1 month ago13 points(+0/-0/+13Score on mirror)3 children
What he's talking about falls under the broad umbrella of modern "Dispensationalism" which originated with John Nelson Darby in the early 1800's. I specify *modern* because dispensationalism as a concept has existed for thousands of years and simply acknowledges that God has dealt with humanity in different ways throughout history. The way He related to different OT saints is different from how He relates to saints in the Church age. The type of Dispensationalism that Darby taught introduced a sharp divide between the Church and Israel.
Scofield rewrote Darby's theology as "notes" in his study Bible however, I believe it was KJV and he didn't alter the actual text in any substantive way. The damage came from the commentary and telling people the Bible was teaching Dispensationalism.
I will say that in fairness to Dispensational theologians (even though they are enablers), modern day Dispensationalism is really nothing more than Zionism wearing Dispensationalism as a skinsuit to provide a "Biblical" justification for unquestioning loyalty to *our greatest ally*™
Yeah, I call it Pre-Millenial Dispensationalism because its something different from OG Dispensationalism. Dual Covenant "theology" is basically the big heresy of Pre-Millenialism, because the bible outright states that the actual Jews who rejected Christ were cut off and the Gentiles who accepted Him were grafted in their place, which completely contradicts Dual-Covenantism. Even the Modernists infesting the Church think Dual-Covenant theology is shaky and havent embraced it, though they still refuse to openly preach Supresessionism (which is the official Church teaching) because they are either false converts from jewery or simply boomers afraid of the jews. Also, Dual Covenantism doesnt make any sense because Christ literally called out the people who rejected Him as not even being actual Jews (and the ones today arent even ethnically Hebrew).
1 month ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)1 child
No. Scofield reinterpreted the Bible to conflate jews and Israelites to make supporting jews instrumental to bringing about the second coming of Jesus. It was all about making Christians serve jews.
I don't think we're in disagreement. Dispensationalists have a unique view of eschatology and how that will bring about the end times that's not found in any other theology.
Since Dispensationalism has really only been around since the 1800's, some Dispensationalists will claim that some of the Church fathers who supported premillennialism were Dispensationalists, but the reality is you can be a premillennialist without being a Dispensationalist but you can't be a Dispensationalist without being a (very specific type of) premillennialist.
1 month ago4 points(+0/-0/+4Score on mirror)2 children
Yes, Darby influenced Scofield. Certain elements of Dispensationalism existed before Darby but he was the first person to do serious work systematizing those theological distinctives.
That's part of the reason I say that "modern day Dispensationalism is really nothing more than Zionism wearing Dispensationalism as a skinsuit". There's a lot more to Dispensational theology than dividing God's people into two groups but these days everything except literal interpretations of land promises has been abandoned and all you're left with is "the modern nation state of Israel is God's chosen people and if we don't given them infinite money God will curse us."
1 month ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)1 child
Supposedly, the theological groundwork for Darby's Dispensational theology originated from counter-reformation Jesuit priests defending the RCC against accusations of the pope being anti-Christ and the RCC being the "whore of Babylon" mentioned in Revelation.
If that is a pointed question expecting the response to be "the jews", I don't think there's evidence for that. After Darby, the jews definitely hijacked the Dispensational system of interpretation in the late 1800's because the rise of the Scofield Bible seems to coincide with Theodor Herzl's zionism.
1 month ago5 points(+0/-0/+5Score on mirror)1 child
Even checking Scolfield's wikipedia page reveals the guy was shady, I think he was a literal huckster before he got funding to write his "translation".
1 month ago3 points(+0/-0/+3Score on mirror)1 child
It's pretty easy for me. I have faith God didn't hide his Word, or let it be hidden, for a thousand + years. So I go with the Textus Receptus Greek, i.e., KJV. It helps that I see it being attacked by all the right(wrong) type of people today. Faggot new agers, Jesuits, Rome (I repeat myself).
If you ignore the notes in the Scofield Bible, it's just another Bible.
The problem with it was his commentary explaining passages in a way that divided God's people into "the Church" and "Israel".
Beyond that, I don't think there are enough differences between literal, word-for-word translations that would cause an honest people to arrive at an interpretation that would damn them. Stay away from "dynamic equivalency" translations because it's way too easy for them to turn into commentaries.
Anything Vulgate based is safe, anything based on Scofield is jewed, and any translations using the (((Masoretic Text))), which has been edited by the Talmudists to obfuscate prophecies of Christ being the Messiah, are incredibly suspect.
All modern translations are jewed. Gotta find an older one, preferably something translated from the original Latin Vulgate or the Greek version (the very first completed Bible record) itself. I personally would recommend the Douay-Rhiems (which is an even older translation than the KJV). The KJV itself is probably not all that bad, but there's an even better protestant translation in the Geneva Bible.
"Keys of the Kingdom" bible translation by Sparks is a valid translation. The "Christogenea New Testament" is also very good. Taken from the original writings, these are far better (more accurate) translations which help to reveal what the jew has tried to hide....
1 month ago3 points(+0/-0/+3Score on mirror)1 child
The stuff highlighted gray and yellow in the "premillennial" column shows the distinctives of the "judeo-Christianity" this guy is talking about when it comes to the end times.
The reason this is important is because a lot of what Scofield teaches is predicated on the belief that most Biblical prophecy is still in the future and is yet to be fulfilled.
https://www.reformedreader.org/mchart.htm
(note: this is from a Protestant perspective, I have no idea what the RCC or EO teach on eschatology).
The RCC and EO are amillenial, or more accurately, teach that the millenium is simply the Saints reigning in heaven, so its present. The Holy Roman Empire may have been the closest we'll ever see to a physical thousand year reign on earth before the Second Coming, and coincidentally the moment it fell, the jews (who the bible literally calls Anti-Christs) took over all the kingdoms of the world and perverted religion to their own worship.
This site is great, I searched Scofield and found this, but don't know how much it talks about him https://christogenea.org/podcasts/bible-discussion/not-white-supremacy-it-god-supremacy
It's simple enough to read and understand on your own. You don't need (((context)))
You can understand Christianity by reading the Gospels which are a few hours' read. It's the only part that describes what Jesus SAID. You don't need anything else.
Scofield rewrote Darby's theology as "notes" in his study Bible however, I believe it was KJV and he didn't alter the actual text in any substantive way. The damage came from the commentary and telling people the Bible was teaching Dispensationalism.
I will say that in fairness to Dispensational theologians (even though they are enablers), modern day Dispensationalism is really nothing more than Zionism wearing Dispensationalism as a skinsuit to provide a "Biblical" justification for unquestioning loyalty to *our greatest ally*™
Since Dispensationalism has really only been around since the 1800's, some Dispensationalists will claim that some of the Church fathers who supported premillennialism were Dispensationalists, but the reality is you can be a premillennialist without being a Dispensationalist but you can't be a Dispensationalist without being a (very specific type of) premillennialist.
That's part of the reason I say that "modern day Dispensationalism is really nothing more than Zionism wearing Dispensationalism as a skinsuit". There's a lot more to Dispensational theology than dividing God's people into two groups but these days everything except literal interpretations of land promises has been abandoned and all you're left with is "the modern nation state of Israel is God's chosen people and if we don't given them infinite money God will curse us."
If that is a pointed question expecting the response to be "the jews", I don't think there's evidence for that. After Darby, the jews definitely hijacked the Dispensational system of interpretation in the late 1800's because the rise of the Scofield Bible seems to coincide with Theodor Herzl's zionism.
Dispensationalism is trash. How useless. Obviously we are evolving and things change. Zero useful detail.