Advanced Revelation

[Guest Guest]

Well, that depends on if the other Bibles translated into the other languages were translated right. I'm not even going to go there because it depends on what Bible in what language you're talking about and I don't know any other languages fluently besides English, so I'm far from being an expert on that. I just try to stay away from that subject. :)

[Samer]

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 )

Do you agree with Katy-Anne's basic argument and essay?

Normally a translation into another language cannot be perfect, but with the King James Bible it is because God inspired it. Also, the Bible shows us that a translation can be BETTER than the original that it came from.

Let's look at the word "translate" in the Bible:

2 Samuel 3:10 To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba.

Colossians 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

The Bible itself proves that a translation can be better than the original. The first example shows the kingdom being translated from Saul to David...definitely an improvement!

The second translation is God translating us from the power of darkness to the kingdom of His dear Son. That's a picture of salvation.

The third translation is when God took Enoch from this earth and took him up to Heaven, because he had the testimony of pleasing God. (section on translation written by Kathie Owen).

The very clear implication (especially in the context of the essay) is that the words in the King James Bible have something more than the original words--some more meaning. If you just meant the King James Bible was a more convenient way for man to have the word of God, then the whole "better translation" argument wouldn't be necessary. It seems like you changed your mind in the middle of the thread, and I think that's what's confusing the issue...

[Jerry]

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.

In this sense, everyone here would agree with you. I am glad I do not have to lug around 66 scrolls!
However, that is not what everyone else means when they make the statement that the KJV is better than the originals. Some make it to mean there are statements in the KJV that weren't in the originals - in fact, last night I read that exact thing from another member (who is in die-hard support of Ruckman). If the KJV contains things in English that the preserved Greek and Hebrew do not, that is advanced revelation. If the KJV corrects the underlying manuscripts**, that is a problem - because that would mean God didn't preserve His Words.

**Yes, there are some slight variations in some TR manuscripts - and I do believe the King James translators were given the wisdom to find out which was the exact reflection of the original. For example, if you got 5500 NT manuscripts, and all except one or two - including all foreign TR-based translations and lexicons in the early centuries of the church - they read a certain way, then those few ones that differ in that exact rendering or verse are wrong. But that certainly doesn't mean ALL the Greek and Hebrew texts are wrong and had to be corrected. If I copied out a verse, and misplaced or misspelled a word, that doesn't mean my Bible is in error, but that I made an error in my one copy. If I copied out that verse 1000 times, and only once had that mispelling, it would be pretty easy to figure out what the original verse said (provided I wasn't copying from a faulty memory 999 times).

[Anon]

Let's look at the word "translate" in the Bible:

Logically, if we are discussing the accuracy of the translation, we cannot use the translation to explain what translation means. And translation as far as "a trip to Heaven" has nothing whatsoever to do with what happened in England in 1611. :puzzled:

[Guest Guest]

hehe, you didn't know this...but that part of the article was written by me in March of 2006. I do believe the King James Bible is inspired. I don't deny that. Actually I won't deny any part of what I wrote because I don't see any doctrinal flaws in it.

[dwayner79]

In this sense, everyone here would agree with you. I am glad I do not have to lug around 66 scrolls!
However, that is not what everyone else means when they make the statement that the KJV is better than the originals. Some make it to mean there are statements in the KJV that weren't in the originals - in fact, last night I read that exact thing from another member (who is in die-hard support of Ruckman). If the KJV contains things in English that the preserved Greek and Hebrew do not, that is advanced revelation. If the KJV corrects the underlying manuscripts**, that is a problem - because that would mean God didn't preserve His Words.

:thumb good clarification. Very important distinction.

[Guest Guest]

Logically, if we are discussing the accuracy of the translation, we cannot use the translation to explain what translation means. And translation as far as "a trip to Heaven" has nothing whatsoever to do with what happened in England in 1611. :puzzled:

Ok, so let me get this straight. You believe the King James Bible is a PERFECT translation of the Bible, yet you think we shouldn't use the KJB to define a word? How does that even make sense????

[Anon]

Ok, so let me get this straight. You believe the King James Bible is a PERFECT translation of the Bible, yet you think we shouldn't use the KJB to define a word? How does that even make sense????

Its hard to explain but if the translation has more in it than the original then how can we use the translation's word for "translation" to prove if the translation was done right?

Anyway regardless of that.... the word "translation" in the KJV has nothing to do with translating words...it has to do with traveling. "Trans" means basically to travel, or go across, or span...."Transatlantic" means to cross or span the Atlantic ocean.... So what Enoch did has nothing to do with the KJV vs the originals.

[Guest Guest]

In this sense, everyone here would agree with you. I am glad I do not have to lug around 66 scrolls!
However, that is not what everyone else means when they make the statement that the KJV is better than the originals. Some make it to mean there are statements in the KJV that weren't in the originals - in fact, last night I read that exact thing from another member (who is in die-hard support of Ruckman). If the KJV contains things in English that the preserved Greek and Hebrew do not, that is advanced revelation. If the KJV corrects the underlying manuscripts**, that is a problem - because that would mean God didn't preserve His Words.

Well actually, whoever that die-hard supporter of Ruckman is, they're wrong. Ruckman doesn't say there is more in the KJB than what Paul, Moses, Peter, or any other writer of books of the Bible penned. I wasn't even gonna mention Ruckman here because even though he's one of the best defenders of the KJB, there are lots of other people that teach the same exact stuff. No need to bring back the Ruckman debate. :lol

[Guest Guest]

If one logically follows Advanced Revelation to it's ultimate outcome, then yes. Many who hold to this position believe that Bibles in other languages have to be translated out of the KJV in order to be an accurate translation. Some even believe that you should teach people who speak another language to speak English so they can learn from the KJV.

Amen! If you have to translate, translate from the KJB! Or teach them English so they can read a perfect Bible.

To the person who said something about me only believing advanced revelation because of one man's teachings...I do not follow just one man. Yes, Dr Ruckman does teach it, but until last week, I didn't have ANYTHING in my possession by Dr Ruckman whatsoever. Dr Gipp teaches it too and it has been mostly his stuff I read. A pastor I know teaches it and he has taught me a LOT which is awesome. And I have some friends that believe it also. I know several people that believe it. :smile

To Bro Matt, that's the only example I've looked into personally, but I have been taught others about double inspiration, and I believe them, it's just I don't remember them like I remember that one. I might try to get hold of the information.

Katy-Anne

[Guest Guest]

Its hard to explain but if the translation has more in it than the original then how can we use the translation's word for "translation" to prove if the translation was done right?

Anyway regardless of that.... the word "translation" in the KJV has nothing to do with translating words...it has to do with traveling. "Trans" means basically to travel, or go across, or span...."Transatlantic" means to cross or span the Atlantic ocean.... So what Enoch did has nothing to do with the KJV vs the originals.

So your dictionary definition is better than God's definition in the Bible?? I'd much rather trust the definition God gave in His word. God is more reliable than Webster. :wink

[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.

AMEN Kathie! The only difference being that I believe it can correct the "originals". If the KJB and the TR disagree, the KJB is correct.

Katy-Anne

[kevinmiller]

Hmm...not a lot of evidence going on in this thread. The "translate" argument clearly has nothing to do with translating into another language and, as Will pointed out, Jeremiah had nothing to do with advanced revelation. So we still have no reason why all other translations should come from the KJV. Therefore, they are just idle words.

I would be careful Katy-Anne about what "I have been taught" seeing as you can't produce the evidence now. I would never believe anything that I wasn't prepared to defend.

[Samer]

God's definition of the word "translate" in the King James Bible never refers to translating from one language to another!
If you want to define words biblically, that's not going to cut it...1 Corinthians 14 speaks of taking something from one tongue (language) to another, and the word used is "interpret," which means give the originally intended meaning.

[kevinmiller]

So your dictionary definition is better than God's definition in the Bible?? I'd much rather trust the definition God gave in His word. God is more reliable than Webster.

Whoaaaaaaaaaaa...............The word is a word. If God wrote "translate" through reinspiration, don't you think He knew what it meant? What else would it mean? Look at the context within the KJV. It has nothing to do with translating into another language. Nothing whatsoever. If the word means something in English, and you say to ignore it, then what is the word but a jumble of letters? It has no meaning.