Was Revelations written in ad 96 or before?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by HisWitness, Sep 18, 2012.

  1. HisWitness

    HisWitness
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,483
    Likes Received:
    0
    when you state your answer to this question--pls give bible references or some kind of proof for your statement.
     
  2. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,165
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    The Revelation, singular. There is only one. "The Revelation of Jesus Christ."
     
  3. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    You will not find this proof in the Bible. By its very nature, your question requires for evidence outside of the Bible. Below is an updated post I wrote on this subject:

    An early date for Revelation Fits:

    Pre-AD70, not 90s. Here is why...

    An interesting phenomenon happens to the majority report. As the popularity of a certain view grows the number of authorities to that view likewise grows. Thus there is a seeming weight to the view itself but which is really due, not to argument, but to mere weight numbers, later writers merely following after those few earlier ones. It is not surprising that, as the eschatology itself changed, the view of the date of Revelation (and John) would likewise accommodate.

    This eschatological downgrade should not seem surprising. This "ology" disintegrated along with ecclesiology (church power structure already forming - Ignatius's "Do nothing without your bishop!"), views on virginity, relics, etc.

    Originally the later date view had only Irenaeus and Eusebius as advocates. But later others added their voice - but only on the basis of these two.

    However, over against this view is the internal evidence itself, which I already presented earlier. Also some of the sources often brought forth by advocates for a later date are rather suspect. Or the ancient writer is made to say something he didn't, in fact, teach. For instance, one writer implied that Clement of Alexandria was a late-dater. He wasn't. He also wrote this in his "Stromata":

    "For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, end with Nero."

    Now notice what is written here. If John was seen as an apostle - and surely he was - and if his teaching ministry was in the 90s, as the futurist position requires, then we have a glaring omission here.

    Here is the Muratorian Fragment:

    "the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name."

    Who are those "seven churches" that John wrote to? Why, none other than the ones mentioned in Revelation 2 and 3! Note: I am not arguing for the validity of this "rule", just pointing out that Tertullian describes John, the writer of Revelation, as Paul's "predecessor". Tertullian is no marginal semi-biblically literate writer either. He is the same one who gave us some very valuable studied insights on the nature of the Trinity.

    Tertullian

    “Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which the apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s; where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s! where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile.”

    One does not have a death like someone else by dying after that person!

    Note the comparison:
    Peter's death followed Christ's.
    Paul's death followed John's.
    Did Peter die in the 90s of the 1st-century? No. Neither did John. Both died decades before.

    Others can be adduced, but hopefully this is enough for one to see that there is a good case for this earlier date, not only on the basis of internal indications, but external, historical witness.

    This issue is not, strictly speaking, tied to Preterism. There are a number of scholars from various backgrounds who espouse an earlier date for Revelation. One, the famous Church historian Philip Schaff, even retracted his earlier published view (in his Christian History of the Church) when he became convinced of the earlier view.

    I have two more posts on this topic here somewhere in BB, but this should do for now.
     
    #3 asterisktom, Sep 18, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 18, 2012
  4. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    I don't have time to substantively respond by Revelation (or "The Apocalypse" as it is in Greek) is likely written between AD 90-95. When one seriously considers the preterist view in light of a total weighing of evidence, it becomes abundantly clear it couldn't have been written by AD 70.
     
  5. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    When I first started a serious Study of eschatology about 12 years ago, this was the first topic I tackled because if I was going to leave my Dispie view I had to be convinced that Revelation was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem. After my study it became abundantly clear it was written before AD 70.
     
  6. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    This isn't about preterism. It is about the dating of Revelation.
     
  7. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    Same here. I started out very much prejudiced against the early-dating view. But I was slowly swayed the other way by a number of factors:

    1. The number of reputable scholars who hold to an earlier date.
    2. The weight of the earliest sources seemed to favor it.
    3. The general tenor and context of scripture fit better with a pre AD 70 writing of revelation.
    4. An increasing number of quotations from ECF (like Tertullian's above) added more weight to an earlier date.

    That last two came into place well after I became Preterist, but the first two were falling into place before.
     
  8. HisWitness

    HisWitness
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,483
    Likes Received:
    0
    well we know that in ad 70 the temple was totally destroyed--and in Revelation chapter 11 verse 1 the angel gives John a reed like unto a rod and tells him to measure the TEMPLE of God-verse 2 tells him to leave out the court,it was for the gentiles and the holy city was to be tread under foot 42 months(3 and half years)

    now if there was still a temple and the gentiles had never tread it under foot--therefore Revelation was NOT written in ad 96-but had to be written just before ad 70 according to the authority of the scripture

    that alone by itself is more than enough proof that Revelation was written some time before ad 70.
     
    #8 HisWitness, Sep 18, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 18, 2012
  9. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    one argument not commonly seen is the decline of the seven churches in Revelation. It would be remarkable that these churches could have fallen away so soon. This was pointed out by Enoch Pond in 1871.

     
  10. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    Everything in Revelation is figurative but the measuring of the temple?
     
  11. HisWitness

    HisWitness
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,483
    Likes Received:
    0
    ********************
     
    #11 HisWitness, Sep 18, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 18, 2012
  12. HisWitness

    HisWitness
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,483
    Likes Received:
    0
    also in Revelation chapter 11 verse 8--the 2 witnesses bodies shall lay in the streets of THE GREAT CITY(city has not been destroyed or temple)so Revelation chapter 11 is PROOF that Revelation was not written in ad 96 but sometime before ad 70 :)
     
  13. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,555
    Likes Received:
    273
    "It was written in Patmos about A.D.68, whither John had been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the Book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus (A.D.175), who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou, ie., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius Severus, Orosius, &c., stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the earlier date." (Concise Critical Comments on the Holy Bible, by Robert Young.”

    Heheh, in other words Young says it's a 'stupid mistake' by Sulpicius Severus and others that has resulted in A DOMINO EFFECT of bad information concerning the dating of Revelation down through the centuries.
     
    #13 kyredneck, Sep 19, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 19, 2012
  14. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,555
    Likes Received:
    273
    There is compelling internal evidence that not only is much the book of Revelation concerned with the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem, but that it was written prior to this event:

    And I saw another sign in heaven....and them that come off victorious from the beast... they sing the song of Moses the servant of God....Rev 15.1-3

    The song of Moses is being sang in heaven in the 15th chapter of Revelation. This is very significant. The song of Moses had only one purpose and time, and that was to 'testify before Israel as a witness against them' when they had utterly corrupted themselves and evil had befallen them in the 'latter days':

    16 And Jehovah said unto Moses.....this people will rise up, and play the harlot ...and break my covenant which I have made with them.
    17 Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day.....and many evils and troubles shall come upon them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us?
    18 And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evil which they shall have wrought.....
    19 Now therefore write ye this song for you...... that this song may be a witness for me against the children of Israel.
    21....when many evils and troubles are come upon them, that this song shall testify before them as a witness.....
    29 For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do that which is evil in the sight of Jehovah, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.
    30 And Moses spake in the ears of all the assembly of Israel the words of this song, until they were finished. Dt 31

    The Song of Moses is quoted by Christ and the Apostles in reference to 'that generation' of Jews of their day.
     
    #14 kyredneck, Sep 19, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 19, 2012

Share This Page

Loading...