AV1611 Bible Forum Archive - Advanced Revelation

AV1611 Bible Forum Archive (https://av1611.com/forums/index.php)

- Bible Studies (https://av1611.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=7)

- - Advanced Revelation (https://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=277)

Advanced Revelation

I couldn't help but notice the phrase "advanced revelation" pop up again in a recent thread that posted a quotation by David Cloud. His quote contained the usual statement many have adopted in order to separate themselves from a certain company of King James Bible believers. He said...

This is not to say that I believe it (the King James Bible) is some sort of “advanced revelation.”

This is not an attempt bash Cloud or anyone that attempts to make this separation (though I'm not against it - the bashing that is :eek:).

But I'm curious now, how many of you really know where the phrase came from, and to what does "advanced revelation" in the King James Bible mean?

Furthermore, I believe a correct understanding of the teaching will probably clear up the "cloud"s of confusion.

I don't believe I have ever seen the term used in a way that wasn't either "tongue in cheek" or as a straw man by critics. It would seem that a strict definition would be that advanced revelation is a truth not revealed by God until a later date -- and not just that truth being unknown, but unwritten. If that is what Advanced Revelation is, then it's an imaginary concept. There are things not understood in God's word until later times, but that doesn't mean they weren't already written.

However, if Advanced Revelation means that the Holy Spirit did not make the full understanding of a part of Scripture known until a later time, that is obviously true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbiwolski (Post 5035)

This is not to say that I believe it (the King James Bible) is some sort of “advanced revelation.”

I think it came from a statement made by Cloud.
http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/ruckman.htm

Quote:

I REJECT DR. RUCKMAN’S IDEA THAT THE KJV IS ADVANCED REVELATION

The KJV translators had good reason for every reading they included in their translation, and some of those readings are based more on ancient versions than on Greek texts. There are three major witnesses which sound textual scholars and translators use to determine the correct text, and those are the Greek manuscripts, the ancient versions, and the ancient lectionaries. The translators of the King James Bible looked at all three of these witnesses.

This, of course, does not add up to advanced revelation. I believe the KJV translators were God-guided, but the KJV readings were not pulled out of thin air. The readings were not “given by inspiration” of God. The readings were all based upon existing textual witnesses from centuries past.

Peter Ruckman, on the other hand, SAYS he believes the KJV is advanced revelation. Consider:

“The A.V. 1611 reading, here, is superior to any Greek text” (Peter Ruckman, The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, Pensacola Bible Press, 1970, p. 118).

“Mistakes in the A.V. 1611 are advanced revelation!” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 126).

“A short handbook, such as this, will not permit an exhaustive account of the marvelous undesigned ‘coincidences’ which have slipped through the A.V. 1611 committees, unawares to them, and which give advanced light, and advanced revelation beyond the investigation of the greatest Bible students 300 year later” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 127).

“A little English will clear up the obscurities in any Greek text” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 147).

“If all you have is the ‘original Greek,’ you lose light” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 336).

“If you are able to obtain a copy [of Ruckman’s proposed new book] you will have, in your hands, a minimum of 200 advanced revelations that came from the inerrant English text, that were completely overlooked (or ignored) by every major Christian scholar since 90 A.D.” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, Jan. 1994, pp. 2,4).

“We shall deal with the English Text of the Protestant Reformation, and our references to Greek or Hebrew will only be made to enforce the authority of that text or to demonstrate the superiority of that text to Greek and Hebrew.” (Peter Ruckman, Problem Texts, Preface, Pensacola Bible Institute Press, 1980, p. vii).

“We candidly and publicly confess that the King James text of the Old Testament (Authorized Version) is far superior to Kittel’s Hebrew text, Derossi’s Hebrew text, Kennicott’s Hebrew text or any Hebrew text that any of you are reading. We do not hesitate to state bluntly and openly that the King James text for the New Testament (Authorized Version) is superior to Erasmus’ Greek text, Aland’s Greek text, Metzger’s Greek text and any other that you are reading (or will read in the future)” (Ruckman, Problem Texts, page xii). [Brother Cloud: You see that Ruckman treats the Greek Received Text with the same lightness as he does the modern critical text.]

“If you had the original manuscripts, you couldn’t find what a soul was, no matter how educated you were, because the key for ‘finding out’ had nothing to do with the Hebrew or Greek” (Ruckman, Problem Texts, p. 145).

“Observe how accurately and beautifully the infallible English text straightens out Erasmus, Griesbach, Beza, Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Trench, Vincent, Davis, Wuest, Zodhiates, Elzevir, and Stephanus with the poise and grace of a swan as it smoothly and effectively breaks your arm with one flap of its wings. Beautiful, isn’t it? If the mood or tense isn’t right in any Greek text, the King James Bible will straighten it out in a hurry” (Ruckman, Problem Texts, pp. 348, 349). [Editor: Why does Ruckman put critical, modernistic textual editors Nestle, Aland, and Metzger on the same level with Beza, Elzevir, and Stephanus who honored the Word of God and handed down to us the Text Received from the Apostles?]

“The original Hebrew had nothing to do with Genesis 1:1-3 at all [referring to Ruckman’s unique idea that the flood of 2 Peter 3:5-6 speaks of a flood that took place in Genesis 1:2]. It only muddied the issue. Hebrew is of no help at all in understanding the passage” (Peter Ruckman, The Unknown Bible, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1984, p. 67).

“The King James test is the last and final statement that God has given to the world, and He has given it in the universal language of the 20th century ... The truth is that GOD SLAMMED THE DOOR OF REVELATION SHUT IN 389 BC AND SLAMMED IT SHUT AGAIN IN 1611” (Peter Ruckman, The Monarch of Books, Pensacola, 1973, p. 9). [Brother Cloud: In fact, God slammed the door of revelation shut in about 90 A.D. with the completion of the New Testament.]

While I believe the Authorized Version is an accurate translation of the preserved Word of God, I reject Ruckman’s contention that the Authorized Version is superior to the Hebrew and Greek from which it was translated, or that God only slammed shut the door of revelation in 1611, or that the English straightens out the Greek, or that the Authorized Version contains advanced revelation.

If Ruckman is right, where was the inspired Word of God prior to 1611? What did the churches do from the time of the apostles until the 17th century? And what did they do before Ruckman came upon the scene to create this doctrine, because it is certain that no one taught it at an earlier date?

I know the man enjoys speaking for effect, saying things simply to shake people up, but words mean something. If a man puts something into print repeatedly, year after year, and sends those books out across the land, we are not wrong to take him seriously and to base our judgment of his ministry upon those books.

To put the critical Greek texts on the same level with the Received Text and to discount every Hebrew and Greek text, as Ruckman does when arguing for the superiority of the Authorized Version, is wrong.

God chose to inspire His Book in the Hebrew and Greek languages, and I am satisfied that He knew what He was doing. I’m not going to say that the English language has become a better vehicle for God’s Revelation. English is an excellent vehicle but not a better vehicle. Do you see the difference, my friend? I believe it is an important one.

Let me hasten to say that I DO believe God had his hand upon the translation of the KJV in a marvelous way. I DO NOT believe there are any real mistakes in the King James Bible. (By this I mean that the alleged mistakes are not real.) The King James Bible has played a crucial role in the preservation of the Word of God in the last four centuries because of the importance of the English language. God gave the English-speaking people an accurate translation. I do believe there are places which could be translated more clearly. I do believe there are antiquated words which could be brought up to date. (To say, though, there are changes which could be made in the KJV is entirely different from saying there are changes which must be made, or that it contains mistakes. To say that there are passages which could be translated differently is not the same as saying there are passages which contain error.)

The point here, though, pertains to whether or not the KJV is advanced revelation. Revelation means a revealing of something that was not previously known by man and can only be discovered by the divine hand. The KJV IS NOT ADVANCED REVELATION.

I guess we have already determined that Ruckman was joking when he said mistakes were advanced revelation.

I have the Docs.Book the Christians Handbook Of Manuscript Evidence. From whence the quote comes from as well in some his other works.
the context is Acts 19:37 where the AV says Robbers of Churches whereas the MVs have Robbers of Temples.
I will give brief quotes here
page 125-126 "There are two greek words used. This type of correction comes under the heading of:church should have been translated assembly and baptism as immersion etc). But the careful student of the scripture through long familiarity with the AV text, has been surprised more than once by the marvelous undesigned "coincidences" which God the Holy spirit has inserted in the Bible, with the awareness of the translating committee."

he then goes on to exegete the passage applying it to idol worship and it's relation to prophecy. I pick it up again...
"If it is left as temples all future application is nullified for the pagan temples of Dianna disappeared with the pagan idolatry of pagan Rome.. but!!!..... if Rome where to exchange Diana for Mary and Icons for Images and CHURCHES for Temples, then the Reformation text would point a finger in the right direction clearly and a direction that the greek is unable to indicate."
Moral: "Mistakes in the AV 1611 are advanced revelation!!"

Hope this helps folks and clears up one more slanderous remark about Doc. Ruckman...:D
Every Blessing...:cool:

Thanks brother,

I would have done that sooner, except I have given away most of my books on this subject.

It's just simply "amazing" what a quote within "context" can do to clear up the lies and falsehoods spread by some of the "brethren" who are seemingly standing strong for the unsearchable scriptures, i.e. the "Textus Receptus" or maybe the "Traditional Text", or could it possibly be - the "Majority Text"! Let's see - which one will it be today? Eeny-Meeny-Miny-Mo? :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by George (Post 5056)

This is addressed in this article.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/textof.htm

Here is just the first part of the article.

Quote:

When a believer begins to defend the King James Version, unbelievers immediately commence to bring up various questions and problems in the effort to put the believer down and silence him. Let us therefore consider some of these alleged difficulties.

(A) THE KING JAMES VERSION A VARIETY OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS

The translators that produced the King James Version relied mainly, it seems, on the later editions of Beza's Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9). But also they frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot. According to Scrivener (1884), out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus [Scrivener, Authorized Edition of the English Bible, p. 60]. Hence the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus.

Aloha Beth,

My comments were not directed at brother David Cloud. They were meant for the TR (Textus Receptus), TT (Traditional Text) , or MT (Majority Text) "crowd" or "camps", whoever they may be.

Some of the supposed "supporters" of the King James Bible are really followers of their "favorite" Greek Text. All three of the above texts are very close to the King James Bible and yet they all differ from one another (and the King James Bible) in various areas - though not by much. Not even close to the differences noted in the Modern Greek texts (take your pick). :confused:

“If all you have is the ‘original Greek,’ you lose light” Dr. Peter S. Ruckman

After years of reading, studying, preaching and teaching the A.V., Dr. Ruckman starting "getting things" out of the English text that were unapparent in the Greek.

In other words, the careful study of the words of the King James Bible resulted in making connections and cross references (scripture with scripture) that were unavailable in the original writings using the Greek words, thus giving more "light" to the scriptures. This was deemed "advanced revelation," for these connections do not exist within the original text.

The very thought (without actually looking into it) of the English being superior to the beloved Greek was all that was necessary for most to label this position as "heresy."

In addition to word study yielding advanced light, the chapter/verse layout of the Bible gives teaching impossible to be found in the original layout in Hebrew/Greek. Ever do a study on the number 13? The study starts in Gen. 1:13 (the first verse that does not contain the name of God) and goes clear through to Revelation. You may be surprised with what 13 is connected with, but not in the originals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by George (Post 5056)

Thanks brother,
I would have done that sooner, except I have given away most of my books on this subject.
It's just simply "amazing" what a quote within "context" can do to clear up the lies and falsehoods spread by some of the "brethren" who are seemingly standing strong for the unsearchable scriptures, i.e. the "Textus Receptus" or maybe the "Traditional Text", or could it possibly be - the "Majority Text"! Let's see - which one will it be today? Eeny-Meeny-Miny-Mo? :D

Your welcome Bro.George, I get a bit peeved when folks make silly comments about Dr.Ruckman and do not give the context. I guess the modus operandi is make it as shocking as possible and scare the reader off from further investigation...:rolleyes:
Every Blessing bro. :cool:

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbiwolski (Post 5091)

“If all you have is the ‘original Greek,’ you lose light” Dr. Peter S. Ruckman
After years of reading, studying, preaching and teaching the A.V., Dr. Ruckman starting "getting things" out of the English text that were unapparent in the Greek.
In other words, the careful study of the words of the King James Bible resulted in making connections and cross references (scripture with scripture) that were unavailable in the original writings using the Greek words, thus giving more "light" to the scriptures. This was deemed "advanced revelation," for these connections do not exist within the original text.
The very thought (without actually looking into it) of the English being superior to the beloved Greek was all that was necessary for most to label this position as "heresy."
In addition to word study yielding advanced light, the chapter/verse layout of the Bible gives teaching impossible to be found in the original layout in Hebrew/Greek. Ever do a study on the number 13? The study starts in Gen. 1:13 (the first verse that does not contain the name of God) and goes clear through to Revelation. You may be surprised with what 13 is connected with, but not in the originals.

Absolutely correct brother... :D Your quote about the Greek and comparing scripture with scripture nails the No1 problem in the church today, namely the Priesthood of Scholarship having dominion over an individuals faith... :eek: Don't they just hate it to think a Bible Believer can dig stuff out for themselves without their assistance! Yikes.. maybe they will have to get a proper job... ;)

Oh dear, you brought out number study... :D Yeah it is real interesting remember when I ran all the 3:16s that was an eye opener... heres a link to Bro.Hoggards book for those who may want to investigate further..

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Hoggard_KJV_Code.html

Every blessing... :cool:

Thanks guy's for more context on those statements!

I just want you to know that I added the article from Cloud only to answer the question of where is the phrase "advanced revelation" coming from. I thought it would be a good starting point. Carry on.

Everyone has written some great stuff.

I must say, and I say this in a most careful way, I do not think that the context here (of Ruckman’s advanced revelation) is as clear as we might want. Even if we assume that Ruckman is joking, that still leaves some questions. 1.) is this idea limited to this one place or are their other places which Ruckman deals with this idea, so perhaps those other places can shed some future light on this subject (either they will shown that Ruckman is being funny or he is not)?; 2.) Why have intelligent men interpreted Ruckman this way, including those of the King James Bible Only camp?; 3.) Should Ruckman or anyone for that matter use phrases like this, even if to make a joke?

__________________________________

- “One accurate measurement is worth more than a thousand expert opinions”

- “...this is the Word of God; come, search, ye critics, and find a flaw; examine it, from its Genesis to its Revelation, and find an error... This is the book untainted by any error; but is pure, unalloyed, perfect truth. Why? Because God wrote it. Ah! charge God with error if you please; tell him that his book is not what it ought to be. I have heard men, with prudish and mock-modesty, who would like to alter the Bible; and (I almost blush to say it) I have heard ministers alter God's Bible, because they were afraid of it... Pity they were not born when God lived far—far back that they might have taught God how to write.” Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 1: Sermon II p. 31)

- “If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that 'to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun' : 'a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracing' : a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard.” Dean John William Burgon (The Revision Revised. pp. vii-viii)

advanced revelation - discuss substance over form

Hi Folks,

The issue isn't so much whether there is a sense of irony (imho, not really joking, more irony) in some of the usages of 'advanced revelation' by Peter Ruckman, the issue is how so much is put under this heading unclearly, especially by the critics.

e.g. Rick Norris thinks that the idea that the italicized words are fully scripture constitutes Peter Ruckman "advanced revelation".

Preferably without switching to a discussion of Gail Riplinger, please note:

Rick Norris
Riplinger seems to hold to the same unscriptural advanced revelation view as Peter Ruckman. In an earlier book, Riplinger even suggested that the words in italics in the KJV should be regarded as inspired. She wrote: "The veracity of the italics in the KJV have been proven true to such a degree that this author feels no need to pick them out and set them apart as uninspired"

In this article .. italicized words .. is what Rick Norris comes up with, with all his meticulous critiques of anything he can try to come up with under the sun.

Yet many on this forum would agree that we make no scriptural authority distinction between the italicized words and straight fonts. So we would be similarly accused. Whether or not we used the phrase 'advanced revelation', we would happily be guilty as charged of considering every single word as full pure and perfect scripture.

Check the web. Most critics don't give any examples at all. And the Bible Believers Bulletin, available on the net, gives a good dozen or two examples in depth, in a series of articles from Peter Ruckman, of where the English King James Bible is superior to "the Greek" (allowing for "the Greek" to be a term with many usages itself).

Now we may not agree with his examples (I felt they were generally good solid examples when I looked at them a while back). However anybody who is critiquing the Peter Ruckman view in comparing the King James Bible and the "original language texts" should actually address the examples he meticulously gives.

Now granted, this phrase "advanced revelation" seems to pull multi-duty, from italics, to English clarity where Greek is uncertain and less clear, to various other original language fuzziness issues. And then to actual doctrines, interpretations of Peter Ruckman, with which we may agree or disagree. (And most of us likely disagree with many.) The last batch does complicate the issue because the same term is being used for his specific interps. For the purposes here we should be discussing examples that are directly off of the English King James Bible text differentiations from the Greek or Hebrew.

(One personal example: I have even tried to study out whether "faith in Christ" and "faith of Christ" in the King James Bible .. perfect translation doctrinally with the proper and significant distinction .. are simply properly reflecting the simple and true Greek grammar differentiation that is lost by many modern doofus scholars. Modern textcrit-seminarian scholarship becomes so confused that they can barely even understand the question, much less yet give the answer.)

Personally I do not see any reason to get all concerned, in a huff, about the phrase "advanced revelation" or a phrase like "alexandrian cult". Simply look at the examples and consider them. If you consider them fallacious say why. If you dunno, say dunno. If you agree, and you don't like the term "advanced revelation" then offer your new, superior phrase for the phenomenon of English King James Bible textual clarity, majesty, perfection .. untrumped by any Greek or other language, and the KJB clearer and more able to be understood.

Before finishing this post, I am looking for any other examples discussed on the web, in addition to the Rick Norris attack on the italicized words of the Holy Bible.

In one article Peter Ruckman uses the term "advanced revelation" in a discussion of hyperdispensationalism. However it is not referring to a specific English-superior King James Bible teaching, so it is being used with another sense.

In another article John Henry, very solidly pro-KJB, distances himself from Peter Ruckman for "advanced revelation" for the King James Bible .. without a single discussion of examples or context or usage of the phrase.

Anyway, the examples in Bible Believers Bulletin are available for reading and discussion. Perhaps examples like - 2 Cor. 2:17 and "peddle" vs. "corrupt", one of the few examples given on the web in discussions of Peter Ruckman. Given in a Thomas Holland - James White discussion.

Interestingly, Thomas Holland discussed this very nicely, without trying to create an artificial distance from the Peter Ruckman view of the English and Greek on the verse.

http://members.aol.com/DrTHolland/1995letter.html
1995 Response Letter To White - Thomas Holland

Shalom,
Steven

Faith Is A Doctrine As Well As A Fuction!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery (Post 5213)

(One personal example: I have even tried to study out whether "faith in Christ" and "faith of Christ" in the King James Bible .. perfect translation doctrinally with the proper and significant distinction .. are simply properly reflecting the simple and true Greek grammar differentiation that is lost by many modern doofus scholars. Modern textcrit-seminarian scholarship becomes so confused that they can barely even understand the question, much less yet give the answer.)

This phrase (πιστεως Iησου Χριστoυ) as seen in (Rom. 3:22; Gal 2:16; 3:22) is distinct from the phrase (πιστεως εν Iησου Χριστoυ) as found in (Gal. 3:26). You must understand that there are two aspects to faith. One, is the Function of faith and is usually designated by the word “your” or something similar. Two, is the Doctrine of faith, which is usually found proceeded by the article “the”. An example of this is found in (Col. 1:23) “ If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;”. Here faith is referring to the doctrine/the gospel. Therefore, we can see that “faith of Jesus Christ” is in reference, NOT to the function of Christ’s faith nor even our function of faith, BUT to the doctrine of faith which Christ is the object of . See the same use of “of” in (Eph. 4:13; Phil. 1:27; 1Thess. 3:2).
__________________________________

- “One accurate measurement is worth more than a thousand expert opinions”

- “...this is the Word of God; come, search, ye critics, and find a flaw; examine it, from its Genesis to its Revelation, and find an error... This is the book untainted by any error; but is pure, unalloyed, perfect truth. Why? Because God wrote it. Ah! charge God with error if you please; tell him that his book is not what it ought to be. I have heard men, with prudish and mock-modesty, who would like to alter the Bible; and (I almost blush to say it) I have heard ministers alter God's Bible, because they were afraid of it... Pity they were not born when God lived far—far back that they might have taught God how to write.” Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 1: Sermon II p. 31)

- “If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that 'to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun' : 'a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracing' : a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard.” Dean John William Burgon (The Revision Revised. pp. vii-viii)

That is the first time i have heard it.

Advance Revelation mentioned By Ruckman has a two part meaning.

1) the AV 1611 Translation contained God preserved word which taught truths the men had yet to figure out. a) The Earth was round is found throughout the scriptures in all copies up to the first completed whole English 1611 version Isa 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, b) I read an article where scientist tell us that our planet is upside down compared to the rest in our solar system Isa 24:1 Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down,

2) That the prophecy were advanced revelation of future events that have yet to take place some of which also already have taken place. for example God said that he would gather Israel back into the land. then for the first time since 400 years before Christ Israel became a recognized Nation in 1948. to many references to metnion but I think you all get the idea.

Ruckman also calls the KJV Bible "special revelation". you can read it in the article entitled "Finding the Truth" in his latest bulletin, it is good.