World Trade Centre Reopens For Business

[phart]

Proof, or perhaps not.

While not wishing to enter the noah ark debate (i don't think it existed, certainly in the context of religion) it's hard to dictate boat sizes, for instance some of the blocks for the pyramids are thought to have been punted down river, and they can weigh hundreds of tonnes, plus some periphery evidence of travel between continents (similiar building techniques, depications of non-native plants and animals, implying travel to become aware of them.

However with that all being said, i doubt housing and maintaining all sorts of animals on a massive ship was possible. Just shoe-horning in some stuff i had read about.

[Scotty CTA]

You'll destroy anything i post ?

Yes (but my goodness you don't have to make it so easy for me).

Noah didnt live to over 900 years old..

Noah lived to be 950 years old. (Under the pre-flood conditions of the day, that is actually true.)

OK... some ground rules...

In order for you to point out what you perceive as a contradiction in the Bible, you have to first understand what a contradiction is.

'contra' means 'against', or 'opposite', or 'contrast'.

'diction' (here) means 'wording' or 'language'.

First something is 'dictated' (said/written), then something is said/written 'against' that not allowing both to be true/possible.

So, an example might be if the Bible said that Noah lived to be 84 years old before he died in one verse, but said that he lived to be 950 years old before he died in another verse.

Those 2 verses would contradict each other as both couldn't be true/possible.

A contradiction isn't a statement that you simply disagree with, it's 2 statements that (truly) oppose each other.

...but feel free to destroy that

Perhaps you could get your ducks in a row and have another go.

(You're not even out of the starting blocks yet.)

Edited November 7, 2014 by Scotty CTA

[Scotty CTA]

The ark had a crew of eight.

The ark was built under God's direction to God's specifications for God's purpose.

(Of course it arrived safely.)

[redstevie007]

Noah lived to be 950 years old. (Under the pre-flood conditions of the day, that is actually true.)

####in mental. What proof have you that Noah lived to be 950? Edited November 7, 2014 by redstevie007

[Nobby]

Yes (but my goodness you don't have to make it so easy for me).

Noah lived to be 950 years old. (Under the pre-flood conditions of the day, that is actually true.)

OK... some ground rules...

In order for you to point out what you perceive as a contradiction in the Bible, you have to first understand what a contradiction is.

'contra' means 'against', or 'opposite', or 'contrast'.

'diction' (here) means 'wording' or 'language'.

First something is 'dictated' (said/written), then something is said/written 'against' that not allowing both to be true/possible.

So, an example might be if the Bible said that Noah lived to be 84 years old before he died in one verse, but said that he lived to be 950 years old before he died in another verse.

Those 2 verses would contradict each other as both couldn't be true/possible.

A contradiction isn't a statement that you simply disagree with, it's 2 statements that (truly) oppose each other.

Perhaps you could get your ducks in a row and have another go.

(You're not even out of the starting blocks yet.)

Scotty, you believe what you want to believe. Probably the biggest contradiction is old vs new testament. fire and brimstone one minute and then hippy love the next. Now i know you will bang on about new covenants etc but with the best will in the world you spout utter tripe. Religon 1500 years ago was all about controlling the great unwashed, you have bought into something where you believe a man lived to 950 years old and the planet is only a few thousand years old you, fair dos. No one will ever win an argument in your eyes because you can twist that book to mean whatever you want it to.

You believe what you want to but Noah didnt live to 950 and the planet isnt 3000 years old, based on the fact you believe those to be true I think its fair to say that quite a lot of what you come out with can probably be taken with a pinch of salt. because either all the scientists on this planet are devil worshipping satanists in a plot to mislead the planet or you are wrong and i know where id put my fiver Wait a minute have i just uncovered another conspiracy !!!!!!!!

[thplinth]

Scotty, you believe what you want to believe. Probably the biggest contradiction is old vs new testament. fire and brimstone one minute and then hippy love the next. Now i know you will bang on about new covenants etc but with the best will in the world you spout utter tripe.

My impression is the old testament is/was Judaism and the new testament is/was Christianity. One, the new perspective, was implicitly a rejection of the other, the old perspective, something Scotty does not seem to grasp. I am not sure Scotty really cares about that 'contradiction' or any of that as for him the bible is like some codex that predicts the past present and future.

Edited November 7, 2014 by thplinth

[DonnyTJS]

In order for you to point out what you perceive as a contradiction in the Bible, you have to first understand what a contradiction is.

'contra' means 'against', or 'opposite', or 'contrast'.

'diction' (here) means 'wording' or 'language'.

First something is 'dictated' (said/written), then something is said/written 'against' that not allowing both to be true/possible.

So, an example might be if the Bible said that Noah lived to be 84 years old before he died in one verse, but said that he lived to be 950 years old before he died in another verse.

Those 2 verses would contradict each other as both couldn't be true/possible.

A contradiction isn't a statement that you simply disagree with, it's 2 statements that (truly) oppose each other.

You mean like one statement saying that Joseph was pulled out of a hole by some Midianite merchants and sold for 20 shekels to a bunch of Ishmaelites who took him to Egypt (Gen 37:28); and a second statement saying that in Egypt Joseph was sold to Potiphar by ... er ... the Midianites (Gen 37:36)?

Edited November 7, 2014 by DonnyTJS

[Scotty CTA]

SO... NO contradictions at ALL then?

No this verse contradicts that verse?

Anywhere?

(Anywhere at all?)

Scotty, you believe what you want to believe.

OK... I will believe the Truth.

Probably the biggest contradiction is old vs new testament. fire and brimstone one minute and then hippy love the next. Now i know you will bang on about new covenants etc but with the best will in the world you spout utter tripe.

On the surface, God in the Old Testament appears to be radically different than in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, He appears powerful, holy, punishing, angry, and jealous. In the New, in the form of Jesus, He appears kind, loving, meek, and forgiving. How do we reconcile the powerful Deity that ordered the destruction of countless cities with the kneeling Jesus who defended the adulterous woman?

The key is to realize the context. In the Old Testament, the context was God's relationship with the nation He had chosen to represent His holiness and teach the world about Him. In the New Testament, and now in the church age, the context is God's relationship with the individuals and the church He has chosen to represent His holiness and teach the world about Him.

The purpose of God in the Old and New Testaments is the same: choose people who don't deserve His attention, allow them to display His glory and righteousness, and commission them to teach the world about Him. Abraham and the Israelites did nothing to earn God's attention (Deuteronomy 7:7-9), and neither do we (Ephesians 2:8-9). God chose Israel to obey Him and be holy (Exodus 19:5-6), as He does with us (Romans 12:1). And He charged both Israel (Genesis 22:18) and the church-age believers (Matthew 28:19-20) to present God's gift of salvation to the world.

God hasn't changed; the context has changed. He no longer primarily relates to the world through a sovereign nation, but through individuals and the church. This affects how we see the scale of His work.

Religion 1500 years ago was all about controlling the great unwashed...

What about faith, though?

...you have bought into something (the Truth) where you believe a man lived to 950 years old and the planet is only a few thousand years old you, fair dos.

Yes.

No one will ever win an argument in your eyes because you can twist that book to mean whatever you want it to.

That's just it. I can't.

ANY explanation I give would have to be supported by every other verse pertaining to it in the Bible.

It would be child's play to catch me out if something didn't add up.

You believe what you want to but Noah didnt live to 950...

He did.

...and the planet isnt 3000 years old...

Double that, mate.

...based on the fact you believe those to be true I think its fair to say that quite a lot of what you come out with can probably be taken with a pinch of salt. because either all the scientists on this planet are devil worshipping satanists in a plot to mislead the planet...

Now we're getting somewhere.

...or you are wrong and i know where id put my fiver.

You're not betting a fiver though.

You're betting your eternal soul, and if you died today you would be 'lost'.

[Scotty CTA]

My impression is the old testament is/was Judaism and the new testament is/was Christianity. One, the new perspective, was implicitly a rejection of the other, the old perspective...

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus said that He came not to abolish the Law (the Old Covenant) but to fulfill it (Grace).

...something Scotty does not seem to grasp.

Pah-leez

I am not sure Scotty really cares about that 'contradiction' or any of that as for him the bible is like some codex that predicts the past present and future.

God KNOWS the future and He tells us it through His Word.

[Scotty CTA]

You mean like one statement saying that Joseph was pulled out of a hole by some Midianite merchants and sold for 20 shekels to a bunch of Ishmaelites who took him to Egypt (Gen 37:28); and a second statement saying that in Egypt Joseph was sold to Potiphar by ... er ... the Midianites (Gen 37:36)?

Oh, no. Not the gatekeeper. ANYONE BUT THE GATEKEEPER!

You mean like one statement saying that Joseph was pulled out of a hole by some Midianite merchants...

Joseph was pulled out of the pit by his brothers. The brothers are the 'they'.

...and sold for 20 shekels to a bunch of Ishmaelites who took him to Egypt (Gen 37:28); and a second statement saying that in Egypt Joseph was sold to Potiphar by ... er ... the Midianites (Gen 37:36)?

Thank you for your entry.

And now the explanation...

The Ishmaelites were descendents of Abraham through Hagar. And the Midianites were descendants of Abraham through Keturah.

These 2 groups were already related and sufficiently interbred and intermarried (or were such inveterate travellers and traders) that they were viewed synonymously.

So much so that the names became interchangeable.

(Judges 8:22 and 8:24 also show the 2 tribal names being used interchangeably.)

Edited November 11, 2014 by Scotty CTA

[thplinth]

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus said that He came not to abolish the Law (the Old Covenant) but to fulfill it (Grace).

That is your interpretation (you can tell by the bits in brackets).

This is your real bible - why hide it?

Scofield Reference Bible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scofield Reference Bible, page 1115. This page includes Scofield's note on John 1:17, which some interpreted to mean that Scofield believed in two means of salvation.

The Scofield Reference Bible is a widely circulated study Bible edited and annotated by the American Bible student Cyrus I. Scofield, that popularized dispensationalism at the beginning of the 20th century. Published byOxford University Press and containing the traditional, Protestant King James Version, it first appeared in 1909 and was revised by the author in 1917.^[1]

The Scofield Bible had several innovative features. Most important, it printed what amounted to a commentary on the biblical text alongside the Bible instead of in a separate volume, the first to do so since the Geneva Bible(1560).^[2] It also contained a cross-referencing system that tied together related verses of Scripture and allowed a reader to follow biblical themes from one chapter and book to another. Finally, the 1917 edition also attempted to date events of the Bible. It was in the pages of the Scofield Reference Bible that many Christians first encountered Archbishop James Ussher's calculation of the date of Creation as 4004 BC; and through discussion of Scofield's notes, which advocated the "gap theory," fundamentalists began a serious internal debate about the nature and chronology of creation.^[3]

The Scofield Bible was published only a few years before World War I destroyed the cultural optimism that had viewed the world as entering a new era of peace and prosperity; and the post-World War II era saw the creation in Israel of a homeland for the Jews. Thus, Scofield's premilliennialism seemed almost prophetic. "At the popular level, especially, many people came to regard the dispensationalist scheme as completely vindicated."^[4] Sales of the Reference Bible exceeded two million copies by the end of World War II.^[5]

The Scofield Reference Bible promoted dispensationalism, the belief that between creation and the final judgment there would be seven distinct eras of God's dealing with man and that these eras are a framework for synthesizing the message of the Bible.^[6] It was largely through the influence of Scofield's notes that dispensationalism grew in influence among fundamentalist Christians in the United States. Scofield's notes on the Book of Revelation are a major source for the various timetables, judgments, and plagues elaborated by popular religious writers such as Hal Lindsey, Edgar C. Whisenant, and Tim LaHaye;^[7] and in part because of the success of the Scofield Reference Bible, twentieth-century American fundamentalists placed greater stress on eschatological speculation. Opponents of biblical fundamentalism have criticized the Scofield Bible for its air of total authority in biblical interpretation, for what they consider its glossing over of biblical contradictions, and for its focus on eschatology.^[8]

The 1917 Scofield Reference Bible notes are now in the public domain, and the Bible is "consistently the best selling edition" in the United Kingdom and Ireland.^[9] In 1967, Oxford University Press published a revision of the Scofield Bible with a slightly modernized KJV text and a muting of some of the tenets of Scofield's theology.^[10] The Press continues to issue editions under the title Oxford Scofield Study Bible, and there are translations into French, German, Spanish, and Portuguese. For instance, the French edition published by the Geneva Bible Society is printed with a revised version of the Louis Segond translation that includes additional notes by a Francophone committee.^[11] In the 21st century, Oxford University Press published Scofield notes to accompany six additional English translations.^[12]

ps The origins and promotion of the Scofield bible is a conspiracy theory you seem curiously disinterested in. Funny.

Edited November 11, 2014 by thplinth

[DonnyTJS]

The brothers are the 'they'.

And now the explanation...

The Ishmaelites were descendents of Abraham through Hagar. And the Midianites were descendants of Abraham through Keturah.

These 2 groups were already related and sufficiently interbred and intermarried (or were such inveterate travellers and traders) that they were viewed synonymously.

So much so that the names became interchangeable.

(Judges 8:22 and 8:24 also show the 2 tribal names being used interchangeably.)

If the brothers are being referred to by 'they' (and I agree that they are), why does the grammar suggest otherwise? In terms of syntax, the Midianites are the antecedents of 'they'.

Another apparent oddity: Judges 8:24 feels the need to explain that the Midians were Ishmaelites (they wore gold earrings "because they were Ishmaelites"). As the words were purely 'synonymous' and 'interchangeable', why would such an explanation be necessary - especially since the author has already used the terms interchangeably without feeling the need for such an explanation back in Genesis 37?

If we take the Bible to be the word of God, this would suggest that a ) God's syntax was careless; and b ) she had forgotten that she'd used Midianites and Ishmaelites synonymously, and without explanation, in an earlier book by the time she came to Judges 8.

An alternative explanation is this. The Old Testament comprises a number of traditional narratives that have been interwoven by editors. German scholarship in the 19th century unpicked the different narrative threads and was able to explain many of the apparent contradictions in the Bible (somebody blogs about it here if anyone's interested). The confused syntax and terminology in Genesis 37 stems from the stitching together of two texts, the 'E text' (from 'Elohist', due to this narrative employing the generic name 'Elohim' for 'God') and the 'J text' (from 'Yahwist', as this narrative uses the term 'Yahweh' - Jehovah - the Israelites' name for God, translated in many English Bibles as 'Lord God' whereas 'Elohim' is translated as simply 'God').

It is due to different versions of fundamentally the same stories being knit together that we have 'God' creating humans, male and female, in Genesis 1:27, and 'Lord God' creating woman from Adam's rib in Genesis 2:22; and a number of the confusing elements elsewhere, including the Flood narrative.

Edited November 11, 2014 by DonnyTJS

[thplinth]

Dispensationalism is an evangelical, futurist, Biblical interpretation that understands God to have related to human beings in different ways under different Biblical covenants in a series of "dispensations," or periods in history.

As a system, dispensationalism is expounded in the writings of John Nelson Darby (1800–82) and the Plymouth Brethren movement,^[1]:10 and propagated through works such as Cyrus Scofield's Scofield Reference Bible. The theology of dispensationalism consists of a distinctive eschatological end times perspective, as all dispensationalists hold to premillennialism and most hold to a pretribulation rapture. Dispensationalists believe that the nation of Israel is distinct from the Christian Church,^[2]:322 and that God has yet to fulfill his promises to national Israel. These promises include the land promises, which in the future world to come result in a millennial kingdom and Third Temple where Christ, upon his return, will rule the world from Jerusalem^[3] for a thousand years. In other areas of theology, dispensationalists hold to a wide range of beliefs within the evangelical and fundamentalist spectrum.^[1]:13

With the rise of dispensationalism, some Protestants, where the dispensationalist view is particularly salient, came to interpret elements of the Book of Revelation not as an account of past events (with specific reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, a position known as Preterism), but as predictions of the future.^[4][5][6]

Estimates of the number of people who hold Dispensationalist beliefs vary between 5 and 40 million in the United States alone.^[7][8][9]

Concepts[edit]

Progressive revelation[edit]

One of the most important underlying theological concepts for dispensationalism is progressive revelation. While some non-dispensationalists start with progressive revelation in the New Testament and refer this revelation back into the Old Testament, dispensationalists begin with progressive revelation in the Old Testament and read forward in a historical sense. Therefore there is an emphasis on a gradually developed unity as seen in the entirety of Scripture. Biblical covenants are intricately tied to the dispensations. When these Biblical covenants are compared and contrasted, the result is a historical ordering of different dispensations. Also with regard to the different Biblical covenant promises, dispensationalism emphasises to whom these promises were written, the original recipients. This has led to certain fundamental dispensational beliefs, such as a distinction between Israel and the Church.

Historical-grammatical interpretation[edit]

Another important theological concept is the emphasis on what is referred to as the historical-grammatical method of interpretation. This is often popularly referred to as the "literal" interpretation of Scripture. Just as Israel was said to have literally experienced the curses spoken of in the Old Testament, dispensationalists believe that they will one day, literally, receive the blessings spoken of in the Old Testament. Just as it is with progressive revelation, the historical-grammatical method is not a concept or practice that is exclusive just to dispensationalists. However, a dispensational distinctive is created when the historical-grammatical method of interpretation is closely coupled with an emphasis on progressive revelation along with the historical development of the covenants in Scripture.

Distinction between Israel and the Church[edit]

All dispensationalists hold to a clear distinction between Israel and the Church. Israel is an ethnic nation^[10] consisting of Hebrews (Israelites), beginning with Abraham and continuing in existence to the present. The church consists of all saved individuals in this present dispensation—i.e., from the "birth of the Church" in Acts until the time of the Rapture.^[11] The distinction between Israel and the Church is not mutually exclusive, as there is a recognized overlap between the two.^[1]:295 The overlap consists of Jewish Christians (such as Peter and Paul – although the Apostle Paul was also a Roman citizen, by birth, he was of the tribe of Benjamin and a strong Jewish nationalist in heart (Rom 9:1-3)) who are ethnically Jewish and also have faith in Jesus Christ. Dispensationalists also believe that toward the end of the Tribulation, Israel as a nation will turn and embrace Jesus as their messiah right before his second coming during the Great Tribulation. The spectrum of teaching on Israel and the Church may be depicted as below:^[12]

Spectrum of Belief about Church–Israel Distinctions Advocates Dual Covenant
Theology Classical
Dispensationalism Progressive
Dispensationalism New Covenant
Theology Covenant
Premillennialism Covenant
Theology Supersessionism

Classical dispensationalists refer to the present day Church as a "parenthesis" or temporary interlude in the progress of Israel's prophesied history.^[13]Progressive dispensationalism "softens" the Church/Israel distinction by seeing some Old Testament promises as expanded by the New Testament to include the Church. However, progressives never view this expansion as replacing promises to its original audience, Israel.^[14]

Covenant Theology is the alternative view to dispensationalism that holds that God has one people Israel and the promises to Israel made in the Old Testament were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the new Israel, and the object of Abraham's hope. Dispensationalists have often criticized Covenant Theology as being identical with what they call "Replacement Theology" or Supersessionism, the concept that the Church has replaced Israel. However, in Covenant Theology, the church is not a replacement for the nation of Israel, but has always been the Israel that matters. Covenant Theologians distinguish between Israel of the flesh (ethnic Hebrews) and Israel of the Spirit (the universal Church), which began with Adam and Eve and matured largely within ethnic Israel. Jewish Christians are included in the spiritual Israel.^[15] Covenant Theologians likewise accuse Dispensationalism of replacement theology. The position of Covenant Theology on the relationship of the physical and spiritual Israels can be summarized in Romans 2:28-29 and in Romans 9:6.^[16]

Funny how you never credit Scofield Scotty because all of the above is pretty much what you've been preaching on here. Am I wrong?

Edited November 11, 2014 by thplinth

[thplinth]

United States of America[edit]

John Nelson Darby is recognized as the father of dispensationalism,[1]:10, 293 later made popular in the United States by Cyrus Scofield's Scofield Reference Bible. Charles Henry Mackintosh, 1820–96, with his popular style spread Darby's teachings to humbler elements in society and may be regarded as the journalist of the Brethren Movement. Mackintosh popularized Darby more than any other Brethren author.

As there was no Christian teaching of a "rapture" before Darby began preaching about it in the 1830s, he is sometimes credited with originating the "secret rapture" theory wherein Christ will suddenly remove his bride, the Church, from this world before the judgments of the tribulation. Dispensationalist beliefs about the fate of the Jews and the re-establishment of the Kingdom of Israel put dispensationalists at the forefront of Christian Zionism, because "God is able to graft them in again", and they believe that in his grace he will do so according to their understanding of Old Testament prophecy. They believe that, while the methodologies of God may change, his purposes to bless Israel will never be forgotten, just as he has shown unmerited favour to the Church, he will do so to a remnant of Israel to fulfill all the promises made to the genetic seed of Abraham.

Dispensationalism was introduced to North America by James Inglis (1813–72), through a monthly magazine called Waymarks in the Wilderness, published intermittently between 1854 and 1872.[citation needed] In 1866 Inglis organized the Believers' Meeting for Bible Study, which introduced dispensationalist ideas to a small but influential circle of American evangelicals. They were disturbed by the inroads of liberalism and saw premillennialism as an answer. Dispensationalism was introduced as a premillennial position, and it largely, over a period of several decades, took over the Fundamentalist movement which stood against liberalism. The American church denominations rejected Darby's ecclesiology but accepted his eschatology. Many of these churches were Presbyterian and Baptist, and they retained Darby's Calvinistic soteriology who had applied it to his notion of dispensations. After Inglis' death, James H. Brookes (1830–98), the pastor of Walnut Street Presbyterian Church in St. Louis, organized the Niagara Bible Conference (1876–97) to continue the dissemination of dispensationalist ideas. Dispensationalism was boosted after Dwight L. Moody (1837–1899) learned of "dispensational truth" from an unidentified member of the Brethren in 1872. Moody became close to Brookes and other dispensationalists and encouraged the spread of dispensationalism, but apparently never learned the nuances of the dispensationalist system.[citation needed]

Dispensationalism began to evolve during this time, most significantly when a significant body of dispensationalists proposed the "pre-tribulation" rapture. This caused a bit of a clash with the "historical premillennialists" within the Fundamentalist camp. Dispensationalist leaders in Moody's circle include Reuben Archer Torrey (1856–1928), James M. Gray (1851–1925), Cyrus I. Scofield (1843–1921), William J. Erdman (1833–1923), A. C. Dixon (1854–1925), A. J. Gordon (1836–95) and William Eugene Blackstone, author of the bestselling book of the 1800s titled, "Jesus is Coming" (endorsed by Torrey and Erdman). These men were activist evangelists who promoted a host of Bible conferences and other missionary and evangelistic efforts.

They also gave the dispensationalist movement institutional permanence by assuming leadership of the new independent Bible institutes such as the Moody Bible Institute in 1886, the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (now Biola University) in 1908, and the Philadelphia College of the Bible (now Cairn University, formerly Philadelphia Biblical University) in 1913. The network of related institutes that soon sprang up became the nucleus for the spread of American dispensationalism.

The efforts of CI Scofield and his associates introduced dispensationalism to a wider audience in America through his Scofield Reference Bible. The publication of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909 by the Oxford University Press for the first time displayed overtly dispensationalist notes to the pages of the Biblical text. The Scofield Reference Bible became a popular Bible used by independent Evangelicals and Fundamentalists in the United States. Evangelist and Bible teacher Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871–1952), who was influenced by Scofield, founded the Dallas Theological Seminary in 1924, which has become the flagship of dispensationalism in America. More recently, the Baptist Bible Seminary in Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania, became another dispensational school.

The Grace Movement, which began about 1938 with the teaching ministries of JC O'Hair, Cornelius R. Stam, Henry T. Hudson, and Charles Baker has been labeled "ultra" or "hyper" dispensationalism. The term serves to distinguish a theological system that has applied the tenets of dispensationalism far more consistently than the Acts 2 position. Thus it has also been designated at times as "consistent" dispensationalism. J.C. O'Hair in the early 1920s understood the "sign" gifts to be not for this age of grace and thus not for the present church. Soon thereafter, he understood as a correlating dispensational truth that water baptism could not then apply to this dispensation either. Among others, DeHaan and Ironside were sympathetic and did not perform the water rite themselves but none of these men forbade it if a Christian had a conscience to be baptized. By the 1930s, J.C. O'Hair rejected an Acts chapter two beginning of the church and started to explore and lean towards a position similar to Sir Robert Anderson and E.W. Bullinger. It was during this time that Ironside wrote "Wrongly Dividing The Brethren" attacking "Bullingerism" (i.e., the Acts 28 position). Some have failed to understand that Ironside's book does not address the Mid-Acts position which O'Hair had not settled on until later. Almost all attacks on hyper-dispensationalism totally fail to differentiate between the Mid-Acts position and the Acts 28 position. But J,C, O'Hair also rejected the Acts 28 position after studying the writings of Bullinger and C.H. Welch. O'Hair seems to finally have landed on the Mid-Acts position by about 1938.[27]

The contrasts between law and grace, prophecy and mystery, Israel and the Church, the body of Christ were promoted by Scofield, Barnhouse and Ironside, then studied and taught by O'Hair, Stam and other "grace" teachers. It is however contended by dispensational teachers such as Charles Caldwell Ryrie, J. Dwight Pentecost, and Arnold Fruchtenbaum that ultradispensationalism is removed enough from dispensationalism not any longer to be dispensationalism at all. Nevertheless, ultradispensationalism continues to be forcefully advocated by many as the consistent position on dispensationalism. The dispensationalists allege that the Acts 2 position does not take the time to properly and fully understand the Mid-Acts position and challenge it in any way other than superficially if at all. Mostly, they feel consistent dispensationalists are ignored and that, until consistent dispensationalism is taken seriously, such dismissals by Acts 2 proponents cannot be taken seriously. Ultradispensationalists consider themselves fundamentalists, evangelical, and serious dispensationalists holding to the tenets of dispensationalism far more strictly and precisely than the more popular Acts 2 position.

In 2007, a new dispensational view was formed by Steve Urick, called, Acts 1 Dispensationalism. This position sees the church and Israel as being one in the body of Christ via his death on the cross (Ephesians 2:12-19) and the reign of Christ as the "Head over all" the family of God, in heaven and earth, as beginning in Acts 1, after he ascended into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God (Ephesians 1:10, 20-23; 3:15).[dubious – discuss]

Dispensationalism has become very popular with American evangelicalism[citation needed], especially among nondenominational Bible churches, Baptists, Pentecostal, and Charismatic groups.

Protestant denomiminations that as a whole embrace covenant theology reject dispensationalism. For example, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA termed it "evil and subversive" and regards it as a heresy.[28] The Churches of Christ underwent division in the 1930s as Robert Henry Boll, who taught a variant of the dispensational view, and Foy E. Wallace, representing the prevalent postmillennial-become-amillennial view, clashed severely over eschatology.[29]

Influence[edit]

Dispensationalism rejects the notion of supersessionism, sees the Jewish people as the true people of God, and sees the modern State of Israel as leading to the Israel of biblical promises, a national Israel who will receive the fulfillment of all God's Old Testament promises.

John Nelson Darby taught, and most subsequent dispensationalists have consistently maintained, that God looks upon the Jews as his chosen people even as they remain in rejection of Jesus Christ, and God continues to have a place for them in the dispensational, prophetic scheme of things. Dispensationalists teach that a remnant within the nation of Israel will be born again, called of God, and by grace brought to realize they crucified their Messiah. Dispensationalism is unique in teaching that the Church is a provisional parenthesis, a "mystery" period, meaning that it was not revealed in the Old Testament, directly, which period will end with the rapture of the church and the Jewish remnant entering the Great Tribulation. Israel will finally recognize Jesus as their promised Messiah during the trials that come upon them in this Tribulation. Darby's teachings envision Judaism as continuing to enjoy God's protection literally to the End of Time, and teach that God has a separate 'program', to use J. Dwight Pentecost's term, for each Israel and the Church. Dispensationalists teach that God has eternal covenants with Israel, which cannot be broken.

While stressing that God has not forsaken those physically descended from Abraham through Isaac, dispensationalists do affirm the necessity for Jews to receive Jesus as Messiah. They hold that God made unconditional covenants with Israel as a people and nation in the Abrahamic, Palestinian, Davidic and the New Covenant.

Judaism[edit]

Christian dispensationalists sometimes embrace what some critics have pejoratively called Judeophilia — ranging from support of the state of Israel, to observing traditional Jewish holidays and practicing traditionally Jewish religious rituals. (See also Christian Zionism, Jewish Christians, Judaizers, Hebrew Roots, and Messianic Judaism). Dispensationalists typically support the modern state of Israel, recognize its existence as God revealing His will for the Last Days, and reject anti-Semitism.[30]

Messianic Judaism[edit]

Main article: Olive Tree Theology

Dispensationalists tend to have special interest in the Jews because the dispensationalist hermeneutic honors Biblical passages that list Jews as among God's chosen people (the others would be the Gentiles in the church, and proselytes to Judaism). Some Messianic Jews (Messianic Judaism), however, reject dispensationalism in favor of a related but distinct hermeneutics, called Olive Tree Theology.[31] The name "Olive Tree Theology" refers to the passages of Romans 11:17–18: "If some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive, were grafted in among them and have become equal sharers in the rich root of the olive tree, then don't boast as if you were better than the branches!"

Antichrist[edit]

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2009)

Some dispensationalists, such as the late fundamentalist Jerry Falwell, have asserted that the Antichrist will be a Jew, based on a belief that the Antichrist will falsely seem to some Jews to fulfill prophecies of the Messiah more accurately than Jesus did.[32]

However, many dispensationalists do not accept this belief, and claim that a number of scriptures do not cite any evidence, such as Daniel 9:27.

Such dispensationalists claim that this "prince" will be of the same people that destroyed the Jewish city in 70 AD, i.e., of Roman origin and therefore will not be Jewish. However, other dispensationalists base the nationality of the army that destroyed Jerusalem as comprising an Arab and Syrian ethnicity, and therefore the Antichrist, or the "prince", shall not actually be of Roman origin.[33][34]

In turn, this "prince" will stand up "against the Prince of princes" and destroy many "by peace" (Dan 8:25); and will be responsible for the false "peace and safety" that will precede the destructive day of the Lord (1 Thess 5:2–3). Some believe this man will be a Jew, based in part on John 5:43, where the Lord stated that the unbelieving Jews would receive another who "shall come in his own name" (as opposed to the Lord Himself, who came in the Father's name). Further evidence is taken from Daniel 11:37, "Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all", although in a passage as late as Daniel, a better translation is probably, "He will reject the gods (Eloha) of his fathers." The prophet Daniel refers to this man as "a vile person", who will "obtain the kingdom by flatteries" (Daniel 11:21). This belief is not essential to dispensationalism.[citation needed]

Darby himself taught the Antichrist will be a Jew, and the Beast, a separate person, will be the political leader of the revived Roman empire.[35]

United States politics[edit]

Political analyst Richard Allen Greene has argued that dispensationalism has had a major influence on the foreign policy of the United States. This influence has included continued support for the state of Israel.[36]

Political commentator Kevin Phillips points out in his book American Theocracy (2006) how dispensationalists and other fundamentalist Christians, together with the oil lobby, have provided political support for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

[thplinth]

(somebody blogs about it here if anyone's interested).

That reminds me of the recent camel research...

Newly published research by two archaeologists at Tel Aviv University in Israel shows that camels weren't domesticated in the eastern Mediterranean until the 10th century B.C.—several centuries after the time they appear in the Bible.

While there are conflicting theories about when the Bible was composed, the recent research suggests it was written much later than the events it describes. This supports earlier studies that have challenged the Bible's veracity as a historic document.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140210-domesticated-camels-israel-bible-archaeology-science/

[Nobby]

SO... NO contradictions at ALL then?

No this verse contradicts that verse?

Anywhere?

(Anywhere at all?)

OK... I will believe the Truth.

On the surface, God in the Old Testament appears to be radically different than in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, He appears powerful, holy, punishing, angry, and jealous. In the New, in the form of Jesus, He appears kind, loving, meek, and forgiving. How do we reconcile the powerful Deity that ordered the destruction of countless cities with the kneeling Jesus who defended the adulterous woman?

The key is to realize the context. In the Old Testament, the context was God's relationship with the nation He had chosen to represent His holiness and teach the world about Him. In the New Testament, and now in the church age, the context is God's relationship with the individuals and the church He has chosen to represent His holiness and teach the world about Him.

The purpose of God in the Old and New Testaments is the same: choose people who don't deserve His attention, allow them to display His glory and righteousness, and commission them to teach the world about Him. Abraham and the Israelites did nothing to earn God's attention (Deuteronomy 7:7-9), and neither do we (Ephesians 2:8-9). God chose Israel to obey Him and be holy (Exodus 19:5-6), as He does with us (Romans 12:1). And He charged both Israel (Genesis 22:18) and the church-age believers (Matthew 28:19-20) to present God's gift of salvation to the world.

God hasn't changed; the context has changed. He no longer primarily relates to the world through a sovereign nation, but through individuals and the church. This affects how we see the scale of His work.

What about faith, though?

Yes.

That's just it. I can't.

ANY explanation I give would have to be supported by every other verse pertaining to it in the Bible.

It would be child's play to catch me out if something didn't add up.

He did.

Double that, mate.

Now we're getting somewhere.

You're not betting a fiver though.

You're betting your eternal soul, and if you died today you would be 'lost'.

Nope I believe as an agnostic that no one feckin knows, no matter what your book says. I believe (and have faith ) that if a deity exists he is a tad more intelligent than how you paint him from the bible. I'm not going to believe in the bible any more than I would the koran or the torah. They all basically say the same thing anyway, be a good person dont rob,cheat or murder and be nice to mum and dad. Its in the detail where the argument starts and I cant be arsed arguing over the detail. so i'll try to live my life by the rules that they all seem to espouse and not get too bogged down in the detail. If as you say god knows how its all going to end anyway whats the feckin point, he must be as bored as @rseholes watching it all unfold !!!

[Grim Jim]

Don't need a holy book to tell me not to rob, cheat and murder either.

.

.

.

In fact holy books have been used as an excuse for more than a few murdered.

[dipped flake]

That reminds me of the recent camel research...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140210-domesticated-camels-israel-bible-archaeology-science/

hardly surprising that a jewish university tries to discredit the bible

[thplinth]

hardly surprising that a jewish university tries to discredit the bible

They are primarily invalidating the Old Testament not the New. The Old Testament is pretty much their Torah the holiest book in Judaism.

[thplinth]

You'd have to think this error means the Old Testament was rewritten or just written long after people forgot the camels were a recent introduction. Prima faciie it is pretty damning.

Edited November 11, 2014 by thplinth

[deecie]

Coincidence?

I think not.

[brant grebner]

Can we please get back to Jesus?