I think this is a "to" & "for" issue. I think it is obvious that Matthew had a Jewish audience in mind when writing his gospel account (which we can discuss if needed). That is why the King/Kingdom emphasis is of great importance to Matthew and should be rightly interpreted before applied. So while it was written to Jews primarily, it is for all Christians. It is the same with the Pentateuch. It was written to Israel, but it is for believers in general.

I think the same is true for Paul. Obviously Paul wrote much about the Church (the Body of Christ, believers from Acts 2 to the Rapture) but the content is not solely Church teachings. He speaks of the Law, of Abraham, of Adam, & and of the future Kingdom. So he deals w/ many dispensations. But I would agree that there are Church teachings that should not be misapplied back to the OT (i.e. Bride of Christ, Body of Christ, Spirit Baptism, Rapture, Bema Seat, and even Spirit indwelling though this is not agreed upon unanimously upon Dispo's).

Greek New Testament and Hebrew Old Testament are flawed?!??!! That's a new one for me. I thought the KJV was translated from those two? Perhaps I have misunderstood.

Yes, Nate, you did misunderstand slightly. Notice that I said flawed translations. GreekTim uses the NASB and NKJV for his studies and they are both flawed. He also uses the the UBS for his Greek and it is flawed. I do not know which text he uses for the OT. I believe I am correct in saying that GreekTim would agree with me that none of the 3 that I listed are perfect. He can comment as needed.

The book of Matthew and the Book of Hebrews were two specific books that had the Jews (Israel) specifically in mind, and therefore were, in fact, written for the Jews. We have the synoptic Gospels, and they all agree, but they all tell different accounts from different people.

You cannot find the rapture anywhere in the book of Matthew, it specifically only refers to the kingdom age and the Second Coming of Christ.

I have to tell people to please be careful to make sure that you understand when reading God's Word, that these epistles, manuscritps,. etc. were written with someone specifically in mind, to the church at corinth, to the church at thessolonica, etc. We cannot apply some of those things to us.

We start getting confused about doctrine when we start appying every aspect of the HOT and the GNT to our lives.

Now, before anyone starts yelling at me, think about it. It was the Jews who wrote the bible, period. Show me ANY gentile who had a hand in scripture inspiration. There was none. You also have to take into consideration the Jewish calendar, not the Gregorian we have today. You have to take into consideration Jewish culture, etc, etc.

I know it is popular to take the bible and make it a personal life instruction book, but to not take into context these critical facts, one wil lfind themselves very confused indeed.

A good example, the confusion between the remnant of Jacob and the church.

Case in point:

Matt 6:33
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Are the Gentiles to be seeking the Kingdom?

Love in Christ,

Jim

This post was last modified: Mon Apr 14, 2008 05:15 PM by Jim.

That would be correct. I don't believe in a perfect translation nor do I totally agree w/ the UBS4r (but it is my favorite GNT for multiple reasons beyond even the text itself like the font, paragraphing, and textual apparatus at the bottom).

But I don't like to use the word "flawed." It makes it sound like it is inadequate or tainted (which you would say but I definitely would not). Those 2 are my favorite translations. They are quite good and quite accurate as far as translation is concerned.

As for my HOT, I use the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. But I will be honest and say that I am less informed as to variants w/in the HOT. I have not spent as much time in that area.

This is interesting to me. The popular view is that Luke was a Gentile. I have always believed that. But after I was reading through Israelology (must read if you are a Dispensationalist, it refutes all forms of Covenant Theology) by Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum; he believes that even Luke was a Jew. He bases that on Rom. 9:4 and other reasons. If Luke was a Jew, he was either a Hellenist or very antiquated w/ Gentile culture. I still hold to Luke being a Gentile but not dogmatically. I think it would make an interesting study. Someone looking for a task to undertake?

Nate, based on GreekTim's most recent post, I will update my statement to say that each of the four sources he listed is flawed. The OT source has been discredited by those who hold to the purity of the KJB. The NT source is primarily based on the Alexandrian texts which are full of error. The NASB NT is based on the same Alexandrian texts, and I would suspect the Stuttgart text for the OT. The NKJV yields to the Alexandrian texts often in the NT footnotes and also contains errors within the translation itself.

"Flaws" is the most general term that could be used. Since words have a great deal of meaning on this forum, I use the least harsh term. Synonyms which carry different connotation would be "mistake", "error", "distortion", "corruption", etc. In mixed company I usually do not express my inner thoughts about these modern versions as I might among like-minded folks.

P.S. If I have a choice between "flawed" and "pure", I'll take the "pure" every time, but that's just me.

This post was last modified: Mon Apr 14, 2008 09:14 PM by Brother Tim.

Understood. Without starting a whole new debate, do you have sources for your views? When it comes to Hebrew and Greek and what manuscripts are considered accurate or inaccurate by one group or another, I am no expert so I am looking for info in print or on the web that I can peruse. In my own comparison, I have yet to find a doctrine which seemed to differ between translations.

Uh oh. I can just hear the can opener, the top of the can coming off, and the worms are a comin.

Perhaps I should start a new thread?

Edit: I just noticed there is a whole section on the subject. I will peruse that and then form questions to clear up my understanding.

This post was last modified: Tue Apr 15, 2008 09:08 AM by Nate.

Yes, review the areas where we have already chased these rabbits. I was checking some out for suggestions when you posted above.

Let's not get "carried away" with other topics in this rapture thread.


Just couldn't resist it!

Yes, PLEASE go read these areas. This has been chewed over many, many times.

I am not meaning to be demeaning, and i know it is going to be a big task and long read, but I think it is fairly worth it. Suffice it tosay, at least you'll know our position on it.

Here is a good place to start:

http://www.fundamentalpreaching.com/bibl...s-f-4.html

Love in Christ,

Jim

This post was last modified: Tue Apr 15, 2008 02:06 PM by Jim.

I am going to take this thread and dust it off, it is getting ready to be discussed again.

This chart is a complete example of the timeline of events, and if one understands the difference between the church and Israel, and they also understand the dispensation of the church during thr age of grace and it's purpose, and they understand the 70 weeks of Daniel, then there is no other conclusion......

   

Jim, where did you get that chart? It's pretty good. The only thing I didn't like about it was the placement of the 2nd Coming line. It is put between the 75 day interval. What is that all about?