-handedly solved the textual problems that have afflicted textual critics, Bible translators, revisers, commentators, preachers, and Bible students throughout the ages. Ruckman will go as far as to mock current and past dedicated Bible teachers who disagree with him, even though his view brings more questions to the surface than it claims to answer!
I have worked with a man who was raised in the home of a Ruckman student. He has very hard views on life and the world. He is a staunch believer in KJV only. This really baffles me and it is very hard to have this conversation with him when I myself happen to love the KJV. It is my favorite translation. I have posed some of the same questions to him that I read in your above outline, ie, 1) Is KJV only scriptural? Where? How? I have prayerfully read the Bible through three years running and have read nothing of this. 2) Was the work of William Carey in vain? 3) What makes the KJV the word of God and all others not the word of God?
It is question number 3… where the disconnect comes. He honestly and truly believes the KJV was inspired by God and that all other versions are from Satan. He completely refuses to hear any discussions about “more reliable texts” that maybe advantageous in compiling a better, easier to read and understand translation – even if it helps bring people to the cross and eternal salvation. To this I say, “Ye shall no them by their fruit.” (Matt.7:16)
You have intentionally selected the weakest parts of “ruckmanism” to set up a straw man opponent. The bulk of his very prolific output is not antagonistic to the Receptus family. Dr. Ruckman is many things, but he ain’t stupid. I wish you would address why he corrects Greek texts, mostly the Alexandrian families, with the AV. But his opponents just won’t do that.
At least entertain the notion that there might be a spiritual element in this controversy and that Satan may have an interest in whether there is an authoritative Book that is the inspired Word of God. That’s what I consider to be Dr. Ruckman’s main contribution to this debate. Do we have the inspired Word of God or not?
As he says in Manuscript Evidence, translations can be inspired. Else when the New Testament quotes the Old, even the autographs were not inspired.
There is certainly a spiritual element. A house divided against itself can not stand. Peter Ruckman’s teaching does just that. It casts off translations that have led people to Christ as being of Satan. I must say that Satan does not care to put an end to the KJV only controversy, and Ruckman is playing into his hand. Notice, I did not say Ruckman is of Satan nor am I casting out judgment on whether or not he is saved.
Call it his weakest points if you will, but it is Ruckman’s own words and statements and they show the true spirit of Ruckman’s teaching. That spirit is that we only need the KJV and if we don’t know English then we had better learn it.
If Dr. Ruckman defends a Bible that is older than the versions that he is against, then the one who introduced the newer versions are the source of the division. Someone somewhere had to say that the KJV was insufficient, if there is a division, it started at that point, not with those who already trusted the bible they had. I still trust the bible I was born with, and I trusted it before I knew a Dr. Ruckman. I will not move from that faith, and if that means controversy, someone else started it, not me. Nobody is saying that others are not allowed to use another bible. But we believe the KJV is right, inspired, and sufficient. If you have a different view, it is a late view and therefore we are not responsible for any division that it causes.
Its like blaming the colonist for being divisive for not being open to the stamp act.
If we “don’t know English then we had better learn it” is a silly way of looking at the picture. Rather, the “original manuscript(s)” folks BELIEVE “if you don’t know Hebrew and/or Greek (varies by camp) then you had better learn it”. That is the spirit of the picture I see. Rather than having to learn English to know “every word of God”. The POOR are a big deal to the God of the King James Holy Bible. The POOR has the same grace of God as the rich has to “live…by every word of God” as The Lord Jesus Christ himself commanded. If the poor didn’t have enough money to earn the words of God (if that were required which it is NOT) and God used his (God’s) words to judge him then that God wouldn’t seem just. Jesus Christ himself warns rich men. The poor do NOT have a chance (they are poor and have no money) they have no chance to ever learn Hebrew nor Greek. Forget what other languages say and be thankful to God for “his unspeakable gift”.
Also someone commented that the KJV that came from the TR (if it did or not doesn’t concern me) can’t be superior to the the TR. QUESTION: Didn’t the “only begotten Son” get “a name that is above every name? What about the Father? Doesn’t a sinner “believe on The Lord Jesus Christ”, “the Son of God” to be saved from eternal hell fire? Why not the One who begat him? Why is the Son which came forth from the Father “the way, the truth, and the life”? Why through the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON and not through the Father for salvation from eternal damnation? I want the truth! So it could be possible that the words of the KJV are where every word of God (all of them) are found rather than in the source they came from?
I am poor and never went past 8th grade and have a good grasp of Hebrew and Greek. Why? Because GOD is with the poor and needy. Most American kids will be edified and understand the NIV and be able to stay away from sin a whole lot easier using somwthing othet than KJV. Why? Because it is their vernacular. I have asked youth from KJV only groups what fornication meany and they were clueless. On the other hand they knew what sexual immorality was.
Whoever wrote the article above keeps repeating the line “the source it came from” referring to the source of the KJV. The KJV does not have a source. It has multiple sources. In other words the KJV is not a translation from a single text. It is a translation from a diverse set of texts but also the KJV text went through rigid comparisons with English translations so as not to lose uniformity. Any work done in this manner will provide a highly superior text, as opposed to one which favors a particular text and does not regard former translations. For example the NIV and the Vatican manuscript. There is no original text. There are no original copies of the biblical works produced by the authors. Therefore the KJV was put together in a superior way, with a superior technique.
AMEN! The TR is a HUGE compilation of sources that, when they were being assembled, was far superior in the modern Westcott-Hort text because the men who compiling it were able to compare one to another and see where the weight of evidence led. I have often thought that, when the modern texts were discovered after being “lost” for centuries, why were they lost? Why were they put on a back shelf in a back storage room instead of, like most other texts, worn out from being used? Because they were recognized by the church fathers as being corrupted and useless. I told someone that, someone missed the trash can and that is why those manuscripts survived for hundreds of years.
Moses smashed the Originals when he came off Mt. Sinai. So as soon as someone starts saying things like “In the Originals”…..just walk away because they don’t know what they are doing.
in exodus 34:1 God rewrote the originals word for word.
Concerning the thought(s) mentioned above about the English of the KJB, and what about those of other languages are left out; for these types of comments, even if you disagree please consider this thought. When God had the OT written in Hebrew, less than 1% of the than known world spoke that language. So, why was God not concerned with making a copy in their own language? If they even knew about it, than they would have to had obtained a copy in Hebrew, right? As far as for today, English is a universal language, as is the Big Ben in England, and the British Thermal Unit is the absolute temperature-you’d have to learn how to use it-England-English, and the same goes for English Location: longitude/latitude, it’s all English. Flying coordinates is English. The NT was written in Koine Greek, the language than predominate, and so on it goes. Are there exceptions, sure, but facts are facts. Where was the KJB before 1611, all over the world in dozens of different language versions ecetera. Disagree or not, you still get the point.
Proving that English is becoming the most universal language does not make Ruckman right on this point. It’s interesting to note, but it does not fulfill any Biblical prophecy nor make Greek or Hebrew any less authoritative. When you stated that the “KJB 1611” was all over the world in dozens of languages, you did not give a single specific example.
".. but it does not fulfill any Biblical prophecy.."
By prophecy do you mean something like: "And the Lord said unto Isaiah, (of course He didn't) seest thou that you departest not from my original language (tongue, dialect etc) in this word that I give unto thee forever that I might not smite thee with a….' etc, etc??!!
I haven't come across anything in my AV yet?
Please feel free to correct me in on this if I err.
what about straight forward new testament Pauline warnings:
1Tim 5: 4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. 5Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: 6From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; 7Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
1Tim 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science (Linguistic science?) falsely so called: 21Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
"..nor make Greek or Hebrew any less authoritative. "
Yes it does. If the Lord God almighty decides He wants His final infallible word in 1611 english, (you do believe His Word must be infallible do you?) then the Greek and Hebrew must become subserviant to that. That is Ruckman's argument. If you reject that premise, you will forever be wrestling with "Hath God said?" won't you? Of course the vatican hopes you (we) will think that, because they agree, and have the perfect solution which is: "The 'church tradition' overrules the scripture". Easy fix.
Martin Luther wasted his time then didn't he?
None of the verses you quote prove that God chose to switch final authorities from the original languages to English. Notice how you were forced to include an “if” in the following statement of your conclusion: “If the Lord God almighty decides He wants His final infallible Word in 1611 English.” If! If! If!
The "British Thermal Unit is the absolute temperature"? Hardly. The "absolute temperature" is Kelvins, which in turn is based on degrees Celsius, while the SI (International System) measure corresponding to BTUs is the Joule. If you have to use poor scientific understanding to defend either Ruckman or using the often obsolete language of the 1611 KJV, you have no argument.
Ruckman is correct regarding the superiority of the AV over any Greek and Hebrew texts.
There is no perfect Greek or Hebrew text. There is a perfect KJB.
The AV is now the Received TR text in English.
There is no need for Greek or Hebrew.
Is it true because Ruckman says so? God did not say so. What God says is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, but Ruckman’s opinions disguised as settled facts are not.
I didn’t say it was true because Ruckman said it was, but because the facts support that view.
You have to supply a single Hebrew or Greek text that is superior to the KJB to prove otherwise.
What is your criteria for determining that the KJV is superior to any single Hebrew or Greek text? You also better not ignore the questions that Ruckman either doesn’t answer or glosses over in a vague manner:
•How can you prove that it is the biblical view and not merely your personal opinion?
•What about foreign language Bibles?
•What about before 1611?
•What about the rare cases in which there are slight differences between KJV editions?
If there is no need for Hebrew in the Second Rabbinic Bible or Byzantine text in Greek? Why did God preserve them? From WHAT are translators such as those at the Trinitarian Bible Society to use to make a new version in a foreign language?
The 1689 Second London Confession offers this about “vulgar translations”: “Paragraph 8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old),14 and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.15 But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read,16 and search them,17 therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,18 that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.19
14 Rom. 3:2
15 Isa. 8:20
16 Acts 15:15
17 John 5:39
18 1 Cor. 14:6,9,11,12,24,28 19 Col. 3:16”
The 1615 Irish Articles speak similarly: “4. The Scriptures ought to be translated out of the original tongues into all languages for the common use of all men: neither is any person to be discouraged from reading the Bible in such a language as he doth understand, but seriously exhorted to read the same with great humility and reverence, as a special means to bring him to the true knowledge of God and of his own duty”.
While indeed as the LCF makes clear in I.9 the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of themselves, this is what the majority of creeds reveal this is the belief of Christians in all ages that God’s sheep have a right and intrest in the scriptures of truth. I have a whole article on this of confessions reading the same from 1561 in the Second Helvetic Confession to the 1689 Second London Confession.
You therefore mean to say that God did not inspire His original words, and that a translation in English is all that exists thereof. Wow. I know Catholics here in Louisiana who revere God's word better than that, even if it is a corrupt popish version. You are taking their same prima scriptura postion, edward. How sad, and how revolting!
If it corrects the ancient Hebrew & Greek, shouldn’t Isaiah 61:1-2 be identical to Luke 4:18-19 in the KJV?
As we can see, there are some minor differences & at least one major difference between the two passages. Here is how they read:
61:1-2: The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
Luke 4:18-19: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
I posted this question 6 years ago, but there has been no reply. The silence of the Ruckmanites & other KJV Only proponents speaks for itself.
I love those who talk about “no need for the Greek or Hebrew”. Ask any of them what the word “church” means. Go ahead ask; I’ll wait… Not a single one of them can answer without difining the word “ecclesia”. They can NOT define the word church. So, yes, keep your TR. Ask ANY of them where the word “baptize” comes from, or blaspheme, or prophet. These words, among many others, only have meaning because of beeing in our beloved KJV. These words were not translated, but merely transliterated. TThat meanss to keep the spelling and carry straight over to the actual translated part. There were differing reasons why this occured, dependding on the individual word. In some cases there was no Engllish wordx to translate into.
You cannot accurately or correctly define “baptize” without your TR, so no, don’t throw it away. After all, to some, “baptize” means “to pour”, or “to sprinkle” or “to swat on the head with a wet rose”. Your KJV gives you examples of the action in some cases, but not always. Here’s another goodie: what do you do when your child asks you who Esaias was? Or Jeremy? Or Noe? You can’t say, :”Well, son, that’s just the Greek form for Jewish names” because, for some weird reason, we don’t to put it in the poor child’s head that there was another language called Greek that the Gospels were originally written in. Or this golden nugget: Anathema Maranatha. Or the title, Christ, for that matter. (Now don’t you DARE get your TR out.) Quick, what do those words mean? Come on, come on!
Quick, now, what do they mean? What’s the bottom line? Your KJV has UNTRANSLATED words, and is therefore not “perfect”, and has serious need, not of the NIV, (God forbid), but your wonderful, blessed TR.
Always remember; ALWAYS remember: “Forever, O Lord, thy word is settled in HEAVEN. (NOT in ANY book.) Also remeember: there is no such thing in this century of KJV only. There may have been when it first came out, but not now. Even the most staunch KJVer has to have his [shh, dictionary]. So declaring himself to be KJV only, is misleading. He can have his dictionary, but I can’t have my TR, or my lexicon? And this makes sense, because…why, again? I forgot.
Amen and amen.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH! When it comes right down to it, the question is what does it take for you to serve God? I mean straight to the point, fight sin, read your bible, study your Bible, yea hath God said, Love your family, spend your money wisely and so on. For me a King James Bible is all I need, John 1 and for you the Hebrew(which version), Greek(which version), and the assyrian. The King James Bible tells us by their Fruit we shall know them. How much fruit do you have? What is in the Greek that is not in the King James Bible that I need in order to serve God? When I got saved it was by the English and to serve God…English and to fight sin…English. We are not like minded so go away and I go my way in which I by faith believe God wants me to go. Hebrews 11:6 read it. God Bless.
God inspired the original languages and Holy men of God wrote as they were moved of the Holy Ghost. When anyone says that the english corrects the original languages, what they are really saying is that the Holy Spirit misled the prophets and gave them the wrong word. They are basicaly accusing God the Holy Spirit of lying to the OT Prophets. . They are saying God made a mistake originally and they are right.
One does wonder how this differs from textual, redactive or higher criticism, or the dogmas of papalism. Is it acceptable for the rationalist to take a low view of scripture, but not Ruckman? I think not!
they think that they are right,but they are wrong