Don’t know if he is or isn’t just stating what God said in Genesis 11 in regards to the Jewish people. BTW I think the thread was about the ark. I personally believe it to still be somewhere on the Temple Mount and it will be put back in the Holy of Holies once the 3rd temple is built. Get ready to clutch your pearls now, I believe the physical temple will be rebuilt, the daily sacrifices will be reinstated. However as a pre tribulation Christian believer I won’t be around to see any of it.
You need to let the New Testament define what the word "Jew" truly means. It does, you know. The wooden insistence that this means the physical progeny of Abraham thru Isaac is simply anti New Testament. "ISRAEL" are all believing Hebrews AND Gentiles. Take it up with Paul, Peter, and the author of Hebrews if that conflicts with your doctrinal structure.
The problem with Darby, Scofield, DTS, and the whole dispensational structure is one of what we call "hermeneutics" or how one interprets the bible itself. The "dispensational" school takes the position of what THEY call "plain language" and say "well, the OT says God will bless Israel and Israel is 'clearly' the sons of Abraham in covenant. Therefore Israel means the national political people of Israel." When you start from that position, it is understandable how you get that whole system, including the VERY bizarre view that God's Old Testament promises to "Israel" have not yet been "fulfilled" and the time scale demands a re-institution of that whole set, with national Israel, the temple, the priesthood and a two stage plan of God morphing from "Israel" to "the church" (two different entities in that system) and God needing to "get the church out of the way (a secret rapture).
Again, the problem is that this wooden insistence that "ISRAEL" means the physical progeny of Abraham is in fact, unbliblical. The New Testament demands the right to define "Israel" NOT as merely the children of Abraham physicallly, but those who are children of the FAITH of Israel. Dispensationalists (not all, but some of the more ugly types like Chafer, Walvoord, and Ryrie) sneer at this as "spiritualizing" the OT promises. If so, then so does Paul and Peter and whoever wrote Hebrews, so I guess I am guilty, too.
I think that the BIBLE should tell us how we interpret the bible, and the BIBLE clearly and unequivocally says that the children of FAITH are the sons of Abraham, and that we who trust in Jesus (whether Gentile or Jew) are "Israel" and the promises are fulfilled in "us" (in quotes, as they are actually fulfilled in Jesus, but in "us" b/c we are his body).
The best example of this (although the New Testament is full of examples) is the explanation by Paul in Romans 4 of God's original promise to Abraham that he would have dominion over "the land." Paul does an unusual thing here, though, and says that God's promise was that Abraham's promise was that he would inherit the entire WORLD. Interesting thing is that nowhere in the Abrahamic covenants does God explicitly state that the OT political/bloodline of Abraham will rule the entire earth. Paul picks the actual promise up, and shows that the PROPER HERMENEUTIC (or rule for interpreting) these promises is to view them fulfilled in Christ - and consequently in all the children of faith.
There are other issues that caused me to abandon dispensationalism (the first book I read as a believer was "Late Great Planet Earth" and I had the charts and timelines of rapture, trib, millenial reign, etc etc all memorized), but the root or core of it was when I realized I adopted an anti biblical rule of interpretation to hold on to that system. It was only later that I realized that the origins of this system were late and actually unheard of before the 1820s. Thus began my "apostasy"
.
ancientpatriarchs.wordpress.com
en.m.wikipedia.org
answersingenesis.org
