Does "the Holy Bible" refer solely and exclusively to the KJV?

[Logos1560]

Have any KJV-only advocates examined the edition of the Holy Bible that was published by C. A. Bartlett in London In 1841 or 1843?

When someone generally or unclearly refers to the Holy Bible, giving no specifics, could their statement be understood to include this 1841 edition of the Holy Bible?

Its title page has the following: The Holy Bible Containing the Authorized Version of the Old and New Testaments, with many thousand emendations [People's Edition]. It is another edition of the 1841 A. V. edited by J. T. Conquest whose title page stated that it had "twenty thousand emendations" (Darlow, Historical Catalogue, p. 356).

Laurence Vance listed this 1841 Bible in his book and noted that it "contained the text of the Authorized Version but 'with twenty thousand emendations'" (Brief History, p. 46). D. A. Waite also listed this 1841 edition in his appendix B (Defending the KJB, p. 205). William Paul observed that J. T. Conquest “published an altered edition of the King James Version” (English Language Bible, p. 58).

Peter Ruckman maintained 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). Ruckman wrote: “Not once (up to 1980) since the AV was published did it ever alter the wording of the verses in the English text to match any of the wording found in the Alexandrian manuscripts, or in any of their translations” (History of N. T. Church, II, p. 29). Does this edition refute Ruckman's statements since it has a number of textual differences with more typical KJV editions?

Peter Ruckman wrote: “We recommend any edition of the AV (with any number of variations from any other edition)” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, Sept., 1985, p. 3). In this same article, Ruckman commented: “In our group, we hold that ANY edition of the AV is reliable” (p. 2). In this article, Ruckman’s only stated exception from being an edition of the AV was the NKJV. Again concerning the KJV, Ruckman claimed that “any edition will do just fine” (Unknown Bible, pp. 1, 86). Ruckman referred to “any edition in any century” of the KJV (How to Teach the “Original” Greek, p. 119). Ruckman appealed to “a King James Bible (any edition from any year)“ (Difference in KJV Editions, pp. 9-10). Ruckman also referred to “a present copy of the AV, which anyone can buy anywhere” (p. 11). Ruckman claimed that “any edition of the AV (Edinburgh, London, Oxford, Nelson, Cambridge, New York, etc.) is vastly superior to the ‘originals’” (p. 18). Ruckman asserted: “The text of the AV in any edition is the text authorized by the Godhead, and it is the text that the Holy Spirit has continually stamped with His approval, in any edition” (Bible Babel, p. 92). Ruckman claimed: “You can find that word [the word of God] and those words [the words that God wants us to have] in ANY EDITION of an Authorized Version” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 414). In volume one of his commentary on the book of Psalms, Ruckman asserted: “We will leave every ‘jot and tittle: as it stands in the Authorized text” (p. vi). Does Ruckman's own statements just that he should accept this 1841 edition? Do all the varying editions of the KJV actually have every” jot and tittle” the same so that they all can be left as they stand and still agree perfectly?

Some people think that they are well-informed when there is still information about the many editions of the Bible that can be learned.

 

[Logos1560]

A few examples of the emendations in this 1841 edition of the Holy Bible include the following: “heavens“ in place of “heaven“ (Gen. 1:1), “food“ in place of “meat“ (Gen. 1:29), “spoke“ in place of “spake“ (Gen. 8:15), “Rodanim“ in place of “Dodanim“ (Gen. 10:4), “did try“ in place of “did tempt“ (Gen. 22:1), "waters" in place of "mules" (Gen. 36:24), “forgot“ in place of “forgat“ (Gen. 40:23), “they cut off the princes“ in place of “they digged down a wall“ (Gen. 49:6), "he prospered their households" in place of "he made them houses" (Exod. 1:21), "the prince of Midian" in place of "the priest of Midian" (Exod. 2:16), "his grand-daughter" in place of "his daughter" (Exod. 2:21), “copper“ in place of “brass“ (Deut. 8:9), “the widow‘s“ in place of “a widow‘s“ (Deut. 24:17), "unicorn" in place of "unicorns" (Deut. 33:17), “advanced in years“ in place of “stricken in years“ (Josh. 13:1), “its“ in place of “her“ (Josh. 21:30), "outlived" in place of "overlived" (Josh. 24:31), “fourth day“ in place of “seventh day“ (Jud. 14:15), "plough" in place of "ear" (1 Sam. 8:12), “Barak“ in place of “Bedan“ (1 Sam. 12:11), "three thousand chariots" in place of "thirty thousand chariots" (1 Sam. 13:5), “scribbled“ in place of “scrabbled“ (1 Sam. 21:13), “judges of Israel“ in place of “tribes of Israel“ (2 Sam. 7:7), “seven thousand horsemen“ in place of “seven hundred horsemen“ (2 Sam. 8:4), “Jerubbaal“ in place of “Jerubbesheth“ (2 Sam. 11:21), “after four years“ in place of “after forty years“ (2 Sam. 15:7), “three hundred“ in place of “eight hundred“ (2 Sam. 23:8), “Satan“ in place of “he“ (2 Sam. 24:1), “four thousand“ in place of “forty thousand“ (1 Kings 4:26), “it“ in place of “him“ (1 Kings 13:27), “daughter of Uriel of Gibeah“ in place of “daughter of Abishalom“ (1 Kings 15:10), “armour“ in place of “harness“ (1 Kings 20:11), “a bandage“ in place of “ashes“ (1 Kings 20:38), “pint of fried pulse“ in place of “cab of dove‘s dung“ (2 Kings 6:25), “Uzziah“ in place of “Azariah“ (2 Kings 15:1), “Harodite“ in place of “Harorite“ (1 Chron. 11:27), “put them to labour with saws“ in place of “cut them with saws“ (1 Chron. 20:3), “height was twenty“ in place of “height was an hundred and twenty“ (2 Chron. 3:4), “Jehoshaphat king of Judah“ in place of “Jehoshaphat king of Israel“ (2 Chron. 21:2), "twenty and two years old" in place of "forty and two years old" (2 Chron. 22:2), “Ahaz king of Judah“ in place of “Ahaz king of Israel“ (2 Chron. 28:19), "treasure" in place of "defence" (Job 22:25), “habitation“ in place of “island“ (Job 22:30), “lyre“ in place of “organ“ (Job 30:31), "ask" in place of "demand" (Job 42:4), "falsehood" in place of "leasing' (Ps. 5:6), "children" in place of "fruit" (Ps. 21:10), "My desolate soul" in place of "my darling" (Ps. 22:20), “boundaries“ in place of “pots“ (Ps. 68:13), “tears“ in place of “sore“ (Ps. 77:2), “helped“ in place of “holpen“ (Ps. 83:8), “prayer come before thee“ in place of “prayer prevent thee“ (Ps. 88:13), “waited“ in place of “prevented“ (Ps. 119:147), “grass“ in place of “hay“ (Prov. 27:25), "the mountain mice" in place of "the conies" (Prov. 30:26), “turpentine tree“ in place of “teil tree“ (Isa. 6:13), “wild goats“ in place of “satyrs“ (Isa. 13:21), “Edom“ in place of “Idumea“ (Isa. 34:5), “report“ in place of “bruit“ (Jer. 10:22), “disappointment“ in place of “a liar“ (Jer. 15:18), “Zedekiah“ in place of “Jehoiakim“ (Jer. 27:1), "the scribe's knife" in place of "a penknife" (Jer. 36:23), “destruction“ in place of “sabbaths“ (Lam. 1:7), “ornament” in place of “tire” (Ezek. 24:17), “a son of the gods“ in place of “the Son of God“ (Dan. 3:25), "great rage" in place of "choler" (Dan. 8:7), and “wormwood“ in place of “hemlock“ (Amos 6:12).

In the New Testament, it has “food“ in place of “meat“ (Matt. 3:4), "immediately" in place of "by and by" (Matt. 13:21), "the prophet Isaiah" in place of "the prophets" (Mark 1:2), “tablet“ in place of “writing table“ (Luke 1:63), “enrolled“ in place of “taxed“ (Luke 2:1), "their purification" in place of "her purification" (Luke 2:22), “honour“ in place of “worship“ (Luke 14:10), "concerning it" in place of "thereabout" (Luke 24:4), "gave thanks" in place of "blessed it" (Luke 24:30), "testimony" in place of "record" (John 1:19), "flock" in place of "fold" (John 10:16), "his office" in place of "his bishoprick" (Acts 1:21), "Passover" in place of "Easter" (Acts 12:4), “its own accord“ in place of “his own accord“ (Acts 12:10), "Holy Spirit" in place of "Holy Ghost" (Acts 13:52), "Simon Peter" in place of "Simeon" (Acts 15:14), "saith JEHOVAH" in place of "saith the Lord" (Acts 15:17), "robbers of temples" in place of "robbers of churches" (Acts 19:37), "church of the LORD God" in place of "the church of God" (Acts 20:28), “deaconess“ in place of “servant“ (Rom. 16:1), “love“ in place of “charity“ (1 Cor. 13:1), "behaviour" in place of "conversation" (Gal. 1:13), "By no means" in place of "God forbid" (Gal. 2:17), "fruit of the light" in place of "fruit of the Spirit" (Eph. 5:9), "plaited" in place of 'broided" (1 Tim. 2:9), "not quarrelsome" in place of "no striker" (1 Tim. 3:3), "evil spirits" in place of "devils" (1 Tim. 4:1), "descendants" in place of "nephews" (1 Tim. 5:4), "Joshua" in place of "Jesus" (Heb. 4:8), “holy furniture“ in place of “worldly sanctuary“ (Heb. 9:1), "confession of our hope" in place of "profession of our faith" (Heb. 10:23), "those who have presided over you" in place of "them which have the rule over you" (Heb. 13:7), “fervent“ in place of “effectual fervent“ (James 5:16), "cleansing" in place of "sprinkling" (1 Pet. 1:2), "chief" in place of "beginning" (Rev. 3:14), "living creature" in place of "beast" (Rev. 6:3), and "those who wash their garments" in place of "they that do his commandments" (Rev. 22:14).

Does Ruckman's own statement that he would accept any edition of the KJV with any number of alterations mean that he would recommend this KJV edition?

Should English readers who had this edition of the Holy Bible in their hands have believed every word in it according to a consistent application of some KJV-only claims?

 

[Logos1560]

KJV-only allegations against the NKJV would clearly demonstrate that many KJV-only advocates do not approach the word of God translated into English in the NKJV with the same attitude with which they would approach the Geneva Bible or the KJV.

They seem to approach the NKJV as a Bible critic instead as a serious, seeking reader of a Bible translation. Evidently, KJV-only advocates come to inspect a mirror [the NKJV] (perhaps using a magnifying glass) instead of coming to see themselves in this mirror of the Scriptures translated into present-day English in the NKJV. Do they only look inconsistently and critically at this mirror and refuse to look in it? Would they read the NKJV as the word of God translated into English and with a willingness to obey and apply the scriptural truths in its verses to their own lives? Because they may come to the NKJV solely as a critic or because they may read against it, they may be unable to see that it would belong in the same family of Bible translations as the Geneva Bible and the KJV. They do not respect, accept, or believe the NKJV as a good Bible translation which can communicate to them the words of God in English.

Could KJV-only advocates suppose that they see errors in the NKJV because they had already assumed that they are there or because they have been told that they were there? Perhaps their own KJV-only bias could prevent them from being able to see the places where the Geneva Bible and the NKJV more accurately translates the same underlying original-language texts of Scripture than the KJV does. Could rejection of consistent truth and actual facts keep them from being able to see that the NKJV would be clearly a better overall English translation than the Geneva Bible which KJV-only advocates have praised? KJV-only advocates will inconsistently accuse others of being critics while they themselves may act as subjective, intemperate, extreme critics of Bible translations such as the NKJV.

 

[Logos1560]

Until someone can hand me an English translation that is completely faithful and accurate to the TR ( and by extension the "Majority Text" ), I will always suspect the devil's hand in it.
Does it have to be a "KJV"?
No.

Ron Rhodes wrote: “The New King James Version (NKJV) is a revision of the King James Version (KJV) in modern English” (The Complete Guide to Bible Translations, p. 113). Ron Rhodes added: “The NKJV significantly updates the KJV, making it a much more accurate translation” (p. 114).

Estus Pirkle wrote: “In my opinion, the New King James Version is the greatest English translation that is available today to English readers. It is based on the same Hebrew and Greek texts (Textus Receptus) used by the 1611 KJV translators” (The 1611 KJB, p. 177).

Wilbur Pickering asserted: “Until such a time as a good translation of the Majority Text becomes available, the best current English version of the NT is the NKJV—an excellent translation of a good Greek text” (Identity of NT Text II, p. 183).

 

[Logos1560]

When I was obtaining KJV editions for comparison, I obtained a 1940 A. J. Holman KJV edition, printed in Philadelphia. It turned out that it was a Masonic Edition of the KJV.

Its title page stated:
"Masonic Edition
Temple-Illustrated

The Holy Bible
The Great Light in Masonry
containing the Old and New Testaments
according to the Authorized or King James Version together with Illuminated Frontispiece,
presentation and record pages and helps to the Masonic student."

On the copyright page, it has copyright dates in 1924, 1925, 1929, 1930, 1933, 1935, 1939, 1940
so several editions of it may have been printed.

On the next page, for the Masonic Belief, the following statement is included:

"The Holy Bible is the Great Light in Masonry, and the Rule and Guide for faith and practice."

Is the same Holy Bible the great light in KJV-only reasoning?

 

[Forever Settled]

When I was obtaining KJV editions for comparison, I obtained a 1940 A. J. Holman KJV edition, printed in Philadelphia. It turned out that it was a Masonic Edition of the KJV.

Rick did you happen to study the charts and notes in the masonic KJB ........where everything is tied in to the occult ?

The teachings of the gnostics and the Luciferan doctrine....the wresting of scripture leading up to the antichrist ?

You have a masonic bible you might want to pay attention to those charts....symbolism...and notes .

 

[Logos1560]

In this Masonic edition of the KJV, an attempt is made to tie Masonic teaching to the Bible. There is an introductory section entitled "the Bible in Masonry" (pp. 3-51) and a section entitled "One hundred and sixty questions and answers pertaining to the symbolism of Masonry and its connection with the Bible" (31 pages). This Masonic KJV edition attempts to tie Masonry to the Bible, not to the occult.

Is this similar to the attempt by KJV-only advocates to tie their non-scriptural KJV-only opinions to the Bible?

Is there one of the same problems with Freemasonry as there is with KJV-onlyism [adding the opinions of men or following the opinions of men]?

At least, Masons admit that they are Masons while some KJV-only advocates try to deny that they are KJV-only.

 

[Forever Settled]

At least, Masons admit that they are Masons while some KJV-only advocates try to deny that they are KJV-only.

Some might I don’t deny it .

Your masonic bible must be different than most I will list some things that are usually easily found in them...yes they do clearly teach Egyptian occultic luciferian doctrine.

 

[Yeshua1]

Some might I don’t deny it .

Your masonic bible must be different than most I will list some things that are usually easily found in them...yes they do clearly teach Egyptian occultic luciferian doctrine.

Do you deny that the Nkjv was translated from same texts as the Kjv had been?