Hi Bob:

I did note your post about E.W. Bullinger.  It was an oversight on my part.   In more ways than one.  I have read all of E.W.B.'s works in years past.  I can't say that I disagree with much.  At his point in time, he was extremely insightful and well ahead of his day. 

As it turns out I have been far more active on posting than I ever intended. 

It took me 25 years to come around to the Dispensational view and I never owned a copy of C.I. Scofield's Bible or any of his writings.  I came to my own position independently once I had discovered that Covenant/Reform theology was simply a hand-me-down from Rome and the reasons for so. 

Bullinger would have welcomed the computer, for several reasons, because he was such a thorough scholar, he would have been able to do comparisons that often get blurred and even confused in a manual study of the Word.  It is my opinion that he may have come to a different position with the aid of modern methods of analysis.  As I originally noted I like most of Les Feldick's work, he is probably more to the right (ultra-dispensationalist) of me.  The imagery, figurative language, metaphors, typology, often lead to different points of view.  I like to analyze all the different view, compare their premises, specifics, and then submit them to a logic criteria of what seems more reasonable in coming to my conclusions, reducing to the most sensible and rational position.  Does not always mean I am right.  One reason that the Bible is hard to understand is that I believe God intended it to not be too easy, but to keep us at the process of threshing and mining the diamonds and nuggets.

God bless,

Pastor Bob