I think I've told you before that I was shocked to learn than Scofield had no academic background and no expertise with biblical languages, biblical history, or biblical study.

While he didn't single-handedly invent the idea of the Evangelical rapture, which evolved over time, his commentary in the Scofield Study Bible sure had a lot to do with popularizing it. I'm just remembering that my father sometimes quoted Scofield from the pulpit. I wonder how shocked he'd be if he knew Scofield was a con man?

I mean, here we have this elaborate Rapture story, popular and taken as unquestionable, filled with tremendous detail sometimes, and it's all hung on a nebulous passage that looks as metaphorical as similar passages routinely taken as metaphor. Then Evangelicals somehow tie it up with other, unrelated passages, some of which are clearly not meant to be read literally either ... and just wow.

No wonder other forms of Christianity don't teach about Jesus coming back in the clouds for the faithful. You'd never be able to read the Bible and reconstruct the elaborate story Evangelicals have constructed.

Can I just say they sure have a lot of chutzpah criticizing Catholics for belief in continuing revelation? If the very recent invention of the Rapture doesn't count as continuing revelation in Evangelical minds, then .... I wonder how else they explain it.

I'd never thought about the Rapture's roots in racism, though, and that's an interesting context to view the invention in. Thanks.