As to doctrine, in the Jacobean period, and more especially under Charles I, and under the influence of Laudian Arminianism the Anglicans started to let go on sovereign grace, then also on justification by faith, and the sanctity of the Lord's Day. They brought in ritual, high altars, processionals, vestments, gesticulations etc. Archbishop Laud in particular conducted a repressive regime which brutally suppressed any worship or devotion not according to the Anglican rites, even to invading private homes. Next stop: the Star Chamber!

Hence its renderings displayed Anglican features, e.g. "bishop" for the Greek word 'episkopos', "church" instead of 'congregation' for the Greek word ekklesia, and in Acts 12:4 they slipped in "Easter" for the Greek word pascha, normally denoting the Jewish Passover.

For these and other 'high church' idiosyncrasies the Puritan party denounced the new version, and stuck by their traditional Geneva Bible for the next 30 - 40 years, despite episcopal sanctions and efforts to restrict and even ban the sale of the Geneva. The Pilgrim Fathers rejected the KJV and took the Geneva Bible on board the Mayflower.

I won't bother. Where you get that from Scripture is beyond me. It's Harry Potter stuff, as well as second chance doctrine (Amazing all the wonderful things which will happen in this tribulation - and without the assistance of the Holy Spirit!).

Contrary to your protests, your position is not at all clear, and it has seemed to me for one that you have been doing your usual flitting from tuft to tuft when the going gets rough, and as a result clarity disappears.

So come clean - with a brief, succinct statement (and no verbose Bible quotations, just for once. We want to know what YOUR position is. We know well what Scripture says).

It's not that I ignore them (the covenants) at all, but it's that you with your Dispensational scheme distort them, and fail to see their progressive revelation and fulfilment. This distortion leads you to adopt a hermeneutic that entails reading the NT in the light of the OT, rather than (and properly) the other way around.

One other thing:
Regarding my point on James 1:1 and 1 Peter 1:1 you make this imbecilic reply:
"Maybe you have insight that I do not have but that is not what the salutation says. James says to the 12 tribes scattered abroad! I accept that!"

Regarding James 1:1 and 1 Peter 1:1 -
Their addressees are clearly CHRISTIANS. They may well include Jewish Christians (almost certainly), but not exclusively so. And as exiles and strangers (1 Peter 2:11) they all too are 'Diaspora', in direct continuity with their OT counterparts (cf. 1 Chron.29:15; Ezek.3:11; Acts 15:21). Dispersion Jews were all over the ancient world by say, 400 B.C.
Moreover, citing these two verses does not at all meet the issue of the Hosea prophecies. You have deftly sidestepped those.

You assert:
"It is already shown that they are the people of God whether in the land or out of it."
Here you display your ignorance of OT history and prophecy.
First, God rejected the northern tribes of Israel from being His people. See Hosea 1:9, where Lo' 'Ammi ("not My people) indicates that the covenant relationship is severed. Hence they were removed from their land (Hos.11:5; 2 Kings 17:22-23). And those tribes lost their identity as Israelites in the various lands where the Assyrians settled them. They had ceased to be His people, and were NEVER restored!

Casob/JD,
I have read through your responses this morning (my time), and I can only say that none of them answer the points I put to you. Let me reiterate them for you:
1. The covenant to give Israel the land was only ever conditional. See Deut.28:63-68. You have not even begun to grapple with with this one.

2. The covenant to give the land to Israel as per Gen.15:18 WAS fulfilled in the time of Solomon, as 1 Kings 4:21 indicates. And that was fulfilled to the letter: from the River of Egypt (the Wadi el-Arish) to the River Euphrates. But they lost that land through disobedience and unfaithfulness, as Deut.28 warned.

3. Although restored (partially) to the land in post-Exilic times, even enjoying a century of independence under the Hasmonaeans, they finally lost the land for good, again for unfaithfulness, climaxing in their killing of the Son of God. This is made clear in the Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Matt.21:33-44), and Jesus' pronouncements of doom over Jerusalem (Matt.23:38; Luke 19:42-44).

My quarrel with Casob/JD is not that he uses a chronology and maps, but the ones he utilises are outdated, whether Ussher for the chronology, or some century-old Bible map for geography. The advances made in the last century and a half in ancient world history, in archaeology, in identification of Biblical locations, in ancient literature and the like all help considerably in understanding of Scripture, and only a fool would reject it all out of hand.

Casob wrote:
It is immutable because God set the boundaries in the Abrahamic covenant and regardless of what DJC49 says, they have never been occupied to that extent by Israel. God's promises cannot be partially fulfilled but must be minutely fulfilled. If they have not been, then that means they will be in the future.

As to Heb.6 this simply lays down a general principle on how God's covenant promises are immutable, but it DOES NOT apply that principle to the land of Israel. Instead, it picks up on the "innumerable descendants" aspect of the covenant and applies that to (a) Christian security, and (b) more importantly, Christ as the eternal High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek, and how that same principle is seen outworking in Psa.110:4.

"Jesus Christ is the promised seed of Abraham through which all the families of the world are blessed in this very hour."
Oh, indeed! That's the clear teaching of Gal.3:16 et al. Good to see you concede that I affirm this. But this is a long way from there being 14 provisions of the Abrahamic covenant, and the permanency of the land promise.

"...some of them are not realized even yet."
Like in the New heavens and earth (Rev.21 & 22?). News flash: I knew that too! But this far from proves your contention: how on earth does this establish your point about there being 14 provisions??

You object to what you call a "snide remark" on exegesis not coming from your direction. It was not intended as a snide remark, but a simple statement of fact. I have observed repeatedly that all you can do is repeat Bible verses ad infinitum with a minimum of comment, and little understanding of what they mean; so little understanding of the rudiments of exegesis. Instead, you just get so hot under your proverbial collar that anyone could dare to counter your Dispensational system, that you indulge in your own share of fulminations and outrage.

Paul would have known of the prediction of the Lord concerning the Temple's destruction, since his travelling companion Luke records it in his Gospel, but his concerns are elsewhere when he discusses the relation of the Jewish people to the salvation covenant, as with the fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant in Gal.3:13-29 (nothing about the land there either!).

In regard to these two prime passages, if what Dispensationals claim were at all true he would certainly have mentioned the land of Israel. One can imagine that if Ryrie, or Walvoord, or Pentecost were writing Romans 11 or Gal.3, and not the Apostle, they would not have hesitated to wax eloquent about the future land restoration, maybe even about the future state of Israel.

DJC49 wrote:
I just wanna know what Joshua 21:43-45 means.

As I observed below, much depends on the date, and if his early dating is wrong then his whole thesis collapses. The argument is circular: the dating yields the interpretation just as the interpretation yields the date. The external testimaony to a date in the time of Domitian is very strong: Irenaeus, a member of Polycarp's congregation in his young days, who in turn knew the Apostle John in his own his early days. It is from these Johannine circles that the placement of Revelation in the time of Domitian comes. Attempts to place it earlier are much later.

As to content the references about the Beast indicate a secular persecuting power, not Jewish, as indeed most responsible commentary has held.