Letter to Those Believing the Church Has Replaced Israel

Rapture Ready ^ | 11/6/23 | Terry James

[SheepWhisperer]

I love the Geneva study Bible!

One year, I gave original “leafs” from a 1600AD copy as Christmas gifts, for which I made frames and suspended the leaf between two pieces of glass so it could be read and hung on the wall either way. Tried to pick chapters which the recipient would appreciate.

As a note, some breeches Bible leafs are stained with the blood of the owner from when they were martyred, though the ones I gave were not.

I also made one for my own home, which is John chapter ten, my favorite.

Thank you for bringing up the subject Elsie!

#giftideas

[Elsie]

Glad to hear you made the gifts of The WORD of GOD!

Reminds me of...

Deuteronomy 6:4-9 ESV

4 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.
6 And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart.
7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.
8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.
9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

[Pelham]

“I didn’t grow up southern Baptist with this fixation on Israel and the end times obsession some have”

Calvary Chapel likely had more to do with this than Southern Baptists. Israel and End Times was one of their distinctive beliefs, at least while Chuck Smith was alive.

[Philsworld]

——>Israel and End Times was one of their distinctive beliefs...

And anyone coming out of the Dallas Theological Seminary.

[Pelham]

“And anyone coming out of the Dallas Theological Seminary.”

That’s true. It’s dispensational like the Chuck Smith era Calvary Chapels. Plus it’s a generation or two older.

In addition to Chuck Smith, Hal Lindsey did a lot to popularize dispensationalism with his 1970 book “The Late Great Planet Earth”. I’ve met plenty of people in SoCal who are convinced that dispensationalism is the only true Christian doctrine and always has been. Which would be news to the Reformation sola scriptura divines as well as the Catholic and Orthodox who go back even further into church history.

[Philsworld]

——>Which would be news to the Reformation sola scriptura divines as well as the Catholic and Orthodox who go back even further into church history.

It started with these guys in the 1500’s. It is documented history, that dispensationalists today all deny. The host of this thread denies it, as do all of his friends.

Francisco Ribera (Jesuit)
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (Jesuit)
Michael Walpole (Jesuit)
Manuel De Lacunza (Jesuit)

https://www.biblelightinfo.com/antichrist.htm

[Pelham]

That could well be. I don’t know if there’s anything similar in the Ante-Nicene Fathers or not. Some of those guys came up with a variety of ideas that recur later. “There’s nothing new under the sun” to quote the unnamed author of Ecclesiastes.

The Fall of Constantinople plus the printing press provided Europe with a windfall of good manuscripts. Greek biblical texts became widely available. Luther’s pal Melanchthon was a Greek scholar with access to one. The koine Greek corrected some errors that had crept into the Latin vulgate. Eramus assembled the textus receptus from the Byzantine manuscripts and it became the main source for the KJV.

[Pelham]

“It’s amazing that so many of the Protestant denominations arose when the ONLY translation they had was the KJV.”

The printing press had a lot to do with it. Bibles went from being exceedingly rare and expensive to being widely available.

Erasmus’ assembling the Textus Receptus out of the Greek manuscripts that became available with the fall of Byzantium played a huge role as well. Textus Receptus is the main source for the KJV and probably most of the other Reformation translations.

[Elsie]

...the unnamed author of Ecclesiastes.

;^)

[Elsie]

Well; I learned something new today!!

WIKI says:

According to rabbinic tradition the book was written by King Solomon (reigned c. 970–931 BCE) in his old age,[1] but the presence of Persian loanwords and Aramaisms point to a date no earlier than about 450 BCE,[2] while the latest possible date for its composition is 180 BCE.[3]

[daniel1212]

It is indeed not just the message, but the cultic spirit behind it.

[daniel1212]

The only reason they italicized words was because the edges of the pages of the original non-corrupted texts were worn off because of how often they were used. When the Majority Texts were consulted they were able to figure out what the words were.

I do not know where you read/heard that, but supplied words also extend to the OT, and as concerns the NT, I read:

The King James version was originally printed in the type style known as "black letter," which has the following appearance:

Words of the translation which were supplied to make the sense clear, but which were not represented in the Greek text used by the translators, were often set in small "roman" type:

In later editions, the ordinary text was set in roman type, with the supplied words in italics:

When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled.

This typographical feature was not employed very consistently in the 1611 edition; in many places the supplied words are not indicated as one might expect. This inconsistency was probably the fault of the printer's compositors, who very often modified even the spelling of words in order to lengthen or shorten a line of type.

The editors of the 1769 Oxford edition undertook, therefore, to regularize the use of italics by italicizing all words of the translation which did not have a counterpart in the text of Stephens 1550. Consequently, modern editions of the King James version are much more heavily italicized than the original: In Matthew, the 1611 edition uses roman type 69 times, whereas the more exact 1769 edition uses italics 384 times. The reader should be aware of the fact that the King James version is not, strictly speaking, a translation of Estienne 1550; and so in some cases the modern italics are misleading if used as an indication of the readings upon which the version is based. For example, in Mark 8:14 the modern editions italicize the words the disciples because they are not in Estienne, but it is evident that here the King James translators were following, as usual, the text of Beza 1598, where the words hoi mathetai are found. The following is a complete list of such cases... - https://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html

I myself sometimes find the meaning clearer without certain supplied words, such as, I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. (John 8:24)

Now even though "I am" without the "he" does not necessarily denote deity, as seen in

"Is not this he that sat and begged? Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he, (John 9:8-9) 

yet reading John 8:24 as "I AM" is consistent the emphasis upon the deity of Christ in John, which is made explicit later on,

Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (John 8:58)

Likewise this dual meaning is inferred in

Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground. Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way: (John 18:4-8)

In some other instances I see a text being more concise without the supplied words, esp.

far be it from God, that he should do wickedness; and from the Almighty, that he should commit iniquity. (Job 34:10)

Versus, far be it from God, wickedness; and from the Almighty, iniquity. (Job 34:10)

My two cents worth. May I never charge God foolishly, which Job did not, due to how He seems to be sometimes in His discipline of me.