THE ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE
The illustration at the site you shared shows the exact reason for the differences and changes in the RV and ASV, as compared to the KJV.
The two gray bars on the right side of that illustration indicate that the RV and ASV, and subsequent versions we know and suppose, included the
"Most Ancient Copies", as it says, while all the Bible versions on the left-hand side are shown to have been developed without those
"Most Ancient Copies" (to any extent if they were ever known and used at all), such as eventually in the production of the KJV.
Those
"Most Ancient Copies" are listed as a.)
Codex Sinaiticus, b.)
Codex Alexandrinus, and c.)
Codex Vaticanus.
An individual's perception of the value, cogency, and reliability of those three "
Most Ancient Copies", a.)
Codex Sinaiticus, b.)
Codex Alexandrinus, and c.)
Codex Vaticanus will determine their confidence in
"the Modern Bibles", such as the RV and ASV, and subsequent versions as we know them, compared to the KJV and the previous volumes shown on the left, from whence it sprang.
Ruckmanism and the KJVOnly myth are truly disturbing and distracting Red Herrings in comparison to that issue in the use of those three "
Most Ancient Copies" in the translation of the
"Modern Bible Versions", IMHO.
Rucmanism and the KJVOnly myth should have been dismissed out of hand, historically, as having zero presidence or previous substantiated Pedigree whatsoever, as that illustration shows that versions of the Bible certainly did, in their backstory.
However, Rucmanism and the KJVOnly myth weren't summarily discharged from service by everyone as deceitful and disingenuous, which they deserve IMHO, and I am very sorry for that.
The employment, use, and heavy dependence on those three "
Most Ancient Copies" in the translation of the
"Modern Bible Versions", is tantamount and pertinent to an extended discussion and perhaps the possibility of a new thread, with regard to their validity vs the validity, or not, of the KJV and where they greatly differ, to me.
That's a red flag issue that is rarely touched upon, for some reason, though.
Defending the KJV these days always defaults to a person apparently or 'obviously' being a KJVOnlyist, and that after all, KJVOnlyists are irrational(?)
Of course, they are. It comes with their rationally indefensible territory.
KJVOnlyists and their cultlike myth should have just been jettisoned from that conversation as a totally false dead issue, to start with, in order to then talk about the
"Most Ancient Copies" fiasco, the way I see it.
