V. Why Ruckman’s View Is Not Biblical
Peter Ruckman’s King James Onlyism departs fundamentally from the biblical teaching on inspiration, preservation, and the role of translations. This section demonstrates why his claims are inconsistent with Scripture, highlighting three primary issues: the failure to align with scriptural evidence, the elevation of tradition over textual reality, and the rejection of the biblical doctrine of preservation.
A. Failure to Align with Scriptural Evidence
Ruckman’s assertion that the KJV is superior to the original texts and inspired as “advanced revelation” finds no support in Scripture. The Bible consistently teaches that inspiration applies to the original writings (autographs) of Scripture, not subsequent translations. Second Timothy 3:16 states, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God,” referring explicitly to the writings of the prophets and apostles. Ruckman, however, claims, “The AV 1611 English corrects the errors in the Greek manuscripts” (The Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 78). This elevates the KJV to a status unsupported by the biblical text and fundamentally misunderstands the doctrine of inspiration.
Furthermore, Ruckman misuses passages such as Psalm 12:6–7 to defend his position. He writes, “The words of the LORD are purified seven times, culminating in the AV 1611” (The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 12). However, this interpretation is not grounded in the text itself. Psalm 12:6–7 speaks of the purity and enduring nature of God’s words, not the inspiration of any particular translation. The Reformed understanding of this passage affirms that God’s Word is preserved through His providence, not through the re-inspiration of translations.
B. Elevation of Tradition Over Textual Reality
Ruckman’s veneration of the KJV mirrors the errors of Roman Catholicism regarding the Latin Vulgate. He asserts, “God revealed things in the English of the KJV that He chose not to reveal in the Greek or Hebrew texts” (The ‘Errors’ in the King James Bible, p. 17). This claim creates a parallel to the Catholic Church’s elevation of the Vulgate as the ultimate standard, an error the Reformers vehemently opposed.
The Reformers emphasized the primacy of the original Greek and Hebrew texts as the standard for determining doctrine and correcting translations. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1:8) declares, “The Old Testament in Hebrew…and the New Testament in Greek…are authentical.” Ruckman’s insistence that “The BOOK [KJV] will settle it” (The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 9) rejects this principle, substituting human tradition for the authority of the original Scriptures.
Additionally, Ruckman’s approach creates a false dichotomy between the KJV and the original texts. By asserting that the KJV is the final revelation of God’s Word, he undermines the textual basis on which the KJV itself was built. This circular reasoning elevates tradition over textual evidence and biblical teaching.
C. Ignoring the Doctrine of Preservation
The biblical doctrine of preservation teaches that God has preserved His Word through His providence, ensuring that the Scriptures remain available and reliable for His people. This preservation is seen in the meticulous copying of manuscripts and the work of faithful translators. The Reformed tradition affirms that God’s providence has kept His Word pure in all ages, as stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1:8).
Ruckman, however, departs from this understanding by claiming that preservation culminated uniquely in the KJV. He writes, “God preserved His Word through the AV alone” (The Mythological Septuagint, p. 45). This assertion implies that the Scriptures were incomplete or unreliable prior to 1611, contradicting Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:18: “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.” Preservation, according to Scripture, is not tied to a specific translation but to God’s providential care over His Word throughout history.
Moreover, Ruckman’s rejection of textual criticism as a means of preservation is unbiblical. The process of comparing manuscripts to determine the original readings reflects the biblical principle of seeking truth (Proverbs 25:2). By dismissing this process as part of the “Alexandrian Cult” (Alexandrian Cult Series, p. 2), Ruckman denies the practical means through which God has preserved His Word.
Conclusion of Section V
Ruckman’s claims concerning the inspiration and authority of the King James Version are inconsistent with the biblical teaching on inspiration, preservation, and translations. His elevation of the KJV above the original texts and his dismissal of textual criticism undermine the sufficiency and clarity of God’s Word. By substituting tradition for scriptural authority, Ruckmanism introduces a theological framework that is both unbiblical and divisive. In the final section, this article will propose a biblical and confessional path forward, reaffirming the primacy of the original Scriptures and the proper role of translations within the church.
VI. The Biblical and Confessional Path Forward
While Peter Ruckman’s King James Onlyism errs in elevating a single translation above the original texts and introducing the notion of “advanced revelation,” his criticisms of modern New Testament textual criticism—what he labels as “textual scholarship”—are not without merit. This section seeks to distinguish between Ruckman’s theological errors and the valid concerns he raises about modern textual criticism, offering a balanced, confessional approach rooted in Scripture and Reformed theology.
At the heart of this response is the foundational principle that the inspiration and authority of any translation rests entirely on its faithfulness to the authentic Greek and Hebrew texts. Translations are authoritative only insofar as they accurately reflect the original languages.
A. Returning to the Reformed Doctrine of Scripture
The Reformed tradition holds to the primacy of the original autographs in Hebrew and Greek as the inspired Word of God. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1:8) states:
“The Old Testament in Hebrew…and the New Testament in Greek…being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical.”
This statement underscores that inspiration is tied to the original texts, which were directly breathed out by God. Any translation’s authority derives entirely from its accurate representation of these texts. While translations play a vital role in communicating God’s Word to His people, they are derivative, not original. They are inspired and authoritative only to the extent that they faithfully convey the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew.
Peter Ruckman’s claim that “The AV 1611 English corrects the errors in the Greek manuscripts” (The Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 78) directly contradicts this foundational principle. The authority of the King James Version, like any other translation, rests on its correspondence to the authentic Greek and Hebrew texts. To assert that a translation can correct the originals undermines the biblical doctrine of inspiration and the confessional teaching that the originals are the ultimate standard for faith and practice.
B. Critiquing Modern New Testament Textual Criticism
Ruckman’s critique of modern textual criticism, though often polemical, highlights valid concerns about its presuppositions and methods. The Reformed tradition affirms that God has providentially preserved His Word through faithful copying and the evaluation of manuscripts directed by the witness of the Holy Ghost throughout the history of the Church which is the pillar and ground of truth.
- Denial of Providential Preservation in Modern Criticism:
Modern New Testament textual criticism often operates on the assumption that the original text has been lost and must be reconstructed. This methodology contradicts the biblical teaching that God has preserved His Word (Matthew 5:18). Ruckman is correct in criticizing this skepticism, but his dismissal of textual criticism altogether overlooks its necessity for identifying the original readings. - Translations Depend on the Originals:
While Ruckman argues that “The BOOK [KJV] will settle it” (The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 9), he fails to acknowledge that the King James Version itself was based on the Greek Textus Receptus and the Hebrew Masoretic Text. The KJV translators themselves recognized their dependence on the originals, noting in their preface that they sought to produce a faithful rendering of the original texts for English readers.
Faithful translations are authoritative only because they reflect the inspired Greek and Hebrew texts. To reject the original texts or prioritize a translation above them undermines the foundation of biblical authority.
C. Reaffirming the Inspiration and Authority of Translations
The sufficiency and clarity of Scripture are central to the Reformed understanding of God’s Word. Second Timothy 3:16–17 declares, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” This inspiration applies directly to the original Greek and Hebrew texts, not to translations. The authority of translations, such as the KJV, is derivative; they are authoritative only as they accurately convey the inspired originals.
Ruckman’s claim that the KJV contains “advanced revelation” undermines this principle. By suggesting that the KJV introduces truths absent in the originals (The ‘Errors’ in the King James Bible, p. 17), Ruckman implies that God’s Word was incomplete until 1611. This contradicts the biblical teaching that God’s revelation was finalized in the apostolic writings (Jude 3).
Translations play a vital role in making Scripture accessible to all people, as emphasized in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1:8), which states that Scripture must be translated into “the vulgar language of every nation.” However, their authority and inspiration are contingent upon their fidelity to the original texts. Ruckman’s elevation of the KJV above the Greek and Hebrew undermines this principle and introduces a theological novelty unsupported by Scripture or historical confessions.
Conclusion of Section VI
The biblical and confessional path forward involves reaffirming the primacy of the original Greek and Hebrew texts as the inspired and authoritative Word of God. Translations, including the King James Version, derive their authority from their accurate reflection of these texts. Ruckman’s error lies in his elevation of the KJV above the originals, which contradicts the foundational principle that all translations are subordinate to the authentic Greek and Hebrew texts. By rejecting the skepticism of modern textual criticism while upholding the role of textual scholarship in verifying the originals, the church can maintain the integrity of God’s Word without falling into the errors of King James
VII. Conclusion
The debate surrounding Peter Ruckman’s King James Onlyism provides an opportunity to reaffirm a biblically grounded and confessionally sound understanding of the inspiration, preservation, and authority of Scripture. Ruckman’s extreme elevation of the King James Version (KJV) above the original Greek and Hebrew texts introduces theological errors that are inconsistent with both Scripture and Reformed confessional standards. At the same time, his critique of modern New Testament textual criticism, while overly polemical, highlights valid concerns about the assumptions and methods of this field. A balanced response requires rejecting Ruckman’s theological errors while addressing the weaknesses of modern textual criticism in light of Scripture and the confessions.
A. Summary of the Argument
Ruckmanism is characterized by three primary claims:
- The KJV is inspired and possesses “advanced revelation” beyond the original Greek and Hebrew texts.
- The original texts are subordinate to the KJV, which Ruckman claims can “correct” errors in the originals.
- Modern textual criticism is an enemy of biblical authority, often labeled as the “Alexandrian Cult.”
Each of these claims reveals significant theological and logical problems that deviate from a biblical understanding of Scripture.
1. The KJV as Inspired and Possessing Advanced Revelation
Ruckman asserts that the KJV is not merely a translation but an inspired text in itself, containing truths not present in the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. He writes, “The AV 1611 English corrects the errors in the Greek manuscripts. It is the final revelation of God’s words to man” (The Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 78). Furthermore, he claims, “God revealed things in the English of the KJV that He chose not to reveal in the Greek or Hebrew texts” (The ‘Errors’ in the King James Bible, p. 17). These statements elevate the KJV to a level of authority that contradicts the biblical doctrine of inspiration, which applies exclusively to the original autographs (2 Timothy 3:16).
The Reformed tradition, by contrast, affirms that translations are valuable tools for the church but derive their authority solely from their fidelity to the original texts. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1:8) emphasizes, “The Old Testament in Hebrew…and the New Testament in Greek…being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical.” Ruckman’s assertion that the KJV contains “advanced revelation” undermines this foundational principle, suggesting that God’s Word was incomplete until 1611.
2. Subordination of the Original Texts to the KJV
Ruckman not only elevates the KJV but also diminishes the authority of the original Greek and Hebrew texts. He writes, “Never use the Textus Receptus to settle anything; THE BOOK [KJV] will settle it” (The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 9). In doing so, he rejects the primacy of the original languages, which are the direct product of divine inspiration. This position is inconsistent with the biblical understanding of Scripture, which affirms the original autographs as the ultimate standard of truth.
The Reformed tradition recognizes the importance of translations but always views them as subordinate to the authentic texts. Faithful translations, including the KJV, serve the purpose of making God’s Word accessible to all people, but they do not replace the original languages as the authoritative foundation. The KJV itself was based on the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Text, and its translators recognized the primacy of the originals. By reversing this relationship, Ruckman undermines the very foundation of the translation he seeks to defend.
3. Critique of Modern Textual Criticism
Ruckman’s critique of modern textual criticism, while exaggerated and polemical, raises valid concerns about its presuppositions. He describes its proponents as the “Alexandrian Cult” and claims, “Their goal is to undermine faith in God’s Book” (Alexandrian Cult Series, p. 2). He also criticizes the reliance on Alexandrian manuscripts, stating, “Modern versions are Jesuit-inspired corruptions designed to overthrow the AV” (The Mythological Septuagint, p. 23).
While Ruckman’s rhetoric is extreme, his concern about the skepticism and naturalism inherent in modern textual criticism resonates with Reformed principles. Modern criticism denies the providential preservation of Scripture, treating it as a purely human artifact. Matthew 5:18 reminds us of God’s promise to preserve His Word: “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.” Ruckman rightly identifies the dangers of methodologies that undermine the reliability of God’s Word, though his solution—the exclusive elevation of the KJV—is theologically unsound.
B. Reaffirming the Reformed View of Scripture
The Reformed tradition provides a clear and consistent framework for understanding the inspiration, preservation, and authority of Scripture:
- Inspiration: The original Greek and Hebrew texts are the divinely inspired Word of God.
- Preservation: God has providentially preserved His Word throughout history, ensuring its purity and reliability.
- Authority of Translations: Faithful translations like the KJV are valuable tools for the church, but their authority is derivative, resting entirely on their accurate reflection of the original texts.
This framework avoids the errors of both modern textual criticism and Ruckmanism. By upholding the primacy of the original texts and the providential preservation of Scripture, the church can maintain confidence in God’s Word while resisting the skepticism of modern methodologies and the extremes of King James Onlyism.
C. Final Thoughts
Ruckmanism’s elevation of the KJV as the ultimate standard for faith and practice undermines the biblical and confessional foundation of scriptural authority. While translations are invaluable for making God’s Word accessible, their authority is contingent upon their fidelity to the authentic Greek and Hebrew texts. Ruckman’s claim that the KJV contains “advanced revelation” and can “correct” the originals introduces a theological novelty that is both unbiblical and historically unsupported.
At the same time, Ruckman’s critique of modern textual criticism serves as a reminder of the importance of approaching Scripture with reverence and faith. The methodological naturalism of modern textual criticism often denies the providential preservation of God’s Word, treating the Bible as a mere human artifact. The Reformed tradition offers a better way, affirming both the primacy of the original texts and the value of textual scholarship conducted within the framework of faith.
The church must hold fast to the biblical and confessional view of Scripture, resisting the extremes of both modern skepticism and sectarianism. By doing so, it can continue to proclaim the inspired, preserved, and authoritative Word of God with confidence and clarity.
KEY QUOTATIONS FROM RUCKMAN’S WORK
- The King James Version Corrects the Greek
- “The A.V. 1611 reading, here, is superior to any Greek text.”
(The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 126) - “Never use the Textus Receptus to settle anything; THE BOOK [KJV] will settle it.”
(The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 9) - “If the mood or tense isn’t right in any Greek text, the King James Bible will straighten it out in a hurry.”
(The Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 47)
- The KJV Possesses Advanced Revelation
- “Mistakes in the A.V. 1611 are advanced revelation!”
(The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 25) - “The English text of the Authorized Version goes beyond the Greek and Hebrew texts.”
(The Alexandrian Cult Series, p. 52)
- The KJV as the Final Authority
- “The English Authorized Version of 1611 is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.”
(The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 128) - “The only Bible that God has blessed since 1611 is the King James Bible.”
(The Mythological Septuagint, p. 83)
- Subordination of the Originals
- “The originals were only inspired when they were written, and since no one has them, they are irrelevant. The Authorized Version is inspired now.”
(The Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 203) - “It is the Authorized Version, not the Greek or Hebrew, that is the Bible for the last days.”
(The Alexandrian Cult Series, p. 112)
Here are the key quotations from The ‘Errors’ in the King James Bible where Peter Ruckman discusses the King James Version (KJV) as being superior to the Greek and Hebrew texts, asserting its inspiration, and suggesting its use to correct the original languages:
- The King James Version Corrects the Greek
- “If the Greek says one thing and the King James Bible says another, throw the Greek out.”
(The ‘Errors’ in the King James Bible, p. 3)
- The KJV Possesses Advanced Revelation
- “God chose to reveal His advanced revelation in the English language of the King James Bible.”
(The ‘Errors’ in the King James Bible, p. 10)
- The KJV as the Final Authority
- “The King James Bible has the final say in all doctrinal matters.”
(The ‘Errors’ in the King James Bible, p. 22)
- Subordination of the Originals
- “The Greek and Hebrew are only useful where they support the English text.”
(The ‘Errors’ in the King James Bible, p. 15)
These quotations further demonstrate Ruckman’s distinctive position of elevating the KJV above the original biblical texts, a stance in direct opposition to traditional Reformed theology, which upholds the primacy of the Greek and Hebrew texts as the inspired and authentic Word of God.
