No offense, but the notion that "Abraham himself must possess the land" is about the most imaginative of the many unbiblical "interpretations" by dispensationalists. It ranks up there with some of Scofield's and Lindsey's wild-eyed speculations.
Didn't we have this discussion in the past in a thread referencing an article written by Mr Congenial himself, Arnold Fruchtenbaum? And wasn't it shown that Arnold's article was an ideologically-driven mass of hateful, slanderous craziness?
LOL! That Fruchtenbaum is a real character. If his ideologically-driven "interpretations" were not so dangerous to the souls he deceives, he could be a comedian, along the lines of the Christian-hating Bill Maher.
Philip
Let me help you Philip ...
Genesis 13:14 The Lord said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, “Now lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward;
15 for all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever.
I vote with what the text of Genesis actually says ...
No mindless replacement theological contortions can transform the plain promise here, spoken by God Himself, to Abraham ... into something that Abraham himself would not have understood to be fulfilled literally.
You are in the unique position of having to argue against God here. ...
Job didn't have much luck doing that ...
Perhaps you will fair better.