Peter Ruckman’s Refutation of James White’s 7 “Errors” In The KJV

Posted: July 18, 2013 in King James Only Debate, Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,
The following are excerpts from the Bible Believers Bulletin in response to the so-called “7 Errors” that James White claimed he would debate with Peter Ruckman. The debate failed to occur as White would not concede to certain conditions for the debate that would not skew the timing among other issues in his favor. White published correspondence between himself and Dr. Ruckman, but did not publish Ruckman’s final response to him.
Dr. Ruckman wrote a book of @ 500 pages addressing James White’s errors titled “The Scholarship Only Controversy: Can You Trust The Professional Liars” in response to White’s “The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust The Modern Versions?”
[Copyright belongs to Bible Baptist Bookstore]
James White’s Seven Errors in the King James Bible – Error 1 By Dr. Peter S. RuckmanIn a recent publication by a member of the “Alexandrian Cult,” the author pointed out what he considered to be either errors or “misleading” and “awkward” translations (or “inferior” translations) in the AV as compared with the two most corrupt Laodicean products on the market: the NIV and the NASV.

Both of these “Bibles” teach the two gods of The Watchtower Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses) by listing a begotten god and an unbegotten God in John 1:18.

Last spring, White challenged me to a debate, saying he could prove there were errors in the Authorized Version. I named a time and place (April 1, 1996, here at the Bible Baptist Church). He backed out. The most interesting thing about it was when I suggested that he prove ten errors giving him five minutes to prove each error he backed down to proving SEVEN. Why he didn’t insist on twenty or thirty I have no idea, but seven was all he could drum up.

Since he backed out, I thought our readers would like to know what Jimmy would have run into if he had gone through with his rash and stupid decision.

You see, what no nut like White (or his buddies, Ankerberg, MacRae, Kenneth Barker, Palmer, Bruce Metzger, John MacArthur, etc.) realizes is the BASIC FOUNDATION upon which they have to build the moment they reject ANY BIBLE as their final authority.

The poor fools don’t realize that this leaves all of them standing on the shifting sands of humanism and relativity. Thus, anyone (including their adversaries) can quote anything to prove anything.
Since liars have to have good memories, none of these characters (plus Doug Kutilek, Robert Sumner, Bob Jones III, Stewart Custer, etc.) can see what they are doing, even when they are doing it.

They are stating that everything must be tested by the Bible with no Bible in mind. Or everything must be tested by Scripture, when none of them have ever seen a copy. Or, as White puts it, “The standard is GOD’S TRUTH” meaning nothing.

In White’s case, “God’s Truth” turns out to be 271 pages of rehashed Hort, who was proved to be a liar on a dozen occasions more than one hundred years ago (by Scrivener, Hoskier, Burgon, and Miller).

The STANDARDS for criticizing the AV and finding “error” in it are NOT applied to the NASV or the NIV or the NRSV. So all we have to do to prove that any “error” in the AV is not an error is to use the same methods the Alexandrians use for proving the NIV and NASV are not in error; “even-Stephen, six of one, half a dozen of another.”

Gary Hudson stumbled into this trap, and now Jimmy White follows him.

Error No. 1 (Luke 2:22): Here, “Her purification” is an “error” according to all Alexandrians for the Greek texts say “their purification”. Thus the NIV and NASV are correct in saying “THEIR purification.” The only thing wrong with this is that it is a lie. Joseph didn’t need any purification according to the Biblical source for the Biblical quotation (Leviticus 12). Only the WOMAN needed to be purified; look at it.

Now, here is a perfect test case. If you “corrected the Greek with the English,” you would have preserved the INTEGRITY OF MOSES (John 5:45-47) and the SCRIPTURE (John 10:35). However, if you had translated “the Greek” literally (“THEIR”), you would have denied every Hebrew text extant of Leviticus 12, and you would have made a LIAR out of the Holy Spirit. What to do?

All Alexandrians are programmed clones; you know EXACTLY what they will do. They are more predictable than sunrise and sunset. They made a liar out of God.

Now White’s reasoning is as follows: “If there are no variants then we have ‘INDEED THE ORIGINAL’ ” (see The King James Only Controversy, pp. 118,124). Since he has found no “variant” against (“their purification”) then “her purification” is not even a possibility. This is the Alexandrian mentality. ON the surface it looks logical. Look a little deeper.

White just approved changing more than three thousand words in the King James text (NIV and NASV) on the basis of “variants” that showed up AFTER the AV text was printed.

These came from Mill, Fell, Walton, Bentley, Griesbach, Tischendorf, Hort, Nestle, and Metzger AFTER only “one variant” in three thousand cases was extant.

Problem: what happens when “her purification” shows up later in a Greek manuscript? You say, “It couldn’t happen.” It did. Erasmus filled in the last six verses in Revelation from the Latin Vulgate (1520) with NO GREEK MANUSCRIPTS, and later (1800-1900) up showed more than sixty percent of his “fill-in” in Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, the Syriac, and the Sahidic.

You say, “It couldn’t happen.” It did. In 1 John 2:23, the AV translators put half the verse in italics (1611), going by NO Greek manuscripts. Nestle PRINTED THE GREEK TEXT (1979) THAT MATCHES THE ITALICS IN THE KING JAMES RE-CEPTUS. He printed it more than 270 years (1898) after the AV supplied him the words in ENGLISH: not Greek.

So White, instead of rushing in like a mad fool, should have been more “scholarly” and checked the facts. He was operating on an emotional level.

Now watch the birdie! In Nestle’s twenty-sixth edition the footnote omits a note found in ALL the editions preceding it by eighty years. It says latsyrs, an=auth “for HER purification”. A question mark follows this; in 1979 Nestle removed that entire piece of evidence. There was SOME evidence for “HER” purification; it just wasn’t in Greek. Note that the verse said “according to the LAW of Moses.” The Law of Moses (Leviticus 12) had no offering for the purification of any woman’s husband; it is only for the woman. Joseph had no purification to offer.

So here is a case where the AV translators saw a Biblical problem that White didn’t see, or didn’t want to see, because he was dead set on FORCING THE BIBLE TO CONTRADICT ITSELF. If he could use the Greek to do this with he would do it; he did it.

If the AV is in “error,” then the NIV and NASV have ten times as bad an error, for they made a false document out of the “Law of Moses.”

White’s job is to prove that “HER PURIFICATION” (AV) is an “error” because the AV chose it instead of “their.” He limited his proof to a Greek text that was extant, which might be, at any moment, replaced (see above). In doing so, he proved HE was in error, and the NIV was in error, and the NASV was in error; “according to the law of Moses,” only Mary needed a purification: “Her purification.”

The “mistake” in the AV was another advanced revelation carefully obscured in “the Greek” (see Acts 19:37 and Acts 12:4), as we have said many times before.

Furthermore, it told the truth: “their purification” would be a lie.

White proved nothing except he didn’t agree with how a pronoun was translated.

“Their purification” is a possible translation if it is interpreted to mean that, as “one flesh” Joseph would bring the offering for Mary (vs. 24), but it would be a very misleading translation for it would plainly IMPLY that Joseph was impure; he wasn’t. “Her purification” is “according to the Law of Moses.”
Still shaky? All right!

Note: White approves of inserting the word “PRIEST” and “PRIESTLY” into Romans 15:16 (NIV and NASV). THE WORD DOESN’T APPEAR IN ONE SINGLE GREEK MANUSCRIPT EXTANT.

Note: White approves of “sorts” and “kinds” added to 1 Timothy 6:10. Neither word appears in any Greek manuscript extant.

Note: White approves of translating PLURALS (“Their purification”) as SINGULARS (“HER”), for in the NIV and NASV, one man (Singular) is given credit for two different quotations from two different (Plural) men: Mark 1:2.

Note: According to White it is perfectly proper to make a SINGULAR out of a plural in Matthew 28:1 and Matthew 13:31,33.

To say, then, first of all, that Luke 2:22 is an error on the grounds that there is no Greek manuscript evidence for it is hypocrisy, and, secondly, to say that it is in error because a plural has been converted to a singular is hypocrisy. The error is in the hypocrite.

There are no Greek readings in any manuscript for “on whom his” and “with whom He” which will be found in Luke 2:14 (NIV and NASV). Absence of Greek words means nothing to White or his buddies, except where it occurs in a King James Bible.

At this point I would have ended my defense of Luke 2:22 if the debate had taken place, and poor Jimmy would have thought I was through. But in the rebuttal, I would have put the “quietus” on him.

You see I was only playing playing by THEIR rules. You see, all along I had “the” Greek” text with “her purification” in it. Jimmy just never found that Greek text. I have had it for more than thirty years.

“HER PURIFICATION” was in the “original Greek”; Jimmy just had the wrong “original Greek.” On page 108 of The New Testament The Greek Text Underlying the English Authorized Versions of 1611 (“the Greek text followed by the translators of the English Authorized Version of the Bible”), printed by the Trinitarian Bible Society, London, England, you will find it. You will find it on line 15 from the top of the page.

It was in “The Greek text.” Jimmy just was either too stupid or too lazy to look up the text. So he lied like a Persian rug. Lying in the Alexandrian Cult is a “lifestyle.”

If he had debated Luke 2:22, he would have lost his eye teeth and his suspenders.

James White’s Seven Errors in the King James Bible – Error 2 By Dr. Peter S. RuckmanWe are studying seven “errors” in the AV which James White was going to prove, publicly, before he backed down from a debate which he had instigated himself. He didn’t like the terms given him by the “challengee.” We gave him April 1, 1996 at the Bible Baptist Church. He dropped the debate like a hot rock.

Acts 5:30The idea here is the AV translators were too stupid to see that Jesus was slain AFTER he was hung on the tree. The word order proves there is an “error” in the AV. “It is difficult to see where the KJV derived its translation, as there is no ‘and’ in the text” (King James Only Controversy, White, p. 226).

Now this is the Alexandrian mentality; it is a weird sort of dementia that always infects an egotist as soon as he begins to mess with the AV text. Observe!

1. There is no “came” in 1 Thessalonians 2:5 (NASV). There is no article “the” in 1 Corinthians 2:16 (NIV). There is no “was after flesh” in 1 Timothy 3:16 (NASV). There is no “who had been” in Matthew 1:6 in the NASV. So? There is no “GOD” found in Acts 7:59 in the NKJV. So?

2. Jimmy added the word “BY” to the text under discussion (Acts 5:30), for the plural participle (Greek kremasantes) is in the Nominative case. By, in, to, with, for, etc. refer to the Genitive, Locative, Ablative, or Instrumental cases. White’s grammar screwed up on him.

How did he miss 2 Samuel 10:12 and 1 Samuel 17:51 and 2 Samuel 3:27?

Peter, James, and John were Sabbath-observing, temple worshipping, bearded, pork-abstaining, Old Testament Jews in Acts, Chapter 5.

They knew all about David SLAYING Goliath with a sword AFTER he “slew” him with a sling. They knew all about Abishai being guilty of Abner’s death, although he was not even in the vicinity when Joab “slew” him.

Being three times as intelligent as White or the NASV committee, they knew that Amasa “wallowed in blood in the midst of the highway” AFTER Joab “slew him.”

Every Hebrew manuscript extant reads THE SAME WAY in all three of those passages. That is the Hebrew way of stating it. But the roaring lion of the English Protestant Reformation is not through with silly Jimmy yet!

No Jew “SLEW” Christ and no Jew “CRUCIFIED” Christ.
It was Roman soldiers who mocked Him, whipped Him, and nailed Him.
That isn’t the worst of it. No Roman soldier could have “SLAIN” Christ if he had stayed up twenty centuries.

In his zeal to make a liar out of the Holy Spirit, White forgot that Jesus Christ laid down His life (John 10:15) because NO MAN (Roman or Jew) could “slay” Him (John 10:18). How did White miss the basic theological nature of the Crucifixion? Every Jew in Peter’s audience knew exactly what he was talking about.

The Jews murdered Christ (Acts 7:52, Stephen), and crucified Him (Luke 24:20) in the sense that they put Him in a position where He could be crucified (John 19:11). This precrucifixion act (John 19:11) is described as “killing” (1 Thess. 2:15), crucifying (Luke 24:20), and SLAYING Him (Acts 5:30).

It was certainly committed BEFORE the Romans took Him into custody. It took place in Mark 14:64. For all practical purposes, they SLEW him the moment they passed the death sentence on Him, and they did do that.

Abishai slew Abner because Abishai was in “kahoots” with his brother. He, himself, never touched Abner. David killed Uriah with the sword of the children of Ammon. Who didn’t know THAT but Jimmy White?

James White missed the entire point of all the verses in both testaments in his haste to destroy your faith in the AV text. And this pitiful whining child now stands before this array of Biblical facts and Biblical truth and complains “It is difficult to see where the AV derived its translation….”

Well, stupid, it derived it from the words of the Holy Ghost recorded in the Holy Bible. The error was YOURS from start to finish, and you erred “not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God.”

Typical Alexandrian scholarship: just as clumsy and as stupid as blind Bartimaeus on an all-night drunk. Didn’t he know that Joseph hung the chief baker (Gen. 41:13)? He hung him before PHARAOH hung him (Gen. 40:22).

White’s “scholarship” above (believe it or not!) was recommended by John MacArthur, John Ankerberg, Bruce Metzger, and D. A. Carson as “superb, accurate, valuable, conclusive, clear, and balanced.”

What on God’s earth could be more pitiful or more ridiculous? Total ignorance of Jewish idioms, total ignorance of “accessories before the fact,” total ignorance of shared guilt, total ignorance of Scriptural example, and Scriptural revelation, total ignorance of WHO actually was involved in the crucifixion, plus total ignorance of why the blame was placed on the Jews.

And the jack rabbit thinks he is an intellectual who can find “errors” in the Holy Bible. He is Bugs Bunny in Star Trek. “Beam him up, Scotty!”

 James White’s Seven Errors in the King James Bible – Error 3

By Dr. Peter S. Ruckman

We are on “error” No. 3 as located by James White, who was going to debate seven errors in the AV, but decided that “discretion was the better part of valor” in view of the fact that the man he challenged set the time and place as April 1, 1996 at the Bible Baptist Church.
In spite of the fact that Jimmy said he had many people in the Pensacola area that would be interested in such a debate (which he instigated), he decided to retire.

Well, here is this terrible error in Hebrews 10:23. The word “faith” here should have been “hope” (Greek elpidos, from elpis). (This is the kind of thing you get into when you get with the gnat-strainers. We point out errors like two Jehovah’s Witness “gods” in John 1:18 in the NASV and NIV, or giving one of Christ’s titles to Satan in Isaiah 14:12 and their comeback is “faith should have been hope.” Typical. Absolutely typical.)

White’s typical comments are that the AV reading “is difficult to understand” and “leaves most people wondering as well” (The King James Only Controversy, p. 226).

Who these “most people” are, of course, is a mystery Sherlock Holmes and the Shadow couldn’t figure out. I never met any Christian who was “left wondering” at the “faith” of Hebrews 10:23, especially since the immediate context (vs. 22) and the nearest context are dealing with FAITH (Heb. 11:1-30, 10:22, and 10:38).

I assume “most people” are some elite group of Nicolaitan nuts who “want the preeminent place,” and spend their time picking at Greek words with Greek lexicons. They never have numbered more than one percent of the Body of Christ.

Hebrews 10:23 is a simple, case where a word that normally has been translated one way is now translated another way. Instances in the corrupt Bibles that White recommends are so numerous, no one could list them on five pages.

For example in the NIV, the word for “fornication” (Greek pornei) is translated as “marital unfaithfulness” in Matthew 5:32, “sexual immorality” in Matthew 19:9, “illegitimate children” in John 8:41, “evil” in Romans 1:29, and “sexual sin” in 2 Corinthians 12:21.

This was the NIV: six different ways to translate one word, and White says TWO different ways of translating “elpidos” is an ERROR.

The NIV, that White recommends to high heaven, says that porneias is “sexual immorality” twelve times and then says it’s “adultery” in Revelation 2:22.
Jimmy? Yoo, hoo! Jimbo! Hey deah, Jiiimmmeee!

“The Greek term (elpidos) appears thirteen times in the Textus Receptus and each time it is translated as hope’ with this one exception” (White, p. 226). But the AV is in error, is it? And the NIV is the best version of the Bible you can get, is it (White, p. 247, 186)? Scooby-dooby doo!

The word “hope” in the New Testament, for the child of God, is a word used many times for the Rapture of the Body of Christ, where the Christian will receive a new body (Rom. 5:2, 8:24 note the context Col. 1:5,27; 1 Thess. 1:3, 5:8; Titus 1:2, 2:13; 1 John 3:1-3. Our HOPE is a person. Note this in Hebrews 6:19. Even in the Jewish Old Testament, hope was in a resurrection (Acts 23:6, 24:15, 26:6), and in the New Testament, the Christian’s reward as a soul winner takes place when Christ comes for him (1 Thess. 2:19).

The passage in Hebrews 10:16-25 is NOT Christ coming for any Christian on this earth. The “day” spoken of in 10:25 is a day where Israel is judged (vs. 30), and the Lord’s coming is in judgment (vs. 37) as found in Malachi 4:1-4. Hebrews is aimed at Hebrews. (White never could figure that one out, either.)

Note the citation in Hebrews 10:30-31 is from the “Song of Moses” in Deuteronomy, Chapter 32, that will be sung by 144,000 Tribulation Jews, who are virgins (Rev., Chapters 7 and 14). White doesn’t know enough about the Bible (any Bible translated from any set of manuscripts, by anybody, to even locate himself in Hebrews, Chap. 10).

Nobody ever held fast to a “profession of hope.” Timothy’s “good profession” (1 Tim. 6:12) before “many witnesses” was his profession of FAITH in Jesus Christ. Notice the identical profession in Hebrews 4:14. Our FAITH in Someone is our profession which we must “hold fast.”

You don’t go around declaring “I hope I’m saved, I hope I’m saved, I hope I’m saved.” That profession is worthless. The faith in Christ that the Hebrew is exhorted to “hold fast” in Hebrews 10:23 (“our faith”) is defined in verses 16-22: it is immediate access to Jesus Christ in the third heaven because of His blood atonement.

That is what left White’s buddies “wondering” and made it “difficult” (see above) to find out what was going on: the context of the same chapter.

Perhaps Gerhard Kittel can help White out with his lack of intelligence and scholarship.
“The definition of PISTIS (Faith, more than ninety times in the New Testament) as … in Hebrews 11:1 is quite in keeping with the Old Testament inter-relating of PISTUEIN (to believe) and ELPIZEIN … as well as ELPIS (“hope”)” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 531).

Hebrews, Chapter 11 is a review of the Old Testament. How did White fail to find such basic, fundamental precepts? “FAITH” is not only a possible translation in such a context, but it is recognized as such, and documented as such. But it is an “error,” is it, girls?

“With PISTIS (faith), ELPIS (hope), this constitutes Christian existence … what is denoted by ELPIS (hope) can be included in PISTIS (faith)” (White, p. 532).

So the AV has the correct word since it included BOTH words, and White’s doll babies (NIV and NASV) were just sorry displays of Beginner’s Greek Grammar.

And White was going to debate me on that verse as an “error”! Can you imagine the nerve of that greenhorn? Correct White’s Greek (elpidos) with the English (“faith”) in Hebrews 10:23. He never knew what he was talking about when he sat down to write: according to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 532 (Vol. 111).

James White’s Seven Errors in the King James Bible – Error 4

By Dr. Peter S. Ruckman

We have been examining “errors” in the King James Bible according to the author of The King James Only Controversy. This is the fourth one, Jimmy having already “bombed out” on three. Gary Hudson bombed out on eight (see King James Onlyism versus Scholarship Onlyism, 1992, pp. 60-78).

In The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship (1988) I listed forty-eight “errors” in the AV (chap. 9) to help the apostates out, but James White didn’t dare try more than two of them (Acts 12 and 19).
(I try to help the brethren out, but they don’t seem to appreciate it!)

This “error” in the AV, is found in Jeremiah 34:16. According to the protocols of the Alexandrian Cult, the “errors” in the AV always are either connected with magnifying Jesus Christ (see the NIV and NASV in John 1:18; 1 Timothy 3:16; Luke 2:33; John 3:13; Acts 4:27; et al.) or have to do with “he” should be “she,” or “ye” should be “they,” or “her” should have been “their” (Luke 2:22), and so forth.

It is either altering a verse that deals doctrinally with the person and work of Jesus Christ or altering a verse that a gnat strainer would not waste time with.

Westcott and Hort, after assenting to the rules laid down by the Westminster Convocation (1870) for revising the AV, figured that changes that were “absolutely necessary” amounted to an annihilation of the entire Greek text for the AV, and the substitution of 3,000 “alternate readings.” (The NIV decided that 64,000 were “absolutely necessary,” if you translated both Testaments.)

This was done while Jimmy White was swearing on a stack of slop by Warfield, A. T. Robertson, and Hort that only “one variant out of a thousand” was of any “concern” (White, pp. 39 40).

Liars reproduce liars; it is inherent in their nature: “after their kind.”

Well, here is this terrible “error” in Jeremiah 34:16. Here, White is worried about the fact that the Cambridge and Oxford editions of the AV don’t match word for word. To calm Jimmy’s shattered nerves, I sent him the copy of the AV that I believe and defend, with the notification that THAT was the one he was to prove error in. This was unacceptable to Jimmy. He insisted I defend some edition that I did not use or preach.

However, he should have stuck with the Book I mailed him, for it was a Gideon Bible that read “…and every man HIS handmaid whom HE had set at liberty….”

Jimmy had insisted that was an error. It should have read “…every man HIS handmaid whom YE had set at liberty….” (Cambridge edition). Jimmy considered this error to be of such a monstrous nature that he devoted two pages to discussing it and even consulted Dr. James Price (on the NKJV committee with Harold Ockenga, the founder of Neo-Evangelicalism) to get back to the “original text.”

They both agreed the text should say “ye” instead of “he.” The error got in “somehow” during the “final editing process and into print.”
P.S. “Future editions of the NKJV” (which denies that anyone corrupts the Bible, 2 Cor. 2:17; attacks the Deity of Christ, Acts 4:27; and forbids you to rightly divide the word of truth, 2 Tim. 2:15!) “will change the pronoun back to you” (White, p. 89).

Now analyze this Ding-bat Dementia.

1. Both apostates (Price and White) insisted that the plural “ye” should be maintained because “he,” being singular, was false. Whereupon they changed the “ye” (of the Cambridge edition) to “you.” But “you,” in English, is not plural, necessarily, as anyone knows who studied Greek or Hebrew. These languages both have a plural form for “you.” When more than one person is being addressed, it is printed as “ye” in the Oxford King James Bible.

“You” is a reference to a singular person. Modern English does not preserve this distinction. Then what was all the fuss about?

James Price and James White don’t know first grade Hebrew grammar. If they did, they “sacrificed something by translating the Hebrew into English.” (Ever hear THAT “gasser” before?)

2. The fuss was futile. The text said “every man” (sometimes “each man” in Hebrew interlinears: I have three of them) in the second clause. Not once did any Hebrew text say, “their servant” (plural) or “their handmaid’ (plural) before saying “whom HE had set at liberty” (AV). It said “HIS servant” and “HIS handmaid” (singular), as in “whom HE [singular] had set at liberty” (AV).

So, from the standpoint of an English text, either AV reading would have been absolutely correct (Cambridge or Oxford). From the standpoint of English and that is the standpoint Price and White took in the NKJV their correction of the “error” (“he” to “you”) means nothing. It doesn’t indicate a plural.

3. Now, following our usual standard of fixed, infallible, absolute TRUTH (John 17:17, 6:63, 8:47, etc.) (oh, my God, how apostates hate those last three words!) we will judge the “good, godly scholars” by the Holy Bible instead of their own, man-made, humanistic excursions into Tinker Bell’s Never-Never Land.

“Lest there should be among you man, or woman [singular], or family [plural], or tribe [plural], whose HEART [singular] … when HE [singular] heareth the words of this curse, that HE bless HIMSELF…” (Deut. 29:18 19).

The “he” is a reference to “tribes” and “families.” Did you get that? White and Price couldn’t. They don’t ever read the Bible; they analyze “variants.”

Well, BOTH variants in the AV (Jer. 34:16) were correct grammatically, if one deals with the English text or the Hebrew text. They (“ye” in the Cambridge) were being addressed as a group (plural, Jer. 34:13; as in Deut. 29), but the address was aimed at individual men (“he” in the Oxford edition), within the group. Either word would have been absolutely correct according to that great critic of critics, the word of God (Heb. 4:12-13).

It only failed to pass the test of hyper-critical, white-washed Pharisees whose spiritual lives (and power) are deader than a hammer on the beach.

For the correctness of “he” (AV) see the context: “every man … HIS manservant, and every man HIS maidservant … none should serve HIMSELF … HIS manservant, and every one HIS maidservant…” (vss. 9-10): seven singulars.

No “editor’ let anything slip by. White and Price think they are careful “editors.” The translators chose two different ways of saying the same thing, and both of them accorded with the context of the verse, and both of them told the TRUTH. But because they weren’t identical (Cambridge “ye,” Oxford “he”) the old self-righteous, practical atheists (no Alexandrian has any higher authority than his opinions or the opinions of his friends) claimed “error.”

Well, Campfire girls, Paul didn’t translate “his” in “his faith” from Habakkuk 2:4 when he quoted it in Romans 1:17. The words are NOT identical. Error? Come, come, you little Campfire Brownies, how did you overlook that monstrous “error” if you were careful “editors”? Isn’t that omitted “his” worse than Jeremiah’s “he,” especially in view of the fact that using “he” and “his” when speaking to a multitude (Deut. 29:18 20) is a common thing in the Old Testament?

“Therefore hear YE the word of the LORD, all Judah … my name shall no more be named in the MOUTH [singular] of any MAN [singular] … in all the land of Egypt … I will watch over, THEM [plural] for evil … and all the MEN [plural] of Judah that are in the land … until there be an end of THEM” (Jer. 44:26-27).

Note that White’s (and Price’s) final court of appeals is the “number” of one Hebrew pronoun. That is how desperate they were to find “error” in an English text.

Did you know that every modern version they recommend (the NKJV, the NIV, and the NASV, mainly) refused to translate a plural Greek word as a “plural” more than thirty times in the Gospels? Check ” “.

Why would any sane person let alone a sane Christian take these jokers seriously when they talked about one Hebrew pronoun being translated as a singular instead of a plural?

Both readings of the AV editions are correct, as in Ruth 3:15: “he” (Boaz) went into the city, and “she” (Ruth) went into the city.

You say, “The words don’t match”; neither do the inscriptions on the cross in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. “The words don’t match”; neither do they in the Lord’s prayer found in Luke 11:2 4 and Matthew 6:9 13. “The words don’t match”; neither do they in Isaiah 53:4 and Matthew 8:17.

If they don’t match in the “inspired originals” a famous Alexandrian Cult cliche why do they have to match in the English as long as both words are true to the text, and neither one is a lie?

They don’t. White and Price were simply mentally unbalanced. They can’t THINK. It is as common among apostate Conservative and Fundamentalist scholars as weeds in a garden.

So much for Jimmy’s fourth “error.”

James White’s Seven Errors in the King James Bible – Error 5 By Dr. Peter S. RuckmanShortly (Lord willing) we will have ready for the Bible believers a work called The Scholarship Only Controversy: — Are Professional Liars Trustworthy? In it we will point out forty-two errors that James White made trying to revive that fatuitous theory of Hort from the nineteenth century.

He said he would be content to prove seven in the Authorized Version (AV) of the Holy Bible. This is his fifth time “to bats.” The last four times he fanned out.

This time the “error” is in Revelation 16:5. Here the “mistake” is the expression “and shalt be.” Again, the alibi is that there is no manuscript evidence, in Greek, for the addition. But there was a problem with a “kai” after “Ho hen”: (“and wast”). This “kai” (meaning “and”) was thrown into the footnote of Nestle’s Apparatus even though it was found in an “early papyrus (to cite an Alexandrian cliche). This papyrus (P47) was 150 years older than any other Greek manuscript used by Nestle for the text (Rev. 16:5). His “goddess” (B, Vaticanus) wasn’t present. (B omits the whole book of Revelation; it also omits Gen. 1:1-4!)

White’s thinking is obvious. Who inserted “shall be” without Greek attestation? Obviously, an “error.” You see, when you deal with half-baked egotists like White, and the Cult, you can never take their professions or assertions seriously about anything, because all of their”facts” and “evidences” are produced by switching multiple standards.

White has TEN of them for discovering “the intent of the original author when he was inspired (White, p. 124, 48).

They include: taking the shorter reading over the longer one (but not always), trusting “godly scholars” (without naming them), going by the “best modern versions (without naming them), assuming that no one in church history intentionally perverted scripture (without citing one Bible verse for such a cock-eyed theory), etc. “Profession” (see White’s professions on pp. vii, viii, 13, 223, and 113) from a practical atheist means NOTHING.

Who inserted “priest” and “priestly” into Romans 15:16 (NIV and NASV) without manuscript attestation? Who inserted “committed in ignorance” into Hebrews 9:7 (NASV) without any Greek attestation? Who inserted a question mark into Hebrews 3:16, thereby denying the entire history of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy? The NIV and NASV did.

Who inserted “He” into the verse on the Incarnation of Deity (1 Tim.3:16) when no Greek manuscript said He.” The NIV, which did this, said in a footnote: “Some manuscripts read ‘God’.” Yeah, they sure do, you vile rascal: 289 of them do; 289 to ZERO.

Now, since White wrote his book to justify the sins of the NIV and NASV committees, do you think he was actually worried about “shalt be” in Revelation 16:5? You see the “and” in the verse was found in an early papyrus (P 47): “and…” what?

The NIV and the NASV and Nestle and Aland and Hort had to get rid of the earliest papyrus this time. It was an embarrassment because it messed up their sentence. If they had followed their profession (“the oldest and best,” etc.) they would have had to give you this: “Righteous art Thou, the Being One, AND the One who was, AND the Holy One.”

That is one awkward, cockeyed clause, so the “and” (“kai” in the papyrus) had to be dropped. Something originally followed that last “and,”and it certainly was not “the Holy One.”

Undoubtedly, “in the original” (a famous, worn-out, Alexandrian cliche) it read “the One being, and the One who was, AND the One who shall be.”

Now, that is a conjecture, but it is a conjecture in the light of early Greek manuscript evidence that was discarded by Mr. Nestle and Mr. White. He and his buddies had to violate their own standards to get rid of the AV reading. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in the Cult.

Furthermore, if the AV had just put “shalt be” in italics they would have passed the Alexandrians with flying colors, for the “and” should have been retained, according to Alexandrian standards. The Alexandrians couldn’t tolerate it for it bore witness to the possible authenticity of an AV reading; and those are what all Alexandrians want to get rid of.

They never waste their time on any text like they waste it on the English text of 1611. That is the one they hate. They can even tolerate the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text, to some extent, but AAHHH! that Roaring Lion of the English Protestant Reformation!

For those of you who think I am “overstepping” myself:
Who inserted “nailed” into Acts 2:23 without being able to find one nail within one hundred verses of the verse (NASV)? There is not one Greek manuscript extant that says “nail” or “nails” or “nailing” or “nailed.”
But it doesn’t bother any Alexandrian except in Revelation 16:5 in an AV. Remarkable, isn’t it? What is “nothing” doing in the NASV in Acts 7:18? The text in ANY Greek manuscript extant (except D and E) said “Who not he knew the Joseph.” Manuscripts D and E said which doesn’t mean “nothing” at all; it doesn’t even mean “knew.” It means “remembered.”

How is any translated text in error when it inserts words not found in “the original Greek” because the words are either needed to make sense or should be added to complete the meaning of the Greek words that are extant?

White believes nothing of the kind, where it deals with his own income (selling NIVs and NASVs). His “baby dolls” do it to the tune of 400 pages “at a lick.”

Unlike the AV translators of Revelation 16:5, the translators of the NIV did not even put any of their additions in italics, in any verse, and White never squeaked. They made up scores of unique readings, with no manuscript evidence behind them, and none of them were put in italics. At least the AV translators made a “stab at it,” even in Revelation, chapter 16. Look at the italics in verses 3, 13, 14, 18, and 21.

Our position is clear, but then again, it always has been. We would judge White’s extant Greek texts on Revelation 16:5 to be defective, in regards to “shalt be,” and this is apparent from the rejected “kai” in Papyrus 47.
Why trade in absolute truth for a defective Greek manuscript? The truth is the Lord (vs. 5) had THREE lives (confirmed in Rev. 1:8, 8:8) and the “kai” (and) is found in both of those passages.
Someone messed with Revelation 16:5 in the Greek texts. It wasn’t the AV translators.

But you see, up to this point I have been teasing Jimbo. If James White had been stupid enough to take me on in a debate I would have ended my arguments at the paragraph above. Then, at the end, in the rebuttal, I would have produced the Greek text for the AV reading and placed it up before the TV camera where all of James White’s “comrades in arms” (Nestle, Metzger, MacRae, Archer, Aland, MacArthur, Ankerberg, et al.) could have seen it.

I have a Greek New Testament with “shall be” in the Greek (or as the Alexandrians say, the “original Greek” or the “Greek original” or “indeed the original” (White’s cliche, p. 48, 124).

My Greek New Testament (not his) says … (p. 469, 8th line from the bottom, Rev.16:5) the One being, and the One who was, and the One who will be.” Jimmy just didn’t have access to my Greek New Testament. Neither did Nestle or Aland, according to their own publications. My Greek New Testament is published by the Trinitarian Bible Society of London, it follows primarily Beza’s 1598 edition and corresponds to the Greek text edited by F. H. A. Scrivener in 1894 and 1902.

Jimmy lied again. It is as natural to an Alexandrian as breathing air. In a debate, James White would have lost his shirt and his britches.

James White’s Seven Errors in the King James Bible – Errors 6 & 7 By Dr. Peter S. RuckmanIn the last issues of the Bulletin we have been listing the seven nonexistent “errors” to be found in the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible, according to James White, the author of The King James Only Controversy (1995).

If you have been collecting these, and storing them back for future reference, you will now have five A-1 examples of the Alexandrian mentality behind all of the dead, orthodox apostates who worry about “Ruckmanism” or “King James Onlyism.”

If you will bother to obtain a copy of Scholarship Onlyism vs. King James Onlyism, 1992, pp.60-78, you will find eight more examples exactly like these: these were given by Gary Hudson back in 1991. Every Bible-believing preacher should start collecting these “test cases..” You have had thirteen discussed, and now, these last two “errors” will give you fifteen samples of the mental processes behind the apostates who produced the RV, NEB, RSV, NRSV, TEV, CEV, ASV, NWT, NASV, and NIV.

Bugs Bunny in Wonderland.

Acts 19:37 Our first “problem text” is Acts 19:37. Here, the Greek word for “temples,” found in all “text-types” and “families,” has been “mistranslated” by the king’s men (1611) as “churches,” instead of “temples.” This is an error, according to Jimbo.

However! Such translation is not an error in the NIV, that Jimbo recommends. Scores of times, in the NIV, this type of “dynamic equivalence” is used; as a matter of fact, it is used so many times that many Bible students think the NIV is more of a paraphrase than a translation.(As usual, when “Ruckman” says “as a matter of fact,” the FACT immediately appears. The passages are Matthew 6:22; Acts 26:20; Romans 1:3, 2:17, 6:4, 8:10, 1 Corinthians 2:4, 5:5, 7:17, 11:19, 12:6, Galatians 2:17, 3:3, 10, 4:21; Ephesians 1:23, 2:3, 4:2, 7, 17, 5:3; Colossians 2:2, 3:14; John 1:16, 14:30, 6:27; 1 Corinthians 7:4, etc.

These “dynamic equivalents” are so loose they might adequately qualify as paraphrases.)

Now, for the uneducated “laymen,” here is what is going on. No translating committee on earth (for 400 years) has ever translated every Greek word (from any text) exactly according to its lexicography (dictionary meaning) as given in a Greek lexicon. All translators “take liberties” in order to get across what they think the meaning should be in their language.

The NIV takes so many “liberties” that one would think its committee was made up of Gay Libbers, Women’s Libbers, and French revolutionists. But James White’s entire book was written to prove the NASV and the NIV were superior to the AV.

Why did he allow the NIV “affirmative action liberties” which he denied to the AV? I will tell you why: a vicious, irrational, Satanic prejudice against the greatest Book that ever showed up on this planet.

Consider:

1. When the king’s men substituted “churches” for “temples,” they had just translated the “hieron” of “hierosulos” as “temple” more than fifty times in Matthew-Acts. They knew the root of the word was “temples.” No ignorance was involved. James White pretended they erred through ignorance. He erred through ignorance.

2. You see, poor Jimbo’s NIV had just committed this same dastardly “error” in the same chapter, for right at verses 39 and 41 we read”assembly” (NIV) for “church”. But this word was “ekklesia.” The NIV had just translated it as “church”(or “churches”) twenty-two times in Matthew and Acts! Why? If “ecclesia” means” assembly”–and so the NIV and NASV translate it in Acts 19:32, 39, and 41–what is this same word doing standing as “church” in the rest of the book of Acts and the Pauline Epistles?

C’mon, Buster, tell us. You got the balloons.

“Church” is a dynamic equivalent for “ecclesia.” It is not “formal correspondence.” The AV translators WISELY chose–intentionally, with full knowledge–“churches” at Acts 19:37 to show you that the heathen who worship female goddesses (see the context!) not only have “temples,” but “churches,” as in St. Peter, St. Michael’s, St. Jude’s, The Lateran, etc. They simply gave you an advanced revelation “not found in the original Greek”!

Poor old Jim White will die declaring the NIV can do things like that, but if the AV does it it is an “error.” He is so screwed up he doesn’t know whether he is standing on his left hind leg or his front right paw.

1 John 5:7-8. This is the most “dearly beloved” verse in the New Testament for all dead, orthodox apostates and apostate Fundamentalists in the Alexandrian Cult; one may truly say, “it is their life-verse.” It is the greatest alibi for these Nicolaitans to sin against the Holy Spirit that they can find in the entire Bible. They “harp” on 1 John 5:7-8 morning, noon, and night (just like they thought they had good sense), and harp on it till their harp needs strings replaced on it twice a month.

You know the fictitious fables and scholarly mythology behind the Cult’s rejection of this portion of the Holy Scriptures: “Erasmus said that if he could find……”There is no Greek manuscript evidence for… ” “Only one late Greek manuscript contains…,” “It is not part of the original text…,” “It is not in the Majority Text of…… etc.

When I went to BJU, in 1950 (Greenville, S.C.), I got the “full load” from Dr. Brokenshire and Dr. Brunner (graduates of Princeton and Louisville Southern Baptist Seminary). It went like this:

1.”There is no Greek manuscript evidence for the reading.”

He lied. One showed up.

2. “But only one Greek manuscript has it.”

He lied again. I found two more that had it.

3. “But there is no evidence that it existed before 1520.”

He lied again. That is three in a row. I found evidence the reading existed in A.D. 200 and A.D. 415.
Question: When a good, “godly,” dedicated Fundamentalist in a “fortress of faith” (or “bastion of orthodoxy”) lies to a young man, three times in a row, in an effort to destroy his faith in the King James Bible, what is any Bible believer supposed to think?
You tell me, teller; you got the cash.

Now James White–an absolutely typical Alexandrian clone–was programmed by the same “good, godly, Conservative JACKASSES” that tried to program me. I don’t “program” too well. So when old Jimmy wrote his book, he made a vain attempt to handle the “gender” problem of Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Fee, Palmer, Barker, Bob Jones III, Custer, Afman, Panosian, Wisdom, Ross, Sandlin, Kutilek, Brunner, and Brokenshire, et al., on three neuter words taking a masculine article as masculine witnesses he stumbled, stuttered, and then bluffed his way through the passage without explaining anything.

Dr. Edward Hills had already nailed Jimbo to the wall way back in 1956: that was thirty-nine years before Jimbo wrote The King James Only Controversy (see Hills, The King James Version Defended, 1956, pp. 209-213).

But here is what Jimbo omitted. (Alexandria is noted for omissions [see Eve: Gen.3:2]. Alexandrians can not live without omitting facts.)

1. According to Prof. Michaelis (cited in Armin Panning’s New Testament Criticism), Manuscript 61 (which has the “Johannine Comma”) has chapters in Mark that posses “coincidences” with the Old Syriac (A.D. 150-180), which was extant more than 200 year before the Greek manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, etc.) showed up.

2. Although Manuscript 61 was supposed to have been written around 1519, the question comes up,”From WHAT Greek text?”Jimmy was too stupid to ask the question: he didn’t even know why the question should be asked!

Ditto R. A.Torrey, John Broadus, Bob Jones Jr., Chuck Swindoll, Zane Hodges, Bob Jones III, John Ankerberg, and John MacArthur.

The text of Manuscript 61 did not come from Ximene’s Polyglott: it wasn’t published yet. It did not come from Erasmus for it doesn’t match his Greek text in scores of places. “The literal affinities of Manuscript 61 are with the Syriac (see Acts 11:26), and the Syriac Version was not even known in Europe until AFTER 1552 (Moses Mardin).

The Old Syriac (take Taitian’s Diatesseron for example) has the King James reading for Luke 2:33; Matthew 6:13; Luke 23:42; and John 9:35, against the ASV, NASV, RSV, CEV, NRSV, and NIV.

And Jimbo was going to prove there was no evidence for 1 John 5:7, 8? He would have lost his underwear, along with his shirt. He would have fallen flatter than Andy “the Panda” Sandlin trying to prove Post-millennialism.

3. Here is the evidence for retaining 1 John 5:7-8. In line with God promising to preserve His words (Ps. 12), we have this material which Jimbo slyly “swept under the rug.”

a. John Gill says that Fulgentius cited the AV reading in A.D. 510. Do you think he got it from an Irish manuscript written in A.D. 1519?

b. Jerome cites the verse from Eustochium A.D. 450, and then puts it into the Vulgate where it is preserved (Ps. 12) for 900 years.

c. But Athanasius quotes 1 John 5:7-8 before Jerome was born (A.D. 350). “Irish1519 manuscript” is it, kiddies? You silly smart-aleck little Twinkies!

d. But why stop here? In A.D. 415, at the Council of Carthage, we find the “fathers” cite (in Latin) the text of 1 John 5:7-8 (PATER,VERBUM ET SPIRITUS SANCTUS”).

e. But why stop here? “The wealth of information” and “embarrassment of riches” (two Alexandrian hackneyed cliches meaning “no evidence we can quote”), which Jimmy didn’t want you to find, says that Tertullian quoted the King James Version of 1 John, chapter 5 in A.D. 200 (Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament, Vol.2, pp. 907-908).

f. That isn’t all. If I had debated Flimsy-Jimmy , I would have pulled Which Bible? on him (by David Otis Fuller) and put pages 211 and 212 before the video camera. You see, the King James translators had four Waldensian Bibles on their writing tables in 1611. These Waldensian Bibles had 1 John 5:7-8 in them. The trouble with Biblical illiterates like Andy Sandlin, Doug Kutilek, James White, F. F. Bruce, Bobby Ross, and John Ankerberg is not just that they have not “done their homework.” No one gave them any homework to do. Their teachers were bankrupt.

Watch God Almighty preserving His words, in spite of the negative, critical, destructive work of “godly” Conservative and Evangelical “scholars.”

A.D. 170: Old Syriac and Old Latin.
A.D. 180: Tatian and Old Syriac.
A.D. 200: Tertullian and Old Latin.
A.D. 250: Cyprian and Old Latin.
A.D. 350: Priscillian and Athanasius.
A.D. 415: Council of Carthage.
A.D. 450: Jerome’s Vulgate.
A.D. 510: Fulgentius.
A.D. 750: Wianburgensis.
A.D. 1150: Miniscule manuscript 88.
A.D. 1200-1500: Four Waldensen Bibles.
A.D. 1519: Greek Manuscript 61.
A.D. 1520-1611: Erasmus TR.
A.D. 1611: King James Authorized Version of the Holy Bible.

God had to work a miracle to get the truth of 1 John 5:7-8 preserved; He preserved it. You have it; but not in an RV, RSV, NRSV, CEV, ASV, NASV, or NIV.

And there are Jimmy White’s “Seven Errors” he wanted to debate, but (like Andy the Panda) he backed off when he was told where and when he would debate them. He would have bombed out seven out of seven; 100% error–on HIS part. Andy would have fared the same way.

So, the Bible believer now has fifteen of the most “scholarly,” highly intellectual, godly, Conservative criticisms of the AV ever laid out in print: seven from Jimbo and eight from Gary Hudson. They batted 1000, if by that you mean they didn’t contact the ball one time in fifteen times across the middle of the plate, waist high. That is fifteen strikeouts in a row; the equivalent of five men “fanning” out in succession.

I’ll let you in on a little secret: if their mentors, peers, associates, and role models had posited 1,500 “errors” in the AV, they too would have struck out–1,500 times in a row.

“Let God be true, but every man a liar.”

The liar always convinces his own kind that he has proved errors in the AV conclusively–“beyond the reasonable shadow of a doubt”–when all he did was REJECT the evidence against his own unbelief.

If poor old bankrupt Jimmy had showed up he would have been called upon to explain a phenomenon about 1 John 5:7-8 that he had never even considered, for the simple reason that his TEACHERS were too stupid to think.

Any man who had read the New Testament through, even ten times, would have seen, immediately, that 1 John 5:7-8 could not have been inserted by a heretic or deceiver, because the wording would have betrayed his intent. Any man intent on proving some doctrinal point (theological) by adding to the Scripture (note that is the theme of Jimmy White’s book), would not have dared to invent a new formula. He would have written:”the Father the Son the Holy Ghost” to “harmonize” (see White’s book) it with Matthew 28:19.

According to White’s own approach to “conflations, additions, and copyists’ harmonizing tendencies” (which he devoted more than forty pages to in his book), he wrote himself off as a commentator on 1 John 5:7-8; so did every jack rabbit who followed him. His own thesis cut his throat. No one added 1 John 5:7-8 to the “original Greek text.” It was subtracted from the “original Greek” text at an early date, the omission was preserved in the two most corrupt and “barbarously mutilated manuscripts” (Dean Burgon’s opinion) known to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (ASV, NASV, and NIV).God preserved it through many other channels until He produced His final and finished work: the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible in the universal language of the end time.

“When in doubt, always correct ‘THE’ Greek text with THE English text.”

“This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.”

***All rights reserved by the Bible Baptist Bookstore. Reproduction or use of their name, products, literature, pictures, or illustrations, in whole or in part, in any form or medium, without express written permission of Bible Baptist Bookstore, is prohibited.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Will Kinney says:

    Hi saints. Always a treat to see Mr. Ruckman dukking it out with the likes of James White. I thought I had an article on Luke 2:22 “her” purification verse “their” purification, but I checked and I did not have one. So, I spent about 4 hours putting together an article defending the King James Bible on this verse. The KJB is right, as always, and here are some good reasons why this is so –

    http://brandplucked.webs.com/luke222herpurificati.htm

    God bless,

    Will Kinney

  2. Reblogged this on and commented:
    James White “responded” to the first two and passed the rest off because of “Ruckman’s atitude”. I would have loved to have seen that psudo-preacher steam rolled over by Dr. Ruckman in a debate.

  3. Thank you for posting, I placed this in my favorites for future reference.

  4. James says:

    Dr Ruckman’s pamphlet on the Johannine Comma is not found anywhere, Could any one scan it please?

Leave Godly Comments

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s