Info.......Excellent lecture imo! Thanks for posting! Very informative, ironic, and enlighteningly insightful. Thanks for introducing me to this guy. Very good lecturer.
Amen JayDee!! Amen! And remember, HE WAS ALWAYS ABSENT IN TWIt, and remains so to this day! He is The Boss! il capo de capi tutti! The Boss of ALL bosses! To him EVERY knee shall bow one day. Even so, cone quickly Lord Jesus.
Thanks for that YouTube by Bruce Gore, InfoAbsoprtion – I loved his fascinating little history lesson on how dispensationalism came to be such a dominating theological viewpoint in our culture…from Darby to Brooks to Scofield to Chafer and then with Hal Lindsey’s book “The Late Great Planet Earth” in 1970 which was so popular even folks who never showed much interest in the Bible latched onto the idea…Gore made some comment about Lindsey’s book – something like that’s when dispensationalism got out of the evangelical ghetto and into the bloodstream of Americans across the board. Pretty funny way of putting it – I got a kick out of that.
His closing comments – though brief – were very powerful, in my humble opinion. In being a former dispensationalist, he talked about how that frame of thought can become a huge distraction – that there is nothing wrong with speculation but when it becomes an obsession it can overshadow the importance of Christ. With me being a big fan of the Gospels I tend to think he’s right. Skimming through “Introduction to Biblical Interpretation” by Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard while I was listening to Gore (I was looking for the references to dispensationalism I had highlighted from previous readings) I found on page 335 something that may indeed show a dismissive mindset:
Dispensationalists have traditionally reserved Jesus’ Kingdom ethic for the millennial age and have not found it directly relevant for Christians now.
I thought the same thing JayDee. I rationalized it by the title of the lecture being "The History of Dispensationalism in America". Obviously, Bullinger, Welch, and others, helped spread dispensationist doctrine worldwide, including several trips here to the US by Welch himself, which both dictor and Grace Bliss attended. But, the movement in America was already in place here by the time Welch came here, and the majority of Ethelbert's colossal works were published in the late 19th and early 20th Century. The roots come through Darby, but he also preceded Bullinger. So, that's my P.I. in why no mention of Bullinger in this lecture. What thinkest thou?
I thought the same thing JayDee. I rationalized it by the title of the lecture being "The History of Dispensationalism in America". Obviously, Bullinger, Welch, and others, helped spread dispensationist doctrine worldwide, including several trips here to the US by Welch himself, which both dictor and Grace Bliss attended. But, the movement in America was already in place here by the time Welch came here, and the majority of Ethelbert's colossal works were published in the late 19th and early 20th Century. The roots come through Darby, but he also preceded Bullinger. So, that's my P.I. in why no mention of Bullinger in this lecture. What thinkest thou?
I think you’re right DWBH. I never was a big fan of dispensationalism because for me it complicated scripture to the point where Jesus Christ’s ministry was “pigeonholed” into a specific timeframe and I shouldn’t think of him outside that. The whole “OT and gospels were for our learning thing” I guess
I may be “oversimplifying” scripture nowadays by just thinking about it in terms of old covenant and new covenant. Nobody in the bible ever said anything more important than what Jesus Christ said/says. Beyond that my eyeballs start rolling around and I scratch my head a lot.
a follow up to my previous post - after reading over Wikipedia article i gave link to - it appears they attribute Darby as maybe the driving force behind what we know today as Dispensationalism - and notes he made a trip to Ireland and England to spread his ideas...
Bullinger is perhaps later in the timeline - and this article explains difference between dispensationalism and Bullinger's hyperdispensationalism see Bullinger
I'm glad that many of you liked Mr. Gore's lecture on Dispensationalism. When I started delving into The Book of Revelation on a deeper level there were some Greek words that I ran into during my studies that I don't recall ever hearing about during my time in TWI. Back in the day, TWI was big into Greek words to gain a deeper understanding of the verses one is studying especially if the translation is a little off, but regarding the Book of Revelation it didn't seem the Greek words mattered to them. Here are a few examples. Take a look at Rev 1:19 KJV:
Revelation 1:19: Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;
Notice the difference? The Greek word "mello" was translated to English as "shall be". "mello" should have been translated "about to" in this context. This Greek word "mello" is one of the most mistranslated words into English in the New Testament. The translators must have really hated the Greek word mello. I wonder why? Here is another example of "mello":
Revelation 17: 8a: 8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition:
This topic was moved from "Questioning Faith" to the main doctrinal section.
While anyone is free to comment on any topic (as long as those comments are on topic), the "Questioning Faith" subforum is explicitly intended to house conversations that call religion and faith into question. We may change the name of it to make that a little more clear in the future.
Nonetheless, this topic does not seem to be questioning faith so much as it's exploring faith. Doctrinal's main section is the more appropriate setting.
This was a little more challenging than a similar comment I posted on a different (also moved) thread, because I suspect atheists, agnostics and skeptics have a LOT to say about this. Nonetheless, I based my decision to move the thread on the content of the posts, none of which appear to be "questioning faith" as intended by the naming of the subforum.
I get that "Questioning Faith" means more than one thing. My attempt to be clear in naming it appears to have fallen a bit short. Such is life.
The implication in "Questioning Faith" is that a wiseguy like myself would have a green light to say "this is all nonsense invented by charlatans to blah blah blah...."
I got the distinct sense that this wasn't the conversation you wanted to have or expected to start, so I moved it.
All forum participants are welcome to weigh in on all threads, including this one. But cordoning off the "atheist" threads is a concession to the fact that people sometimes want to discuss doctrine without having to defend the basis for faith.
It's delicate, but we can all be gentlepersons about it.
Dispensationalism may not have taken root in the 1800s if it were not for the mis-translation of the Greek word "ge". "Ge" is very different than "kosmos" or "oikoumené". The Greek "Ge" refers to a specific region, not the world at large( e.g. the land of Judea). "Ge" was translated as "earth" in most of Revelation, so when J.N. Darby was putting together Dispensationalism, he dismissed the "shortly", "quickly", "near", and "about to" time references because the cataclysms described in Revelation such as a 1/3 part of the trees being burnt up( Rev. 8:7) haven't happened on a global scale. But they most definitely did happen in the land of Judea during the Roman invasion(66-70AD) with the implementation of their scorched earth policy. Here is a word study of "ge" that should clear up some confusion: https://adammaarschalk.com/2014/03/15/revelation-the-land-ge-is-referenced-22-times-more-often-than-the-world-kosmos/
Recommended Posts
waysider
It's the magic bullet. If you learn how to use it, you can shoot down almost any Biblical contradiction imaginable
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Info.......Excellent lecture imo! Thanks for posting! Very informative, ironic, and enlighteningly insightful. Thanks for introducing me to this guy. Very good lecturer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JayDee
Thoroughly enjoyed this video. The last 2-3 minutes said it all for me. Christ is King. Christ is Lord.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Amen JayDee!! Amen! And remember, HE WAS ALWAYS ABSENT IN TWIt, and remains so to this day! He is The Boss! il capo de capi tutti! The Boss of ALL bosses! To him EVERY knee shall bow one day. Even so, cone quickly Lord Jesus.
Edited by DontWorryBeHappyLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Thanks for that YouTube by Bruce Gore, InfoAbsoprtion – I loved his fascinating little history lesson on how dispensationalism came to be such a dominating theological viewpoint in our culture…from Darby to Brooks to Scofield to Chafer and then with Hal Lindsey’s book “The Late Great Planet Earth” in 1970 which was so popular even folks who never showed much interest in the Bible latched onto the idea…Gore made some comment about Lindsey’s book – something like that’s when dispensationalism got out of the evangelical ghetto and into the bloodstream of Americans across the board. Pretty funny way of putting it – I got a kick out of that.
His closing comments – though brief – were very powerful, in my humble opinion. In being a former dispensationalist, he talked about how that frame of thought can become a huge distraction – that there is nothing wrong with speculation but when it becomes an obsession it can overshadow the importance of Christ. With me being a big fan of the Gospels I tend to think he’s right. Skimming through “Introduction to Biblical Interpretation” by Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard while I was listening to Gore (I was looking for the references to dispensationalism I had highlighted from previous readings) I found on page 335 something that may indeed show a dismissive mindset:
Dispensationalists have traditionally reserved Jesus’ Kingdom ethic for the millennial age and have not found it directly relevant for Christians now.
‘nuff said.
Edited by T-Boneclarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JayDee
Also interesting to note that Bullinger didn’t get a mention.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
I thought the same thing JayDee. I rationalized it by the title of the lecture being "The History of Dispensationalism in America". Obviously, Bullinger, Welch, and others, helped spread dispensationist doctrine worldwide, including several trips here to the US by Welch himself, which both dictor and Grace Bliss attended. But, the movement in America was already in place here by the time Welch came here, and the majority of Ethelbert's colossal works were published in the late 19th and early 20th Century. The roots come through Darby, but he also preceded Bullinger. So, that's my P.I. in why no mention of Bullinger in this lecture. What thinkest thou?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JayDee
I think you’re right DWBH. I never was a big fan of dispensationalism because for me it complicated scripture to the point where Jesus Christ’s ministry was “pigeonholed” into a specific timeframe and I shouldn’t think of him outside that. The whole “OT and gospels were for our learning thing” I guess
I may be “oversimplifying” scripture nowadays by just thinking about it in terms of old covenant and new covenant. Nobody in the bible ever said anything more important than what Jesus Christ said/says. Beyond that my eyeballs start rolling around and I scratch my head a lot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
I agree JayDee.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I’ve been trying to find link between Darby and Bullinger as far as who came up with Dispensationalism first - so far all I found was this article
Bullinger and Hyperdispensationalist
however Wikipedia suggests it goes as far back as some Jewish circles / Dead Sea Scrolls
Wikipedia on Dispensationalism
Edited by T-BoneMore info
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
a follow up to my previous post - after reading over Wikipedia article i gave link to - it appears they attribute Darby as maybe the driving force behind what we know today as Dispensationalism - and notes he made a trip to Ireland and England to spread his ideas...
Bullinger is perhaps later in the timeline - and this article explains difference between dispensationalism and Bullinger's hyperdispensationalism see Bullinger
Edited by T-BoneTypos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Infoabsorption
I'm glad that many of you liked Mr. Gore's lecture on Dispensationalism. When I started delving into The Book of Revelation on a deeper level there were some Greek words that I ran into during my studies that I don't recall ever hearing about during my time in TWI. Back in the day, TWI was big into Greek words to gain a deeper understanding of the verses one is studying especially if the translation is a little off, but regarding the Book of Revelation it didn't seem the Greek words mattered to them. Here are a few examples. Take a look at Rev 1:19 KJV:
Revelation 1:19: Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;
Compare that to the Greek: http://biblehub.com/text/revelation/1-19.htm
Notice the difference? The Greek word "mello" was translated to English as "shall be". "mello" should have been translated "about to" in this context. This Greek word "mello" is one of the most mistranslated words into English in the New Testament. The translators must have really hated the Greek word mello. I wonder why? Here is another example of "mello":
Revelation 17: 8a: 8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition:
Greek: http://biblehub.com/text/revelation/17-8.htm
So the proper translation is : The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and is about to ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
This topic was moved from "Questioning Faith" to the main doctrinal section.
While anyone is free to comment on any topic (as long as those comments are on topic), the "Questioning Faith" subforum is explicitly intended to house conversations that call religion and faith into question. We may change the name of it to make that a little more clear in the future.
Nonetheless, this topic does not seem to be questioning faith so much as it's exploring faith. Doctrinal's main section is the more appropriate setting.
This was a little more challenging than a similar comment I posted on a different (also moved) thread, because I suspect atheists, agnostics and skeptics have a LOT to say about this. Nonetheless, I based my decision to move the thread on the content of the posts, none of which appear to be "questioning faith" as intended by the naming of the subforum.
I get that "Questioning Faith" means more than one thing. My attempt to be clear in naming it appears to have fallen a bit short. Such is life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Infoabsorption
Not a problem at all modcat5. I was thinking along the lines of "questioning doctrine" when I posted these 2 messages.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
I get what you were thinking, and that's cool.
The implication in "Questioning Faith" is that a wiseguy like myself would have a green light to say "this is all nonsense invented by charlatans to blah blah blah...."
I got the distinct sense that this wasn't the conversation you wanted to have or expected to start, so I moved it.
All forum participants are welcome to weigh in on all threads, including this one. But cordoning off the "atheist" threads is a concession to the fact that people sometimes want to discuss doctrine without having to defend the basis for faith.
It's delicate, but we can all be gentlepersons about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Infoabsorption
Dispensationalism may not have taken root in the 1800s if it were not for the mis-translation of the Greek word "ge". "Ge" is very different than "kosmos" or "oikoumené". The Greek "Ge" refers to a specific region, not the world at large( e.g. the land of Judea). "Ge" was translated as "earth" in most of Revelation, so when J.N. Darby was putting together Dispensationalism, he dismissed the "shortly", "quickly", "near", and "about to" time references because the cataclysms described in Revelation such as a 1/3 part of the trees being burnt up( Rev. 8:7) haven't happened on a global scale. But they most definitely did happen in the land of Judea during the Roman invasion(66-70AD) with the implementation of their scorched earth policy. Here is a word study of "ge" that should clear up some confusion: https://adammaarschalk.com/2014/03/15/revelation-the-land-ge-is-referenced-22-times-more-often-than-the-world-kosmos/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.