Advanced Revelation

[kevinmiller]

Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.



When was this verse written?

When was the KJV translated?


BTW a study into the lives of some of the translators would probably show an even greater heresy as some of them were not even saved, as far as I've heard....since when did God ever inspire a lost man to write Scripture? Translation is an educational job...inspiration is something God completed after Revelation.

:goodpost:

[Anon]

:humble:

:lol:

[Bakershalfdozen]

ROFL. :rollover:

[HappyChristian]

Now, this may sound like a really ignorant question, but is advanced revelation the same thing as double inspiration? Or does double inspiration cause advanced revelation? :huh:

[Guest Guest]

Nope. Double-inspiration supposedly means that the Bible was inspired twice.

Advanced revelation means there is more stuff that is in the KJV than was in the originals.

[HappyChristian]

Nope. Double-inspiration supposedly means that the Bible was inspired twice.

Advanced revelation means there is more stuff that is in the KJV than was in the originals.

Okay - I knew what double inspiration meant, and figured about advanced revelation, but wasn't sure... I don't hang out with that crowd. :lol:

[Anon]

Advanced revelation means there is more stuff that is in the KJV than was in the originals.

I honestly cannot believe that people can say they believe every word of the KJV and then believe in "advanced revelation". Wow. :puzzled:

[Jerry]

I agree with Kitagrl that the italics were added for clarification - of either what was already in or implied in the context. I have taken a look at many verses and tried to see how awkward it would be to read without that italiced word - most of the time you would be able to figure it out, but it would be weird English. There are some places where the passage doesn't even make sense without the extra word(s). And looking in the Greek TR, I have found that some of the words are even in the context - such as a masculine word ending, for the reason they add a "he" to the verse.

Advanced revelation is heresy, pure and simple. God didn't add to the Bible in 1611. Nor did He re-inspired the Bible OR the translators. It is the words that were inspired (not the translators), and they never lost their inspiration; therefore did not need to be re-inspired.

As far as the word "unknown" goes in 1 Corinthians 14, Paul is stating these languages were unknown to those hearing it - NOT UNKNOWN TO THE WHOLE WORLD. Find me one place in the Bible where that word is EVER used in that sense. Besides, you really have to twist the Bible to get that interpretation. The discussion is between preaching in languages your congregation understands and in languages they don't - the problems when that happens and why it is so essential to have an interpretor and an order to the service (ie. only 2 or 3 speaking in foreign languages, one at a time, with an interpretor, and so on). The passage does not even make sense if you try to bring some gibberish in there - "Oh, yeah, make sure you have an interpretor when speaking gibberish..."

[Samer]

Nope. Double-inspiration supposedly means that the Bible was inspired twice.

Advanced revelation means there is more stuff that is in the KJV than was in the originals.

Would that mean you believe the words of God were given originally, and then they were lost, and then completely recovered in 1611?

Edit: Which would, of course, contradict Ps. 12:6,7. :saint

[Guest Guest]

Would that mean you believe the words of God were given originally, and then they were lost, and then completely recovered in 1611?

Nope, God's words were never lost. However, man would not be able to translate the manuscripts that were available in the 1600's into English without supernatural guidance. Man just can't produce something perfect without God's help.

I didn't say that I believe the Bible was inspired twice. Actually, the accusation that people throw out saying that we believe in "double inspiration" is just a weak attempt to try to say that God couldn't have been involved in the translation of the King James Bible. By saying that God didn't help the translators, Bible correctors can then say it's not perfect because it's only a translation.

[Samer]

Guided by the Lord into translating something He's already given is way different than guided by the Lord to the extent that the English contains things the originals never did. As Paul said, "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." God's hand of providence certainly moved throughout preservation of Scripture from the original writings, through the early Roman persecutions, through the Waldenses, Anabaptists, through Tyndale and others, and through the King James translators to give us His Scriptures preserved in English. The whole thing of "a translation can be better than the originals," as in Katy-Anne's article, is where things get strange.

[Guest Guest]

I most certainly believe the King James Bible is better than the originals. But it's not the same way you think it means. It means that the King James Bible is a complete book, all in one language, perfectly translated. The originals were not all in one place, they were in various scrolls and fragments and in several different languages.

Never before 1611 did God's people have a complete Bible that was as pure and infallible as the King James Bible.

[Samer]

It's certainly nice to have a crisp, leather-bound book with words of Christ in red, maps, and a concordance...and searching on e-sword and all that goodness. The main issue here is that the words of God cannot be improved upon. When the translators of the King James translated, they were concerned with the words, which can never be improved upon, in any language.

To say the translation is better than the originals tends to imply the words are better, since words are what were translated.

Of course you're right about the matters of convenience. I don't know for sure that there was never a completely perfect Bible all within the covers of one book. I don't know of any that have lasted to this day, but I don't think I'd completely rule it out.

[Guest Guest]

That's exactly the problem. People take it the wrong way when someone says the King James Bible is better than the originals. We mean it's better cuz it's one book like I just pointed out, but people loooove twisting words of people they don't want to agree with. (I don't mean you, I mean other people who I won't mention because it'll just stir up more arguments )

[Anon]

If you are going to say "Its better than the originals because its all in one place" then you have to say that other languages translated from the TR are equal to the KJV...which I believe...but many do not.