In two previous segments we have provided a background of the history
concerning the Scofield Reference Bible and have begun to explore the content
of the theological system which was progressively created by this revision and
distortion of the Scriptures. Of the several editorial revisions of the extensive
added notes the most dramatic changes are contained in the 1967 edition. I am drawing from this edition as the text
for critical evaluation of the entire sequence of the editorial effort to
corrupt multiple facets of the truth as they were contained in the original
King James Version. Two things should be
noted in this regard. First there have been a total of 6500 word changes to
provide a ‘better read’ of the original text. Secondly, by 1967 the new nation
state of Israel had been established in the Middle East (1948) providing a
supposed verification for the reestablishment of the alleged covenant people
‘in the land’. Beware; this presupposition is a deception as we will continue
to prove in exposing the Zionist influence perpetrated by the Oxford University
Press in the several revisions of the Scofield Reference Bible. A much more
detailed revelation of this contrived system of theology can be found in my
title: The Israel Deception.(Amazon. com.)
In part two of this discourse it was necessary to
correct and expose the false premise of the ‘unconditional’ promise to Abram at Genesis 12-1-3 in the fact that
the promise was found not as unconditional but based on personal faith. Secondly,
that the seed in view was found to have its application in Jesus Christ and not
to the physical posterity of Abram’s ‘seed’
(Galatians 3:16-18). The entire theological system breaks down when a
fundamental element or premise is found to be unsupported by the Scriptures.
But much more truth needs to be revealed. Moving to the Mosaic covenant
predicated on the law we find notes on page 94 of the 1967 revision s follows: ‘The law did not change the provisions or
abrogate the promise of God given in the Abrahamic Covenant. It was given as a
way of life
(i.e. means
of justification), but as a rule of living for people already in the covenant of Abraham and covered by blood
sacrifice….’ Wait a minute!! What happened to that entire generation which
came out of Egypt and received the law at Mount Sinai? Excepting two
individuals they all died in the wilderness due to their unbelief and open
rebellion against God and the covenant. Does this fact tend to support an
unconditional promise of life and blessing? The alleged Abrahamic Covenant
clearly has no application here. They all died in the wilderness. Moving to the
next generation who was not accountable for the sins of their fathers we come
to the book of Deuteronomy (the second law).
Before an entrance to the land of promise was allowed Moses set forth
the conditions for either blessing or cursing in the 28th
chapter of this discourse. The Entrance
into, victory and ultimate possession of the ‘land of promise ‘was based on
faith. Israel did inherit all that the
Lord promised (See Joshua 21: 41-45).This did not change the conditional nature
of the anticipated blessings or cursing detailed in Deuteronomy 28. Continued
possession of the land and its blessings were conditioned upon their adherence
to the covenant. This brings us to the
so-called Palestinian Covenant. An interesting observation before we begin to
examine this alleged covenant is the fact that Scofield had no knowledge of the
nation of Israel or even the prospects of their habitation of the land as he
died long before any of these events occurred and thus all of the subsequent
revisions of the notes in the Scofield Reference Bible had to be contrived
after the fact. How convenient that the Zionist agenda sponsored by rich and
influential Jewish interests was successful in their efforts to reestablish the
nation state of Israel.
As
relates to the alleged Palestinian Covenant we would make the following
observations. First, the Scofield notes
state on page 251 (1967) revision. ‘It is
important to see that the nation has never yet taken the land under the
unconditional Abrahamic Covenant nor has it ever possessed the whole land.’
This statement is refuted by the Scriptures in two important
texts: Joshua 21:41-45 and I Kings 4:20-21. So once again both the premise and
the conclusion of the Scofield notes are false. The contention is that there
will be a future gathering and restoration of the nation pursuant to this
alleged covenant is summarized at Deut. 30:3-5The text here is speaking of a
gathering of all of the seed,that is, Abraham’s spiritual seed who are truly
the ‘Israel of God’ (See Galatians 6:16) from all of the nations
of the earth ‘even unto the uttermost
parts of heaven’ (verse 4)under the
new and everlasting covenant in Christ.
This is verified at verse 6: ‘And the
Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love
the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest
live.” The fundamental problem with Scofield, and the Christian Zionists
who support this false system pf theology is they fail completely to see who
Israel actually is in the mind and purpose of God so they must make a place for
Israel after the flesh, i.e. a natural seed they attempt to trace to
Abraham. The truth is “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly;
neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who
is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not
in the letter, whose praise is not of
men, but of God. (Romans 2:28-29) Thus,
they must make a place and provide a separate earthly kingdom for Israel after
the flesh making God a respecter of persons.(Acts 10:34-35) David Lance Dean blogspot:
theseprophets.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment