Is The Spiritual Content of Scripture Compromised by Many Modern English Translations

[Martin Marprelate]

Thomas Barlow (1607-1691) wrote: “Whatsoever is contained in those four books [which included our Liturgy—the Book of Common Prayer] which concerns either Doctrine or Discipline, is authentic and obligatory to the whole Church and Nation, and all persons whether Clergy or Laity”

That is why 2,000 ministers left the C of E in 1662.

 

[JD731]

But they did get a New Testament in a different language than what was spoken. I think this may have been because they (the whole initial audience of the New Testament) DID need a different language (it was written in Koine Greek, the common everyday language).

I am sure God could have taught all of them Hebrew. He could make us understand Hebrew as well.

Perhaps there is more to God using the everyday common language (instead of a more eloquent and percise Greek) than many identify.

The Jews have their own language and when they are addressed in a different tongue it is a sign from God that they are under his disciplinary judgement.



The Jews national language is Hebrew.

Isaiah 36:13
Then Rabshakeh stood, and cried with a loud voice in the Jews' language, and said, Hear ye the words of the great king, the king of Assyria.

Principles are established through languages. Consider this passage from the KJV.

1 Cor 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people (Israel); and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not (see V 21 - it was Isael who did not believe in this context) : but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Paul would say to Jews later in Acts 28:

27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

Companion passages:

Zephaniah 3:1-3
Woe to her that is filthy and polluted, to the oppressing city! She obeyed not the voice; she received not correction; she trusted not in the LORD; she drew not near to her God. Her princes within her are roaring lions; her judges are evening wolves; they gnaw not the bones till the morrow.

V4- 5 The just LORD is in the midst thereof; he will not do iniquity: every morning doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not; but the unjust knoweth no shame.

This pretty much describes Judah with her capitol city of Jerusalem during the days of Jesus Christ on earth, but there is hope because in the same chapter, he says this:


8 Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the LORD, until the day (that would be the day of the LORD) that I rise up to the prey: for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy.

9 For then (at that time) will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

"pure" language in this sense is meant to convey the fact that all his peaple Israel will speak one language and it will be Hebrew.

God just wants people to believe him. He does not say the same things to every people. For instance, in this chapter he says one thing to Israel and one thing to the nations in the same context and with a different result.

This chapter tells of the next time Jesus is in their midst on earth. Check it out.

14 Sing, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel; be glad and rejoice with all the heart, O daughter of Jerusalem.
15 The LORD hath taken away thy judgments, he hath cast out thine enemy: the king of Israel, even the Lord, is in the midst of thee: thou shalt not see evil any more.
16 In that day (the day of the LORD) it shall be said to Jerusalem, Fear thou not: and to Zion, Let not thine hands be slack.
17 The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing.
18 I will gather them that are sorrowful for the solemn assembly, who are of thee, to whom the reproach of it was a burden.

19 Behold, at that time I will undo all that afflict thee: and I will save her that halteth, and gather her that was driven out; and I will get them praise and fame in every land where they have been put to shame.
20 At that time will I bring you again, even in the time that I gather you: for I will make you a name and a praise among all people of the earth, when I turn back your captivity before your eyes, saith the Lord.

I may not have done a good job of responding to your post and I am sorry about that but I took the opportunity to say some good stull and exalt the word of God that is preserved for us in the KJV from where I got it, having confidence that every word will be meticulously fulfilled literally.

Many people do not understand these prophecies though they have scores of new bibles with different words to describe them. Why new Bibles if they don't help?? This current age is the time God takes away Israel's national identity and thier national language and saves the remnant as gentiles lest they all perish.

That is my reasoning and belief and the wisdom of God..

 

[JD731]

There is only division because you and a few others keep harping on about a certain translation of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Scriptures. I understand that you wish to read a translation that is in Elizabethan English, and I have no problem if you wish to do that. But there is no way in the world that I am going to join with you. If the current translations into modern English are not good enough, then let's have yet another one, but please stop going on about it. I will use the KJV if a church at which I am preaching asks me to do so, but otherwise, thanks, but no thanks!

But even if everyone used the KJV (not going to happen!), there would still be division because of different "sects" treating the words of Scripture differently. There would still be premil, amil, postmil, dispensational, preterist and hyper-preterist; Reformed, Arminian, charismatic and so forth. No doubt this will continue until our Lord returns. 'For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face; now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known.' 'Let every man be persuaded in his own mind.'

Are you saying that what one believes about what is written does not matter that much with God but just how serious you are in your belief system?

 

[JonC]

The Jews have their own language and when they are addressed in a different tongue it is a sign from God that they are under his disciplinary judgement.

I was speaking of Scripture (the New Testament Scriptures which God did not gove in Hebrew). Many of the Jews during this period did not speak Hebrew.

The majority of Jews during this time fid not speak Hebrew (they spoke Aramaic with the vommon language of the region being Koine Greek).

My point was that God could have chosen Hebrew to give the New Testament, but He did not. He could have chosen Attic Greek (more elioquent, more percise) but He did not.

Instead God chose the common everyday language spoken throughout that area. Not the "higher" more percise Greek but the common Greek.

If we demanded translators use this same principle used by God then the KJV would not have been created. The translators were influenced by Catholic traditions in terms of elevated language (a carry over from Roman public pagan worship). But that is how we, as Western people, are raised to think (how we view sacredness).

 

[JonC]

I understand that you wish to read a translation that is in Elizabethan English...

Jacobean English (the KJV language is post-Elizabethan, and is a stylized form that was never a spoken form).

But what @JD731 is talking about is late 18th century (after the standardization of Modern English). Still...not an actual spoken form of English, but it is pretty.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Are you saying that what one believes about what is written does not matter that much with God but just how serious you are in your belief system?

I believe that God wants His word written accurately in the language of as many people as possible. I do not believe that Elizabethan or Jacobean (or whatever @JonC wants to call it) English is anyone's language today. Tyndale had it right when he told a Roman Catholic scholar, If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plow shall know more of the Scripture than thou dost.” Using the KJV today, is driving a wedge between ploughboys (and other less-educated people) and the Bible.
If you want to use the KJV, that's fine by me. If you want to use it in your posts, I have no objections. I am just sick to death of this argument being played out over and over again. It's a dead letter; there are more important translation issues today, particularly over so-called 'gender-neutral' versions, but no one seems to bring that up.

 

[JonC]

I believe that God wants His word written accurately in the language of as many people as possible. I do not believe that Elizabethan or Jacobean (or whatever @JonC wants to call it) English is anyone's language today. Tyndale had it right when he told a Roman Catholic scholar, If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plow shall know more of the Scripture than thou dost.” Using the KJV today, is driving a wedge between ploughboys (and other less-educated people) and the Bible.
If you want to use the KJV, that's fine by me. If you want to use it in your posts, I have no objections. I am just sick to death of this argument being played out over and over again. It's a dead letter; there are more important translation issues today, particularly over so-called 'gender-neutral' versions, but no one seems to bring that up.

I agree.

The language of the KJV never was anybody language (it is a stylized form of English).

But what is interesting is the fact that the common spoken English was considered, well, too common for God's words when that is exactly what God chose in koine Greek. It is interesting because of what sacredness had become.

We see this with music as well. Biblical music was energetic, trying to reflect the might and glory of God. The music of the bible would never present an almighty God through quiet and solmn music. That would be contray to what the music was to express.

But for us, solemn music is associated with sacredness just as higher stylized language is associated with the same.

 

[Logos1560]

not once have I been tempted to adopt the doctrines that make the Church of England distinct from other Christian groups.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church noted that the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer preserved the traditional Catholic teaching concerning baptism (p. 127). Booty's edition of The Book of Common Prayer--1559 stated: "It is certain by God's Word that children being baptized have all things necessary for their salvation, and be undoubtedly saved" (p. 283). Edmund Calamy observed that the ministers ejected or silenced by the 1662 Act of Uniformity maintained that the Book of Common Prayer “teaches the doctrine of real baptismal regeneration, and certain salvation consequent thereupon” (Nonconformist’s, p. 39). Charles Spurgeon observed that "in the Prayer-Book, as plainly as words can express it,--you have this baptismal regeneration, preparing stepping-stones to make it easy for men to go to Rome" (Jenkens, Baptist Doctrines, p. 136).

Thomas Barlow (1607-1691) wrote: “Whatsoever is contained in those four books [which included our Liturgy—the Book of Common Prayer] which concerns either Doctrine or Discipline, is authentic and obligatory to the whole Church and Nation, and all persons whether Clergy or Laity” (Genuine, p. 52). William Hunt noted that King James I had approved canons in 1604 that "required subscription to the entire Book of Common Prayer and the endorsement of all Thirty-nine Articles" (Puritan Moment, p. 108). Maurice Lee wrote: "The canons of 1604 demanded that every benefice-holder subscribe to a statement that the Prayer Book and the Thirty-nine Articles were entirely agreeable to the word of God" (Great Britain's Solomon, p. 172). With these 1604 canons, Lori Anne Ferrell asserted: “The authoritative text has, arguably, shifted; sacramental doctrine is to be judged relative to its articulation in the Book of Common Prayer, not scripture” (Killeen, Oxford Handbook, p. 267).

Bishop Richard Bancroft had preached that “the doctrine of the Church of England, is pure, and holy: the government therefore, both in respect of her Majesty, of our Bishops is lawful, and godly: the Book of Common Prayer containeth nothing contrary to the Word of God” (Seymour, English Sermon, I, p. 124). William Hunt noted that King James I had approved canons in 1604 that "required subscription to the entire Book of Common Prayer and the endorsement of all Thirty-nine Articles" (Puritan Moment, p. 108).

The clear, documented historical evidence shows that the KJV translators were required to accept the Book of Common Prayer and to believe that nothing in the Book of Common Prayer was contrary to the word of God. Therefore, it indicates that the KJV translators did not believe that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration taught in the Book of Common Prayer was contrary to the word of God in their translation [the KJV].

Does that mean that the KJV translators themselves believed that the KJV taught the Church of England's doctrine of baptismal regeneration just as the Book of Common Prayer does?

JD731, are you demonstrated that you understand and interpret the KJV very differently from how its Church of England makers understood and interpreted it?

 

[JD731]

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church noted that the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer preserved the traditional Catholic teaching concerning baptism (p. 127). Booty's edition of The Book of Common Prayer--1559 stated: "It is certain by God's Word that children being baptized have all things necessary for their salvation, and be undoubtedly saved" (p. 283). Edmund Calamy observed that the ministers ejected or silenced by the 1662 Act of Uniformity maintained that the Book of Common Prayer “teaches the doctrine of real baptismal regeneration, and certain salvation consequent thereupon” (Nonconformist’s, p. 39). Charles Spurgeon observed that "in the Prayer-Book, as plainly as words can express it,--you have this baptismal regeneration, preparing stepping-stones to make it easy for men to go to Rome" (Jenkens, Baptist Doctrines, p. 136).

Thomas Barlow (1607-1691) wrote: “Whatsoever is contained in those four books [which included our Liturgy—the Book of Common Prayer] which concerns either Doctrine or Discipline, is authentic and obligatory to the whole Church and Nation, and all persons whether Clergy or Laity” (Genuine, p. 52). William Hunt noted that King James I had approved canons in 1604 that "required subscription to the entire Book of Common Prayer and the endorsement of all Thirty-nine Articles" (Puritan Moment, p. 108). Maurice Lee wrote: "The canons of 1604 demanded that every benefice-holder subscribe to a statement that the Prayer Book and the Thirty-nine Articles were entirely agreeable to the word of God" (Great Britain's Solomon, p. 172). With these 1604 canons, Lori Anne Ferrell asserted: “The authoritative text has, arguably, shifted; sacramental doctrine is to be judged relative to its articulation in the Book of Common Prayer, not scripture” (Killeen, Oxford Handbook, p. 267).

Bishop Richard Bancroft had preached that “the doctrine of the Church of England, is pure, and holy: the government therefore, both in respect of her Majesty, of our Bishops is lawful, and godly: the Book of Common Prayer containeth nothing contrary to the Word of God” (Seymour, English Sermon, I, p. 124). William Hunt noted that King James I had approved canons in 1604 that "required subscription to the entire Book of Common Prayer and the endorsement of all Thirty-nine Articles" (Puritan Moment, p. 108).

The clear, documented historical evidence shows that the KJV translators were required to accept the Book of Common Prayer and to believe that nothing in the Book of Common Prayer was contrary to the word of God. Therefore, it indicates that the KJV translators did not believe that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration taught in the Book of Common Prayer was contrary to the word of God in their translation [the KJV].

Does that mean that the KJV translators themselves believed that the KJV taught the Church of England's doctrine of baptismal regeneration just as the Book of Common Prayer does?

JD731, are you demonstrated that you understand and interpret the KJV very differently from how its Church of England makers understood and interpreted it?

What does all that have to do with the op? You have not responded to my challenge to produce one verse where God has charged men to preserve his words. How can God use the exact same words to hide his truths from one group of men while with those same words reveal his truths to another group? If God does that then you must admit that he does it on purpose and no amount of translating it into more readable and modern versions is going to help with understanding what God calls "the mysteries of the faith."

The problem that the religious crowd had with Jesus during his time of his earthly ministry was his supernatural person and work. Many are denying the supernatural as it relates to God's word. In the gospel accounts the Jewish elites denied that Jesus is the son of God and today they deny that he is the word of God even after he says he is both. In both he is perfect.

 

[JD731]

I believe that God wants His word written accurately in the language of as many people as possible. I do not believe that Elizabethan or Jacobean (or whatever @JonC wants to call it) English is anyone's language today.

Neither do I. One thing God isn't is common. The KJV is in the words that God has chosen. It is the word of God.

Tyndale had it right when he told a Roman Catholic scholar, If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plow shall know more of the Scripture than thou dost.” Using the KJV today, is driving a wedge between ploughboys (and other less-educated people) and the Bible.
If you want to use the KJV, that's fine by me. If you want to use it in your posts, I have no objections. I am just sick to death of this argument being played out over and over again. It's a dead letter; there are more important translation issues today, particularly over so-called 'gender-neutral' versions, but no one seems to bring that up.

Gender neutral versions had to happen because there are now so many English versions that it must be hard for translators to make enough significant changes to get a copyright.

 

[JD731]

I agree.

The language of the KJV never was anybody language (it is a stylized form of English).

But what is interesting is the fact that the common spoken English was considered, well, too common for God's words when that is exactly what God chose in koine Greek. It is interesting because of what sacredness had become.

We see this with music as well. Biblical music was energetic, trying to reflect the might and glory of God. The music of the bible would never present an almighty God through quiet and solmn music. That would be contray to what the music was to express.

But for us, solemn music is associated with sacredness just as higher stylized language is associated with the same.

It is my view that the New Testament was written in a gentile language because of the rejection of his people to hear his word that he had given them over 1500 years. Jesus had preached "the gospel of the kingdom," a promise he had given to that nation in the scriptures he gave them. All Jesus asked Judah to do when he came was to believe basically three things in preparation for that kingdom that would come after his sacrifice and their cleansing from their sins. They would then be the preachers of the gospel of Christ to the world. Those three things were noted by John when he said the following.

Joh 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, 1)that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, 2) the Son of God; and 3) that believing ye might have life through his name.

He had said this to them earlier;

Jn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

The primary audience for these words are the Jews of John's days and all they needed to do to be drawn by the Father is to compare the person of Jesus and the words of the Father in their scriptures and what Jesus said and did and they would come to him believing he was the Christ, the son of God and really would have eternal life through his name.

The death of the nation took place in Matthew 12 with the unpardonable national sin and their sentence in Matthew 13 of darkness and their burial in AD 70 when they were dispersed into the nations and God counted them individually as gentiles while in that condition. Romans 7 thru 11 will chronicle how in God's providence the gentile believers would then fulfill the will of God in building the house (family) for his son, who will glorify both it and himself when it is filled and he comes for his bride and takes her to the Father's house. See Hebrews 3 for some info into this realizing this book was written in the mid 60's and almost at the end of the national identity of the Jews.

You do believe God was serious about the national Israel receiving Jesus as their Messiah don't you and that history would be written much differently from that time going forward if they would have?

 

[Logos1560]

Many are denying the supernatural as it relates to God's word.

Do you at times seem to deny the supernatural as it relates to God's word translated into present-day standard English?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Neither do I. One thing God isn't is common. The KJV is in the words that God has chosen. It is the word of God.

I understand that you believe this, but you cannot show me where the Bible says it. The Church of Rome taught for hundreds of years that the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible was the one that God had chosen, and many people were executed for daring to translate God's word into English at all. The "Lollard" Bible was a translation of the Vulgate, and it contained that versions errors, but it did not stop thousands of people finding Christ, and with Him, salvation.

Gender neutral versions had to happen because there are now so many English versions that it must be hard for translators to make enough significant changes to get a copyright.

I expect you are partially right, but if the KJV had been carefully revised every 50 years or so, there might have been no demand for new translations. The Spanish Reina Valera Bible actually predates the KJV. I don't know anything about its early existence, but it was revised and modernized in 1909, again in 1960, and again within the last ten years by the Trinitarian Bible Society. https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/language-spa As a result it remains (so I understand) much the most popular translation of the Bible into Spanish.
The sad thing about the TBS is that they will spend time and money on modernizing the Reina Valera version, and rightly so, but they utterly oppose any revision of the KJV. I know some of the people involved in the TBS and they are fine Christian brothers, as I'm sure you are, but they have this strange blind spot about the Bible in English, and as a result we have a sort of open season for new translations, some of which are fine, but others of which are very poor indeed.

 

[JonC]

You do believe God was serious about the national Israel receiving Jesus as their Messiah don't you and that history would be written much differently from that time going forward if they would have?

I do not.

I believe that the Messianic promise was made to Abraham and his Seed, not to Israel as a nation.

The promise of the Messiah was given BEFORE Israel existed. It was made with Abraham (made to an Iranian, to use modern geography). The promise to Abraham was not limited to Jacob's descendents.

So no, I do not believe that God planned on Israel receiving Jesus as their Messiah. I believe God planned on Israel as a people being locked in sin through the Law until the Promise came. I view the Old Covenant as testifying to the coming Promise.

 

[JD731]

I do not.

I believe that the Messianic promise was made to Abraham and his Seed, not to Israel as a nation.

The promise of the Messiah was given BEFORE Israel existed. It was made with Abraham (made to an Iranian, to use modern geography). The promise to Abraham was not limited to Jacob's descendents.

So no, I do not believe that God planned on Israel receiving Jesus as their Messiah. I believe God planned on Israel as a people being locked in sin through the Law until the Promise came. I view the Old Covenant as testifying to the coming Promise.

This post of yours disappoints me greatly because I know you are too intelligent to come to this conclusion through reason and study and faith in the words through which God makes his everlasting covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It demonstrates the great error of this time in history when men are taught by scholars rather than by the Spirit and the word.


Exodus 32:13
Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou (God) swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.

Gen 12:1 Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

What if those words were literal? How would it change our thinking? What if those who read modern Bible translations believed the OT scriptures and were able to discern that those words were at least as true as the words of those who claim they are figurative and to be applied in some way that doesn't satisfy the promise being made to these three men.

Fast forward ahead 2000 years and discover that this plan is reinforced after the life, death, and resurrection of Abrahams seed through Jacob, the Lord Jesus Christ, and even new information and details are given of how and when God is going to accomplish it.

After speaking directly to Israel and her proselytes from Rom 7:1 (about what is shaking out in this age and looking ahead to the next age) Paul says this directly to the church:

Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles,

One should read it all in this context but he says this about the promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and one should believe it as if it is written to make sense.

11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; 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:
27 For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, [they are] beloved for the fathers sakes.
29 For the gifts and calling of God [are] without repentance.
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable [are] his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
36 For of him, and through him, and to him, [are] all things: to whom [be] glory for ever. Amen.

Obviously this fullness of the gentiles is the formation of the church of Jesus Christ one member at a time and if one discerns the symbolism of scriptures, his bride. Israel is to be viewed as corporately, nationally, when he delivers them as per Re 19. All of them who are left alive, which will be few in number, will be saved and the remnant doctrine concerning Israel that we track through the prophets will finally be over and 100% of them will be saved and glorified.

I see this through a literal eye.

 

[JonC]

This post of yours disappoints me greatly because I know you are too intelligent to come to this conclusion through reason and study and faith in the words through which God makes his everlasting covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It demonstrates the great error of this time in history when men are taught by scholars rather than by the Spirit and the word.


Exodus 32:13
Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou (God) swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.

Gen 12:1 Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

What if those words were literal? How would it change our thinking? What if those who read modern Bible translations believed the OT scriptures and were able to discern that those words were at least as true as the words of those who claim they are figurative and to be applied in some way that doesn't satisfy the promise being made to these three men.

Fast forward ahead 2000 years and discover that this plan is reinforced after the life, death, and resurrection of Abrahams seed through Jacob, the Lord Jesus Christ, and even new information and details are given of how and when God is going to accomplish it.

After speaking directly to Israel and her proselytes from Rom 7:1 (about what is shaking out in this age and looking ahead to the next age) Paul says this directly to the church:

Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles,

One should read it all in this context but he says this about the promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and one should believe it as if it is written to make sense.

11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; 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:
27 For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, [they are] beloved for the fathers sakes.
29 For the gifts and calling of God [are] without repentance.
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable [are] his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
36 For of him, and through him, and to him, [are] all things: to whom [be] glory for ever. Amen.

Obviously this fullness of the gentiles is the formation of the church of Jesus Christ one member at a time and if one discerns the symbolism of scriptures, his bride. Israel is to be viewed as corporately, nationally, when he delivers them as per Re 19. All of them who are left alive, which will be few in number, will be saved and the remnant doctrine concerning Israel that we track through the prophets will finally be over and 100% of them will be saved and glorified.

I see this through a literal eye.

Sorry to disappoint.

Paul emphasized that the covenant made with Abraham extended beyond Israel as a nation and was inclusive of Gentiles (and exclusive of Israel as a nation).

You have to remember that Abraham was not an Israelite. It is important that God made this covenant not with Israel but with Abraham. Israel certainly had a role, but that does not negate God's covenant with Abraham.

We read in Isaiah that the Messiah will be "a Light unto the Gentiles, that You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth."

And in Isaiah 56 that God's house will be a house of prayer "for all nations".

God proclaims the Promise even in Genesis, stating that "all the families of the earth shall be blessed."

In Psalm 22 we read that "all the ends of the world shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before You".

And, of course, in Isaiah 42 we alao read God say of the Messiah that He will be "a covenant to the people, as a light to the Gentiles".


I cannot ignore those passages because they are God's words (just as much as the passages you use). I do not see those passages as a contradiction to the passages you use at all, but they make me question your conclusions.

 

[JD731]

Sorry to disappoint.

Paul emphasized that the covenant made with Abraham extended beyond Israel as a nation and was inclusive of Gentiles (and exclusive of Israel as a nation).

You have to remember that Abraham was not an Israelite. It is important that God made this covenant not with Israel but with Abraham. Israel certainly had a role, but that does not negate God's covenant with Abraham.

We read in Isaiah that the Messiah will be "a Light unto the Gentiles, that You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth."

And in Isaiah 56 that God's house will be a house of prayer "for all nations".

God proclaims the Promise even in Genesis, stating that "all the families of the earth shall be blessed."

In Psalm 22 we read that "all the ends of the world shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before You".

And, of course, in Isaiah 42 we alao read God say of the Messiah that He will be "a covenant to the people, as a light to the Gentiles".


I cannot ignore those passages because they are God's words (just as much as the passages you use). I do not see those passages as a contradiction to the passages you use at all, but they make me question your conclusions.

I quoted verses from the epistle to the Romans. It was written in 58 AD. All NT history from the resurrection of Jesus Christ through Acts 18 had passed when he wrote it. It was letter number 6 that he wrote, being preceded by Galatians, (49AD), 1 Thess (51AD) 2 Thess (51AD), 1 Cor (54 AD) and 2 Cor (55 AD).

Since the NT church of Jesus Christ is a mystery and it was not prophesied in the OT scriptures there must be an explanation for the covenant people of God, the Jews, because what was taking place in their day did not match any prophesies they could read about in their OT. So, I followed the logic and realize that the epistles of the NT is the document that explains what God is doing in this age that he calls in Matthew 13 "the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" with his broad explanation in that chapter outlined in 7 parables from the beginning of the age with the sowing in the field and ending with the reaping of the harvest. This was a distinct transition and his beginning of hiding his truths in parables. Now, no one, no matter how many new Bibles we write or how many letters behind ones name or how many scholars are produced by the greatest of schools, we all must receive the doctrines of God the same way and it will take a bended knee.

Be patient while I help you to understand my point by quoting some Bible and then you can decide.

The unpardonable sin in Mt 12 and then the shift to the seaside in MT 13 for a new planting.

1 The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.
2 And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into a ship, and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore.
3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;

The mature crop did not have enough laborers to harvest it.
Mt 9:38 Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest.

I won't quote the parable of the Sower. You know it. This is near the completion of the ministry of Jesus and look at the reaction of his disciples that had ministered with him for 3 years.

10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

You need to understand what Jesus means here with this statement. He is taking the actual physical kingdom from this generation of rulers and officials of Israel because of unbelief and giving a different form of the kingdom to these men that had faithfully ministered with him. You need to get a hold of that. I suggest reading another parable that helps to understand this. It is in Luke 19:11-27 and was spoken 6 days before the Passover.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15 For this people s (Israel's) heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

The King has just been rejected at this point and the rulers are planning his death. There is no chance of the nation receiving him as King now. So, according to the parable in Luke 19 that I sent you to, Jesus goes back to the Father in heaven and will rule only those who these laborers convince to bow the knee to him even in his absence. This form of the kingdom will have no physical boundaries. The Father will at some point destroy those who will not bow to him and then he will keep all his promises of a physical kingdom when the Father sends him back to the earth. Those who entered his mystery form of the kingdom will rule and reign with him and occupy his throne corporately as a wife and the physical form of the kingdom will be inaugurated at the marriage supper of the Lamb after all his enemies are destroyed and there is perfect peace on the earth and the Abrahamic covenant will be realized in full.

Jesus said that his disciples could hear and see but look at what they did after he gave them the parable of the Wheat and tares.

Everything til now had been spoken to the multitude at the seashore. But now just Jesus and his disciple go into the house. They did not know the parable by just hearing it. They must have a divine teacher and a right heart and walk to learn the meaning.

36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

And he did.

Mark recorded him as saying this.

Mr 4:13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?

God must teach them to you from within. That is the message.

1 Cor 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Some men do not understand the mysteries of the faith and cannot be taught.

Forgive me for not answering you post point by point.

 

[Logos1560]

Some men do not understand the mysteries of the faith and cannot be taught.

Perhaps you do not understand the faith once delivered to the saints since you incorrectly seem to try to add to it or read into it some modern, non-scriptural or extra-biblical KJV-only opinions.
Can any believer teach you that your understandings and interpretations can sometimes be wrong?