Advanced Revelation

[Will]

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.

Not really. Double inspiration is also used to describe advanced revelation, because in order for advanced revelation to take place, then inspiration of the translators is absolutely necessary.

[Will]

Just FTR, I have put some effort into some posts and questions a few pages back, that I would like to see answered before this thread spins out of control.

[Anon]

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

This is not only wrong, it is not even logical.

Everyone knows that when you translate something, you always use the original language. That goes for the Bible, literature, or anything else. When I make a cake to look like, say, a purse...I do not copy another purse cake...I copy an actual purse. To copy a copy (or translate from a translation) is to lose accuracy every time...similar to the old "telephone" game.

[kevinmiller]

More good posting Suzy. :thumb

[Guest Guest]

Everyone knows that when you translate something, you always use the original language. That goes for the Bible, literature, or anything else. When I make a cake to look like, say, a purse...I do not copy another purse cake...I copy an actual purse. To copy a copy (or translate from a translation) is to lose accuracy every time...similar to the old "telephone" game.

Well all the KJB was translated from was copies of copies...the original scriptures are long gone. So by your logic the KJB would not be perfect.

Since the KJB is perfect, we can take it and translate it into other languages. The whole point of this is that the KJB is perfect, and so since it is perfect, we can make accurate translations from it.

The best answer would be to teach them English though because then they have an absolutely perfect and inspired Bible!

Katy-Anne

[Guest Guest]

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.

Hi Kevin

Just because you don't agree with my evidence doesn't mean that I don't have any. And if I followed what I'd been taught, I'd be here saying that modern versions were fine. I was taught that my whole entire life. I had to come to being KJB only by myself.

So yeah just because you don't like or agree with the evidence doesn't mean it's not evidence.

Katy-Anne

[Guest Guest]

Here is a link to some stuff on how a translation can be inspired, by Dr Samuel Gipp.

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_29.asp

And why a translation can be as good and better than the original:

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_30.asp

Dr Gipp is a very intellingent man and I'm so thankful he wrote this book, it helped me a fair bit in my understanding of things pertaining to the KJB.

Katy-Anne

[kevinmiller]

First Katy-Anne, you have not presented any evidence at all. Your arguments are all based on predisposed suppositions. You haven't posted any evidence to back any of them up.

Second, the idea that someone should learn English to study the Bible is absurd. No matter how fluent you become in a language(and most people never reach fluency) you can never fully grasp the full meaning of the language unless you grew up in it.

Thirdly, Will posted a lot of good responses, none of which I have seen answered. He put a lot of effort into answering your post, I for one would like to see a response to him.

[Guest Guest]

Hi Kevin

I presented evidence, but you do not like it. It's like an evolutionist telling a creationist that he presented no evidence simply because the evolutionist doesn't like the evidence.

I am going to have to go back and find Will's posts, and I won't be answering them for you, I'll be answering them for Will.

You have only presented some "logic" for any of your views, never any Scripture like I have.

Katy-Anne

[Guest Guest]

I would like to know exactly what your view on AR is. How do you define "Advanced Revelation?" How do you suppose it takes place? What scripture and/or historical precedent do you base this upon?

Hey Will! My view is that there is stuff in the KJB that wasn't clear in the TR. The italics in the KJB prove this. Many copies of the TR disagree with each other, and God inspired the KJB translators when they put all those copies together of which words to write. He also inspired them to put in the italics, which shows up things that weren't in the TR also. There are also some verses with some advanced revelation in them, one of them is in Exodus I think that tells us to be careful of movies and magazines etc but I don't know exactly where the verse is, I know that Kathie or Vince knows though.

I'll answer your posts one by one as I see them Will, it will be easier that way.

Pastor J, going back to page one, my replies WERE relevant on the topics I posted them on. Jerry wanted to know why some people were against the use of Strong's concordance, and so I told him why I was. He asked a question, I gave a legitimate, relevant answer. The other question the poster asked about whether it would be the same if she read the originals, and I told her why I didn't believe so. Whether you like what I believe or not, it was indeed RELEVANT to the discussion, and how would you feel if your very relevant posts were taken off topics just because people don't like them. I don't like a lot of people's posts sometimes, but I don't ask that their relevant posts be moved. It is good to discuss advanced revelation in it's own thread, but I feel that my responses to the other questions should have been left in those threads also...you guys leave the posts of NON-KJVO people, so why not mine? Perfectly legitimate question...

Katy-Anne

[Guest Guest]

You are referencing Jeremiah as your only source of proof. If, in the context of the verse, God did "add" to His Words(which, at this time, it was OT law and most of the Bible had not been written yet), what proof do you have that God did it again in 1611?

Kevin, I referenced Jeremiah to show that God CAN re-inspire and add to His word if He wants to. Now, knowing that God can, means that it's entirely possible that He did. Doesn't mean that He did or didn't in 1611, but that there is that possibility. However, with the advanced revelation in the KJB proves re-inspiration, how did they get the advanced revelation otherwise? And you know that the italics were not in the originals. Also, we have clearer meaning in several verses in English than what they ever were in Greek or Hebrew.

Samer, you know I hate Wikipedia and don't really take seriously much of anything it says...anybody can write the thing if they so feel like it. I'd rather have the Bible describe translation than Wikipedia.

Katy-Anne

[Guest Guest]

You came up with this conclusion without looking into all the proof/evidence?

Hi Bro Matt, I

[kevinmiller]

Katy-Anne, you have not, in fact, produced any evidence. You made the claim again that the translators were inspired. You are basing your whole argument on something that has yet to be proven. You cannot prove that the translators were inspired. Also, it has been clearly shown(via Will's post) that Jeremiah had nothing to do with AR. Samer also showed the foolishness of using "translate" in the OT to prove the reinspiration of the KJV translation. It doesn't matter a wit what wikipedia says because the simple fact of the matter is that in context, and in dictionary definition, the word translate had nothing to do with translating a language.

And common sense Katy-Anne. Common sense, please. The italics in the KJV were necessary for us to understand it in English. A word-for-word translation would have been fragmented. Suppose they translated it word for word and John 3:16 came out "God world love, one Son sent therefore who believes Him never dies receives eternal life." So you say, "no one will be able to understand that, I think I'll make it clear in English." So you change it to "God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life." Wow! You've just received advanced revelation!!! Same principle. What revelation is there in "for," "so," "His," "that?" What revelation does that give to you?

[Guest Guest]

Here is a link to some stuff on how a translation can be inspired, by Dr Samuel Gipp.

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_29.asp

And why a translation can be as good and better than the original:

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_30.asp

Dr Gipp is a very intellingent man and I'm so thankful he wrote this book, it helped me a fair bit in my understanding of things pertaining to the KJB.

Katy-Anne

Watch out, Katy-Anne. I've posted links to articles by Dr. Gipp before and people here just tear them apart. Of course I agree with Dr. Gipp, I've heard him preach on this topic SO many times, but I doubt very many people here will listen to him. :smile

When you boil it all down, the real underlying issue to this topic is final authority. If someone thinks the KJB isn't as good as something before it, then they have an excuse to not listen to it if it says something they don't like.

I'd rather be guilty of holding to the King James Bible as the absolute authority in all matters of faith and practice, than be guilty of doubting the authority of it (even if it's the slightest doubt - such as: a "translation" isn't better than the original ...or a "translation" isn't as good as the original).

[Guest Guest]