Amillennialists and Postmillennialists admit that AD 70 was an "end of the age" judgment coming of Christ. However, they claim that AD 70 was simply a foreshadowing, or type of the real end of the age, the end of human history. In this unprecedented book, prolific author Don K. Preston (D. Div.) thoroughly and completely examines and refutes this idea. Preston shows, with careful exegesis, sound hermeneutic, and persuasive logic, that AD 70 was not a foreshadowing of the real end, but was, in fact, the "final" end of the age.

2 Peter 3 is the ultimate passage of appeal for those who say the Bible predicts the end of time and human history. However, in this in-depth study, Preston demonstrates that Peter was predicting the end of the Old Covenant world of Israel, in the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in AD 70. That was the passing of Israel's "heaven and earth."

Will the current age come to a cataclysmic end one day, or, has the "end of the age" already occurred? Will Jesus one day descend out of heaven as a 5' 5" Jewish man, in a physical body, or, was his coming in AD 70? Will there be a resurrection of human corpses out of the dirt, or, is that traditional view of resurrection misguided? Did Adam die the day he ate the forbidden fruit, just as God threatened, or not? These are but a few of the questions discussed in a historical debate between Dominionist (Postmillennialist) Joel McDurmon (PhD) of American Vision, and full (true) preterist, Don K. Preston (D.Div.) president of Preterist Research Institute. This formal debate was held in July, 2012, in Ardmore, Ok., and continues to garner interest and discussion among Bible students. The similarities between the partial preterist camp and the full (or consistent) preterist camp are many, and countless full preterists say the writings of partial preterists such as Ken Gentry, Gary DeMar, etc. led them to the full preterist view. Partial preterists object to this, claiming it is wrong to make that logical leap. In this formal debate, you will find excellent discussion of the issues, as each man presented his case, and sought to refute the other. Here is your chance to read that evidence for yourself, and find your own answers to the End Times Dilemma

Few Bible students seem to be aware of the absolute necessity for the total fulfillment of the Law of Moses before it could pass. Most claim that Torah ended at the Cross. Jesus said that until every jot and every tittle of Torah was fully accomplished, not one iota of the Law would pass. But, the Law of Moses foretold the second coming of Christ and the resurrection What this means is that Torah would endure until the Telos (the time of the end). In this first of a planned multi-volume series on the passing of the Law of Moses, Don K. Preston examines Matthew 5:17-18 in great detail, demonstrating the power and the implications of Jesus' words "not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law, until it is all fulfilled." This book will drastically change the way you look at the Law of Moses and the doctrine of the end times

So called "Prophecy Experts" tell us that 1948 was the Super Sign that the end is near In fact, we were told that Christ must return 40 years after 1948-- but, we all know how that turned out. Dispensationalists claim that God actually promised to restore Israel while she would be in a state of rebellion and unbelief, i.e. in 1948 However, in this powerful book, prolific author Don K. Preston (D. Div.) examines this claim and proves that 1948 had nothing to do with the fulfillment of prophecy This is a "must read" book that will change the way you look at Israel, the end times, the modern "prophecy experts" and Bible prophecy as a whole. Wonderful resource book

A positive exegesis of Daniel 9:24-27 demonstrating that Daniel's prophecy extends no further than the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. This book also proves that Daniel 9 predicted the last days resurrection. In addition to the positive exegesis, this book interacts with modern scholarship, and the critics of the true (full) preterist view, answering the charges of heterodoxy with solid, logical refutation.