KJB1611reader
Active Member
No, I meant in China. I saw Rick Norris' book selling online.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Unapologetic Dispensational Truths - Is the KJV Required For Us to Believe It.
- Thread starter JD731
- Start date
I do. And I'd venture most on this forum do.
What was the Lord speaking about when He said this? Not a translation. But you can show me the translation that removes or distorts His meaning here.
Again, irrelevant. This is a matter of interpretation of the individual which, unfortunately, really boils down to the interpretation of the individuals teacher/s. Not the translation. That is the real problem, and you mention this yourself in your next stattement.
Who exactly are you speaking of? You presume to be the only one who loves God's Word? Why do you think most of the people that frequent forums like these spend their time on Christian Doctrinal Forums? To find teachers? Did you not say everyone disagrees (which I disagree with).
Who exactly denies that the Writers take precedence over scholars' commentary? Those are the people you should be debating with.
This is an example of why reading the King James only limits some people. Understanding Hebrews 10:14 is not a translational matter, it is a contextual matter—that can be discerned in any translation.
You interpret this verse into a works-based sermon.
What the Writer is actually saying is that, unlike the sacrifices of the Law (refer to Hebrews 10:1), the Sacrifice of Christ makes the believer sanctified in completion. Doesn't matter what translation you read, that is the point of perfection here. The focal point is perfection, not sanctification, and he tells us that there is no need for sacrifice to be offered over and over as it was in/under the (Covenant of) Law.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm trying to help you understand that unless you understand the very culture you referred to earlier, and in particular, the language you referred to earlier, you are not going to understand God's Word. Regardless of the Translation you use. The King James is actually my favorite translation, because I feel the translators put more into it than a lot of the "new guys," lol. It may be a cultural thing as well, because back then people took (and for lack of a better word) "religion" more serious than they do in modern times (though not all, there are still zealots (and you'll find a lot of them here, lol)).
Chapter Ten (as well as 7-9) is in my estimation one of the most informative chapters in all of Scripture. Verse 14 is in fact the "magic bullet" for Eternal Security. There is no more sacrifice for our sin because the Lord makes us complete with regard to sin. The sacrifices of the Law could not do that. That is why the Writer calls it "a better Covenant."
Sorry, no. We are sanctified because we are called. Apart from the Ministry of the Holy Ghost—none could be saved.
And this has nothing to do with Hebrews 10:14. If you notice, there, we are already sanctified. Nothing about Progressive Sanctification in v.14, it is about Eternal Sanctification.
All will be called upon to explain themselves. All.
And again irrelevant. Nothing to do with translations, it is a matter of diligence. You aren't going to understand the culture of God's created people Israel unless you understand what they were actually saying. Hebrews 10:14 is a good example and shows why you are misinterpreting it: because you don't understand what the words mean, even from the King James. The context tells you, but you have missed it at this point.
Hebrews 10
King James Version
1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Is there blood (death) that can take away sins and not need to be repeated every year?
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
The contrast here is between the sacrifices of the Law and the Sacrifice of Christ. Their high priests offered daily, our High Priest offered once. And with a different result. A sacrifice that need not be repeated ever again. Why? Because it makes us perfect, whereas those offerings could not (Hebrews 10:1-4). In the Greek, "perfect" translates a word that means "to bring to an end," and that is what Christ did: He brought an end to the need for daily sacrifice. You can still learn that reading the KJV, but it helps interpret properly if you understand the words being used, and how the people that God used to write His Word would have understood and applied them.
Do this: read Hebrews 7-10 at least ten times and tell me if you don't see the Writer explaining the differences between what the old Priesthood did and what our High Priest did. It is one of the most important passages in all of Scripture.
God bless.
We are saved by Cross and resurrection of Jesus, not by Dispy theology
The preserved words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles remain the standard and authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations including the KJV.
Actually, we are saved by Dispensational Theology. We call it the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which was foretold in all other dispensations but only revealed in this one.
Prior to the coming of the Comforter, soteriology was unclear. They understood there would be a resurrection of the dead, but they had no idea how that would take place. Especially when it came to how those who are dead would receive life through Jesus Christ.
A "dispensation" is "an administration of God." There are several Ages we can identify as specific to the Revelation men received in those times. To give an example, let me ask you this: do you think we should still be under the Covenant of Law as Christians?
If you say no, then you are dispensational, sorry. That's two distinct administrations of God that cannot and should not be intertwined. In the first Covenant, there were sacrifices that could not make the comer thereunto (the worshiper) complete in regard to sin; that's why the sacrifices continued daily. In the New Covenant, Christians do not offer up the lives of animals in their stead as was demanded of the first Covenant. The reason? Because Christ made us complete having only to offer Himself once. So, there's two dispensations that undeniably mark differing ministries of God in a soteriological context. There are more (and not always agreed upon, such as whether we could view Adam's day as a dispensation/administration era), but, these two should suffice.
If you say yes ...
God bless.
Eternally Grateful
Active Member
Sorry, no.
Colossians 1:23-27
King James Version
23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:
25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
While we can say the Old Testament Saints were "saved" by grace through faith, we can also say that not a single one of them were eternally redeemed. Only in this dispensation of God is the revelation of the Gospel given unto men, that is why it is called the Mystery of Christ. Notice in v.27, "the riches of the glory of this mystery" is—the very indwelling of Christ in the believer. Never happened in any other Age, because Christ had not yet died in their stead.
Hebrews 9:12-15
King James Version
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
A promise remains only a promise until it is fulfilled, and Christ did that through His death, resurrection, and return to Heaven.
So it is my own view that we must distinguish between salvation as seen in the Old Testaement and the salvation available to men today. Still the same salvation, just at a differing stage according to the dispensation of God. Just as the redemption of our bodies is a different stage from being baptized into Christ under this dispensation.
God bless.
Then address the post. I have presented my reasoning, present your disagreement.
Eternally Grateful
Active Member
I am saved by the gospel
dispensationalism is not a gospel. it is a doctrinal viewpoint.
I can believe the gospel. and not be a dispensationalist.
I would venture to say not everyone who is saved even knows what dispensationalism, or amillennialism, or all these isms are. nor do they care. they care more about loving and serving others. and becoming more like God
No. Translations are just that....translations. Having more legitimate translations of God's Word is not bad. It is good. Why? Because translation philosophies differ.
The KJV struck a fantastic balance between "word for word" and maintaining a literary style. But it is good to have a "word for word" translation along sidebthe KJV. It is also a very good idea to have a couple of translations in the current vernacular along side the KJV.
I have seen too many fall into error by just using the KJV (they mistake words used in the KJV for contemporary meanings, or simply misunderstand what the word meant centuries ago, or do not recognize places where the KJV chose a word poorly, or do not understand the secular political agenda behind the KJV that influenced a couple of choices, etc).
Translations are translations. It is good to have more translations. God's Word requires study. You ain't reading Huckleberry Finn.
That's actually what I said in my post.
Correct, the Gospel is dispensational.
The New Covenant is dispensational.
Eternal Redemption is dispensational.
This is true. We can be believers without knowing all kinds of things.
Perhaps it might help you to learn more about what Biblical Dispensational means.
Again, address my post. I'm not really interested in poofy rants.
God bless.
I'd point out that reliance on any translation is the true problem. The translation itself makes little difference if one is not looking into the original languages. As you point out, translations are biased by the translators, so it is best for students of the Word to go beyond the translation. Of course, God can enlighten any man or woman with any translation, but it makes me think of a meme I saw the other day. A guy is leaning on a shovel and praying for a hole, lol.
Also, people being confused by archaic words is not quite as bad as you make it out to be, in my opinion. They are few and far between when it comes to words that the context cannot explain (I think "let/letteth" stands at the top in my own opinion), and usually those who belong to KJVonly fellowships are familiar with most of them. It's not any different than the average Christian not knowing the differing words translated by "love." Most will understand the context, and most of what they don't understand isn't necessarily relevant to the thrust of any given passage.
I do agree that it's good to compare translations. Again, though, we refer back to bias. If one goes through the translations in order to proof text, they're probably just indoctrinating themselves to what they want to believe rather than actually studying.
But the reality is, few people actually study. They read. That's what makes forums like this great, because we find a lot of people who do study, lol.
God bless.
I agree confusion about archaic word meanings are few snd far between, and most of the time simply reading Scripture in context prevents errors (with the KJV I've seen the "so" in John 3:16 cause confusion, and tge mistake of taking "Lucifer" as a proper name is an example of ignoring context).
The main problem with using the KJV is the language itself can be an obstacle as it is no longer the English vernacular (I see younger people having issues here...maybe because we had to read so much older literature in school while they read Harry Potter).
But you are absolutely right that many errors can be prevented if people would realize that English translations are translations.
Eternally Grateful
Active Member
no, You said we are born by dispensationalism
hence it is not dispensational Dispensation belief is a belief system, It is not a biblical teaching per say
I know what it means I have been a dispensationalist for 50 years.
I do not need to address the post. I am addressing the statement, the gospel is dispensationalism.
there is no argument for this.
The very term "dispensation" (Greek oikonomia) means a stewardship. Dispensational scholar Charles Ryrie's definition: "A dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God’s purpose” (Dispensationalism, p. 33). So your #1 definition is off, but the #2 and #3 put together are pretty good.
So I see no connection between God's stewardship for mankind for the church age and the plethora of Bible translations. A dispensation is handed down by God for the whole of mankind, not specifically for Christians. Ryrie says that the dispensation given to mankind for the church age is to believe on Christ and walk with Christ. So I'm having a hard time seeing how you get to the KJV from that. The church age has lasted almost 2000 years now, and for almost 1600 of those years there was no KJV. So how in the world do you get to the KJV and modern translations from dispensational theology?
Last edited:
Actually, I believe and teach that dispensationalism is a Bible based theological system. The KJV uses the term "dispensation" four times (three more times as "stewardship"), including one time in exactly the same way we teach what a dispensation is in dispensational theology: Eph. 1:10.no, You said we are born by dispensationalism
hence it is not dispensational Dispensation belief is a belief system, It is not a biblical teaching per say
Excellent!
I'm confused. Did you say that the gospel is dispensationalism or did Darrell C. (who I have on ignore)? Either way, the gospel is not dispensationalism, although it plays a key part in the dispensation of the church.
Eternally Grateful
Active Member
I believe this too.. It is a doctrine based out of the study of gods word
But its not the gospel. belief in dispensational theology is not required to get to heaven
It was not me, It was another poster. Now that I look, yes it was Darrell C.
I believe to get a truer understanding of prophecy, end times etc etc. Dispensational belief is prety much required.
But getting to heaven, no, it is not the gospel.
Good post. Thank you.
This does not mean there aren't any. I see transitions within a dispensational framework. I could name several over history but consider that during the dispensation of Law for the Jews our Lord Jesus Christ was not present among his kinsmen to fulfill their law for most of that time. The law did not change when he was introduced to Israel but their responsibility certainly did. As a matter of fact, the nation was judicially blinded because of his rejection by the national rulers. Jesus Christ himself lived under the operative principle of God's Law. This transition can be named "promise" because Jesus Christ is the fulfilment of Israel's promise. (do a word search of "this generation" in the NT and see what he says to this generation. See Mt 1;1.
Lk 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
This is a loaded two verses and I ask you to consider the context and time frame of these words.
Mk 1:1 The beginning of the gospel (good news, glad tidings) of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
2 As it is written in the prophets,
This is at his baptism when he was revealed by John the Baptist.
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
He was closing out this dispensation by fulfilling the promises about himself.
To the Hebrews he said through his prophet:
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds (aions = ages); Hebrews was written in AD 66/67, shortly before they lost their national identity because of unbelief. They failed to enter into their rest according to He 3.
The nation must be born again, every one of them, before the kingdom could be established. So he came to do this;
He 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world (this world=aion=age=) hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
The words of God are so precise that eternity hangs on them.
Grace, in my opinion, began as a dispensation after Acts 7 The word is used in the epistle of the Ephesians.
I apologize for this longer post and I will try to do better next time but I thought these things needed to be said.
May the Lord be pleased with my handling of this marvellous and wonderful word. It is good to be saved!
Last edited:
This is all well and good, though I would disagree about the start of the Church Age. (I much prefer "Church Age" to "Age of Grace," since there has always been the grace of God.) The first local church was in Acts 2, of course, and the only time the word "church" appears in Acts 7 only referring to the children of Israel in the wilderness (v. 38). And the word "grace" doesn't occur either. So....
But again, here is what I asked: "So how in the world do you get to the KJV and modern translations from dispensational theology?" You said nothing at all to answer this.