I will take the eucharist Rick.
During the last supper Christ told his disciples to take this and eat of it for this is my body which will be given up for you.
The koine greek word that The apostle John used for eat was trogo, and no where in the bible was trogo used except to denote a literal chewing and gnawing. Jesus meant this literally and not figuratively, and this is also why in the bible many of Christs followers left him because they couldn't understand how someone could eat the flesh of another , but his 12 stayed with him for as they said, his are the only words of eternal life.
If that is not enough , ask yourself what did the apostles teach their very students on the eucharist?
Lets start with Ignatious of Antioch , the third bishop of Antioch and a student of John the apostle who was taught by John himself.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/eucharist-q.html
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1, 110 A.D.:
Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by the one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 7, 110 A.D.:
I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 7, 110 A.D.:
I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadephians, 4:1, 110 A.D.:
Be ye careful therefore to observe one eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup unto union in His blood; there is one altar, as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons my fellow-servants), that whatsoever ye do, ye may do it after God.
While I respect ankerberg's opinion on many Areas of appologetics, I will take the word of ignatius of Antioch over him by just a slight margin
. Why? Because ignatius was a student of John the apostle and he would be in a prime position to understand what the apostles taught on the literal presence of the eucharist.
Rick do you trust what was passed down to ignatius of Antioch by the apostles or do you trust ankerberg's, who is re over from Christ and the apostles by almost 2000 years. Ill take ten word of the very student of the apostle John thanks.
Now the question is why don't you believe in the Eucharistic teaching? Is it because of a modern cultural view of Christianity?
It can't be because the earliest Christians didn't practice it?
Even the first Protestant Martin Luther believed in the eucharist but he called it co substantiation and not transubstantiation, but that contradicts what the earliest Christians believed .
Now lets go onto the early Church Fathers in the 2nd century.
Justin Martyr, Apology, I.66-67, 2nd century:
Communion in the Body and Blood of Christ
Communion in the Body and Blood of Christ
It is allowed to no one else to participate in that food which we call Eucharist except the one who believes that the things taught by us are true, who has been cleansed in the washing unto rebirth and the forgiveness of sins and who is living according to the way Christ handed on to us. For we do not take these things as ordinary bread or ordinary drink. Just as our Savior Jesus Christ was made flesh by the word of God and took on flesh and blood for our salvation, so also were we taught that the food, for which thanksgiving has been made through the word of prayer instituted by him, and from which our blood and flesh are nourished after the change, is the flesh of that Jesus who was made flesh. Indeed, the Apostles, in the records left by them which are called gospels, handed on that it was commanded to them in this manner: Jesus, having taken bread and given thanks said, ``Do this in memory of me, this is my body.'' Likewise, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, ``This is my blood'', and he gave it to them alone.
Next we go to Ireneaus of Lyon , another early church Father who was a student of polycarp, and polycarp in turn was a student of John the apostle. Irenaeus, teaching what was taught to him totally consistent with the apostolic fathers and Justin Martyr.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, [5,2,2] 180 A.D.:
If the body be not saved, then in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His Blood; and neither is the cup of the Eucharist the partaking of His Blood nor is the Bread which we break the partaking of His Body . . . He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 180 A.D., 4,17,5:
Again, giving counsel to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits from among His creatures, not as if He needed them, but so that they themselves might be neither unfruitful nor ungrateful, He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ``This is My Body.'' The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His Blood.
He taught the the new sacrifice of the New Covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: ```You do not do my will,' says the Lord Almighty, `and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting My name is glorified among the gentiles, and in every place incense is offer to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is My name among the gentiles,' says the Lord Almighty.'' (Mal 1:11). By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to Him, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the gentiles.''
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4, 18, 2, 180 A.D.:
It is not oblations as such that have met with disapproval. There were oblations of old; there are oblations now. There were sacrifices among the people of Israel; there are sacrifices in the Church. Only the kind of oblation has been changed: now it is offered by freemen, not by slaves. There is one and the same Lord, but the character of an oblation made by slaves is distinctive, so too that of an oblation made by sons: their oblations bear the mark of freedom.
We must make oblation to God, and in all things be found pleasing to God the Creator, in sound teaching, in sincere faith, in firm hope, in ardent love, as we offer the firstfruits of the creatures that are his. The Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator when it makes its offering to him from his creation, with thanksgiving.
We offer him what is his, and so we proclaim communion and unity and profess our belief in the resurrection of flesh and spirit. Just as bread from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, made up of two elements, one earthly and one heavenly, so also our bodies, in receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, for they have the hope of resurrection.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, [5,2,2] 180 A.D.:
If the body be not saved, then in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His Blood; and neither is the cup of the Eucharist the partaking of His Blood nor is the Bread which we break the partaking of His Body . . . He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
It is totally clear that the early Christians were taught by the apostles that the eucharist is the literal presence of Christ flesh and blood , but only under the bishop. Rick do you also believe this or do you not care what the early Christians were taught by the apostles and therefore passed down to the early church fathers. Notice that not once did the early Christians ever call the eucharist a heresy. They taught that Jesus is in the eucharist and not figuratively either. Again do you trust Ankerberg's personal interpretation or the students of the apostles and their early church fathers.
You can't just ignore the first 1500 years of Christianity and jump from Christ to martin Luther . This again comes down to personal interpretation which causes chaos and disunity between all Christians and authoritative interpretation (the power to bind and loose) which was given to the apostles and the early Christian church.
The is no doubt whatsoever what the early Christians believed as far as the eucharist . There isn't even one early Christian that spoke against it being the literal presence of Christ in the eucharist. Now what was the problem you have with Eucharistic adoration knowing full well who is present in the eucharist Rick ?
. 
