Biblical Dispensations.....

Adam to flood...Pre-Deluveon civilization...(gentile.. Genisis 1:11----the fall----flood----babel)

From flood to christ.....Post Deluveon civilization....(promise and law.... Promise-gen 12 thru exodus 19....Law-Exodus 19 thru Malachi gospels (-Jn 13-17)....promise-Abraham, Isaac, Jacob.....Law-Moses.....promise-Abrahamic Covenant....Law- law of Moses

Curch age...present time....Grace (mystery)-acts 2 thruRev. 5-Epistles....Paul, Peter, John.....Giving of the Holy Spirit

Rapture...moment in time...saints w/Christ in Heaven....1 Thes 4:13-18

Trial and Tribulation....Un-believers left on earth .....7 yrs....last 31/2 years, (Satan cast out of heaven Rev. 12:9) at the end of last 31/2 yrs., battle of Armageddon...Second advent  Rev. 14:11-15 (with the saints)....Jewish-Rev 6-19.....Anti-christ-144,000, true Jewish witnesses.....Abomination of Desolation-Armaggedon Matt 24:15-16


Millenium.....1000 yrs. ...perfect environment....Rev. 20....Kingdom of Christ

At the end of Millenium....battle og Gog & Magog

Then starts eternity...new heaven and earth.....great white throne judgement.....eternal hell

(the first 31/2 yrs of Trial and Tribulation beast 1 &2 makes FALSE covenant with Isreal...Isa. 28:15-18....Last 31/2 yrs. man of sin (satan) demands worship..2 Thes.2...political power.

What Biblical basis do you have for dividing Scripture into these dispensations?  I do not see the term ever used in such a way in Scripture?

Joel

gotcha104,  I would love to discuss this with you and reply to many of the points you make, but that is impossible when you post three really long posts in succession.  I don't have time for all of that.  They would need to be shorter and more succinct.

Joel

For my own part in the "bashing" occurred in the other thread on this topic, I apologize.

Let me state my view more succinctly:

I do not believe that the KJV is the only version that we can use as Christians, and I do not even think it is the best one.  

However, I would never discourage someone from using it if they wanted to, telling them it is not the Word of God.  And many respected men and women have supported the KJV, and I laud them for their desire to defend God's Word.  Some I believe, have come with shaky arguments to support their conclusions; others have done a much better job.

It seems that without proper perspective, we miss Christ for translation issues.  Not to minimize the Word of God, but perhaps the time I spent in the last discussion could better have spent in a discussion on the supremacy and excellency of Christ?  

Just some thoughts.

Joel

[V]

PeterAV,

If all the proof you are going to give me is calling me a liar and simply restating your claims with no evidence, and not answer specific responses I had to your claims, then I really see no need to continue the discussion.  Should you be willing to carry on a civilized discussion, without ad hominem attacks, and truly look at the issue, then I would be willing to continue.  But what we have here right now is nothing other than a big mess.

And I would not go around quoting Gail Riplinger as an authority.  She tries to use "acrostic algebra" (NASV+NIV-KJV=SIN).  She supposedly got this from the Lord.  I'm sorry, but that is just craziness.  Plus, the name of the version is NASB, not NASV.  That and she tries to link the sinking of the Titanic with the NIV, among a host of other ridiculous things.  Please, if you want to use support of scholars to back up your statements, at least pick someone who makes sense, like Edward Hills, who made what I thought was the best case for the KJV in his book, The King James Version Defended.  Riplinger's material is just full of conspiracy theories and inaccurate information.  Hills' is actually well thought out and well-done, even though I may not agree with his conclusion.  

(Several of the things I was talking about you not responding to were on pg 8, reply number 106, specifically the # of times Jesus' name is used in the versions, and you have not yet offered evidence showing that 99% of the manuscripts support your case.)

Joel

Joel

I agree that the Bible alone is the Word of God and ought not to be changed. .  I believe the KJV does add some things that were not truly part of God's Word.
  I don't believe that the ESV for example is false, therefore I use it, rejoice in it, and learn of my Savior through it.

You agree Joel,that the Bible is the Word of God and ought not to be changed.
Why did you forget to tell me just what this bible is that is the Word of God.Is it your ESV?Is that the one you believe ought not to be changed,because it is the Word Of God?
You admitt that,in your opinion that the ESV is not false.

My ESV is the Bible, so is the KJV, the NASB, and many others.  To the extent that they accurately reflect the original writings, they are perfect.  But if someone compiled a text with things taken away or added to it, those missing/added things would not be inspired.  This is not to say that God has not preserved His word.  He has done so, quite amazingly in fact.  No other document has as much support as the Scriptures.

Here are just a few tiny samplings of the hundreds and hundreds of corruptions,and I'll do it[pick samples] just in the O.T. where doctrine is not affected that much.They have identical personalities in both Testaments.So just what would the New testament look like after It is exposed?Nevertheless,here are a few samples from the OT.

You are still avoiding answering my questions and arguments that I brought up a few posts ago (if you are planning on getting to them, and have not yet had the time, I apologize).  The issue here is not whether the ESV is the best translation or not.  You have not yet proven that the KJV should be the translation standard that everything else is measured against, and until you do so, what you say is unconvincing.  

To start with,if you look at the history of the ESV,you find out that it is nothing more than the revision of the RSV.The most liberal piece of human evidence known to man,concerning the Holy Bible.It failed miserably.So to make money,they change the name and make a few More changes because of thoses darn copyright laws.

It is true that it comes in the line of the RSV (a translation which I am not fond of, because of a somewhat liberal bias in it, but at the same time, true knowledge of God can be had from it).  The issue was not making money with the ESV.  You have no proof of that whatsoever.  There many godly and knowledgeable men who helped put the ESV together, and to accuse them of financial motivations is quite an allegation, one which would have to be substantiated before you go throwing around things like that.  
  And honestly, it was completely retranslated, not just changing  a few words from the RSV.  The translation team compared each verse to the original languages.  
 

 Here are a few of the men and women that have promoted this ESV.
R.C.Sproul
Max Lucado
Joni Ericson Tada
John W.Walvoord
Erwin Lutzer

Some great men and women in there (though I do not agree on many things with some of them).

The ESV along with the RSV both are founded upon the corrupted Westcott and Hort Manuscripts.

False.  The WH text is not the same as the NA27/UBS4 critical text.  

These fake manuscripts,ommit over 5,000 words and 18 complete verses.

Omit them from what?  The KJV?  Why is the KJV the standard.  Once again you assume what you need to prove. Perhaps the KJV added them?
  And those "statistics" are fallacious argumentation anyway, but if you want to go down that road, just remember that the name Jesus is mentioned several hundred more times in the NIV than the KJV.

The Old Testament is an eclectic text that borrows sometimes from the Hebrew Masoratic texts,Then it will jump to the Septuagint[LXX72],it will also borrow from the Samaritan Pentateuch,and the Syriac,Plus the Vulgate.This just what the RSV did.It is nothing more than the RSV dressed up in new garb.Plus they have been using the Dead Sea Scrolls too.From the Essenes,an obvious heretical group.
This is how the modern Bibles are getting Pagan word definitions verses the pure Bible definitions.

Pagan word definitions?  (easter???)

I'm agraid that simply stating the above proves nothing.  Especially since some of the KJV text came from the Vulgate as well.  God preserves his Word even in the multitude of these manuscripts.

Deut 4:2 Ye shall not add to the word which I command you,niether shall ye diminish ought from it,that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

I agree, and I believe that the KJV adds some words and even verses.

Pro 30:5,6
:5 Every word of God is pure:he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
:6 Add thou not to his words,lest he reprove thee,and thou be found a liar.
Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away,but my words shall not pass away.

Very true.

So we have the Biblical standard set;Don't change,don't diminish.don't add.don't take away.God's word stands.

Once again, your implied presupposition here is that the KJV is the ultimate standard that everything should be judged by, and therefore those that differ from it are wrong.  But that is fallacious argumentation.  You are assuming what you need to prove.  

I'm still waiting to see your answers to my previous arguments.

Joel

Does any of your sorces believe that they posses in their hands the infalible words of God?Do you?

Yes, and I do as well.

A book without prooven error?

Yes.

By the way you speak,I trow not.

You are mistaken.

Would you like me to post the list of manuscripts?You know I can.

Yes, that would be helpful.

I did notice that you simply did not answer the arguments that I presented in my two posts at the top of page 8, but ignored them entirely.  All you responded with was the 99% thing, which is unsupported.  Even if it was, you still ignored my arguments which is telling.

Joel

[On what basis do you make that claim? You assume that the KJV is the standard, but you never prove it!]

[quote author=joelkaki And on what basis do you declare that these are the word of God?  Because they follow the KJV?  On what basis is the KJV the standard?  You assume what you need to prove.
.........
Well, lets just say 99 percent of manuscript evidence including the thousands of manuscripts found AFTER 1611.
There are 5,300 Manuscripts.Less than 50 peices of manuscripts belong to the Alexandrian false heretical Minority standard,that all the modern versions follow.
The translarors lie so much just to get you to buy their own private version.Those thousands of manuscripts found since 1611 agree with the KJV 99 percent and even the 1 percent has to follow the 99 much of the time,or they could not be pushed on to the publick as a bible.

The KJV changes nothing.You are against all manuscript evidence,plus,it is not about oppinion.

Ah, so we are less spiritual (perhaps even hard of heart) because we will not only use the KJV.  I don't believe that the ESV for example is false, therefore I use it, rejoice in it, and learn of my Savior through it.
..................
No,because you do not believe the Bible is the bible.When they see it for what it is they simply believe,because they have not had time to be falsely indoctrinated to the point of offence when the truth comes out.Instead,they humbly submit.

On what basis do you make that claim?  You assume that the KJV is the standard, but you never prove it!
................
That's right,go ahead,and IGNORE 99 percent of the manuscript evidence that favours the KJV as a trustworthy translation.99 percent of manuscript evidence is hard to throw away now isn't it.

Even the New KJV is all gone to pot,too.

Here is a tiny sampling of the NKJV.Now remember,they are just to update the languge a tiny bit and make as little change as possible.
#1,they make 100,000 changes to the text.
quote]

A few things--1)  You again assume what you need to prove, namely, that the KJV is the standard by which all else should be judged.  The KJV uses "Jesus" 973 times and "Jesus'" 10 times, making a total of 983 times.  

You forgot to mention that those CHANGES are NOT IN THE Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts that was received by all.They insert where there ought not to be,and take away where it ought not to be.This is playing games.

They demote the trinity,they make salvation to be a works/progressive thing.I Cor 1:18 etc.

They do NOT demote the trinity (the NWT does, but that is the JW version, which as a movement denies the trinity, so that is to be expected.)  Rather, the teaching of the Trinity can be found powerfully in the ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, and others.
 
...........
The NWT,by the JW's have the very SAME changes in the Bible as the modern versions,because they are founded upon the same faulty Greek and Hebrew texts.
 

They promote a works salvation;Matt 7:14 Difficult is the way.
Now that is a lie.Getting saved is the easiest thing there is.But it is narrow.Only through the blood of Christ Jesus.

I'm sorry, but you are misrepresenting the "new versions".  They are not making any sort of statement about how we are saved, or that we have to work hard for our salvation.
...................
Mark 10:24 Children,how hard it is to enter the Kingdom of God.Modern versions=LIE

 

They promote the ONE WORLD religion
You've got to be kidding me.  Those passages don't promote one world religion.  I can't imagine how you got that out of there.
............
There are multitudes of times when it should be GOD,or HIM or Jesus,or He,and it is replaced by the NEUTER 'the ONE'
Or the NAME.they always down grade the true words of God.

There is only one Holy Bible for the English speaking peoples,that is prefect,inspired,infalible,pure,purified.The Holy Bible 1611AV.

Again, assuming what you need to prove,  

........................
I assume nothing my man.I have followed the majority of manuscript evidence is all.This includes throughout the whole of the text and the whole of history.
Feel sorry that you think that 99 percent with 5,300 manuscropts isn't enough to convince you of the overwhelming proof of the trustworthiness of the Holy Bible.

You have not offered evidence that 99 percent of 5300 manuscripts supports the KJV.  You have simply asserted it.  Therefore I feel no compulsion to "be convinced" that your position is correct.  

Plus the study I have done leads to a very different conclusion.

Joel

Read the material I just quoted.Just before you falsely accuse me of accusing you.
Plus while your at it read New Age Bible Versions,Which Bible is God's Words?In Awe of Thy Word,by gail Riplinger.

I have already read sizable portions of NABV.  If that is your defense, I don't know what else I can say.  Gail Riplinger is, pardon my language, a lunatic.  The lady doesn't even make sense.  I'm afraid that the statements in her book are simply unsupported.  Acrostic algebra?  The NIV and the sinking of the Titanic are related?  Come on, let's be rational.  

  I suggest you read "The King James Only Controversy" by James White, and listen to their interaction (I believe it is found on www.aomin.org .    

Then when you finnish that go to a more pleasent presentation by Dr.Peter S.Ruckman.He also has a few eye openers.his list is;
The Christian Liar's Library
The Mythological Septuaguint
The Scholarship only Controversy,can you trust the professional liars?
Manuscript Evidence
Biblical Scholarship
Alexandrian Cult Series
The Errors in the King James Bible
How to teach the original Greek
King James Onlyism versus Scholarship onlyism
Differences in the King James Version
The Monarch of the Books
The last Grenade
Of course there is much more but this will help a lot in your eye opening ventures.

I'm sorry, but if that is the stuff you have been reading, then I can see why you support this like you do.  But honestly, Gail Riplinger does not document her positions accurately, misrepresents others, and just makes up stuff out of thin air.  

However, please do not take my comments personally.  I do not mean to be abrasive.  And I believe Dream Weaver is correct, and we all need to simmer down somewhat.  
  Please realize I do admire the fact that you desire to support the Scriptures, however much I may disagree with the manner in which you do so.

Joel

[On what basis do you make that claim? You assume that the KJV is the standard, but you never prove it!]

[quote author=2nd Timothy I hate to say it, but this is getting border line cultish!   If the KJV is the only infallable word of God, what are folks who don't speak english to do?   Chinese, Gernam, french, russian?    Are these lost until they learn to speak and read Kings English?    

Nice try 2nd Timothy.You have ignored the two times that I listed the other translations that are the word of God in the various langusges,so your argument is completely flawed.
Not to mention the 900 translations that were made from the KJV into other laguages in the last few hundred years.

And on what basis do you declare that these are the word of God?  Because they follow the KJV?  On what basis is the KJV the standard?  You assume what you need to prove.

That is right.You go ahead and accuse me of causing a stumbling block,when I preach the truth,and show that the Bible alone is the word of God and ought not to be changed.

I agree that the Bible alone is the Word of God and ought not to be changed.  So in other words, if something is added to or taken from the Bible in ANY translation, then that should be changed.  I believe the KJV does add some things that were not truly part of God's Word.

Any babe in Christ would be more than glad to know this.Any babe in Christ has a yielded heart of instant obedience to the truth of God's words.If they see that the Bible that saved them is false they will immediately go to the real Bible.They will be glad to be saved ,and just as glad to escape the clutches of Satan.

Ah, so we are less spiritual (perhaps even hard of heart) because we will not only use the KJV.  I don't believe that the ESV for example is false, therefore I use it, rejoice in it, and learn of my Savior through it.

The only words of God in the false versions that are true are the ones that follow the readings of the KJV.All the rest is not needed,for the truth has already come.

On what basis do you make that claim?  You assume that the KJV is the standard, but you never prove it!

Even the New KJV is all gone to pot,too.
They have beensued for 250,000 with the securities commission.The prsident said he had not seenany worse than this.
The NKJV ommits tons,yet claims to follow the same text as the original KJV.Well, they simply lied.They followed the tex,alright,but made the very same changes as the rest of the apostate fake Bibles.That follow the Alaexandrian Text type,pumped out by the two necromancers Westcott and Hort.
Here is a tiny sampling of the NKJV.Now remember,they are just to update the languge a tiny bit and make as little change as possible.
#1,they make 100,000 changes to the text.
#2,KNJV ommits the word LORD  66times.Real archaic huh?
#3,NKJV ommits the word God  51 times. Same thing.
#4,NKJV ommits the word  heaven 50 times.Now why would they want to water down the Bible like that?
#5,NKJV ommits the word  blood 23 times,Just toss it aside,the blood is old hat these days ,I suppose.
#6,NKJV ommits the word  Hell 22 times.The world loves that one,they say it's about time the churches are agreeing with us.
#7,NKJV ommits the word  Jehovah  entirely.
#8,NKJV ommits the words New Testament entirely.
#9,NKNV ommit the word damnation  Entirely.
#10,NKJV ommits the word  devils entirely.No wonder the end times will be full of people worshipping devils,it is not spoken against in the Bible!!
NKJV ignores the Texus Receptus over some 1,200 times.
NKJV replased the KJV Hebrew[ben Chayyim] with the corrupted Stuttgart edition [ben Asher]Old Testament.
Then they post the logo of the satanic trinity of the ocCULT,on to the cover,but God's word says not to think that the Godhead is like anything...graven by art..Acts17:29.

A few things--1)  You again assume what you need to prove, namely, that the KJV is the standard by which all else should be judged.  2)  Statistics reallly don't prove anything.  BUT, if you want to play the statistics game, then I'm afraid you have some problems.  Look at these numbers (that I just searched for myself using some Bible software):

The KJV uses "Jesus" 973 times and "Jesus'" 10 times, making a total of 983 times.  

The NKJV uses "Jesus" 971 times and "Jesus'" 9 times, making a total of 980 times, only 3 less than the KJV.

The NIV uses "Jesus" 1241 times, and "Jesus'" 33 times, making a total of 1274 times, 291 times MORE than the KJV.

Which version is taking Jesus out of the Bible?

*Note to all who are not understanding my argument here*
  I am not promoting the NIV as the best translation--I personally don't like it.
  I do not think that this kind of "statistical proof" proves anything, but since it is the kind of reasoning being used by the other position, I am showing where it logically concludes.  
  *end of note*

They demote the trinity,they make salvation to be a works/progressive thing.I Cor 1:18 etc.

They do NOT demote the trinity (the NWT does, but that is the JW version, which as a movement denies the trinity, so that is to be expected.)  Rather, the teaching of the Trinity can be found powerfully in the ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, and others.
 
They DO NOT make salvation to be a progressive thing SOLELY.  Salvation is a past event, but it is also something carried out in the present as we are freed from the power of sin in our lives, and salvation has a future aspect as well, called glorification, in which sin is eradicated completely.  Look at Romans 8:30.  1 Cor 1:18 in the versions other than the KJV is not teaching a different view of justification.  Rather it emphasizes the sanctification aspect of salvation DUE TO THE GREEK WORD/CONSTRUCTION.

They promote a works salvation;Matt 7:14 Difficult is the way.
Now that is a lie.Getting saved is the easiest thing there is.But it is narrow.Only through the blood of Christ Jesus.

I'm sorry, but you are misrepresenting the "new versions".  They are not making any sort of statement about how we are saved, or that we have to work hard for our salvation.  
  But I will say this, the path that Christians have to walk can often be difficult.

They promote the ONE WORLD religion;Acts 17:22,Tit 3:10,etc.
Plus there are hundreds of more difficult words in the NKJV,than the KJV.

You've got to be kidding me.  Those passages don't promote one world religion.  I can't imagine how you got that out of there.

Etc.,etc.,etc.
Just incase there are any out there that have other versions,thinking that your versions are better,the answer is nope.They are just as wicked and evil if not worse.There is only one Holy Bible for the English speaking peoples,that is prefect,inspired,infalible,pure,purified.The Holy Bible 1611AV.

Again, assuming what you need to prove,  

Joel

Have you even read any Church history?Have you read any of the Works of Westcott and Hort.Have you read any of the heresies of the NIV crew and others.I trow not.
I/ve spent years studying this issue,and you present no proof no quotes nothing to back up your own bold statement that is an outright lie.Careful that you don't get caught declaring evil good and good evil.
All I am doing is declaring that the Bible is the Bible and show proof for it.Plus I expose the garbage of the fake versions,for the works of Satan that they are.Even good godly men can get deceived,look at Peter And Barnabus.Many of the translators are good godly men,but have been dupped and did not know the info that is now coming out about the origins of Wesrcott and Hort and the LXX.

Before you attack me for saying that my statement is unsupported, let me point out that you have provided no proof whatsoever either for your statement.  So at this point, we are on equal footing.

Joel

[the KJV agrees with 99 percent of all manuscripts]

[quote author=asaph PeterAv,
You seem to use circular reasoning in your doctrine. It goes like this:
"I believe the NIV is the only Perfect Translation. The KJV deviates from the NIV therefore the KJV is evil."
I purposefully switched the arguement to favor the NIV so you could see clearly the fallacy of your stance.
quote]
...............
But you purposefully left out that the other versions such as the NIV and other garbage was put out by hetetics Such as Origen,Jerome and Eusebius,and later pumped out in these last apostate days by equall heretics such as Westcott and Hort,famous for being the Fathers of the modern new age Channelling movement.
Plus the KJV agrees with 99 percent of all manuscripts.Why did you leave that out?The circular reasoning is yours until you repent of your fallicy.You will always be going around the Mullberry bush until you can see evil as evil,period.
KJV agrees with all the manuscripts but a couple,and even those had to follow the KJV to pass off as a "Bible".

So, do you really believe that a Bible pumped out by heretics,involved in necromancy and Channelling is the trustworthy edition?Or is it because there is some hidden sin or too much pride to admit that you have been dupped like so many others?Allow God's words to change you,don't be caught changing it.

The statement in bold is simply false.

Joel

So PeterAV, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that if only the church would as a whole return to the use of the KJV, the church would be revitalized and renewed?

Joel

There haas been much discussion surrounding justification but yet the discussion never seems to center on what the scriptures actually say.

Let's try a different approach – instead of me running my mouth let’s turn this dialogue over to the word of God and let the sword of the Spirit speak.

I will presume two things here before I go on:

1. The apostle Paul was writing to saints in his epistles – his words were addressed to believers not unbelievers.

2. My authority will be the verses themselves with no reference to the Greek. The verses stand and need no correction or updating – they are perfect with no errors.

Now let’s put our tennis shoes and run through some verses.

Now remember Paul is writing to saints - not unbelievers who were hoping to become Christians.

Every question can be answered by a simple YES or NO.

1. Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
According to the verse:
Do you have redemption right now?
Do you have forgiveness right now?

Now – think a bad thought and read the verses again.
Again:
Do you have redemption right now?
Do you have forgiveness right now?

2. Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
According to the verses:
Are you sealed right now?
How long is this sealing good for?
What were you sealed with?

3. Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
According to the verse:
Are you saved by his mercy right now?
According to the verse what was the work done?

4. 2 Cor 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
According to the verse:
Are you in Christ right now?
Are you a new creature right now?

5. Eph 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
According to the verse:
Have you been raised up?
Have you been made to sit in heavenly places in Christ?
Where is the real you right now?

6. Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
According to the verse:
Have you been spiritually circumcised?
Have the body of sins been put off?
How was it put off?

7. Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
According to the verse:
When does one get the righteousness of God?

8. Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.:
According to the verse:
Are you justified?
How were you justified?

9. Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
According to the verse:
Have you been called?
Are you glorified?
Are theses words past tense?

10. Eph 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
According to the verse:
Are you accepted?
How are you accepted?
Who is the beloved?

11. Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
According to the verse:
Are you redeemed?

12. 1 Cor 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
According to the verse:
Are you washed?
Are you sanctified?
Are you justified?

13. Col 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
According to the verse:
Are you complete?
Are you complete in you or Christ?

14. Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins:
According to the verse:
Are you quickened right now?

15. Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
According to the verse;
Are you right now a member of his physical body?

16. Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
According to the verse;
Are you crucified right now?
How do you live right now?

17. 1 Pet 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
According to the verse;
How are you kept?
compare the above verse with the verse below::
1 Cor 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
What or who is the power of God?
So then, who are you kept?

18. 1 Cor 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
According to the verse:
Did Christ die for you sins?
Which sins did Christ die for - some or all?
Now - was what Christ did sufficient for your sins?

19. 1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
According to the verse:
What can you know?
Do you have eternal life right now?
What does eternal mean to you?

20. Where were all the above verses taken from:
Were they taken before Calvary?
Were they taken from books written to believers?
Were they taken from the OT?
Were they taken from tribualtion pasages written to Israel?

Now – I don’t what else I can do.
Just explain those verses and tell me God didn’t do a work in you that has been done – past tense.

What do the above scriptures say to you?
Do they doctrinally apply to you?
Then why would you think justification is a process?

Now wasn't that fun - at least I had a good time!

God bless

I do not know of any people who would say justification is a process (inside orthodoxy anyway).  I certainly wouldn't.  Justification is a one-time, in the past thing.  But sanctification is not--it is a process.  And sanctification is part of salvation, as is glorification, which is future (look at Romans 8:30).  So I'm not really sure what you're getting at.  I imagine most here would agree with your post.  But as it relates to 1 Corinthians 1:18, that text could be referring to justification--the one-time declaration--or to sanctification--the process, both of which are valid from the Greek and and inside orthodoxy.

Joel

Thanks for your response Joel - I apprecaite the time and effort you put iin the post - that is more than most do.

You can't see where "faith of" is Jesus' faith and "faith in" is the sinner's faith?  forget teh Greek - what does the simple English say not what does it mean.

I do see that there is a difference between "faith of" and "faith in."  My point was not that those are necessarily one and the same.  My point is, the phrase in Greek could be rendered either way.  

You cannot see that our faith cannot justify - only Christ's.  The modern versions are saying it is your faith in Christ which justifies - can you no see the difference?

This is a major difference in doctrine!

You do not believe that our faith justifies us?  I believe that is firmly established by Scripture (not that any credit goes to us, because that very faith and the rebirth of the Spirit causing that faith comes from God).  

My argument is this:

1)  The Greek can be understand either as "in Christ" or "of Christ" depending on how you understand the genitive to be functioning.  
2)  Translating it "in Christ" is not an aberrant theological teaching.
3)  No doctrine is changed either way.

Can you not see where in I Cor. 1:18 the AV says "are saved" while the NIV and others make salvation a process by saying " beig saved"?  

I understand the difference between "are saved" and "are being saved."  But like I said before, salvation has past, present, and future aspects.  

You are deciding what you think the text should say and then are forcing that on whatever the Greek is.  The Greek supports "are being saved" although "are saved" is also a possibility.

This is a major difference in doctrine!

I disagree greatly.  There is not a major difference in doctrine--at least inasmuch as there is no doctrine changed.  Salvation is a one-time event and a process, therefore neither translation contradicts the doctrine of salvation.  They would just be emphasizing different aspects.  
 

Forgive me up front but I'm not real concerned about "the Greek and Hebrew" for there are many "Greek and hebrew" authorities.  

My final authority is what I hold in my hands.

God bless

Why are you not concerned with the Greek and Hebrew?  If you believe that the TR is inspired, then should not the KJV match up to it?

What about what I said concerning accuracy in translation and cross references?

Joel

Greetings brethren – I trust the post will be a blessing for this is my motive here not to stir up.

The question was why the AV1611 vs. the modern versions?  Here are just two reasons I will chose to chat about here:

1. The ability to cross-reference more accurately.
I believe the cross references in the AV are more accurate and exact thus giving the ability to let the scriptures unlock themselves by the cross-referencing.    I believe in their attempts to “update” the English the modern translators have greatly hindered one’s ability to get an accurate cross reference in many ways.  I’m trying to keep the length of this post down so if you are interested then try it and see how easy the AV cross-references vs. the modern versions.

I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion.  Look at this scan of the 1611 at

http://members.aol.com/xplosive5/compkjv1.gif

I'm not sure how you would suggest that the Cross References are more accurate.  They are not even as numerous, and I would bet that most of them are the same cross references.  

2. The exactness of the wording of the AV vs. the modern versions.
I firmly believe that the AV is more exact in its description of the holy things of God in the AV than the modern versions.  I cite just several examples here and there are many more:

1. Pure vs. flawless – In the AV the word the Spirit often uses to describe God’s words is “pure”.  Pure carries with it in the definition “holy”.  Look up flawless (definition), which many of the modern version use to describe the word and you will see that holy is not part of being flawless.  Illustration – a septic tank can be flawless but not pure. Is the word flawless?  Yes it is but it is more – it is pure for it is holy for God and Christ are holy.

Perhaps you could provide an example in which this situation appears?

2. Preeminence vs. sovereign – Look at Col. 1:18 and you will see that Christ has the preeminence, which carries with it in the definition “integrity”.  Many of the modern versions change preeminence to “sovereign” which does not carry with it integrity.  Illustration – Hitler was sovereign over Germany in WWI but did he have integrity?  With Jesus you have integrity.

I'm afraid this point is just off the mark.  Preeminence, at least in the dictionaries I have looked at, does not carry the idea of integrity anymore than sovereign does.  And the ESV has preeminent anyway.  The NASB does not use sovereign.  Neither does the NIV.  The NKJV has preeminence.  

Point – the AV is more accurate in its descriptions.  The above were but 2 but there are countless more.  One can say the modern versions are more accurate and exact than the AV in places.  I doubt it – it may appear to but you have to change the words and I believe God gave us the adjectives, etc. He wanted to use for us.  Modern versions may give another “slant” but when it comes to how the AV describes our Lord you can’t beat the AV!

I do not see that the AV is more accurate.  If those are your representative examples, I'm afraid I can't see that your position is supported.  How is that you know that God wanted us to use the adjectives put in the KJV?  

Also - Some Subtle Doctrinal Changes:
Here the saint is saved.
AV - 1 Cor 1:18  For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are “saved” it is the power of God.

Here the saint is in a process of being saved – this is because to Origen salvation was a process – works.
NIV - 1 Cor 1:18  For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are “being saved” it is the power of God.

I see three problems with this.  One, there is no doctrine changed in the difference of those translations.  Salvation does have a past (justification) aspect, a present aspect (sanctification), and a future aspect (glorification).  Two, how does Origen have anything to do with the NIV?  Three, you have made no reference to the Greek and what the word actually is.  

Here the faith is of the operation of God.
Col 2:12  Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Here the work is transferred from the operation of God to one’s faith in the power God!
Col 2:12  having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

I'm afraid I really cannot see your point here.  There is no doctrine changed in this that I can see.

Here we see it is the faith of Christ, which justifies the sinner.
AV - Gal 2:16  Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ,

Here we see that it is one’s faith in Christ, which justifies – how can our faith do anything?  The faith of Christ has been transferred to man’s faith.  There is a big difference between Christ’s faith and ours.
Gal 2:16  know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

Again, no doctrine changed--just differences in understanding how Iesou Christou is being used.  You don't believe in justification by faith alone?  

Again - not trying to stir it up but to get folks to think if they have not seen such things before.  My purpose is for saints to have no doubts in the God’s word, which I believe to be found in the AV.  And by having no doubts this will give strength, boldness, and comfort thus drawing saints closer to our Saviour.

God bless

I appreciate your heart for God's Word and your desire for confidence.  That is commendable.

One other thing.  It has been said as well that the KJV follows 99% of the Greek Text.  I am sorry, but that information is just not accurate.  

Joel