The Preterist Blog ~ 100% Hyperpreterist Free|we can haz rezurekshun?

Starting 2008, I am going to be moving my “What’s New” notifications to the blog - that way readers can subscribe to the feed and not have to remember to visit the site to find out what I have added - especially I do not keep to a particular schedule, such as every Sunday or whatever. I am not going to post any updates until then, although I have many in the works.

Second, by the end of February 2008, God willing and baring any totally unforseen circumstances, the D-Dizzle fo Shizzle podcast will be available. I have read up and learned the basics, now it is just a matter of just doing it. I am figuring out right now if I have the right basic equipment - and whether I will be using Audacity or GarageBand to do the recording.

So far, the only scheduled topic, and the main purpose is to give an audio version of my commentary. It is an awful lot to read (some would just say it is awful and leave it at that) so I want to break it down into bite-sized pieces. I am not sure yet in February when it will be up as I am planning on doing the recording when I can get a week off from work - which in turns depends upon when I schedule to have some impact-glass windows we ordered installed at the house. I have heard from the contractor that they expect delivery from PGT around 1/11/08, so I am expecting they will be installed in February, and I will need time off for that.

So far, I am planning to host the podcast right here from my blog (but that may change if that proves to be more complicated than I thought) so the podcast feed will be the same as the blog feed. If I don’t host it here, than most likely it will be at LibSyn.

If you have any ideas, cool audio clips, or anything at all to suggest, please write me at preteristsite@gmail.com

In listening to and reading many presentations by Gary DeMar on the Olivet Discourse, I have voiced objections to his undue IMHO stress on the word “you” as proof that the persons referred to are by necessity his original audience. I don’t find that particularly consistently Biblical without exception and it is another of the bones to hyperpreterism that I find thrown in his work at times. However, I was quite gladdened to see in a recent issue of Biblical Worldview December 2007 where he has put this argument in a more accurate and persuasive manner than I had noticed previously.

Page 26 from Part 2 of A Beginner’s Guide to Bible Prophecy

Identify the Primary Audience

In addition to paying close attention to when prophetic events are said to take place, it’s important to identify the primary audience, the audience that will see the events unfold. When you read the Olivet Discourse, you should notice that Jesus uses the word “you” may times throughout the passage. “Do you not see all these things” (Matt. 24:2). Jesus is obviously addressing the disciples who pointed out the temple buildings to Him. They were the ones seeing “all these things.” “All these things” refers to the temple that was dismantled by the Roman armies “stone by stone” in A.D. 70. Jesus is not addressing a future Jewish audience.

Then DeMar adds in footnote 1

Some argue that when God speaks to an immediate, physically present audience, He is actually speaking to a larger and future group of individuals. This is true. But as we see in Matthew 24:2, the use of “you” is obviously a reference to the disciples who asked the question about the temple. Jesus is answering them and includes them in the prophetic events as they transpire. Since all this takes place within the time context of “this generation,” there is no need to project these events into an unspecified future.

Perfect! That is precisely my argument as well.

If you spend any time at all debating this matter with laypersons, you will find a tremendous amount of practising Greek without a license proving that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Greek Error 1: Matthew 23:36 and Matthew 24:34 have two entirely different words for “this” in the phrase “this” generation.

This was a recent assertion by a Strong’s exegete (Ty Rockwell) at the TheologyWeb forum. Our resident Greek expert John Reece handily took Ty out behind the woodshed and educated him. The material I present below is entirely his work and doing and his words. I will try to present it as a point by point between Ty and John as much as I can, quoting them directly (with posts compressed into summary) http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=104684.

Ty Rockwell: It must be noted that the “this generation” in Matthew 24:34 are different words than the “this generation” in Matthew 23:36. The “this” in 23:36 refers to the present generation to whom Jesus was speaking. The “this” in 24:34 speaks to “that” generation, as the word “this” is outside of the time speaking. The greek word for ‘this’ being, ‘autos’ in a third person, other, or ‘that same’ same.

I just love when futurists assert that “this” really means “that.” My friend Ty here asserts that “this” means “that” because allegedly two different Greek words for “this” are used - ironically the Greek for “that” isn’t used. LOL.

John Reece: No, not different words; rather, different grammatical inflections of the same words.

• In 23:36 the term is την γενεαν ταυτην (tēn genean tautēn) = “this generation” (Greek syntax has “the generation this”).
• The grammatical inflection την (tēn) is the accusative singular feminine form of the definite article ο, η, το (ho, hē to) = “the.”
• The grammatical inflection γενεαν (genean) is the accusative singular form of the feminine noun γενεα (genea) = “generation.”
• The grammatical inflection ταυτην (tautēn) is the accusative singular feminine form of the demonstrative pronoun ουτοζ (houtos) = “this.”

• In 24:34 the term η γενεαν αυτη (hē genea hautē) = “this generation” (Greek syntax has “the generation this”).
• The grammatical inflection η (hē) is the nominative singular feminine form of the definite article (”the”).
• The grammatical inflection γενεα (genea) is the nominative singujlar form of the feminine noun γενεα (genea)
• The grammatical inflection αυτη (hautē) is the nominative singular feminine form of the demonstrative pronoun ουτος (houtos) = “this”.

The grammatical inflections noted above differ in the respective verses because:

• In 23:36 the term is part of a prepositional phrase in the predicate of the sentence and is therefore in the accusative case;
• In 24:35 the term is the subject of the sentence and is therefore in the nominative case.

pwned!

Ty Rockwell: I know that the word “this” is essentially the same, with a slight difference. The aspect in the definition that is called a “reflexive, baffling wind” also has a sense of “backward” to it. That same “reflexive, baffling wind” is also found in Revelation 4:1 in the phrase “after this,” which in the Greek is “hereafter, hereafter” (the double not a typo) suggesting a traversing of time. Strong’s also calls the “reflexive, baffling wind” root ’seldom used.’ My point is that the ‘this’ of Matthew 23:36 has an immediacy, an accusative case, and the object of the verb emphasis to that specific generation, while the Matthew 24:34 sense is for a nominative case, beginning in the same specific generation but continuing, traversing time, not only in ‘this’ generation.

John Reece: There is absolutely no difference in the sense of the word in 23:36 and 24:34. In terms of the definition of ουτος (houtos = “this”), there is no aspect in the definition that is called “a relexive, baffling wind.” The fact that the term is in the accusative case in 23:36 and is in the nominative case in 24:34 makes absolutely no difference in the meaning of the term in the respective contexts.

Out comes the Strong’s…..

Ty Rockwell: 3778 houtos (hoo’-tos);

including nominative masculine plural houtoi (hoo’-toy); nominative feminine singular haute (how’-tay); and nominative feminine plural hautai (how’-tahee); from the article 3588 and 846; the he (she or it), i.e. this or that (often with article repeated):

KJV– he (it was that), hereof, it, she, such as, the same, these, they, this (man, same, woman), which, who.

846 autos (ow-tos’);

from the particle au [perhaps akin to the base of 109 through the idea of a baffling wind] (backward); the reflexive pronounself, used (alone or in the comparative 1438) of the third person and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other persons:

KJV– her, it (-self), one, the other, (mine) own, said, ([self-], the) same, ([him-, my-, thyself, [your-] selves, she, that, their (-s), them ([-selves]), there [-at, -by, -in, -into, -of, -on, -with], they, (these) things, this (man), those, together, very, which. Compare 848.

Strong’s is not wrong, there is a difference for the words. Its like in English grammar. Matthew 23:36 is the present tense “this generation,” while the Matthew 24:34 “this generation” is the present perfect tense.

John Reece: You have cited two entirely different words:

• ουτος (houtos) = demonstrative pronoun meaning “this.”
• αυτος (aoutos)= reflexive pronoun meaning “self.”

Of the two, only the first occurs in 23:36 and 24:34. You are projecting into the respective verses distinctions that are not present in the text.

• The term “this generation” in 23:36 is not “the present tense”.
• The term “this generation” in 24:34 is not “the present perfect tense”.

It’s not as though the term were a verb.

Ty Rockwell: Didn’t we already establish that the word for “this” in 23:36 is slightly different than the “this” in 24:34, and that you said there was a difference in ‘inflection, while into english they are both still translated ‘this’?

Matt.23:36 “this”= 5026 taute (tow’-tay);

and tauten (tow’-tane); and tautes (tow’-tace); dative case, accusative case and genitive case respectively of the feminine singular of 3778; (towards or of) this:

KJV– her, + hereof, it, that, + thereby, the (same), this (same).

I only brought out strong’s 846 to show that it came out of 3778. So, 23:36 could be stated, “this same generation.” But 24:34’s ‘this’ is 3778 By implication, if 23:36 is the dative case, then 24:34 is the non-dative case, allowing for a wider time, or a starting time.

John Reece: No we didn’t already establish that the word for “this” is slightly different in each verse. You merely made an assertion — contrary to fact — that there is a difference. I have demonstrated that in terms of meaning there is no difference at all in the sense of the word rendered “this” in the respective verses. Your use of Strong’s 846 to show that it came out of 3778 is an example of the the word-study fallacy known to exegetical scholars as the root fallacy. “This generation” absolutely cannot be translated “this same generation.” You are substituting the reflexive pronoun for the demonstrative pronoun with no linguistic or contextual warrant for doing so. The only dative case occurrence in 23:36 and 24:34 is the single word υμιν ( = “you” plural), which is exactly the same in both verses.

Ty Rockwell: So, you are saying that the Strong’s #5026 means absolutely the exact same thing as Strong’s #3778. without any shadow of a hint of a differing application, even present tense or present perfect tense? Why, then would another word be used?

John Reece: What you refer to as “two distinct words” is in fact not “two distinct words”.
If only you knew enough Greek to look up the word (there’s only one, not two) in a Greek lexicon you would find the word listed under a single heading irrespective of it’s varying inflections in different contexts. By the way, when I say “a Greek lexicon”, Strong’s does not count, as it is essentially a concordance with definitions that are all too often erroneous and even more often misinterpreted by people who can only look up words by numbers and then misunderstand what they find. The word rendered “this” in 23:36 and the word rendered “this” in 24:34 is the exact same word. In the Greek text, the difference in case (accusative in 23:36; nominative in 24:34) does not involve any difference in meaning. Note that the word identified by the number 3778 is represented in Strong’s as have four different spellings (houtos, houtoi, haute, and hautai): one word, four spellings (and there are quite a number of other spellings for this one word, representing differences not only in syntax but also differences in the person, number, and gender of whatever word in any given context that the pronoun may modify).

Note also that you presented the reflexive pronoun (identified by the number 846) as though it were a word that occurs in 23:36 or 24:34, when in fact the reflexive pronoun does not occur in either 23:36 or 24:34.

With regard to the word rendered “this” in both 23:36 and 24:34, there is a difference in spelling because that’s the way Greek distinguishes the difference between the use of the word as a part of the predicate of the sentence and the use of the word as a part of the subject of the sentence, as your quote of Strong’s above clearly demonstrates.

It’s like a bad carwreck. It’s awful, but you just can’t turn your eyes away from the carnage.

I just finished with New Testament Models for Ministry by Colin Kruse. As usual I was able to find one tidbit on eschatology for you.

Pages 114-115

1 Corinthians 15:45

The full text of this verse runs: ‘Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.’ Clearly the text is important for an understanding of Christ’s relationship to the Spirit, but the exact meaning of the relevant clause, ‘the last Adam became a life-giving spirit’ is not easy to determine. To begin with it is probably true to say that the Last Adam is a life-giving Spirit because, unlike the first Adam who only participated in life in a natural manner, he was a supernatural being, the source of all life, in particular of eternal life.

A significant contribution to the understanding of this passage has been made by J.D.G. Dunn. He grounds his interpretation of the expression in the controversy Paul had with the Gnostics in Corinth. They distinguished themselves as spiritual men (pneumatikoi) from others who were unspiritual (i.e. psuchikoi). They denied any real bodily resurrection while claiming to have already shared in resurrection life through their experience of the Spirit. Paul met the Gnostics on their own ground by accepting their distinction between the spiritual (pneumatikos) and the physical/unspiritual (psuchikos), but he applied it to two bodily states. He spoke of a physical body (soma psuchikon - or present mode of existence) and a spiritual body (soma pneumatikon - the mod of existence after the resurrection). So while agreeing that there are two kinds of existence, in the physical body (like the first Adam) and in the spiritual body (like the second Adam), he asserted that the second state follows the first and can only be experienced after death or at the parousia.

A friend of mine found this pretty funny graphic.

Yes I go through these periods of dormancy where I don’t update the site much. Here is what I am currently doing:

1. John Reece at TheologyWeb has given me a great bunch of Greek information to incorporate into my commentary which is taking some time.

2. I am setting a podcast deadline for myself of sometime in February to be up and publishing. I have to see when I can take some vacation time at work.

3. I am trying to be Windows-free but there was a “24″ video project that I had started a while back on Premiere Elements, so I got to finish that up as that is one of my last ties to Windows.

We have a few Early Church Father-ophiles on TheologyWeb who are found of cherry-picking the ECF to show that the “earliest” Christians who “must” have known the language better than Greek scholars today did not understand “this generation” to mean the people than living but rather understood it more as “race” or “kind” and thus, they are right, and we goofy preterists are wrong.

O Rly?

Here is an excellent post by TheologyWeb member John Reece (an expert on Greek):

There are those who view the writings of Christians in the early centuries of Church history to be authoritative for the interpretation of texts in the Greek New Testament. One of the presuppositions underlying that view is that those early Christian writers spoke Greek as their native language; thus, it is presumed, they had a better basis for interpreting the Greek texts than modern Christians for whom the Greek of the New Testament and other early Christian literature is not a conversational language.

However, early Christian writers who have been quoted above did not share with Jesus and his disciples the same native language; and, it so happens, they did not share with Jesus and his disciples the same understanding of the word rendered “generation” in our English versions.

For Greek speaking early Christian writers, the word genea had a meaning that overlapped but was not identical with the semantic range of the semitic word dōr [hebrew transliteration - DWR] for which genea was the rendering in the Greek Old Testament and in the Greek NT accounts of the sayings of Jesus.

As I am demonstrating again (a href=”http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=101858″here in this thread on genea, the word used by Jesus and his disciples never meant “race”; thus, early Christian writers were unwittingly mistaken in attributing that meaning to genea in the Gospels.

John comments are part of this thread

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=2166660#post2166660

I have been reading “The Thousand Years” by Nathaniel West – actually perusing might be a more accurate term. This book is long… and written in 1889. Most theological books written over a hundred years ago are near about torturous to read in style, at least in my not so humble opinion. So I can make no claim to have read this thoroughly, and there may have been some finer details that I have missed, but I do think that I have grasped the main portion of the thing.

West’s goal is to try and prove that the idea of “the thousand years” is scattered throughout the whole Bible and not just isolated to Revelation Chapter 20. In this I believe he performs a neat trick in some respects of switching the goal posts. He leaves the impression that those dastardly “spiritualizers” deny that the “1000 years” are mentioned anywhere else – which of course is false. Nearly all of the abundant texts that he brings forth to show that the “Millennium” is not an isolated concept would be agreed upon by amillennialists and postmillennialists (though to be fair, the postmillennialists of his day are not of the same school as today – so I will limit my comments to amillenialists so as not to force anachronistic requirements upon West) who would agree that those passages refer to the “Millennium.” What West needs to prove is two-fold, one, that the “thousand years” is a literal one thousand years, and in that he fails miserably. Second, that the “thousand years” is a future period of dispensational blessing for Israel. He does a much better job at that, though of course I disagree. He is very thorough in his dispensational ferreting I will give him that. The tediousness is not his fault, it is simply a stylistic chasm between then and now.

His main premise is that the “thousand years” is mentioned by other equivalent names such as “many days,” “latter times,” “the Third Day,” etc. However, why would John use a completely new term when he didn’t hesitate to use Old Testament terminology hundreds of times in Revelation - and when we go through the Old Testament to see how “thousand” IS used, well, let’s just say the results aren’t favourable to Mr. West’s position.

The work is highly polemical in some spots, flinging aspersions upon “spiritualizers” without much interacting and supporting the polemic. This may also be characteristic of the time, I must confess ignorance in that regard.

So following is just some bits and pieces I thought good to discuss. West’s whole premise is that unfolding revelation settles on the idea that there are three “ends” and four ages – he diagrams this below:

However, right from the get-so, West has shot himself in the foot. He claims (page 19) “that what is to us now ‘the world to come,’ will be to its own inhabitants ‘the present world,’ even as our present age was the world to come, to pre-Christian Judaism.”

How does this defeat West from the starting gate? Well first, the alleged “millennial kingdom” was the “world to come” to pre-Christian Judaism, which in his scheme is now. To get around this obvious problem, he claims that as revelation unfolded, hints of the present intervening age, were revealed. Yet his statement above simply states “pre-Christian Judaism.” He, like all dispensationalists, has to assume a gap or parenthesis, and is stuck with a dogma seeking a proof-text. But even more devastating to this summary statement is the New Testament Pauline statement:

By this time, West claims that this “three ends and four ages” view was revealed – yet Paul states that the “age to come” is one in which Christ reigns IN heaven and we reign with Him IN heaven.

Ephesians 1:15-22 - Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers: that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

Ephesians 2:4-6 - But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

Much later in the book, West waxes long and poetic about how the Christian saints in the Millennium rule on earth and not in heaven (pages 298-306)…. yet if the Millennium is the “Age to Come” - where does that verse say that Paul’s readers would be? In the heavenly places at the right hand of the Father

I deal with that more extensively in my article Angels We Have Heard on High: The Location of Christ’s Reign

My regular readers will note that in my Evans review posted a few weeks ago, I went into some detail about the idea that there can in fact be a “skipped” period when relating the history of ethnic Israel, because after their rejection of Christ – they simply are a non-issue as an ethnic covenant people until the consummation. This truth is often distorted by dispensationalists in order to support their “parenthesis” theory, and to the extent that the nugget is there, there is in fact an element of accuracy. West (page 26) quotes an author by the name of Auberlen in Der Prophet Daniel (141) as stating, “Israel, after having rejected salvation, ceased to be the object of sacred history, and became that of profane history alone.” I can agree with this, though I disagree with West’s extrapolation of this concept. [I also note that I cannot check if West is fairly using Auberlen in the context of the original statement – I don’t read German and don’t have access to that original source material]

Oddly enough, West alleges that Daniel 12 does not speak of a “resurrection of the wicked” but only the righteous - this of course is critical to his view - and he must pull a similar maneuver with John 5 - in one case alleging improper translation, and in the other, sheer eisegesis. Here is how he alleges Daniel 12:1-3 should be translated:

And (at that time) many (of thy people) shall awake (or be separated) out from among the sleepers in the earth-dust. These (who awake) shall be unto life everlasting, but those (who do not awake at that time) shall be unto shame and contempt everlasting. (page 266)

West, like many other premillennialists, pushes the panic button with this little diddy:

If, moreover, we allegorize one event, to be consistent we must allegorize all. This wrecks the whole prediction [he is referring to the order of events in Revelation, but hey, to be consistent, he must apply this standard everywhere right?], and denies the vast body of literal Scripture elsewhere with which it stands connected. (page 57)

That is one nice and irrational ipse dixit there. Too bad West doesn’t tell us exactly what gauge is the chain that is holding satan fast during the millennium. Inquiring minds want to know. Does Home Depot carry it? What is doubly ironic about his statement is how in his exposition of these “connected” Scriptures, he breezily equates “days” as “years.” Tsk, tsk, dirty allegorizer.

And check this out:

… the “End of the Days” of which Ezekiel and Isaiah speak, in the texts already referred to, is the end of “the thousand years,” the “end” which Paul has in view, in 1 Corin. 15:24, when Messiah’s victory is complete, and, all rule, authority and power being put down, and death itself destroyed, the kingdom is surrendered to the Father, and God is all in all, 1 Corin. 15:24-26. (pages 59-60)

Wow. That’s a lot of commas. But beside that, the passage says no such thing about any “thousand years.” The end of which Paul speaks occurs AT the Second Coming - not one thousand years later. It is only some mighty heaving that can wedge a thousand years in there.

Oh and he uses the much abandoned “genea” means “race” error. I would have loved to seen him seriously interact with that text (page 79).

Surprisingly, well maybe not, West asserts without qualification that the entire early church was premillennial (chiliastic) - AND that it was a test of orthodoxy with Justin Martyr denouncing as heretics those who held otherwise. Well that is simply incorrect - Justin does no such thing, and in fact, gives proof that there were true and devout Christians who were not chiliasts, though Justin himself was.

“I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion [chiliasm], and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.”

Justin was much less dogmatic than West. And if West truly wants to go there, what is arguably the earliest creed of the Church, the Apostle’s Creed, CAN be interpreted as excluding premillennialism:

He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

What is very deceptive about West’s use of Justin Martyr is the fact that while Justin was a chiliast, he was definitely NOT dispensational, but believed that the Church was Israel. Much more on this can be found here.

West unabashedly places the Cross in the “gap” in seventy weeks prophecy which has nothing to do with Israel, effectively stating by implication that Israel has no need of the Cross (page 115). The blasphemy of this overt statement shocks me. When I was dispensational I held it without realizing it, and when I did finally realize the implicit teachings of my position, I was rightly aghast. Any theology that places the Cross anywhere else other than the focal point of all things deserves to be flushed into the sewer with the rest of the feces. Many sincere and well-meaning Christians hold this position, and it just saddens me to the core.

And then West has the chutzpah to say that the 70 weeks are literal! (page 127) It truly is a bizarre interpretation of “literal” that places gaps in the middle of a tight numerical time frame. West holds that the beginning point of the 70 weeks must necessarily be the decree of Cyrus and spends a great deal of time showing how that can work out chronologically, but it was quite tedious, and I just don’t have the stomach for it here. Here is a thumbnail sketch, he inserts another gap of 57 “Gentile” years into the chronology to make it fit. I kid you not.

Suffice it to say, I found it odd that a whole chapter entitled “Symbolic Numbers” in a book about the “thousand years” didn’t really deal with the Old Testament usage of “thousand.” West did interact with the existence of symbolic numbers but claimed that such had both symbolic and literal purposes. Yes that can be true. However, this does not appear to be the case with the numerous other examples of “thousand,” and he just doesn’t deal with this. MOVE ABOVE, THERE IS A CHAPTER ON THIS LATER

There is a statement (which up until his faulty conclusory remarks) that I was nodding in some sympathetic agreement with - and again - this is where I think most preterists miss the boat.

Such the frame and filling of the 70th Week in the Olivet Prophecy, a double prophecy, which looks, perspectively, through Jerusalem of A.D. 70 to Jerusalem of the End-Time, and covers both the near and far horizons in its minute yet great and comprehensive expressions. [DDW - I wouldn't find it minutely covering the future] As in the prophetic representation in Daniel, Antiochus insensibly glides into the last Antichrist [again, a difference there but the point remains even if we hold Nero or some other past figure to be in view], so here, Jerusalem and Israel of A.D. 70, glide into Jerusalem and Israel [DDW - I wouldn't hold to that last portion] of the End-Time. The Parousia or Advent of the Lord, at the End of our own Age, is seen through the Judgment on Jerusalem at the End of the Jewish Age, A.D. 70…. [he then blathers off into nonsense](page 212)

And if you thought only modern futurists were incurably goofy:

Jerusalem and Mount Zion, by means of physical convulsion and geological changes suddenly effected through disruption, depression, fissure and elevation, at the Lord’s appearing, shall be “exalted” or “lifted high” above the surrounding hills, and the adjacent region be reduced to a “plain”….

I can’t take it. I just can’t take it. Seriously did someone vacuum all sense out of this guy? I am starting to really skim the book at this point… Christianity is morphing into a Chick tract before my eyes the more I read this book. Honestly, it is cartoonish rubbish like this that makes Mormonism seems believable - heck golden plates are nothing compared to this.

In an appendix discussing Jewish ideas of the duration of Messiah’s reign and noting that there were differing opinions, he makes this odd statement:

If one Rabbi teaches differently from another, it is not that the one is to be deemed false, and the other true, but all are entitled to the same religious respect.

Umm. Okay. I have had enough. I skimmed through the rest and want to spend my time with less excruciating reading.

These are great times indeed. The pernicious heresy of hyper-preterism appears to be devouring itself as its adherents scatter and divide and some noteable proponents renounce their former beliefs. Of particular note is Todd Dennis, the owner of PreteristArchive which used to be a vociferously pro-hyperpreterist site. Todd has publicly renounced his hyperpreterism of ten years declaring himself to be an “idealist preterist.” Quite honestly, at this point, I don’t even know precisely what that means, and have inquired of Todd for further clarification if he feels comfortable doing so at this point. But I am greatly encouraged by this warning that Todd saw fit to put on an article hosted at the PreteristArchive by hyperpreterist David Green:

Warning: This “full preterist” related material is being archived as part of the balanced representation of all pret views, but its premise is deemed by the curator to be “toxic theology” which subtly draws people away from the things of the spirit due to the fleshly “letter-based” appeal (core components being extra-biblical history and logic — there being not one single verse which looks back to fulfillment in ad70, the system is based entirely upon deductive reasoning). Therefore, this warning is being attached. If you have already adopted this viewpoint, please consider — has your attention been drawn toward or away from Jesus Christ and him crucified? (i.e. what is the focal point of your Christian life.. AD70 or AD30?) Please note that the earliest known adherents of full preterism later abandoned it, as have many contemporary former full peterists, including the curator of this archive (full pret for over a decade). The “past spiritual resurrection” view is the theology that Paul condemns in II Timothy 2:17-18, so please proceed with extreme caution. - TD

Amen. Despite this, I would not recommend PreteristArchive since it still hosts outright heresy and presents it as “the Internet’s Only Balanced Look at Preterism” – as if “balanced” meaning “anything goes” is a good thing. I would not recommend a Christological site if it insistented upon hosting Arian arguments for the sake of “balance,” but until I learn otherwise (i.e. that Todd still denies the future Second Coming and bodily resurrection – which I am presuming at this point, he does not deny these things but I do not know for sure), I will no longer refer to the PreteristArchive as a “hyperpreterist site” but one that hosts hyperpreterist material. If Todd would put a bold disclaimer like that on all pages containing the rank heresy, I would commend him highly.

But in either event, praise God that Todd has renounced the hymenaean heresy. And unlike Chilton, the darling “convert” of the hyperpreterists, Todd is not post-brain-injury but of sound mind and health.

Hyper-preterism is dying – the old guard desparately tries to keep afloat while former adherents tender their renouncements and others drift off into postmodern goobledegook. It couldn’t happen to a fouler heresy.

When was the book of Revelation written?
Why does it matter?

Hanegraaff v. Hitchcock

As this debate will evidence, what you believe about the date of the book of Revelation will significantly impact how you view the prophecies of Revelation. Are they still future as Premillenialists believe? Or were most fulfilled in A.D. 70 as the partial-preterist [not my words] position holds.

from:

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/cws/home