Having pursued Biblical studies for some time now, upon a realization that the fundaments of Zionist theology are scripturally bankrupt, I have gradually become aware of an interesting effect that I would like to posit the fundamental traits of.
Since sometime in the 20th century, Christianity especially in the U.S. with which I am most familiar hit a significant intersection. One segment of people went with the materialist-modernist way of thinking, which is relativism. We all know the problems with that.
Very few seem to be aware that the proposed alternative to these beliefs, the popular set of things that has come to be called now "fundamentalist" views, has been subverted in various ways as well. The most obvious subversion is the idea that modern day Talmudists must be supported in their domination of the culture and their great game in the mid-east. The latter is becoming less of thing due to our decreased dependence on imported fossil fuel.
-Pro-zionism/dispensationalism (aka those guys wearing the hats who read the talmud are the people of God, not people who believe the Bible)
-Flood geology (the universe began at the start of the six days of creation, there is no possibility that events happened between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2; also global and not local flood in Noah's day, giraffes and penguins on the ark, etc.)
-Pretribulational rapture (don't worry about Jesus' warnings about the antichrist, we will not have tribulation just wait for the rapture)
-"Short" chronology (the 430 years before the Exodus was actually only 215 years; the pyramid that Djoser built survived the Deluge, etc.)
Now, I can go at length to tell you why each of these things is wrong and explain the correct view using scripture. But these are a seemingly related collection of theologies that are always posited as being "the" Biblical approach, telling people to accept their precepts or forever be part of the modernist tribe. I've seen the fallacies employed against all who do not conform. They say you must be an evolutionist/modernist/etc if you disagree with one of these points. When in reality some (all) of them can be shown not to be upon careful inspection. Not only this, but these theories veritably seem predicated on the concept of creating a controlled opposition. I have noticed that these certain views are gaining significant support as a kind of "false dichotomy alternative" to modernism. They seem to be given support and prominence, hence became dominant in the 20th century, from the shadows by people that aren't even Christian at all. Even though the theories promote clear errors that have of course turned people away from pursuing the truth. It seems like Hegel is hard at work here.
The most mainstream example of this is the promotion of flood geology and what is called "creation science." Why are people like Ben Stein making movies promoting this as the only alternate view? Have you never heard of ruin-reconstruction, aka "gap theory" as it is so called? This has been the standard view since Genesis A was written over a thousand years ago.
We are always told how there are only two possible positions on this, either you believe in a somewhat odd interpretation that isn't actually required by Scripture or else you must be a darwinian naturalist. Don't you understand that if your position is untrue that people will realize this and naturally have greater obstacles to overcome to believe the truth? I think these oddball views have been promoted on purpose by outsiders. I know that zionism and dispensationalism started with C. I. Scofield's Reference bible about 100 years ago. He got funding from some pretty unusual folks. Afterwards, his reference notes were somehow being used by generations of fundamentalist preachers. Coincidence or part of a plan? It seems like getting that to happen would take a significant effort and would not just happen by accident. I just wish we could get rid of the subversion on our side.
I see this effect in many of the most well-funded and promoted fundamentalist books. Such as Ben Stein's movie "Expelled," which got me thinking about this. Why is he the guy promoting this? Why are people listening to Ben Shapiro? These are troubling examples. I see this stuff and these concepts promoted in seminaries and other places that aren't modernist, at least to an extent that is worthy of concern. And what I very often see going along with it is a (sometimes very) "pro-Zionist" interpretation, which is one thing that, after this many years of investigation, instantly makes me suspicious of subversion. What do you guys think?