A dispensational presupposition not supported by anything actually in the Bible.
Yes, it is supported by the genealogies that I gave you.
That is why Matthew only goes back to Abraham while Luke goes back to Adam.
Understanding the Bible means understanding differences as well as similitaries (rightly dividing)
Amazing that the note was originally written in 1907 (this is from 1917).
No Israel-yet.
Jerusalem not in Jewish hands-yet.
Still Scofield wrote about it in his notes as a certain future event that hadn't happened-yet.
In the last days scoffers would come because the Lord hadn't returned-yet.(2Pe.3
Yes, but not slicing and dicing per Scofield's Notes.
The notion that Matthew was for a primarily Jewish audience and Luke for a gentile audience clearly supports the reading that Matthew 24 was using "abomination of desolation" (familiar to Jewish audience) while Luke 21 would use Jerusalem surrounded by armies to describe the same event.
Where the dispensationalist goes overboard is to assume that Matthew is exclusively to the Jews while Luke is somehow exclusively to gentiles, and use that to cloud their interpretation of the texts, and, in this case, to foresee two entirely different events.