Featured KJVO is alive and well here at the BB

A sixth possible specific example is also found in Acts 20:28.

Concerning Acts 20:28 in his commentary, J. A. Alexander asserted: “Over the which is not a correct version, as it makes the overseers entirely distinct from and superior to the flock, whereas the original makes them a part of it, although superior in office” (p. 249). Alexander indicated that it would better have been rendered “in which, in the midst and as a part of which” (Ibid.). At this verse, Haak’s 1637 English translation of the Dutch Annotations affirmed that the Greek meant “in which.“ Concerning these same words in his notes on Acts, Melancthon Jacobus commented: “literally, in which--wherein--as yourselves a part” (p. 329).

The KJV kept its rendering over the which from the Bishops’ Bible. Is this rendering [“over the which”] in the Bishops’ Bible one of the examples of where it had more hierarchical language than the other pre-1611 Bibles?

Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great, and Geneva Bibles have “whereof,” and Coverdale’s has “among the which.” Wycliffe’s Bible has “in which.“ The Companion Bible maintained that “out of 2,622 occurrences of en, it is rendered ‘over’ only here” (p. 1635). At the entry for over in his Lexicon, Bullinger defined the Greek word en at this verse as “in” (p. 565).

On the other hand, at this verse, the KJV did keep or follow the rendering “to feed” from Coverdale’s and Geneva Bibles instead of the rendering “to rule” in Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great, and Bishops’. The 1611 KJV’s keeping of “feed” from the Geneva Bible at this verse could be understood to indicate that the KJV translators intended “overseers” to be understood as “pastors” [“priests” as they were called in the Church of England] instead of as bishops who rule over a diocese. The diocesan bishops of the Church of England of that day did not feed or preach every week to one congregation or flock as the overseers of Acts 20:28 were instructed to do.

 

A seventh specific example involves Acts 1:20.

Gustavus Paine maintained that Miles Smith, final editor of the KJV with Thomas Bilson, “protested that after Bilson and he had finished their editing, Bishop Bancroft made fourteen more changes.” He gave as an example Bancroft's insistence on using "the glorious word bishopric even for Judas in Acts 1:20" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 128). Paine added: “The fact that Smith was the one to protest Bancroft’s amendments suggests that he stood against both Bilson and Bancroft in such matters as the importance of bishoprics” (Ibid.). Concerning the fourteen changes, Benson Bobrick asserted: “One of them was to insist on that ‘glorious word Bishopric’ for the titular authority of Judas in Acts 1:20” (Wide as the Waters, p. 248). David Teems wrote: “Because an argument followed between Smith and Bancroft, the Translators’ draft obviously read ‘And his charge’ (Geneva Bible) and not bishopricke” (Majestie, p. 232). Edward Whiston asserted that “many of those in King James’ time (had they been as well conscientious in point of fidelity and godliness, as they were furnished with abilities, they) would not have moulded it to their own Episcopal notion rendering episkope, (the office of oversight) by the term Bishoprick Acts 1:20 as they do in 14 places more” (Life, p. 44).

Acts 1:20 quotes Psalm 109:8: "let another take his office" which was translated in the Geneva Bible in Acts 1:20 as "let another take his charge." Although it is not in many current KJV's, the 1611 KJV did have the following note in the margin indicating other acceptable words: "Or, office: or charge." Thomas Hill suggested that this change was made “that you may believe that the Bishops are the Apostles successors” (Six Sermons, p. 24). In 1593, Bishop Thomas Bilson, who would be co-editor of the 1611, had quoted Acts 1:20 as “his bishopric let another take” and had used this verse as his basis for his question “will you grant, that an apostle doth not differ from a bishop” (Perpetual Government, p. 291). Bilson contended that “Peter himself calleth the apostleship ‘a bishopship’” with the reference Acts 1:20 (p. 296). Thus, Bishop Thomas Bilson used the rendering “bishopric” at Acts 1:20 as part of his arguments for the divine origin of episcopacy and for apostolic succession. Bilson also claimed that “I am sure all the fathers with one mouth affirm the apostles both might be and were bishops” (p. 295). Bilson asserted that “whatsoever becometh of the names, it cannot be denied but the apostles had that power of imposing hands, and delivering unto Satan, which they after imparted unto bishops” (p. 296). Bilson claimed: “as by imposing of hands, so by succeeding in the chair, have bishops ever since the apostles’ times been severed from presbyters in the church of Christ: which to all that do not eagerly seek to captivate the truth to their own desires, is an argument unrefellable, that the first placing of bishops above presbyters was apostolic” (p. 332). Henry Dexter asserted: “If Judas had had a bishopric, he must have been a bishop; and if Judas had been a bishop, then the man who was to take the vacant place would be a bishop; and the twelve were all bishops” (Hand-Book of Congregationalism, p. 25). Abel Stevens asserted that this doctrine of apostolic succession “is the basis of the arrogance and pretension of the prelatical system” (Essay on Church Polity, p. 62).

The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology noted that bishopric is a compound of two words: bishop [overseer] and rice or ric [realm, province, dominion, power] (p. 95). White’s Dictionary of the King James Language noted that “a bishoprick is ‘the realm or province over which a bishop has control” (Vol. 1, p. 168). Does White’s definition of this English word match the meaning of the Greek word? Ross Purdy contended that “what bishopric meant to the English mind was that it was the diocese of a ruling bishop” (I Will Have, p. 58). In his comments about this verse in his commentary, Adam Clarke asserted that “surely the office or charge of Judas was widely different what we call bishopric, the diocese, estate, and emoluments of a bishop” (p. 687). In his commentary on Acts, J. A. Alexander observed that the rendering bishopric “suggests foreign ideas by its modern usage and associations” (p. 30). Did a diocesan bishop want to use a rendering that could convey a hierarchal sense that a bishop has a bishopric, diocese, or realm? Is the rendering “bishopric” more favorable to Episcopal or prelatic views and to Bancroft’s and Bilson’s claim that bishops were of divine origin than the rendering “charge“ or “office?” In his 1853 commentary on Acts, Abiel Abbot Livermore claimed that “this rendering [bishopric] betrays its Episcopalian origin” (p. 22). Andrew Edgar asserted that “the prelatic word ’bishopric’ appears in Acts 1:20” (Bibles of England, p. 295). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia noted that the Revised Version “corrects the rendering ’bishopric’ to ’office,’ thus relieving the verse of possible ecclesiastical pretensions” (I, p. 482). In his comments on Acts 1:20 in his Bible commentary, Adam Clarke asserted: “Surely the office or charge of Judas was widely different from what we call bishopric, the diocese, estate, and emoluments of a bishop” (p. 687).

Some may attempt to excuse or justify the KJV’s rendering “bishoprick” because this same rendering had also been used in several earlier English Bibles. John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, and Miles Coverdale may have used this rendering in a different sense with the meaning “office” or “overseership.” The Oxford English Dictionary gave this as an “obsolete” meaning of the word and cited Acts 1:20 in Wycliffe’s Bible and the 1535 Coverdale’s as examples of this use (II, p. 224). After Bancroft and Bilson advocated their new theory of the divine origin of episcopacy and apostolic succession, the word bishoprick became associated with a specific hierarchical sense or meaning as this rendering was used to argue for apostolic succession in a book written by Bilson in 1593. Based on the clear, first-hand evidence in Bilson’s book, it was and is valid for believers to think that the rendering bishoprick was intended by them to be understood with a different meaning in the 1611 KJV than that intended by Wycliffe, Tyndale, or Coverdale. If this different sense or meaning was not actually intended, Bishop Bilson could not have linked his apostolic succession argument to this rendering at Acts 1:20. The meaning affixed to bishoprick by Bilson and Bancroft for readers who were members of the Church of England should not be explained in a manner inconsistent or even contradictory to their known sentiments and the meaning that they intended for it. If “bishopric” was possibly considered one of the ecclesiastical words, it would be additional compelling evidence that indicates that it was used in a specific hierarchical sense to advocate apostolic succession and not in the earlier general sense.

In the 1610-1611 edition of his book first printed in 1590, KJV translator Hadrian Saravia asserted: “St. Peter, himself an Apostle, calls the Apostleship of Judas his Bishopric” (Treatise, p. 192). In a book printed after 1611, KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes also cited Acts 1:20 for his assertion that “the apostles were called” “bishops or overseers” (Pattern, p. 359). Andrewes maintained that “upon these [bishops] was transferred the chief part of the apostolic function” (Ibid., p. 355). Ross Purdy contended: “They made a conscious choice to retain the language here that glorified and seemingly sanctioned their church organization; one run by the ordained bishops. This gives those who are ordained the appearance of a connection with the apostles and supports the Roman Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession adopted by the Anglo-Catholic Church. The king and his bishops used the new Bible as a tool to promote their agenda of absolute monarchy and episcopacy” (I Will Have, p. 58). Was the rendering “bishopric” used in the 1611 KJV in order to uphold the error of the doctrine of apostolic succession? Hierarchical church government views are often connected to a claim of apostolic succession. Firsthand evidence from the writings of Bilson, Andrewes, and Saravia demonstrated that the KJV’s rendering “bishopric” was linked to the Church of England’s claim of apostolic succession.

 

Nah, he's not obsessed.

 

As you requested, I gave some specific examples. I also provided first-hand evidence from the makers of the KJV that indicates what they intended the verses to teach or how they interpreted them along with evidence from others.

I am not saying that it how you or KJV-only advocates now understand or interpret these verses.

 

We know we don't have the original language manuscripts
of the Bible Preserved for us, to this extent, of being flawlessless perfect.

Are you saying Ruckman tried to say that?

Like (1) thru (6), below?

By what process, is what I was saying?

Where we do have the sufficient translations, from sufficient copies
of the verbal plenary God breathed word of God from the original autographs.

Sufficient copies as in;

( I see all of these as being catastrophic and cataclysmic hogwash
and very destructive heresies that should have been discarded
on their face, by any Spiritually endowed soul.

And, I'm sorry they weren't.)


The beliefs of Ruckman are that:

(1) the KJV is doubly inspired;

(2) the KJV is advanced revelation;

(3) the English KJV is as or more inspired than the original language Scriptures;

(4) the KJV can be used to correct the original language Scriptures;

(5) there is no need whatsoever to study the Biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek due to an “inspired” English translation;

(6) the KJV cannot be improved on

(7) the KJV is the only Bible that has gospel or salvific content;

(8) those who do not use the KJV are condemned to hell; and

(9) all non-English speaking believers must learn English to know the Truth.

https://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/VPP/Non-Ruckmanite Answers to Anti-KJV Questions.pdf

 

Perhaps you misrepresent or bear false witness against Peter Ruckman since he himself did not make all those claims.

Peter Ruckman asserted: “There is nothing wrong with a missionary using the Diodati translation in Italy instead of the Authorized Version. There is nothing wrong with a missionary using the Olivetan version in France instead of the Authorized Version, and there is nothing wrong with a missionary in Germany using Luther’s version instead of the Authorized Version” (Bible Babel, p. 2). Peter Ruckman recommended “Valera’s Spanish version” and “Martin Luther's German version" (Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 1). In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Peter Ruckman wrote: “Martin Luther’s German Bible is the same text as the King James, 1611” (p. 80). Ruckman wrote: “Martin’s German Bible is the German King James Bible. It is the equivalent of the ‘King’s English,’ and so all affirm” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 146). Ruckman wrote: "There is nothing wrong with a missionary in Germany using Luther's version instead of the Authorized Version" (Bible Babel, p. 2). Ruckman wrote: “God produced a German Textus Receptus for the Continent” (p. 230). Ruckman asserted: “Never hesitate to correct any Greek text with the text of the ‘Reichstext’” (Monarch of the Books, p. 19). Peter Ruckman indicated that the Dutch “had a Bible translated from the same manuscripts the King James translators used” (Bible Babel, p. 91).

Peter Ruckman claimed as fact that the Received Text "is the text of Martin Luther's translation, John Wesley's translation, and also every translation that God used on the mission field from 1600 to 1901" (Bible Babel, p. 72).

Peter Ruckman listed the 1535 Coverdale's Bible on his good tree (Bible Babel, p. 82). The Great Bible, which is Coverdale's revision of the Matthew's Bible, is also on Ruckman's good tree of Bibles (Bible Babel, p. 82). Ruckman included the Geneva Bible on his good tree that is described at the bottom of the page as “the one, true, infallible, God-breathed Bible” (Bible Babel, p. 82). Peter Ruckman wrote: "We will not condemn them [Tyndale and Wycliffe, or the Geneva Bible]. They have substantially the same Greek and Hebrew text as the King James Bible" (Bible Babel, p. 2). Ruckman also stated: "I recommend Tyndale's version, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, Valera's Spanish version, Martin Luther's German version, and a number of others" (Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 1).

 

It is a cult, and at times heresy!

 

Apostolic Succession and Orders that are Absolutely Null & Utterly Void — Center for Reformation Anglicanism

Excerpt:
Anglicans do not believe in “apostolic succession” as commonly thought. There is no unbroken line of ordained bishops and priests traceable back to St. Peter by the automatic conferral of grace by the tactile laying-on-of-hands. The succession the Bible teaches is the succession of apostolic teaching from the Apostles to all subsequent generations to the end of time - the passing on of the catholic faith once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3; 2 Tim 2:2). This succession is symbolized in the laying-on-of-hands from bishop to bishop and bishop to priest, but the transference is authority to preach the Bible, not clerical "specialness" (or some ontological change or imputed “priestly character”). The idea of a tactile, automatic conference of special grace is Roman Catholic, not Anglican, but there is a move in that direction in many Anglican circles today.


Bible, The – The Episcopal Church
The translations of the Bible authorized for use in the worship of the Episcopal Church are the King James (Authorized Version), together with the Marginal Readings authorized for use by the General Convention of 1901, the English Revision of 1881, the American Revision of 1901, the Revised Standard Version of 1952, the Jerusalem Bible of 1966, the New English Bible with the Apocrypha of 1970, the 1976 Good News Bible (Today’s English Version), the New American Bible (1970), the Revised Standard Version, an Ecumenical Edition, known as the “R.S.V. Common Bible” (1973), the New International Version (1978), the New Jerusalem Bible (1987), the Revised English Bible (1989), and the New Revised Standard Version Bible (1990).

 

Jesus Christ came to the earth to establish his kingdom, as described in the OT prophecies, of perfection and righteousness. He was intending to establish it after the established model under Moses with 12 heads of Israel and seventy elders. This is the reason Jesus chose 12 apostles in Matt 10 and 70 elders in Lk 10. This is to be the political offices of his kingdom and will be when he finally does set up his kingdom over a converted nation sometimes in the near future. These same men whom he chose will be resurrected, glorified bodily and will execute these positions of authority in his kingdom. They are all Jews.

Mt 19:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
30 But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.

But.... most people here cannot believe what is written because their religion forbids it.

 

Wonder what, "did not make all those claims", means?

"Perhaps you misrepresent
or bear false witness against Peter Ruckman."

Or, perhaps not? or what else?

It's hard to find lists of his beliefs spelled out.

When I do, they are similar to the list, below.

Are you a proponent of Peter Ruckman?
and, therefore, his teachings regarding KJVOnlyism?

I've never come across one before if you are.

This is surreal.

If so, what did he believe?

Do you know?


2 Timothy 3:7:
“Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

Ruckmanism(Extreme KJV Only-ism) Explained and Found Wanting - Eternal Evangelism

"Ruckmanism is essentially the following teachings and conclusions:

"The King James Version of the Bible translation is inspired by God (and that’s not just a reference to the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that the King James Version was translated from, but even to the translation itself. This is the doctrine of double inspiration which is the foundation of Ruckmanism.

"Moreover, Ruckman taught that English is the universal language which God intended to give His perfect word in. Therefore, the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts were really just a bridge to arrive at the King James translation of 1611 (Ruckman did indeed call English “the universal language.”)

"And thus the King James version of the Bible is better than the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts from which the King James version is translated from (that is, the English in the KJV corrects the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts)!

"It is never right then to reference Hebrew and Greek manuscripts when trying to come to the best understanding possible of any Biblical text.

"And those who have lived since the King James Version of the Bible was made (1611) have greater Biblical light available to them than those who lived before that.

"Any apparent error in the King James translation is simply greater light and revelation correcting past imperfections in the original language texts.

"Everyone on earth then should learn to speak English in order to be able to read the King James Version of the Bible.

"It is logically wrong then to ever think the translators of the King James Version could have even used a better word in any place. And it would also be wrong to ever use a modern word instead of an archaic word as one reads from the Bible (even if it is undoubtedly a modern equivalent of the archaic word used in the King James version).

"Again, I emphasize the preceding statements are according to Ruckmanism."

 

Good to know.

 

Who sent him?

Could he just be being paid?

 

I gave you direct quotations of what Peter Ruckman himself said that he believed from his own writings, and according to his own statements, he did not believe some of the things [points 7, 8, 9] that you claimed. Ruckman made assertions that contradicted what your points claimed. The statements that you quoted do not state what you claimed in your points 7, 8, 9.

Peter Ruckman asserted: “There is nothing wrong with a missionary using the Diodati translation in Italy instead of the Authorized Version. There is nothing wrong with a missionary using the Olivetan version in France instead of the Authorized Version, and there is nothing wrong with a missionary in Germany using Luther’s version instead of the Authorized Version” (Bible Babel, p. 2). Peter Ruckman recommended “Valera’s Spanish version” and “Martin Luther's German version" (Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 1). In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Peter Ruckman wrote: “Martin Luther’s German Bible is the same text as the King James, 1611” (p. 80). Ruckman wrote: “Martin’s German Bible is the German King James Bible. It is the equivalent of the ‘King’s English,’ and so all affirm” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 146). Ruckman wrote: "There is nothing wrong with a missionary in Germany using Luther's version instead of the Authorized Version" (Bible Babel, p. 2). Ruckman wrote: “God produced a German Textus Receptus for the Continent” (p. 230). Ruckman asserted: “Never hesitate to correct any Greek text with the text of the ‘Reichstext’” (Monarch of the Books, p. 19). Peter Ruckman indicated that the Dutch “had a Bible translated from the same manuscripts the King James translators used” (Bible Babel, p. 91).

Peter Ruckman claimed as fact that the Received Text "is the text of Martin Luther's translation, John Wesley's translation, and also every translation that God used on the mission field from 1600 to 1901" (Bible Babel, p. 72).

Peter Ruckman listed the 1535 Coverdale's Bible on his good tree (Bible Babel, p. 82). The Great Bible, which is Coverdale's revision of the Matthew's Bible, is also on Ruckman's good tree of Bibles (Bible Babel, p. 82). Ruckman included the Geneva Bible on his good tree that is described at the bottom of the page as “the one, true, infallible, God-breathed Bible” (Bible Babel, p. 82). Peter Ruckman wrote: "We will not condemn them [Tyndale and Wycliffe, or the Geneva Bible]. They have substantially the same Greek and Hebrew text as the King James Bible" (Bible Babel, p. 2). Ruckman also stated: "I recommend Tyndale's version, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, Valera's Spanish version, Martin Luther's German version, and a number of others" (Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 1).

 

I don't know, but as Barney Fife says "I think he's a nut!"

 

Many unbelievers may think that all believers are "nuts".

They may think that any person who attends church every Sunday (Heb. 10:25), who searches the Scriptures daily to see if what is being taught and preached is scriptural (Acts 17:11), who tries to obey the command to "pray without ceasing" (1 Thess. 5:17, Phil. 4:6), who attempts to speak [and post] the truth (Eph. 4:25), etc. is mentally ill, but that does not make such opinions sound and true.

Zeal for the truth is not a sign of mental illness. People were not condemned for having zeal, but the problem was their zeal was not according to knowledge or truth (Romans 10:2). KJV-only advocates have a great zeal, but it is not a zeal according to the truth since they believe claims for the KJV that are not true and that are not scriptural.

Why do some complain about the posting of statements that are right and true?

 

Are you accusing me of being an unbeliever? I attend church every Sunday, Wednesday, and a Thursday morning senior group. I lead devotions at a Bible study group, run the sound system for services, and teach a childrens class. My church is filled with good Godly Christians and a wonderful pastor! I know of no one like you. I will repeat for the last time that it has absolutely nothing with to do with WHAT you post, it has everything to do with your extremely unhealthy obsession with the topic. Don't twist my meaning! My question about you is that it's all you do! It's your entire life! That is not healthy! You only continue to prove my point by your countless copy and paste posts on numerous forums. Frankly, it's a little weird.

 

Attacking the posting of the truth does have something to do with what is posted.

Avoiding addressing what is posted while trying to smear or attack the poster is a very poor response. My post had not accused anyone here of being unbelievers, but it soundly pointed out the truth of how unbelievers may think of believers.

Presenting the truth is unsoundly twisted into something that it is not. Zeal for the truth is not at all weird and is not wrong. Zeal for the truth is not a sign of mental illness.

 

You keep telling yourself that, but I think you know you're obsessed with it. I wish you well.

 

I would rather be supposedly obsessed with presenting the truth than obsessed with trying to attack or smear a believer.

I accept what the Scriptures teach concerning zeal and truth.

 

I am NOT accusing you of being an unbeliever, but what you wrote (bolded), which I'm guessing you wrote to prove you are a believer, does not prove that you are a believer.