Let see, Stevens appeals to a literal interpretation . . . at yet the only thing MOST Preterists take LITERALLY are the time statements. LOL. Stevens is walking a very tight rope with this one. Especially when you begin to list every single thing that Preterists DON'T TAKE LITERALLY. Ironically, he claims the bible MUST BE taken literal to solve all our eschatological problems. And the funny thing is he tries SO HARD to make SPIRITUAL THINGS LITERALLY FULFILLED. WHAT?Watch how he stumbles over his own words. Yet he only claims his literal approach when it is convenient to the audience he is addressing. WHAT AN "APE-EEEEE" THEOLOGY!!!!!!!!!!!
A recent article I found shows the frustration of how Preterist try to spiritualize everything into a 70AD box. Yet Stevens "a letter based man" uses literalism as his saving grace. How appropriate for the situation.Ed Stevens "As we go further in our studies of redemption, we will notice how a literal interpretation of Genesis, along with the appropriate applications of typology, will solve all of the difficult eschatological problems which are encountered at the other end of the Bible." Sword & Plow Vol. X, No. 2 – February 2008
Ed Stevens also states "They WERE fulfilled in the first century. Some of them were physically-literally fulfilled in the physical events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem, others were fulfilled in the heavenly realm where the departed spirits were raised out of Hades and gathered into the Kingdom. But, whether physically or heavenly, the events actually, literally occurred and were fulfilled. "
If you thought that previous quote was funny, check out how he completely goes the opposite direction.
Stevens says
"Although there are times when the “literal” interpretation for parts of Revelation seems to fit well with the facts of history, Chilton shows that often it is more appropriate to interpret Scripture “spiritually.” This not only makes sense, but it avoids the pitfall of a woodenly literal, (and often ridiculous) interpretation."
preterist.org/articles/days_of_vengeance.asp
Or THIS
Ed Stevens "Others have proposed a resurrection of the dead in the heavenly realm with visible signs being given in the physical realm, and say that the rapture is just another description of the invisible “gathering” into the presence of God at AD 70. I would tend to favor this later view (MEANING NOT LITERAL), although Russell and Terry’s idea cannot be lightly dismissed."
preterist.org/articles-old/gentry/anthropological_errors.htm
Ed Stevens "The least that can be said is that the Bible presents the NATURE of resurrection in a somewhat ambiguous manner, if not in a spiritual manner. The resurrection in 1 Cor. 15 can be and has certainly been interpreted in several different figurative and literal ways.
preterist.org/articles/what_if_the_creeds_are_wrong.asp
Ed Stevens "Bible prophecy can be understood, but Futurist views have fallen far short for many reasons: their extreme physical/literalizing approach, their seeming inability to distinguish between figurative and literal language, and their failure to properly take into account the historical-grammatical-cultural context of the prophecies (specifically what they meant to their original audience). Even the most difficult prophetic passage comes alive when approached properly. It is time to look at some alternatives, and the Preterist view is a great place to start."
preterist.org/whatispreterism.aspAlso NOTE: Ed Stevens allows articles on his site which are specifically "NOT LITERAL." Daniel E. Harden "True, I argue that Jesus "came" in A.D. 70 AND that he is coming at the end of history in the Second Advent. However, A.D. 70 involves only a METAPHORICAL coming. I do not believe that he literally moved out of heaven at all. The language of "coming" used in A.D. 70 passages are literary devices portraying the divine providence; the "coming" of the creeds refers to a literal, bodily coming." preterist.org/articles/heretic.asp
Randy: 1) They have to look right at passages of Scripture that clearly and plainly show the church will be caught up into the clouds, admit the word "rapture" means "caught up", then boldly state "there is no rapture". Then they have to resort to ridiculous arguments about the use of the word "air", suggesting it can only refer to the air within ten feet of the ground, that "clouds" could mean ground "fog", etc.
2) They have to look right at passages like 1 Corinthians 15 (where it repeatedly states the body which is sown, is the one which is raised, and calls people a fool for not observing that something has to die before it can be made alive), Luke 24:39 (where it shows Christ's resurrected body had flesh and bones), and Philippians 3:21, (where it says the "vile" body in which we die, is the one which will God will "change", and that it will be changed to the likeness of Christ's glorious body (that had flesh and bones)), then boldly deny the body which dies is the one which is resurrected, claiming the vile body really remains just as it is, corrupting in the grave, while a second, spiritual body (which never died in the first place) was some how raised from the dead!
Then they pretend like we don't acknowledge any spiritual resurrection, but are only concerned about the body, when it's obvious people like the Corinthians were already spiritually resurrected from the dead (Eph. 2:1ff.), yet still hoped for the resurrection of their body!
3) They have to look right at Romans 11:25-26, where it says the deliverer will come out of Zion when the fulness of the Gentiles "has come in" (past), admit Gentiles are still coming in for salvation, then conclude it must therefore be talking about the full number of Gentiles (a "glass" of fulness) that would come in by A.D. 70! Talk about working your way backwards from a desired conclusion, just to hang on to your favorite doctrine!
4) They have to look right at the context of 2 Peter 3, where it plainly identifies the heavens and earth which will be destroyed by fire, as the ones which were made by God, that consist of land rising out of water, and which were previously destroyed by a flood, then conclude it wasn't really talking about the destruction of this physical earth, but of some spiritual principle. To do this, they go back to Leviticus, or any other place in the Bible, where the word "heaven" or "earth", can possibly be understood in a figurative sense, then try to impose this exclusive meaning on 2 Peter 3, as if people won't notice the context of that passage.
Why? Why are preterists FORCED to make up such blatant, ridiculous, and obvious lies, while they are looking right at the passages they contradict?
Simple:
NONE OF THESE THINGS HAPPENED IN A.D. 70! If they allow the Bible to mean what it clearly states, their whole system of lies comes crashing to the ground!
http://www.pulpitfire.net/forum/index.php?topic=31.msg31;topicseen
Jan Markell "There are "Full Preterists" and "Partial Preterists." Partial Preterists actually consider much of what Full Preterists teach to be heretical. A Full Preterist says that Jesus returned "in spirit" in 70 AD and NOTHING is future. Good-bye "blessed Hope." We're in "the New Heavens and New Earth" right now and Satan is bound. But to Full and Partial Preterists, hardly anything is taken literally--most all is allegorical or symbolic, particularly the entire book of Revelation. To all Preterists, the Olivet Discourse is not about the coming of our Lord but about the destruction of Jerusalem."
therefinersfire.org/preterism.htm
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/01/ed-stevens-literalism-will-solve-all.html
