Its about time Joel (Your starting to think) Joel do you have Eternal Life (OSAS)?

I'm not sure what you are getting at.  Yes I have eternal life, and I believe in the Perseverance of the Saints.  

I find it interesting, though, that you did not answer my argument, nor did you answer my previous argument in this thread.  

Joel

From the preface to the original 1611 King James Bible:

"Therefore, as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margins, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."

This was part of the original KJV.  The translators of the KJV said that variety in translation was good.  If the KJV translators were indeed inspired, then this part is inspired, which means that there should be variety in translation.  If this part is not inspired, then it is not necessary that the KJV as a translation is inspired.  

A marginal note at Luke 17:36 in the original 1611 KJV says, "This verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies."

[edited to add]If the translators themselves did acknowledged that part of what they put in there was not accurate, then obviously the text of the KJV is not inspired.  I personally would argue that not only is it not the only valid translation, but also that it is not the best translation, and is inferior to others in matters of text.[end of edit]

Inspired KJV?  KJV translation only right translation?

I think not.  

Joel

[Remember, you cannot translate what is not there.]

You may have unwittingly been swept up in this rush to have "A Better Translation." But be aware that that these "New" Bibles have over 5,000 differences in them when compared to the King James Bible.

And this is a problem because???  It is not as if some major, fundamental Bible doctrine is changed because of it.

These "easier to read" Bibles come from a corrupted text. They read differently than the KJV because the manuscripts they come from are not the same as the manuscripts from which the KJV is taken. The issue is NOT translation but TEXT.

Prove that the Critical Text is corrupted, and that the TR is the only viable alternative.  And if the issue is indeed text and NOT translation, then I can translate from the TR, get a different translation than the KJV, and that's ok?

If you want to know if you have one of these corrupted Bibles turn to Colossians 1:14. If this verse does not include the phrase "through his blood" then you have a bible that has been translated from a corrupt text.  

If that was not originally in the text, then why is that a problem?  Just because THAT PARTICULAR TEXT does not contain "through his blood" does not mean that the translation is somehow changing the doctrine of the atonement.

Remember, you cannot translate what is not there.

Very true, which is why we should strive for textual accuracy, whether that leads us away from the TR or not.

Joel

"Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord", (Malachi 3:6).

The study in the Old Testament (1 Kings 16:30.....18:39) reveals why the Message of the Prophet Elijah must come again...just before Christ returns to earth !

The modern Christian world, is in the same place that Israel of old was...do you know the history of that time ?

I'm  afraid that I must disagree.  You must see how Christ understood that OT passage.  
  He talks about it in Matthew 17:11-13, "And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.  But I say unto you, that Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they have listed.  Likewise also shall the Son of man suffer of them.  Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist."

John the Baptist was the fulfillment of the prophecy about Elijah.  That is how CHRIST Himself interpreted it, and I dare not take another conclusion.

Joel

You've got to be very careful in how you approach something like this.  You seem to take a complete allegorization of Jonah, and I don't believe that is a biblical way to go.  It is arbitrary, and based on what we want it to say.  I don't think that is how to understand the book of Jonah.  If you want to really understand the thrust of Jonah, I've heard that the best commentary is reading it in the original Hebrew.

Joel

joel,

I am not a hyper dispensationalist, which would claim, God is thru with Israel,and the Old Covenant promises now belong to the church, in Rom 11,

That is not what a hyper-dispensationalist believes.  Hyper-dispensationalists (ultra-dispies) are those who believe the church started later than Acts 2, some say 9, others 15, others even 28, and they say that the gospels and the epistles (at least many) not written by Paul are not for us, and thus water baptism and the Lord's Supper are not for us.  Horrific if you ask me.  
   What you describe there is the position that some covenant theologians take.

I do see yet future promise the nation of Israel and her restoration,in lite of Jer 31:31,  yet the remanent which will be saved are saved based on the same New Covenant the church is presently a partaker of, they the remanent are included in the Mystery revealed to Paul of which he speaks of at Eph 2.

I think we are pretty much in agreement here.  I believe that the church is included in the promises made to Israel, because ultimately those promises were made with Christ, and thus by our union with Him we partake of them as well.  But I do believe that one day God will save ethnic Jews en masse, but that will not be a separate program from the church as dispies believe, but rather they will be saved and brought into the church.

I can't see, how christians separate them from the church, since, it is clear at Rom 11;

25  ............. that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26  And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

The union of the two, happens according to these verses upon the fullness of the gentiles, then all Israel shall be saved.

What am I missing??


Blessings,

Petro

I agree, although I do not see that means that they will go back to the land of Israel etc.  But I do believe Israel will be saved en masse, for the sake of God's love for the patriarchs (Romans 11:28-29)



Joel

Paul2, so where are you envisioning this discussion goes from here?  I'm not really getting it.  Are you planning on adding to your posts about the chosen, the elect, and all that, or are we supposed to "counter" what you have already said, or what?  Or are we just kind of supposed to discuss the general issue of who is included in the Rapture and when it occurs?

Thanks,
Joel

joel,

Yes,  I am not set in concrete as to the exact order of all things, although I do believe the rapture will occur before the wrath of God is poured out upon the earth, so far I have been able to understand it to occur after the seals at the sounding of the first trumpet at Rev 8:7, then there will be a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on the earth, then the end will come, presently there is war in heaven, Jesus is presently sitting at the right hand of Glory, until His enemies are nmade His footstool in heaven, then He will return to earth to establish His Kingdom, which begins with great wrath and judgment upon the ungodly, the binding of the old serpent of Rev 12, He reigns as King of Kings on the earth for 1000 years and then Satan is losened to deceive the nations once again, which will fail, and then the end comes just as it is written at ;Rev 20:7-15, followed by the new eternal creation being ushered in.


The discussion herein centers around when the rapture will occur, and who gets raptured??



Blessings,

Petro

OK, thanks, I'm not sure exactly where you stand, but that may be because you have not exactly decided all of your stance yet, as you indicated.  Would you say, though, that you take a generally dispensational outlook on the Bible?

Thanks,
Joel

[the Antichrist]

No problem, Paul2.  I haven't got a problem with people knowing what I believe.

However, let me clarify something.  You said:

I mention Antichrist over and over but nobody has said the Antichrist is history.

I don't think the Antichrist is history, because I don't think Scripture even supports the idea that there is one single person called the Antichrist.  

Joel

joelkaki,

Welcome back, just don't through your temper tantrums, or act childish, and you will be fine. LOL..

HEHE

On on serious note, I welcome your input, maybe we can shed light in this discussion on those verses which puts you at odds with, Gods Word.

Anyway, look forward to your participation.


Blessings,

Petro

thanks for the welcome back anyways.  I hope that we can discuss Scripture in a reasonable manner.  
   Perhaps you could outline for me what you believe about specific end-times events as I did for Paul2, so I can know where you are coming from.

Thanks,
Joel

Joel,

  Thank you, your explainatiom has explained everything I needed to know. I am now able to understand the position you and Reba share and understand why everything I say is viewed as wrong. It all makes sense to me now. I only wish I had known this from the beginning. Of course I'm considered wrong, our views are 180 degrees different.

    Funny thing is I mention Daniel's 70th week over and over in just about every post but nobody has said they believe the 70th week is already completed, which has led to the confusion. By ignoring my use of Daniel's 70th week, I assumed everybody considered it to be in the future. It all makes sense to me now!

                                                        Paul2

OK, good, at least where we know where we are coming from.  
   As to Daniel's Seventieth Week, I see no reason for a gap.  In fact, that is one of my biggest problems with dispensational theology--there are way too many gaps.  A gap is placed in 1 Corinthians 15, in Daniel 9, and in a number of other places.  
   But I would love to discuss these things with you in a reasonable manner if you would like to.

Joel

Oklahoma Howdy to joelkaki,

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I wouldn't give a single thought to the above. We would simply have to agree to disagree. I couldn't possibly have a serious conversation about that as a premise, so I won't try. Nothing else would make any sense either, so count me out on that discussion.

Tom

Howdy to you too (though not from Oklohoma),

I understand why you would say such a thing.  Dispensationalism is so widespread today, together with its future end-times scenario, that views like mine aren't heard of that much.  But as I said to Paul2, your view (pretrib) was not heard of for over 1800 years of church history.  The view I hold to has been held to historically, and is not some newfangled thing.  So I wouldn't dismiss it so lightly.  You can't act like it's crazy and yours is mainstream when yours did not appear for 1800 years of church history and mine has been around a lot longer than that.  But if you personally don't want to discuss it, then there's nothing I can do about it, and I will respect your wishes.  But I think you might be surprised at some of the things Scripture has to say about it.

Joel

Paul2, I don't know if you remember me, because it has been a long time since I have really been active on this site (really only before the crash), but I am an orthodox preterist (as opposed to "full" preterism, which says that Christ has already returned), postmillennialist, who believes in Covenant theology.  So I am about as opposite in my eschatological beliefs as it gets in conservative circles.  BUt I would like to get in on this discussion, if you don't mind.  And I would really like to do it in a Berean manner.  It's OK to get emotional and passionate about theological issues, so long as it is handled in a Christ-like way.  Having said that, let me say a few things about your first couple of posts on this thread (I haven't seen anything in the other thread you refer to).  
  First of all, I think you make way too many assumptions in your posts.  You start out with your premises, and then you have a few other premises, and then you go to your Bible, and you seek to show what is says, and that's great, that is what we all should do, but you assume that your initial premises are undebatable, when really, they are the heart of the issue.  For example, you say once that "Jesus is speaking to Jews in the above verse, before the Church began."  You assume there your premise that the church began at Pentecost, and you assume the strong dichotomy between Israel and the Church in the dispensational viewpoint, when really that is the heart of the debate.  So, all of this to say, the way you are approaching this is good in that you seem to want to evaluate the Biblical data, and yet you assume too much.  You need to prove some of that before you can go on to proving the other things.
   Now, as to a thing or two that I disagree with you on:

I agree that "in Christ" (the Church) all are one. But what about those not in Christ? Before Christ there was a difference. "In Christ" is refering to the Church as I see it. I'm looking at those before the Church and those after the Rapture of the Church who are NOT IN CHRIST.

I believe you are quite mistaken here.  I don't think you will find this idea in the scriptures.  Look at 1 Corinthians 10:4-- "...and all drank the same spiritual drink.  For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ."  
   These Jews in the OT drank of Christ who was yet to come.  In other words, they were saved by faith in Jesus Christ who would come and die for their sins.  How then can you say that they are not IN CHRIST?  Look at 1 Corinthians 12:13 -- "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and have all been made to drink into one Spirit."   This is, I believe you would agree, referring to the church.  Yet here is extremely similar language to that found 2 chapters earlier referring to OT people.  "Drink into one Spirit"-->"drank of the spiritual Rock that followed them, which was Christ."  You see what I'm saying.  They drank of the same Savior, and thus are also in Christ, just as we are?  I don't think there is any possibility of salvation outside of Christ, thus they were in Christ and we are in Christ.  

I really would like to be involved in this discussion with you, Paul2, and I don't want to offend you.  So if I say anything offensive, just don't get mad, please, just let me know, and I will stop saying such things.

Joel

Well until I have some better experiences it remains unchanged.  I still don't agree with them anyway, and that's not going to change.  I'm not getting in to a huge debate because it proves fruitless time and again.  I already seriously disagree with your entire stance of the bible and other such matters.  We have gone at it before and I really don't feel like going at it again.  

That's fine.  You aren't obligated to debate or anything.  Plus my time is a little limited at this forum these days anyways.
Hopefully you'll have some better experiences.

Not that I am trying to toss your age in to "disqualify" you or anything but 15-16 years is not so long and someday you just might find yourself changing the tune of "all my life".  You haven't left home to be on your own and do other things yet so your "people" experience should grow greatly.  I'm not saying this to be mean but rather when you see more you may not say the same thing.

No offense taken!  Believe me, it can be hard for me to offer my opinion on these forums sometimes, especially when people know my age.    
  Let me say this, though.  There are certainly some Calvinists that would fit your description.  But such a description is not limited to Calvinists.  There are Arminians, dispies, Pentecostals, OVers, etc with bad attitudes, unedifying mouths and the like.  That I don't think you would disagree with.
  However, I still do not think that it is right to generally classify Calvinists in this way.  And that is not just based on my experience.  It is also based on my mom's, my dad's, my present pastor's, my former pastor's, a host of other people I know's, and not to mention, a few guys my parents knew (Calvinists) were the humblest, nicest men you could ever meet.  To name two--the late Greg Bahnsen, and Dr. Nigel Lee.  
  You are what, 26?  If I am not mistaken, that is what I remember.  My parents are closing in on 50, and their experience contradicts your's.  But enough of this pointless debate.

Joel

Calvinists always hide from doing what they should because "If it was meant to be it will be be" and never do what they need to.  They always hide from doing what they don't want to with that.

s4ever, I don't think you have a proper view of Calvinists here.  I am one, have been around them my entire life, my parents have been around them for a great portion of their lives, and never have I heard of a single Calvinist ever saying anything like that.  That is not to say that there could be some--obviously I have not met every Calvinist in the world.  But such would be an extremely small exception, not the rule.  You can't just say, "Calvinists always..."  when that is simply not accurate.  In fact, the Calvinist leaders (pastors, etc) have expressly said to the contrary, condemning such things.  So please, don't use personal attacks on Calvinists which have no basis.

Joel