Featured David Chilton's Hermeneutics

He surely did deny both at the end.

 

He became a full on pretierist, correct? That is why even Gary North disavowed his theology?

 

It's called Pontiac Restored.

 

That is what I understand.

 

A (Full) Preterist by the name of Ed Stevens wrote a book first published in 1981 entitled, What Happened In A.D. 70? The Fifth Edition, published in 1997, included this Foreward by Chilton:

"The more I pondered the awesome implications of Jesus’ words, the more I realized their truly revolutionary significance for eschatology. Without exception, every event foretold by the Biblical prophets was fulfilled within that generation, as Jesus said. Scripture foretells a Second Coming – not a third!"

I am not being deceitful, kyredneck. I am only presenting facts.

 

Yes, you are being deceitful. Full Preterists DO NOT deny the resurrection or the coming of Christ. They deny your version of it.

 

This was where and how all heresies started, specifically and especially these two 'things' which RC worship instead of the Living God.

Take yourself for example. <<'.....Born of water.....' 'The washing of regeneration'>> taken for the same thing, <<spiritually>>, but the RC made a human show of with a few drops of water or with enough water to drown in. Heresy is always <spiritually>. Truth is always Reality, "SUBSTANCE" 'etsem'-"BONE".
Christ's "Body" or "flesh" was REAL, and so was his "blood". For reason of having been "BONE", 'etsem, "Substance", the "eating and drinking" of Christ's "flesh" and "blood" is, in reality, spiritually. Not 'spiritually' in 'reality' the corrupt way RC makes of the spiritual Reality of Divine Truth, the physical object of satanic, demonic, <spiritual> idolatry.

 

I stand corrected. They confess both but claim they occurred in A.D. 70.

 

John of Japan,

Another premill person came forward saying this;

I asked him to respond....looks like he also is not quite up to it.

John....it was nice that you pointed this out. But as you tell your students, context, context, context......is king.
A man asked Ken Ham if the word yom can me a long period of time, he said yes, but it can also mean a 24 hour day.He asked again , and Ken Ham kept saying, yes, but it can also mean a 24 day.
This is the same thing....it can and does mean STARS.....

The passages being discussed are clearly speaking of stars...light givers...,
Meteors do not give or reflect light....you offered on the issue, but it was clearly the wrong answer.....in fact you have missed it totally....
No translation says what you offer...
joel2;10 The earth quaketh before them; the heavens tremble; the sun and the moon are darkened, and the stars withdraw their shining

no asteroids, no meteors, but stars.....

.
That is your point of view...the more I bring it up, and the more you seek to dismiss and cover it up shows me how wrong you are about this.
Your explanation is no real explanation...it does not fit the verses in question.
You are wrongly dividing the word of truth.

.
I understand your frustration as I have experienced it also, but you have tried and offered on it.....but it is not a real answer that anyone agrees with, you will not consider the alternative view which gives a clue why you are really going to continue to struggle....or.. you will ignore it and try and dismiss it as you are trying to do now....I will go back to my thread now, roby if you can answer the question come to spiritual interpretation 6 and try,

 

Taking your bat and ball and going home in a huff?
Sorry...it is just another non response and explaining away of scriptural language.....take a poll and see how many think stars mean stars in these 6 or 7 verses....there is no shame in saying you cannot answer these verses.

 

Postmill writers refer to your ww2 objection as newspaper exegesis rather than scriptural study.

 

They deny the physical resurrection, and that it is still future, so heresy!