Preterism, both full & partial, are false.

[Spiritual Jew]

And Jesus taught it is a present reality for those who believe, and not something we have to wait for:

John 11:26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

Unless you are claiming the unrepentant will one day share in Christ's victory over Death?

That is talking about the fact that we who believe in Christ will not experience the second death (Rev 20:14-15). But, that has a different context than Revelation 21:4.

Revelation 21:4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

Do we not still experience mourning, crying and pain? Of course we do. So, this verse is not talking about a current reality but rather is talking about the literal end of death which has not yet taken place. That will happen when Christ returns and burns up the heavens and the earth and destroys all His enemies (2 Peter 3:10-12, 2 Thess 1:7-10). No one will ever die after that and the new heavens and new earth will be ushered in at that time.

Sin and Death exist forever.
The Unrepentant suffer in sin and death for eternity. There is no escape from Sin and Death apart from repentance and Belief on Christ Jesus.

They will not actually sin for eternity and there won't be people dying for eternity.

A convenient get around for your position to make this claim, (and becasue of how tight your grip onto your position is, I can see why you would absolutely need to employ it) but where does scripture teach it?

It doesn't specifically spell that out, but what other explanation is there for what Isaiah 65:17-25 says about the new heavens and new earth compared to Revelation 21:1-4? We know scripture doesn't contradict itself, right? Which testament has the greater revelation of the truth, the New or the Old? Surely, you understand that the New Testament shines light on the Old Testament and clarifies the real meaning of the Old Testament scriptures, right? You can't get any more straightforward than Revelation 21:4. We should not interpret Isaiah 65:17-25 in such a way that contradicts what John taught about the new heavens and new earth.

Most futurists apply this to the Millennium, which is also a convenient get around that scripture dosn't actually teach, but you're the first I've heard provide the interpretation you have... know any scholars who hold this view?

I'm not really a futurist, though. I'm more of an idealist. I haven't spent much time studying how scholars interpret Isaiah 65:17-25, so I can't help you there.

15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.

Present performing Action.
Note that he didn't say "Loved and Practiced"

That is talking from the perspective of when the new heavens and new earth are ushered in and not speaking of the current time when John wrote the book. The new heavens and new earth will be ushered in after Revelation 20:11-15 takes place, which is after the thousand years and Satan's little season. That is when the ones described in Revelation 22:15 will be cast into the lake of fire. It says this about the same ones who are referenced in Revelation 22:15...

Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

When they are cast into the lake of fire, they will then be outside of the new Jerusalem, which is the church, on the new earth. They will be entirely separate from believers. That is not yet the case.

 

[Timtofly]

It does not require the actual presence of Satan and his demonic hosts for there to be corruption in the church and oppression of believers in this world. All it takes is the sinful nature of mankind to act out its own evil impulses. The "children of darkness" in this world are always going to oppose the "children of light".

Christ called the Pharisees the "children of the devil" when they opposed His ministry. "The lusts of your father ye will do", He said. This does not require the continued presence of the Satanic realm in this world for the human "children of the devil" to act in an evil manner. Satan was successfully responsible for tempting the original couple to fall into sin, but from then on, sin's effects spread out and have corrupted the human race. Humanity on its own, without Satan or demons around, is just as capable of offending a righteous God, even more so than Satan ever did, because our sins are committed against the grace offered to humanity (which was not offered to the fallen angels).

But not on this part, because you are missing all the scripture texts which predicted the demise of Satan and his demonic hosts - and when it would happen. God's consuming fire turned them to ashes long ago in AD 70.

You really think that no humans have been demon possessed since the Cross?

 

[Timtofly]

The ECF recognized That AD 70 was the "Coming of the Lord of the Vineyard to destroy those wicked Men and lease His vineyard to a new nation" As foretold in Matthew 21:40-45. The recognized, correctly, that Jesus was the Stone that came and Ground them to Powder, on time, as prophesied.

"Restored Israel" consists of King Jesus and His Jewish Followers, with Gentiles grafted into that one nation.
We are not still waiting for that restoration.

I am pretty sure that happened at the Cross, not some 40 years later.

You may not be waiting for a restoration, but God is.

 

[Timtofly]

Wait.... so "Heavens and Earth" are NOT LITERAL here??

Is this your claim?

and what do you mean "Their heavens and earth"?

Isn't the Heavens and Earth "ALL our" Heavens and Earth?
How could the literal Heavens and Earth it be just "theirs"?

Because they are still under the curse.

A NHNE will be literal. Their Covenant with God was literal and still is.

 

[3 Resurrections]

You really think that no humans have been demon possessed since the Cross?

I never wrote that. I wrote that demon-possession ceased in AD 70 when God destroyed all the members of the Satanic realm completely at that time in Jerusalem's Lake of Fire. A loosed Satan and his angels being cast out of heaven in AD 33 were only given a "little season" and a "short time" after the cross to operate in this world without Santan's deception of the nations being bound. That "short time" ended in AD 70 when God reduced that formerly-anointed cherub to ashes on the earth (Ezekiel 28:18-19); when God "slew the Dragon that is in the sea" (Isaiah 27:1).

In Matthew 12:43-45, Christ had predicted that during the "last state" of His own wicked and perverse generation, they would be overwhelmingly oppressed by a seven-fold increase in demon-possession. That's exactly what happened. Israel's "last state" approaching AD 70 was worse than its "first state" when Christ and His disciples were among them casting out demons right and left.

In AD 70, just as Zechariah 13:2 promised for the time connected to the siege of Judah and Jerusalem, God caused the unclean spirits to "pass out of the land". "Every unclean spirit" had been imprisoned within the city of Jerusalem from AD 66 until AD 70 (Revelation 18:2), and God got rid of them forever in that location, as Isaiah 24:21-23 had predicted long before then.

It is a mistake to refer to anyone since then as being demon-possessed. Those that are presumed to be demon possessed since AD 70 are displaying human physiological or mental conditions, or simply the evil heart desires of mankind being manifested in combination with those conditions.

 

[parousia70]

Tell me this. Jesus said that no one, including Himself, knows the day or hour of His second coming except for the Father (Matt 24:36, Matt 25:13). So, if that event was what He was talking about in Revelation 3:3 then how could He have known whether or not He was going to come during the lifetimes of those He was rebuking in the first century church in Sardis? That wouldn't make sense.

This poses a bigger problem for your view than does mine. If he did not know His thief's coming would befall them in their day, How could he have PROMISED them "I will come upon you as a thief"?

Does Jesus issue empty promises that He has no idea whether He can fulfill or not?
I don't think so.

You're only option, while maintaining your view, is to invent a separate, distinct Thief's coming for them, even though scripture does not teach such anywhere.

I would suggest the better way is to adjust your view to fit the scripture, instead of adjusting the scripture to fit your view.

Clearly, while He walked the earth, He did not know, However after He ascended to the Father, Scripture tells us He was then given the information on the timing by the Father for the purpose of correctly, accurately and URGENTLY relaying that timing to His servants:
Revelation 1:1, 3
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place... for the time is near.

He was not given this information on the timing anytime on earth, but it is indisputable that once He ascended to the Father, He was then given that information, information he did not previously have, for scripture explicitly says such.

Now, again, HOW would those at Sardis have known that the Thief's coming they were to watch for and keep their Garments pure in Revelation 3:3 was a DIFFERENT event from the Thief's coming they were told to watch for and keep their garments pure in Revelation 16:15 ?

I'll answer that: They couldn't have known. Which makes your premise an impossible one. There is nothing in the Book of Revelation that they received that would give them any indication these were spearate distinct events, and everything to indicate to them they were the same.

The Apostolic and Christic teaching on the Thief's coming is unified and singular. Nowhere is it taught that there are MULTIPLE Comings of Christ as a Thief.

Hey, go ahead. Why not take everything everyone says as a compliment? Nothing stopping you.

Well, as they say, Any publicity is good publicity
And it sure beats being bitter and acting the victim.

 

[parousia70]

Because they are still under the curse.

A NHNE will be literal.

You have proven that, when it suits your view, You can assert that Heavens and earth are a Metaphor, yet you complain when others assert the same thing?

Maybe it's only OK when YOU do it?

Their Covenant with God was literal and still is.

As I demonstrated in my Post #229, such is impossible.
The facts of the events of the 70+ year history of Modern Israel PROVE conclusively that the people there (except those who are Christians) are NOT in any covenant relationship with the Living God.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

This poses a bigger problem for your view than does mine. If he did not know His thief's coming would befall them in their day, How could he have PROMISED them "I will come upon you as a thief"?

Does Jesus issue empty promises that He has no idea whether He can fulfill or not?
I don't think so.'

Of course I would never claim that Jesus would make empty threats. Don't be ridiculous. You do understand that He said He would come upon them as a thief IF they did not repent, right? Well, did they repent or not? I don't know, do you? Maybe some did and some didn't, but I don't have that information. If any of them refused to repent even after seeing His warning, how do we know that He didn't just go ahead and kill them similar to how God killed Ananias and Sapphira when they lied about what they did with their land (Acts 5)?

You're only option, while maintaining your view, is to invent a separate, distinct Thief's coming for them, even though scripture does not teach such anywhere.

So what? No other scripture specifically talks about the church in Sardis, so Revelation 3 is all we have to go by as it concerns them specifically.

I would suggest the better way is to adjust your view to fit the scripture, instead of adjusting the scripture to fit your view.

That's what I say to you. Scripture is very clear that when He comes as a thief in the night it will result in the burning up of the heavens and the earth which has clearly not yet happened (2 Peter 3:10-12). Does your doctrine agree with 2 Peter 3:10-12? No, it does not.

Clearly, while He walked the earth, He did not know, However after He ascended to the Father, Scripture tells us He was then given the information on the timing by the Father for the purpose of correctly, accurately and URGENTLY relaying that timing to His servants:
Revelation 1:1, 3
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place... for the time is near.

Where does that say He knew the day or hour of His coming at that point? It does not. You falsely conclude that Revelation only contains things that would literally soon take place, but that is not what it is saying. It's talking about things that were continually approaching and would certainly take place, but it was not indicating that it would all take place within a short amount of time.

Even if you don't take the thousand years literally, it certainly doesn't make sense to think that the thousand years represents a short amount of time, so that alone blows up your theory that the whole book is about things that would literally take place soon after the book was written.

And then there's the not small issue that your doctrine completely depends on the book having been written before 70 AD, which is doubtful.

He was not given this information on the timing anytime on earth, but it is indisputable that once He ascended to the Father, He was then given that information, information he did not previously have, for scripture explicitly says such.

No, you are interpreting it as such. And, are you ignoring Revelation 1:19 when you interpret Revelation 1:1-3 the way you do? That verse indicates that John was to write about things that had happened in the past, things that were happening at the time and things that would happen from that point on up until the second coming of Christ and ushering in of the new heavens and new earth, which has not yet occurred.

Now, again, HOW would those at Sardis have known that the Thief's coming they were to watch for and keep their Garments pure in Revelation 3:3 was a DIFFERENT event from the Thief's coming they were told to watch for and keep their garments pure in Revelation 16:15 ?

I'll answer that: They couldn't have known. Which makes your premise an impossible one. There is nothing in the Book of Revelation that they received that would give them any indication these were spearate distinct events, and everything to indicate to them they were the same.

The Apostolic and Christic teaching on the Thief's coming is unified and singular. Nowhere is it taught that there are MULTIPLE Comings of Christ as a Thief.

If that was true, then what Jesus must have meant in Revelation 3 is to warn them about what He would do to them IF they were still alive when He came as a thief. Because He clearly has not yet come as a thief if we're talking about what Jesus Himself talked about in the Olivet Discourse, what Paul wrote about in 1 Thess 5:2-3 and what Peter wrote about in 2 Peter 3. The heavens and earth are still around and have not been burned up. The new heavens and new earth have not yet been ushered in.

So, you can say all you want about this, but you can't say anything to convince me that scripture doesn't teach that He will come as a thief in the night in the future and destroy all His enemies on the earth on that day.

 

[DavidPT]

Even if you don't take the thousand years literally, it certainly doesn't make sense to think that the thousand years represents a short amount of time, so that alone blows up your theory that the whole book is about things that would literally take place soon after the book was written.

Assuming Amil, and the fact parousia70 is an Amil, that is an excellent point you bring up here. That argument never crossed my mind before, maybe because I'm not an Amil. That certainly is a good argument to use against Preterist Amils, though.


I would add, even if one took the thousand years literally, it would still involve a significant amount of time, an amount of time that couldn't be fulfilled by 70 AD nor by the end of the first century. And if one doesn't take it literally, it involves even more than a literal thousand years. Either way, Amil Preterism makes no sense based on this alone.

 

[claninja]

Assuming Amil, and the fact parousia70 is an Amil, that is an excellent point you bring up here. That argument never crossed my mind before, maybe because I'm not an Amil. That certainly is a good argument to use against Preterist Amils, though.

maybe from a futurist lens this makes sense, but from a preterist perspective it doesn’t work.

the apostles believed they were living in the last days, at the end of the ages, during the last hour, etc…and Christ would come in a little while without delay. It then makes no sense that the millennium would be literal thousands of years prior to Christs coming.

 

[parousia70]

Of course I would never claim that Jesus would make empty threats. Don't be ridiculous. You do understand that He said He would come upon them as a thief IF they did not repent, right? Well, did they repent or not? I don't know, do you? Maybe some did and some didn't, but I don't have that information. If any of them refused to repent even after seeing His warning, how do we know that He didn't just go ahead and kill them similar to how God killed Ananias and Sapphira when they lied about what they did with their land (Acts 5)?

Again, since the thief's coming is a singular, one time event, Had it come in the first century (as I contend and as Jesus promised it would), Of course it would affect Sardis.

So what? No other scripture specifically talks about the church in Sardis, so Revelation 3 is all we have to go by as it concerns them specifically.

So the Thief's coming in Revelation 16:15 wouldn't be of concern to them at all?
Those at Sardis were free to ignore and disregard that passage?

And what of the Church at Philadelphia from the same chapter?
10 `Because thou didst keep the word of my endurance, I also will keep thee from the hour of the trial that is about to come upon all the world, to try those dwelling upon the earth.
11 Lo, I come quickly, be holding fast that which thou hast, that no one may receive thy crown
Revelation 3:10-11

Jessus seems to think that the Hour of trial about to come upon the whole world certainly concerns the 1st century church at Philadelphia specifically, and he was promising to keep them from it.

What do you believe the great trial, which the church in Philadelphia was be kept from and that was about to come on the whole world back in the 1st century, was?

That's what I say to you. Scripture is very clear that when He comes as a thief in the night it will result in the burning up of the heavens and the earth which has clearly not yet happened (2 Peter 3:10-12). Does your doctrine agree with 2 Peter 3:10-12? No, it does not.

Has this clearly not happened either?
Leviticus 26:19
And I will break the pride of your power: and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass;

Even if you don't take the thousand years literally, it certainly doesn't make sense to think that the thousand years represents a short amount of time, so that alone blows up your theory that the whole book is about things that would literally take place soon after the book was written.

As I have made clear before, my position is that the 1000 years is typological and representative of the entire length of the Davidic Monarchy, from Davd to Christ, which is a literal 1000 years.

And then there's the not small issue that your doctrine completely depends on the book having been written before 70 AD, which is doubtful.

I know you don't pay attention to much scholarly opinion, but the majority of scholars do prefer the early date, and find the late date doubtful.

No, you are interpreting it as such. And, are you ignoring Revelation 1:19 when you interpret Revelation 1:1-3 the way you do? That verse indicates that John was to write about things that had happened in the past, things that were happening at the time and things that would happen from that point on up until the second coming of Christ

Rev 1:19
19 `Write the things that thou hast seen, and the things that are, and the things that are about to come after these things;

and ushering in of the new heavens and new earth, which has not yet occurred.

Has Heaven turned to Iron and the Earth become a giant ball of solid Brass yet?
When's that supposed to literally happen?

If that was true, then what Jesus must have meant in Revelation 3 is to warn them about what He would do to them IF they were still alive when He came as a thief. Because He clearly has not yet come as a thief if we're talking about what Jesus Himself talked about in the Olivet Discourse, what Paul wrote about in 1 Thess 5:2-3 and what Peter wrote about in 2 Peter 3. The heavens and earth are still around and have not been burned up. The new heavens and new earth have not yet been ushered in.

Or, as in Lev 26:19, the heavens and earth God created in Isaiah 51:16 have indeed become as Iron and Brass and have also been burned up.

If that was true, then what Jesus must have meant in Revelation 3 is to warn them about what He would do to them IF they were still alive when He came as a thief.

Which would make a thousand year future millennium, a 2000 year church age, Nuclear armegeddon, microchip MoB, etc. all impossible doctrines not found in scripture anywhere, or We would not have Jesus even hinting at the mere possibility of a first century return, as you suggest he could very well be doing in Rev 3.

So, you can say all you want about this, but you can't say anything to convince me that scripture doesn't teach that He will come as a thief in the night in the future and destroy all His enemies on the earth on that day.

I'm not here to convince you of anything.
I post for our readers and the lurkers/seekers.

In fact I hope you're never convinced of my position and continue to post contrary opinions. It helps my mission here tremendously.

 

[parousia70]

the apostles believed they were living in the last days, at the end of the ages, during the last hour, etc…and Christ would come in a little while without delay. It then makes no sense that the millennium would be literal thousands of years prior to Christs coming.

I find it fascinating how much futurism relies so heavily on the notion that the apostles were in such blatant error on the timing.

 

[parousia70]

I am pretty sure that happened at the Cross, not some 40 years later.

Rather, This happened at the Cross:
38 But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’ 39 So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him.

Then, 40 years AFTER the Cross, this happened:
40 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?”
41 They said to Him, “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.”

Matthew 21:38-41

 

[Spiritual Jew]

As I have made clear before, my position is that the 1000 years is typological and representative of the entire length of the Davidic Monarchy, from Davd to Christ, which is a literal 1000 years.

That as nonsensical as any belief I've ever seen. I can't take it seriously. The thousand years is clearly an actual period of time with a beginning and an ending. The beginning is marked by Satan being bound and the end is marked by Satan being loosed. It has absolutely nothing to do with the length of the Davidic Monarchy.

I know you don't pay attention to much scholarly opinion, but the majority of scholars do prefer the early date, and find the late date doubtful.

I doubt that's true. Where are you getting that from?

Rev 1:19
19 `Write the things that thou hast seen, and the things that are, and the things that are about to come after these things;

Which translation is that?

Has Heaven turned to Iron and the Earth become a giant ball of solid Brass yet?
When's that supposed to literally happen?

Are you trying to take attention away from 2 Peter 3? In 2 Peter 3 it's very obvious that Peter is talking about a literal event. He compared it directly to another literal event that occurred, which was the flood in Noah's day. Do you think he was comparing a figurative event to a literal event, which would make no sense at all? He said the earth was destroyed by water in the past and BY THE SAME WORD the heavens and earth were reserved for fire. He was clearly comparing a future literal event to a past literal event.

Tell me, do you think wickedness and wicked things will ever be removed from the earth? If so, how do you think it will occur?

I'm not here to convince you of anything.
I post for our readers and the lurkers/seekers.

In fact I hope you're never convinced of my position and continue to post contrary opinions. It helps my mission here tremendously.

No, it doesn't. It exposes the flaws in your beliefs. Only doctrinal bias could lead someone to not interpret 2 Peter 3 literally and any objective person here can surely understand that. That you believe the future coming of Christ is taught in some creed but somehow not in scripture is one of the strangest things I've ever come across. Where do you think the ones who wrote the creed got that belief from? Their imaginations? Or from scripture?

 

[Gundy22]

That you believe the future coming of Christ is taught in some creed but somehow not in scripture is one of the strangest things I've ever come across.

All eschatology is strange.
Most of it is plausible - even contradictory eschatologies are plausible.
We got PostTribbers, MidTribbers, PreTribbers, PostTribbers...

Me - I guess I'm a ZERO-Tribber - I feel ALL of Daniel's 70 weeks is over - it ran concurrently - I see no justification for a GAP, when "the prophetic clock stopped" and all that jazz
A 42-month period mentioned in Revelation could have been the time between 66-70 AD -- I think a lot of Revelation could be past...

I can see Amill being true - I can't be dogmatic about it.
I lean toward early date for Revelation - but I do not think Partial Preterism falls to the ground with a late date.

 

[Gundy22]

"In fact I hope you're never convinced of my position and continue to post contrary opinions. It helps my mission here tremendously."

I can see that

 

[Spiritual Jew]

All eschatology is strange.
Most of it is plausible - even contradictory eschatologies are plausible.
We got PostTribbers, MidTribbers, PreTribbers, PostTribbers...

I'm not sure if you got my point. He believes in a future coming of Christ only because that is taught in old creeds and not because he sees it taught in scripture. I don't think it gets any more strange than that. How else did the ones who wrote those creeds come to believe in a future second coming of Christ except that they saw it taught in scripture, right?

Me - I guess I'm a ZERO-Tribber - I feel ALL of Daniel's 70 weeks is over

I agree that Daniel's 70 weeks are fulfilled.

it ran concurrently - I see no justification for a GAP, when "the prophetic clock stopped" and all that jazz

I agree. There's no justification for that whatsoever. But, believing this does not mean you have to be a preterist.

A 42-month period mentioned in Revelation could have been the time between 66-70 AD -- I think a lot of Revelation could be past...

I don't believe the 42 months are meant to be interpreted literally, but I won't say anymore about that for now.

I can see Amill being true - I can't be dogmatic about it.
I lean toward early date for Revelation - but I do not think Partial Preterism falls to the ground with a late date.

Yeah, I've seen a couple partial preterists try to claim that their view isn't dependent on when the book of Revelation was written, but I completely disagree with that.

 

[Gundy22]

Many numbers in Revelation are not to be taken literally.
That there are SEVEN churches I feel is a literal seven
TWO literal witnesses...
probably literal
24, 144,000, 12 - thousands upon thousands - the number that no man could number

 

[parousia70]

That as nonsensical as any belief I've ever seen.

well, you’re not alone. The assertion that soon, shortly, about to come to pass, near, and in a very little while = far away, long time, thousands of years off is the most nonsensical belief I’ve ever seen.

The thousand years is clearly an actual period of time with a beginning and an ending.

Which is what I believe.

The beginning is marked by Satan being bound and the end is marked by Satan being loosed.

3 Rez has spelled out how this matches, closely, my belief. No sense in me reinventing the wheel in this post.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the length of the Davidic Monarchy.

Rather it does.

I doubt that's true. Where are you getting that from?

It is demonstrably the vast majority.
Here is a list (and it is a partial list) that contains over 150 published scholars (most of which are staunch futurists) who maintain and profess that Revelation was written prior to 70AD.

Please provide your list (and it better be well over 150) of scholarly opinions of late date advocates so our readers can test the veracity of our individual claims side by side.

Which translation is that?

Youngs LITERAL translation

Are you trying to take attention away from 2 Peter 3? In 2 Peter 3 it's very obvious that Peter is talking about a literal event. He compared it directly to another literal event that occurred, which was the flood in Noah's day.

Let’s look at the Context of 2 Peter as it relates to Heaven and Earth.
The context is the Flood.
Peter says that the pre flood world consisted of heaven and earth, and that they were destroyed by water and perished.

We know that the LITERAL substance of neither heaven or earth was destroyed, but it was the evil men that were destroyed, God brought "the flood upon the world of the ungodly" (2 Peter 2:5). Peter makes a distinction between the heaven and earth of Noah's day which were destroyed, and the heaven and earth that existed then which were to be destroyed by fire. The literal visible fabric of heaven and earth were the same after the flood as they were before the flood. Demonstrably, The destruction of heaven and earth refers to the civil and religious state, and the men of them.

What was it that really perished in the flood? Look at verse 6; "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished." It was the world that perished, right? Now what does the word "world" mean? It is the orderly arrangement of society, it wasn't the dirt. Now how do you go from an ungodly society that was destroyed to the destruction of the entire universe? The literal earth was not destroyed. What was to be destroyed in Peters passage is the ungodly nation of Israel. Nowhere do the Scriptures teach that the physical creation will be destroyed.

Notice what God said after the flood of Noah's day in Genesis 8:21.
Genesis 8:21, "And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done."

Now, folks will say that the Lord destroyed the earth by water one time and He'll destroy it by fire the next time. Is God's promise here to just change his method of destroying everything? Is there comfort in being destroyed by fire instead of water? Or is he promising not to destroy the earth again?

God said the literal heaven (Psalm 148:4-6) and the literal earth (Psalm 104:5) will never pass away. Psalms 78:69, "...the earth which he hath established for ever." In Genesis 8:21, God said he would never again destroy every living thing. God can be trusted, He keeps his word.

The earth abideth for ever" (Ecclesiastes 1:4). And remember Isaiah 9:7, "Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end." If the earth is to be destroyed, then that would be the end of the increase of Christ's government.

Yahweh is depicted as having destroyed the universe when he judged Israel through Babylon (Jeremiah 4:22-30) and did so again when he judged Egypt by Babylon (Ezekiel 32:2-8).
How does the literalist explain away those passages?

The Literalist is in essence calling God a LIAR when he claims God will destroy this present earth in our future and replace it whith a materially different "new" one, because we see above that God promised to NEVER destroy the Literal Earth, and He also promised to "NEVER AGAIN CURSE THE GROUND, and NEVER AGAIN Smite every living thing.

Where do you think the ones who wrote the creed got that belief from? Their imaginations? Or from scripture?

Where do you think the ones who wrote the creed got “one holy CATHOLIC and apostolic church” from?

Are you prepared to assert that the Catholic Church is the “one holy church” from scripture?

 

[trophy33]

Here is a list (and it is a partial list) that contains over 150 published scholars (most of which are staunch futurists) who maintain and profess that Revelation was written prior to 70AD.

How did you compose this list, is it from some book?

Also, it seems they are all either English or German authors. Is it intentional? Why not more international representation?