How Preterism Changes our Mindset

[Caedmon]

Well davo, let me ask a question.

If Satan was bound at the beginning, and that eternally, then why do they keep asking for protection and keep getting assurances they are protected from him? Why mention Satan at all if he is not to be feared? Why does the Lord's Prayer say "deliver us from the evil one"? Why do they have to be delivered if Satan is already bound eternally?

 

[NumberOneSon]

For clarification; the Lord's Prayer says "and deliver us from evil", not "deliver us from the evil one". Evil is not personified as the devil in the Lord's Prayer. Evil exists because of sin; it is not dependent on the devil. I assure you, the sin and evil I have committed in my lifetime has it's source in me and my own sinfulness, not the outside influences of Satan. There are billions of people throughout the world and there is only one Satan, who is not omnipresent by the way . How many people could Satan possibly effect at one time?

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[Caedmon]

Ok, I understand that on the Lord's Prayer. It's just that the footnotes sometimes say "or evil one".

"The Bible is not a history of the Earth, but the history of redemption"

Does that mean that you don't believe in the Genesis creation story as some kind of literal thing with historical and scientific value? I don't see it as that either. I don't interpret it as literal history or science.

 

[NumberOneSon]

Hey, humblejoe. Actually, I do believe that the Genesis creation story is literal. The point of my signature is that the bible is not meant to be a complex history of the earth, nor is it meant to describe the beginning and end of the entire universe, but it's primary purpose is to explain how the history of redemption has unfolded throughout time. The bible was not designed to explain scientific theories, etc, but it can be used to validate certain aspects of history and science.

When the Bible describes a Garden, Adam and Eve, and a Serpent, I do believe they literally existed. Hope that answers your question.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[Susan]

The Bible is both a history of the earth and THE history of redemption.
Preterism is a misled faith. Also anyone who denies the validity of the Genesis account is throwing out the entire Bible.
If you don't believe one part, you don't believe any of it.
A true believer must believe ALL of the Bible!

 

[jenlu]

Why is preterism mislead...I am not one yet...but to me it is based in scripture...The Lord Jesus Christ is just as victorious in their view as yours, just that He did it in a different time as yours...

 

[Caedmon]

Oh, I FULLY believe in every word of Genesis. I just don't interpret Genesis 1-11 as literal.

And Susan, since your in such a literal interpretation mood today, do me a favor and interpret John 6:55 literally for me, please.

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by jenlu
...What I'm trying to say is...Adam was created not to die(fleshly, physically,mortally) is that right?...

Why don't we examine that?

What scriptures would you use to support that assertion?

 

[Susan]

How can one believe the Bible yet not take it literally?
That one's beyond me. . .
I'm not wanting to troll or anything, just ask an honest ?

I always assumed both Genesis and Revelation were to be taken literally as much as is possible. That's why I believe the world is only 4000 to 6000 years old despite people thinking that that is laughable.

 

[NumberOneSon]

Good questions, Susan. No, you are not trolling. Genesis 1-3 can be understood as literally (although if Christians take certain aspects of the Garden and undstand if figuratively I don't think their salvation is on the line or anything).

But Revelation is a compelely different genre then Genesis; it's prophectic and apocolyptic in nature, while Genesis is not. That means that Revelation contains a great many symbols and ideas that are meant to be taken figuratively. Beasts with ten or seven heads, harlots, vials, etc., each one is meant to be taken figuratively, although it is applied literally. What I mean is, there literally was a "Great harlot" in the 1st Century and it is mentioned in the book of Revelation, but the harlot was figuratively, or spiritually speaking of apostate Jerusalem, not an actual woman.

Something can be spiritual and literal at the same time (like the beasts, harlot, etc.). There are a great many symbols in Revelation, but they all had a literal application and fulfillment.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[Susan]

hmmm. Interesting. . .

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by Susan
How can one believe the Bible yet not take it literally?
That one's beyond me. . .

Define Literally?

Do you take Revelation 1:1 "Literally"?

I know you qualified your statement with "as much as possible".

Could you clarify what that means? How do you know what to take literal and what not to?

Thanks in Christ,
P70

 

[Susan]

Yes, I do believe Revelation 1:1 to be literal.
My qualifier means that obvious hyperbole (such as the verse that says to put out your eye if it makes you sin) or a bona fide metaphor (when Jesus says that He is the door, that does not mean that He is a literal door lol ) should be interpreted as such.

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by Susan
Yes, I do believe Revelation 1:1 to be literal.

So you are a preterist?

 

[Susan]

NOOOOO! 1 million times NO NO NO!

Why do you think so?
I am a pretribulational premillennialist considering a switch to posttribulationism if things get worse. . .

 

[Caedmon]

Well, to better explain, Genesis 1-11, esp. the creation stories, contains a lot of mythological content. Genesis 1-3 is a mythological cosmogony very similar to Babylonian sources. That, among other things, is why I consider it to be figurative.

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by Susan
NOOOOO! 1 million times NO NO NO!

Why do you think so?

I'm sorry if I offended you, I just asumed that since you claimed to believe the events described in the book of Revelation were ordained to take place "shortly" after John wrote the book.

That would be the "literal" interpratation of Revalation 1:1 anyway.

Perhaps you don't take that literally after all?

 

[Susan]

Humblejoe said
"Well, to better explain, Genesis 1-11, esp. the creation stories, contains a lot of mythological content. Genesis 1-3 is a mythological cosmogony very similar to Babylonian sources. That, among other things, is why I consider it to be figurative."

Have you ever considered that those myths of Babylon were based upon a distorted view of the truth-that the Genesis account was accurate but simply distorted in the Babylonian pagan garbage?

 

[Caedmon]

Hehehe... The Assyrian/Babylonian myths were written centuries before the Hebrew origin stories took form.

And BTW, it may be pagan, but it most certainly is not garbage, unless you want to define most of the ancient world's literature, some masterpieces, as such.

 

[jenlu]

Parousia...

That's a good question...and I've never really thought about it...Let's see...one way I could look at it is God said "in the day you eat of the fruit therof you shall surely die"...but as you and I both know...that was a spiritual death...(I've also never thought about the salvation of Adam...)....but since there was no sin, I guess one could assume that death had not entered the world...(you know what they say about assuming)...Jesus came afterall to defeat death...but of course again...you and I both know that was spiritual death...so where do we go from here...(you may help if you like...)...This is my last ditch effort...let's assume you're right and Adam would have died physically anyway(that's without committing sin against God) at least I could say that one of the blessings of the Garden was very long human life...that was taken away from man at the fall and until Jesus decreased...Now that the nations of this world come to the Lord (after a long time)the blessing of long life (along with other Edenic blessings...) become restored...what ya think of my effort...