However, to answer your query re Rom.16:20.
The context is false teachers and those who cause unnecessary schisms (divisions), and are not really interested in the Gospel. Paul counsels wisdom in absorbing what is good, and the God of peace will crush Satan. This is a fairly clear allusion to Gen.3:15, but it must be seen within the context of the local congregation at Rome in its Gospel outreach, and maintaining Gospel integrity. They will enjoy God's blessing in keeping the devil out of their affairs and their congregational life.

rogerant wrote:
I would recommend that you read David Chilton's The Great Tribulation, William E. Cox: Amillennialism Today, Postmillennisalism, an Eschatology of Hope by Keith A. Mathison, and The Basis of Premillennial Faith by Charles Ryrie for a comparison. One must study all positions.

I firmly believe that what purports to be about the future IS about the future; that when the disciples asked about the end of the world (sunteleias tou aioonos) they intended the end of this present age, as Jesus had often spoken before, and which He did again in Matt.28:20. When He speaks of His 'parousia' (Matt.24:3) He refers to His triumphant return in glory, as everywhere in the NT.

It is far-fetched to make so much refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, and the view that would refer the whole book of revelation to this one event is indeed far-fetched. Revelation is a book designed to encourage and prepare God's people to face the future, a long era of persecution not from Jews, but from Gentile powers, in the immediate circumstance imperial Rome, but beyond that various Gentile powers, even including a corrupt church (the harlot woman of ch.17), until His return, as depicted symbolically in ch.19.

As to signs of the times, I have some views, but when I share them I always preface them with the proviso that I could well be wrong, but I do believe that the signs are given in such a way that one may reasonably expect the Lord's return in his own lifetime. The fact that all such speculations (and there have been many) have so far been wrong does not on one hand invalidate such enterprise, since we need to be ever watchful, but it does caution us all against any dogmatism. For example, during the Napoleonic era 200 years ago many Christians firmly believed that Napoleon was the Antichrist, the little horn of Dan.7, and that Christ would come very shortly - within 20 years. But it was not Christ's coming which overthrew him, but the Duke of Wellington!

Preacher wrote:
...he cannot see and will not see that God has one people, one church, one plan of redemption which was first delivered to Israel and then to the whole world. That it would go beyond ethnic Israel into all nations was already foreseen and foretold in the Old Testament.

Preacher, how do you understand Rom.11:25-6? Do you see there a regrafting of the Jewish branches in a mass-conversion to Christ as the Gospel age closes? I have believed for a long time that such is the case: and the movements in God's plan may well be opening up that scenario as I write.

Under the gospel, and hereafter into eternity, they are both one. In the language of the prophet Isaiah, "Israel AND the nations". In the words of the Apostle John, that Christ by His atoning death, "gathers into one all the children of God who are scattered abroad" (John 11:52). Or in the words of the Lord Himself, "I have other sheep (i.e. Gentiles), which are not of this fold (i.e. Jews); I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will be one flock (i.e. one Church) with one Shepherd." (John 10:16).

Casob wrote:
Here is the man that regularly hits the abuse button on others and I suspect sends e-mails trying to get others off the forum because his feelings gets hurt and he can't take it.

BTW, it's not correct. I have rarely hit the abuse button in the four or five years I have been contributing to this board.

As for sending emails, a few times with only a couple of people, but that's all. And then hardly at all about you (to your relief, perhaps?).

What a waste of time!"

Then Observation Post complains:
" You are intentionally being evasive in the extreme and abusive without a cause and I don't know why anyone bothers with you in this "discussion" or any other."

Amd of course, Casob/JD will no longer discuss anything with me.

So let me make a suggestion to Observation Post, Preacher, DJC49, and any others who are getting frustrated with him: why not simply ignore his posts completely for the incoherent drivel that they are, and have a rational discussion among ourselves? For my part, I enjoy these discussions, but Casob/JD interrupts the flow with his silly contributions.

Now I have two questions:
1. What is so wrong about deductive reasoning? After all, Dispies do plenty of it when it suits them. That's how they arrive at 'rapture' doctrine', and the alleged seven dispensations of world history. What's good for the goose is surely good for the gander! I would only plead that deductive reasoning be valid, and fallacy-free.

That being the case, the "Jews" here means precisely that: they seem to have claimed to be Jews according to the Spirit (cf. Rom.2:29), but that claim was false. In company they formed not a true church but a synagogue of Satan. At least, that appears to be the picture, although getting at the precise circumstances is difficult: the references are tantalising in their relative obscurity.

Likewise the references to the Nicolaitans in Rev.2:6, 15. There we have only Eusebius to go on as to the beliefs of this group.

Here you go again! It's not enough for you to import your Dispensational scheme into Scripture, and grossly misinterpret texts, such as Eph.2:16, to make them mean the opposite of what they say, but you presume to impute to me positions which I have never stated and do not hold. Well, Paul is not around to set the record straight with the likes of you, but I am.

I will not tolerate you twisting my words to make them mean something other than what I have so clearly stated on many occasion, including just recently, e.g. on the subject of Romans 11. "Jews" there means "Jews"! Can you get that straight, or does that too go through your Dispy filter to make me say that there "Jews" means something else?

Casob wrote:
MurrayA,
That is a fine evasive answer, but it did not touch the question I asked.

Casob wrote:
MurrayA, I an going to answer you this time but I am very wary of you. I do not trust you any more. When you are around people tend to get banned. Maybe it is a coincidence but it seems this is not a good place for a man of your temperament.

Casob wrote:
Here comes the convoluting just like I figured. We have suddenly stopped talking about the main point that began this conversation and started down the rabbit trails with the king of the rabbits leading the way.

Casob wrote:
RK Borill
You stopped quoting at a semi-colon, RK. This is not good.
Your evaluation of these verses raise many more questions than they answer, and I will begin to ask them in my next post.

This question, "Are the Church and Israel one body or separate bodies?" should really be a simple "no-brainer", a QED, but no, the Dispensational system must have its way, and turn the NT on its head.

But getting the likes of JD to see this - one may as well try to tell a blind man that the sun exists.

Indeed, Minnow! That both was and remains his most difficult task. Even when he was JD he had insuperable problems in this regard. A name change hasn't improved things any.

In this country anyway, and I am quite sure for the U.S. too, the Bible colleges have made it part of their programme to teach the Biblical languages, as well as Bible backgrounds, so that Christians can get an insight into the text not fully available even with the best translation. If kenny and others see something wrong with this then it is to their own impoverishment. They are the losers.

kenny,
Go right ahead, read and study your KJV, and blessings on you. Just don't tell me the same won't happen to me when I study my NASB, as I did this morning.

However, I seriously question whether the real issue is alleged 'superiority', rather than an inability to answer the points I raise. The failure to interact with my post on 2 Peter 1:1 is a case in point.

This only illustrates that KJVO-ism is not tenable from a scholarly perspective; it is merely a hidebound, obscurantist traditionalism which the KJV translators themselves would repudiate, as evident from the remarks of Miles Smith in his preface, "Translators to the Reader".