What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Is YOUR KJV preserved from error?

V

Vince

Member
During the 1950's, Peter Ruckman, a mentally ill WW2 veteran, invented the doctrine that the King James Version IS the Word of God, and it is sinful to use any other translation. His first doctrine was that the translators were preserved from error, but that became incresingly hard to prove, because there are minor mistakes in the KJV. His second revelation is that in 1611, God rejected His Word, commanded us to reject His Word, and replaced it with the King James Version.

Anyway, how preserved from error is YOUR KJV? Here's what you need to do: round up every KJV Bible and New Testament in your house. Turn to Mark 1:12 in every one of them, and see what the missing word is, and post it on this thread. Remember, other translations don't count; this is for King James only.

Mark 1:12 And immediately the ..... driveth him into the wilderness.
 
Every KJV I have in the house has the following.
Mark 1:12 And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.

That is a New Scofield 1967, Old Scofield, Scofield lll, Thompson Chain, Zodhiates Hebrew & Greek - Key Study Bible, and a Cambridge text only KJV. Plus a few other no name but KJV, hard/paper backs scattered around.

Need to come up with something else.
 
Here's what I came up with when I tried it:


1) My parallel Spanish/KJV says "spirit"
2) My New Scofield says "Spirit"
3) My Hyles-Anderson KJV says "Spirit"
4) My Thompson Chain Reference Bible says "Spirit"
5) My 1901 KJV (Bought it at a junk shop; leather-bound, great buy for $1) says "spirit"
6) The 1611 KJV Online says "spirit"
7) The University of Virginia Online Text Center KJV says "Spirit"
8) The 1611 KJV Online from Stewarton Bible School in Scotland says "Spirit"
9) The AV1611 King James Bible Page says "Spirit"
10) The Dewey Library online facsimile of the original 1611 KJV says "Spirit

Other posters generally agree that about 2/3 of all KJVs say "Spirit," and about 1/3 say "spirit."
 
Ok if its capitalization we are looking at, and not a change to something like Holy Ghost. I think several of my Bibles, especially those with the 1769 Oxford text have "spirit". My Cambridge I know definitely has "Spirit". Oxford has always had a problem with Cambridge, about capitalizing certain words. :)

I know some make big over the use of capitals, I don't have as much problem with that, as I do with out and out word changes. Like the many word changes in my 1967 Scofield, which can not be considered a Scofield, or a KJV.

However lately Cambridge has removed capitalization from "spirit" in nearly all cases, especially in the Old Testament. That I do not know what the idea behind is, except to corrupt the KJV. :shame
 
Ok I did a recheck. Everything including my 1967 Scofield, that I listed above has "Spirit". But I have two Thomas Nelson New Testaments that have "spirit", we now have at least one of the culprits "Thomas Nelson". :)
 
It's not because there aren't slight differences in translation from the original Greek. It's because it's still the best translation out there, that still goes back to the earliest manuscripts.
I am satisfied that it is accurate enough and adequate. The NIV and ASV are not as good. Other than that to understand the Greek language requires a full understanding of the construction of a language.
The phrasing is more akin to French than English...verb first, etc.
David Hockings can give you some info on that. He is fully versed in both Hebrew and Greek, but will still tell you that it is the best translation we have.
Here is the site:
http://radiofreechurch.com/message_sets_display/4
 
For the record, neither Greek nor Hebrew use capital letters, so either one is correct. The original 1611 KJV has been revised for spelling changes with a few other minor changes.
 
I tend to correct my KJV with the interlinear. Studying the bible requires that one studies the bible. :yes
 
Okay, Folks, time to check for preservation from error again. Job described wicked, worthless men who were driven away into the wilderness. Some of them lived in the ..........of the valleys in Job 30:6. Gather up all your KJVs and see where they lived.
 
My PCE Cambridge KJV has clifts of the valleys.
My Old Scofield KJV (Oxford 1769) has clifts of the valleys
I have an old World Publishers KJV cheapo, that has clifts of the valleys (not bad for a junker).
My Thompson Chain KJV (?) has cliffs of the valleys.
My Zodhiates KJV (?) has clefts of the valleys.
My 1967 Scofield KJV has clefts of the Valleys, says regular KJV has cliffs, but only my Thompson chain has cliffs. The Oxford 1769 Old Scofield, and the PCE Cambridge that have clifts, I consider the most reliable. :)
 
Hello Vince,

You said...........

During the 1950's, Peter Ruckman, a mentally ill WW2 veteran, invented the doctrine that the King James Version IS the Word of God,
Click to expand...

All I have to say is he is right !

I used to love his drawings!
 
All I have to say is he is right !

Ruckman went on to steal another man's wife and to become a vehement enemy of Godly men. He has made several other prophecies, including the claim that Attorney General Janet Reno was going to have him assassinated. Galatians 5"19-21 clearly shows that Ruckman is not a born-again Christian. His wicked life clearly shows that he is not a prophet sent by God to teach us that God has rejected His Word and replaced it with the KJV.
 
kjv is a great bible that is what i have and use but there are problems with it. i do not say this next thing to offend anyone as it may not apply to them but kjv onlyism comes often times with a very mean spirit towards other believers in Christ. Apparently ruckman who i wont talk bad about since i dont know him or much about him, but apparenelty he is known for being mean spirited and his followers tend to look at him like he is truth with an attitude(that attitude does not come from the Holy Spirit).

Many of them-not all- can tend to belittle and harass other believers who do not read well and cannot YET handle to read the kjv and have to read other bibles for now.They can often miss the fact that God is Soverign and can use anything even something less perfect, to teach and reach His people, now He may not want them to stay there where they are at but He can use all things to help them where the are at but often this benefit and faith towards God is not given to those who do not read a kjv then sometimes if they dont read the right kjv.

proof for the kjv not being perfect can be in translation but also in the fact that between the differnt kjv versions there are many changes.

belief that only the textus receptus(a newer manuscript) is only correct is another problem.

for some real good information on an even better bible then the kjv-which i do love!- here are some links to articles about ivan panins numeric bible
http://www.khouse.org/articles/1995/102/
 
Okay, Folks, here's what I've got:

"clifts"

Power Bible CD
Bible Max.com
Rainbow Study Bible CD
University of Virginia Online KJV


"cliffs"

Bible Collection CD
BiblePro.com
BibleDataBase.net
Thompson Chain Reference Bible
Parallel KJV/Reina-Valera
Crusade Publishers 1973
Hyles-Anderson Special Edition 1975
New York City 1901
National Bible Press 1922


"clefts"

E-Sword


Coming tomorrow! The strange but true explanation of how this happened.
 
Actually, it doesn't matter to me who Ruckman was. He didn't write the KJV, 47 scholars did...and I'm satisfied with it. Cliffs or clefts...they were hiding...as in a chasm or in caves. If KJV language is out of date, it's easy enough to check Thayer's or Strong's lexicons anyway. I have stuck to the KJV for 36 years and I'm not about to change. It's poetic, easier to memorize (they have done tests with children), and Theology doesn't rely on one verse anyway. Scripture supports scripture...with context...and similar topics elsewhere. Anything really important is always reiterated. There are 8 times as many verses about the second coming, than the first coming. David Jeremiah goes into some of this.
I never base any doctrine on one word or even verse.
So, I'm satisfied.
 
And now, the explanation:

The Hebrew word in Job 30:6 refers to a crack or to a fearful place. Modern translations tend to translate it as "dry river beds," or "fearsome places." In 1611, the KJV correctly translated the word as "clifts." But the English language wasn't standardized, and in some parts of Britain, "clift" was another word for "cliff."

Later editions of the KJV "corrected" the spelling, not realizing that the word "clifts" did not refer to "cliffs" at all. Other editions modernized the spelling to "clefts," which is also the correct meaning of the word.
 
Actually, it doesn't matter to me who Ruckman was. He didn't write the KJV, 47 scholars did...and I'm satisfied with it. Cliffs or clefts...they were hiding...as in a chasm or in caves. If KJV language is out of date, it's easy enough to check Thayer's or Strong's lexicons anyway. I have stuck to the KJV for 36 years and I'm not about to change. It's poetic, easier to memorize (they have done tests with children), and Theology doesn't rely on one verse anyway.
Click to expand...

That is why some prefer to stay with the Old Scofield 1769 Oxford, or the PCE Cambridge also 1769. Because these two edition retain the old spellings, and have only corrected for really atrocious 1600 spelling.

While Clifts, and Clefts may be a proper change, you cant always depend on the publishers opinion of a modernized word change being correct. Cambridge in the last few years has virtually ruined their KJV, while oxford has continued to use the 1769 printing. With exception of the 1967 Scofield, where many word changes were made. But the 2003 Scofield lll, returned to the 1769 text.

No Theology should not depend on one verse, but unfortunately modern theology does in most all cases, or various single verses pulled out of context all over the Bible.
 
Vince says.................

Ruckman went on to steal another man's wife and to become a vehement enemy of Godly men. He has made several other prophecies, including the claim that Attorney General Janet Reno was going to have him assassinated. Galatians 5"19-21 clearly shows that Ruckman is not a born-again Christian. His wicked life clearly shows that he is not a prophet sent by God to teach us that God has rejected His Word and replaced it with the KJV.
Click to expand...

I do not know much about the man, but my son who is a Baptist, know him !
[our son just let us see some of the taps of Ruckman. ]
So I , asked my son to tell me about what you said.

and this is what he said ..............

The reason you didn't know any of that is because it's not true. Ruckman did not invent the doctrine that the KJB is the word of God. LOTS of people believed it all along. It didn't become a big issue until there were modern translations after the 1950's.

Mentally ill? He is just lying. Ruckman never stole another man's wife.


Dr. Ruckman doesn't say the translators were preserved from error, but that the TEXT of the scripture was preserved from error. The translators make errors in their notes.

There are no mistakes in the KJB. There is no missing word in Mark 1:12. The word is Spirit. He is pointing out spelling differences. English did not have standard spelling until the late 1700's with Johnson's speller and the 1800's with Webster's dictionary
 
What more can be said? The errors have been clearly pointed out and some quick research on Ruckman shows he has some serious...issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top