You linked several articles here which attempted to authenticate dispensationalism historically.
Why then did you offer links to arguments that are based on a dispensational view of history. If you read these articles carefully, on thing you will discover is that the biases and presuppositions of the author is quite evident in coloring his view of history.
If you " eschew all of the doctrines and traditions of men", what makes you think this guy got it right? Or perhaps you don’t think his assessment of history is right.
In that same post you wrote:
Enoch is an example. It was known to the disciples, quoted in Scripture, beloved for 300 years and then not just rejected but discarded and remained lost until approximately 1775 when surviving manuscripts were discovered in Ethiopia. The true antiquity was confirmed by fragments of copies found in the Dead Sea Scrolls which carbon date to 200 B.C.What do you believe is the authentic, God-breathed Scripture? IOW, what is your Bible?
I was making the point that (a) there is not an absence of evidence (the links) - and (b) the "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" argument doesn't apply since the Church went through a phase of book burning and (c) that among those disfavored ancient manuscripts and Jewish mysticism was a recurring belief in a literal translation of one day equals a thousand years, i.e. in Christ's millennial reign on earth.
IOW, "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is not a good argument in this case even though it is a great argument on the science threads.