PDA

View Full Version : Which Is It? (Revelation Written Date)



BrckBrln
Dec 5th 2008, 03:51 AM
My Reformation Study Bible states the majority of scholars believe the book of Revelation was written under Domitian around 95AD. Yet I've read on the internet that the majority of scholars and the early church believe the book was written under Nero. Which is it?

bennie
Dec 5th 2008, 04:38 AM
i do think it is Nero

Literalist-Luke
Dec 5th 2008, 04:41 AM
95 ad.

Cyberseeker
Dec 5th 2008, 04:46 AM
My Reformation Study Bible states the majority of scholars believe the book of Revelation was written under Domitian around 95AD.

Which goes to show, the full preterist theory is younger than the reformation.

Reformation scholars have to be right with something. ;)

BrckBrln
Dec 5th 2008, 05:05 AM
Well I have a question for the people who believe the book was written under Nero. Why wasn't John killed? Wasn't Peter and Paul killed under Nero but yet John was exiled? I read that exiling was what Domitian did.

jeffweeder
Dec 5th 2008, 05:14 AM
I just had a thought...Rev is addressed to....the churches that are in Asia.
Why wasnt this letter addressed to the Church that started in Jerusalem?
Maybe because it was written after the exile in AD 70?
Just a thought.

quiet dove
Dec 5th 2008, 05:36 AM
You should have made this a poll. :lol:

Sorry I couldn't resist, but my vote is 95AD.

markedward
Dec 5th 2008, 06:33 PM
Not to be sarcastic or resentful but...

Simply stating "95 AD has my vote" or "I do think it is Nero" doesn't really contribute to answering the question. Sure, you're given your opinion on which one you believe over the other, but that doesn't really put any effort into providing a true, solid answer.
_______

That said, I believe it was written before 70 AD, and for many reasons. Now, although I do believe that the entirety of the Revelation was fulfilled in the first-century, I won't elaborate on that, only my reasoning for why I believe it was written before 70 AD. I'll try to be short, if possible...


The Revelation has between five and ten verses explicitly stating that the events being prophesied would happen "soon" or that their fulfillments were "near". Some of them explicitly state that some of the events being prophesied had already happened and that some were in the process of happening.
The mark of the beast is primarily stated to be a name. It is also stated to be a number of the name, and that the number is the number of a man. Although everyone knows the infamous 666, very early copies of the Revelation state the number is 616. The name of "Nero Caesar" is the only name of significant value that can be turned into 666 and 616, using Hebrew gematria. The way John speaks of the mark of the beast as a number indicates that he believed his contemporaries could decipher the number's meaning. How could they have deciphered the number if the identity it referred to wouldn't exist for another two-thousand years? This points to the identity of 666/616 as being someone living contemporaneously with John, and Nero Caesar is the only person of value who was contemporary with John and whose name fit both numbers of 666 and 616.
The book as a whole bears strong similarities to the eschatological prophecies made by Christ (especially in the gospel of Matthew). Revelation 1 contains a small bit of prose that alludes back to a prophecy of Christ found in Matthew 24. Matthew 24's context is explicitly found in its first few verses, in which the apostles ask Christ about the signs that would lead up to the destruction of the second temple of Jerusalem. The prophecy I'm referring to is when Christ says something to the extent of the people "mourning" because of the Coming of the Son of Man. John reiterates this in Revelation 1, setting the theme for the rest of the book. Since Matthew 24's prophecies were rooted in the apostle's question about the destruction of the second temple of Jerusalem, and immediately followed Christ's woes to the hypocrites and that their "house" would be left desolate (Matt. 23), it seems suffice to say that the "theme" John was setting in the short prose in Revelation 1 was the vengeance that Christ prophesied upon Jerusalem. Taking this in tandem with the previous two points I made, the only set of events that even remotely resembled Christ's prophecies of vengeance coming upon the hypocrites and that the second temple of Jerusalem would be destroyed was, well, when the second temple of Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD.
In Revelation 11:8 we first see the phrase "the great city", and it is explicitly identified with Jerusalem ("where also our Lord was crucified"). Again, this is the first time we see the phrase "the great city". In the following chapters, we repeatedly see "the city" and "the great city" as being the subject of God's wrath. Multiple verses link "the great city" with "Babylon", and in chapter 17 we are directly told that "Babylon the Great" is "the great city." Also in chapter 17, Babylon the Great is identified as the entity that is responsible for the blood of the saints and the prophets; this passage also alludes back to a statement of Christ, found in Matthew 23, when Christ is speaking His "woes" upon the hypocritical Pharisees, and He claims that they are responsible for the blood of the righteous. Further, "Babylon the Great" is contrasted with "New Jerusalem", just as Paul contrasted "earthly Jerusalem" with "spiritual Jerusalem" (I think you can find this in Galatians - Paul was speaking of Hagar and Sarah in metaphor). And further, much of the phrasing about Babylon the Great committing adultery with the kings of the earth parallels Ezekiel 16, in which Jerusalem is called an harlot, committing adultery with the kings of the earth. (In fact, in Scripture, Israel, Judah, and Jerusalem are just about the only entities so consistently described in metaphor as harlots or adulterers.) And, again, if Jerusalem is considered to be "Babylon the Great", then the general chronology found in the Revelation almost directly parallels a parable found in Matthew 25. Revelation says Christ's servants are sent out to
into the world to evangelize, that Babylon the Great, called "the great city", was responsible for their deaths, that Babylon the Great is the culminated focus of judgment (particularly chapters 16-19), followed by the wedding feast. Matthew 25's parable (still spoken in the context of Matthew 24's prophesy of Jerusalem and the second temple's destruction) says that the King's Son's servants are sent out to invite people to a wedding feast, that the servants are killed, that the murderers are killed and "the city" burned, and followed by the wedding feast. A lot of the prophecies throughout the Revelation can be traced back to Christ's prophecies about Jerusalem and the second temple's destruction.
In Revelation 11 (again), John prophesies about the Gentiles trampling "the holy city" (Jerusalem) for a specified period of 42 months. This alludes back to prophecy of Christ in Luke 21 (this is Luke's parallel chapter to Matthew 24), where Christ (who is, again, prophesying about the events leading up to the destruction of the second temple of Jerusalem) uses similar wording, that Jerusalem ("the holy city") would be "trampled" by the Gentiles for a specified period of time. Since Luke 21 was explicitly in context of the second temple's destruction, it seems likely then that John was prophesying the same thing, which took place in 70 AD.
In Revelation 17 (again), we are told that the scarlet beast's seven heads represented both seven kings and seven hills. Considering that John was living (a) in the first-century, (b) in the Roman Empire, and (c) that Rome was known in the first-century as "the city of the seven hills" almost universally, it should go without saying that John must have been referring to Rome in some form another. Further, John is told that of the seven kings, the sixth king was in power at the time he was writing his prophecies. Since just about every piece of literature in the first few centuries AD started with Julius Caesar as the de facto first ruler of the Roman Empire (including both Roman historians as well as Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature), he should be our starting point, and as a result, we arrive at Nero Caesar as the sixth emperor of Rome. Again, John is told in chapter 17 that the sixth king was currently in power, and since Nero was the sixth king, this leaves little room that Nero was the sixth king who was currently in power. Nero died in June of 68 AD (obviously prior to 70 AD).

These, along with a number of other points, convince me that the Revelation was written before 70 AD.

BrckBrln
Dec 5th 2008, 06:43 PM
Not to be sarcastic or resentful but...

Simply stating "95 AD has my vote" or "I do think it is Nero" doesn't really contribute to answering the question. Sure, you're given your opinion on which one you believe over the other, but that doesn't really put any effort into providing a true, solid answer.
_______

That said, I believe it was written before 70 AD, and for many reasons. Now, although I do believe that the entirety of the Revelation was fulfilled in the first-century, I won't elaborate on that, only my reasoning for why I believe it was written before 70 AD. I'll try to be short, if possible...


The Revelation has between five and ten verses explicitly stating that the events being prophesied would happen "soon" or that their fulfillments were "near". Some of them explicitly state that some of the events being prophesied had already happened and that some were in the process of happening.
The mark of the beast is primarily stated to be a name. It is also stated to be a number of the name, and that the number is the number of a man. Although everyone knows the infamous 666, very early copies of the Revelation state the number is 616. The name of "Nero Caesar" is the only name of significant value that can be turned into 666 and 616, using Hebrew gematria. The way John speaks of the mark of the beast as a number indicates that he believed his contemporaries could decipher the number's meaning. How could they have deciphered the number if the identity it referred to wouldn't exist for another two-thousand years? This points to the identity of 666/616 as being someone living contemporaneously with John, and Nero Caesar is the only person of value who was contemporary with John and whose name fit both numbers of 666 and 616.
The book as a whole bears strong similarities to the eschatological prophecies made by Christ (especially in the gospel of Matthew). Revelation 1 contains a small bit of prose that alludes back to a prophecy of Christ found in Matthew 24. Matthew 24's context is explicitly found in its first few verses, in which the apostles ask Christ about the signs that would lead up to the destruction of the second temple of Jerusalem. The prophecy I'm referring to is when Christ says something to the extent of the people "mourning" because of the Coming of the Son of Man. John reiterates this in Revelation 1, setting the theme for the rest of the book. Since Matthew 24's prophecies were rooted in the apostle's question about the destruction of the second temple of Jerusalem, and immediately followed Christ's woes to the hypocrites and that their "house" would be left desolate (Matt. 23), it seems suffice to say that the "theme" John was setting in the short prose in Revelation 1 was the vengeance that Christ prophesied upon Jerusalem. Taking this in tandem with the previous two points I made, the only set of events that even remotely resembled Christ's prophecies of vengeance coming upon the hypocrites and that the second temple of Jerusalem would be destroyed was, well, when the second temple of Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD.
In Revelation 11:8 we first see the phrase "the great city", and it is explicitly identified with Jerusalem ("where also our Lord was crucified"). Again, this is the first time we see the phrase "the great city". In the following chapters, we repeatedly see "the city" and "the great city" as being the subject of God's wrath. Multiple verses link "the great city" with "Babylon", and in chapter 17 we are directly told that "Babylon the Great" is "the great city." Also in chapter 17, Babylon the Great is identified as the entity that is responsible for the blood of the saints and the prophets; this passage also alludes back to a statement of Christ, found in Matthew 23, when Christ is speaking His "woes" upon the hypocritical Pharisees, and He claims that they are responsible for the blood of the righteous. Further, "Babylon the Great" is contrasted with "New Jerusalem", just as Paul contrasted "earthly Jerusalem" with "spiritual Jerusalem" (I think you can find this in Galatians - Paul was speaking of Hagar and Sarah in metaphor). And further, much of the phrasing about Babylon the Great committing adultery with the kings of the earth parallels Ezekiel 16, in which Jerusalem is called an harlot, committing adultery with the kings of the earth. (In fact, in Scripture, Israel, Judah, and Jerusalem are just about the only entities so consistently described in metaphor as harlots or adulterers.) And, again, if Jerusalem is considered to be "Babylon the Great", then the general chronology found in the Revelation almost directly parallels a parable found in Matthew 25. Revelation says Christ's servants are sent out to
into the world to evangelize, that Babylon the Great, called "the great city", was responsible for their deaths, that Babylon the Great is the culminated focus of judgment (particularly chapters 16-19), followed by the wedding feast. Matthew 25's parable (still spoken in the context of Matthew 24's prophesy of Jerusalem and the second temple's destruction) says that the King's Son's servants are sent out to invite people to a wedding feast, that the servants are killed, that the murderers are killed and "the city" burned, and followed by the wedding feast. A lot of the prophecies throughout the Revelation can be traced back to Christ's prophecies about Jerusalem and the second temple's destruction.
In Revelation 11 (again), John prophesies about the Gentiles trampling "the holy city" (Jerusalem) for a specified period of 42 months. This alludes back to prophecy of Christ in Luke 21 (this is Luke's parallel chapter to Matthew 24), where Christ (who is, again, prophesying about the events leading up to the destruction of the second temple of Jerusalem) uses similar wording, that Jerusalem ("the holy city") would be "trampled" by the Gentiles for a specified period of time. Since Luke 21 was explicitly in context of the second temple's destruction, it seems likely then that John was prophesying the same thing, which took place in 70 AD.
In Revelation 17 (again), we are told that the scarlet beast's seven heads represented both seven kings and seven hills. Considering that John was living (a) in the first-century, (b) in the Roman Empire, and (c) that Rome was known in the first-century as "the city of the seven hills" almost universally, it should go without saying that John must have been referring to Rome in some form another. Further, John is told that of the seven kings, the sixth king was in power at the time he was writing his prophecies. Since just about every piece of literature in the first few centuries AD started with Julius Caesar as the de facto first ruler of the Roman Empire (including both Roman historians as well as Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature), he should be our starting point, and as a result, we arrive at Nero Caesar as the sixth emperor of Rome. Again, John is told in chapter 17 that the sixth king was currently in power, and since Nero was the sixth king, this leaves little room that Nero was the sixth king who was currently in power. Nero died in June of 68 AD (obviously prior to 70 AD).

These, along with a number of other points, convince me that the Revelation was written before 70 AD.

I figured you'd be here at some point. :) What is the external evidence for an early date though? Do you know?

bennie
Dec 5th 2008, 06:49 PM
Not to be sarcastic or resentful but...

Simply stating "95 AD has my vote" or "I do think it is Nero" doesn't really contribute to answering the question. Sure, you're given your opinion on which one you believe over the other, but that doesn't really put any effort into providing a true, solid answer.
_______

That said, I believe it was written before 70 AD, and for many reasons. Now, although I do believe that the entirety of the Revelation was fulfilled in the first-century, I won't elaborate on that, only my reasoning for why I believe it was written before 70 AD. I'll try to be short, if possible...


The Revelation has between five and ten verses explicitly stating that the events being prophesied would happen "soon" or that their fulfillments were "near". Some of them explicitly state that some of the events being prophesied had already happened and that some were in the process of happening.
The mark of the beast is primarily stated to be a name. It is also stated to be a number of the name, and that the number is the number of a man. Although everyone knows the infamous 666, very early copies of the Revelation state the number is 616. The name of "Nero Caesar" is the only name of significant value that can be turned into 666 and 616, using Hebrew gematria. The way John speaks of the mark of the beast as a number indicates that he believed his contemporaries could decipher the number's meaning. How could they have deciphered the number if the identity it referred to wouldn't exist for another two-thousand years? This points to the identity of 666/616 as being someone living contemporaneously with John, and Nero Caesar is the only person of value who was contemporary with John and whose name fit both numbers of 666 and 616.
The book as a whole bears strong similarities to the eschatological prophecies made by Christ (especially in the gospel of Matthew). Revelation 1 contains a small bit of prose that alludes back to a prophecy of Christ found in Matthew 24. Matthew 24's context is explicitly found in its first few verses, in which the apostles ask Christ about the signs that would lead up to the destruction of the second temple of Jerusalem. The prophecy I'm referring to is when Christ says something to the extent of the people "mourning" because of the Coming of the Son of Man. John reiterates this in Revelation 1, setting the theme for the rest of the book. Since Matthew 24's prophecies were rooted in the apostle's question about the destruction of the second temple of Jerusalem, and immediately followed Christ's woes to the hypocrites and that their "house" would be left desolate (Matt. 23), it seems suffice to say that the "theme" John was setting in the short prose in Revelation 1 was the vengeance that Christ prophesied upon Jerusalem. Taking this in tandem with the previous two points I made, the only set of events that even remotely resembled Christ's prophecies of vengeance coming upon the hypocrites and that the second temple of Jerusalem would be destroyed was, well, when the second temple of Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD.
In Revelation 11:8 we first see the phrase "the great city", and it is explicitly identified with Jerusalem ("where also our Lord was crucified"). Again, this is the first time we see the phrase "the great city". In the following chapters, we repeatedly see "the city" and "the great city" as being the subject of God's wrath. Multiple verses link "the great city" with "Babylon", and in chapter 17 we are directly told that "Babylon the Great" is "the great city." Also in chapter 17, Babylon the Great is identified as the entity that is responsible for the blood of the saints and the prophets; this passage also alludes back to a statement of Christ, found in Matthew 23, when Christ is speaking His "woes" upon the hypocritical Pharisees, and He claims that they are responsible for the blood of the righteous. Further, "Babylon the Great" is contrasted with "New Jerusalem", just as Paul contrasted "earthly Jerusalem" with "spiritual Jerusalem" (I think you can find this in Galatians - Paul was speaking of Hagar and Sarah in metaphor). And further, much of the phrasing about Babylon the Great committing adultery with the kings of the earth parallels Ezekiel 16, in which Jerusalem is called an harlot, committing adultery with the kings of the earth. (In fact, in Scripture, Israel, Judah, and Jerusalem are just about the only entities so consistently described in metaphor as harlots or adulterers.) And, again, if Jerusalem is considered to be "Babylon the Great", then the general chronology found in the Revelation almost directly parallels a parable found in Matthew 25. Revelation says Christ's servants are sent out to
into the world to evangelize, that Babylon the Great, called "the great city", was responsible for their deaths, that Babylon the Great is the culminated focus of judgment (particularly chapters 16-19), followed by the wedding feast. Matthew 25's parable (still spoken in the context of Matthew 24's prophesy of Jerusalem and the second temple's destruction) says that the King's Son's servants are sent out to invite people to a wedding feast, that the servants are killed, that the murderers are killed and "the city" burned, and followed by the wedding feast. A lot of the prophecies throughout the Revelation can be traced back to Christ's prophecies about Jerusalem and the second temple's destruction.
In Revelation 11 (again), John prophesies about the Gentiles trampling "the holy city" (Jerusalem) for a specified period of 42 months. This alludes back to prophecy of Christ in Luke 21 (this is Luke's parallel chapter to Matthew 24), where Christ (who is, again, prophesying about the events leading up to the destruction of the second temple of Jerusalem) uses similar wording, that Jerusalem ("the holy city") would be "trampled" by the Gentiles for a specified period of time. Since Luke 21 was explicitly in context of the second temple's destruction, it seems likely then that John was prophesying the same thing, which took place in 70 AD.
In Revelation 17 (again), we are told that the scarlet beast's seven heads represented both seven kings and seven hills. Considering that John was living (a) in the first-century, (b) in the Roman Empire, and (c) that Rome was known in the first-century as "the city of the seven hills" almost universally, it should go without saying that John must have been referring to Rome in some form another. Further, John is told that of the seven kings, the sixth king was in power at the time he was writing his prophecies. Since just about every piece of literature in the first few centuries AD started with Julius Caesar as the de facto first ruler of the Roman Empire (including both Roman historians as well as Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature), he should be our starting point, and as a result, we arrive at Nero Caesar as the sixth emperor of Rome. Again, John is told in chapter 17 that the sixth king was currently in power, and since Nero was the sixth king, this leaves little room that Nero was the sixth king who was currently in power. Nero died in June of 68 AD (obviously prior to 70 AD).
These, along with a number of other points, convince me that the Revelation was written before 70 AD.



mark

the question was: Which is it?

The question was not: Please explain with significant detail why you believe when and during whos rein was this book written.

bennie

David Taylor
Dec 5th 2008, 07:56 PM
My Reformation Study Bible states the majority of scholars believe the book of Revelation was written under Domitian around 95AD. Yet I've read on the internet that the majority of scholars and the early church believe the book was written under Nero. Which is it?

BrckBrln,

This is an interesting topic. When one steps away from an emotional response attached to either view, and just examines the evidence, there is much info both ways to consider.

Here are two previous threads in ETC that have discussed this topic, and presented much info on this topic you are interested in.

Hope you find them beneficial.



Debate tonight on the date of the writing of Revelation (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=108788)
(thread started 12/10/2007)

The date of the book of Revelation (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=126629)
(thread started 05/25/2008)

markedward
Dec 6th 2008, 04:50 AM
What is the external evidence for an early date though? Do you know?The first thread David Taylor provided above includes a post he contributed to the thread (suspiciously edited today?). He points to three first/second century Christian writers who indicate that the Revelation was written pre-70 AD.


mark

the question was: Which is it?

The question was not: Please explain with significant detail why you believe when and during whos rein was this book written.

bennieOh. Sorry. Forgive me for answering the question with reason rather than simply blurting them out. Do you think it was foolish of me to use Scripture to explain my view, or are we supposed to state our beliefs and not provide any evidence for it?

BrckBrln
Dec 6th 2008, 05:10 AM
The first thread David Taylor provided above includes a post he contributed to the thread (suspiciously edited today?). He points to three first/second century Christian writers who indicate that the Revelation was written pre-70 AD.

I have another question if you don't mind. I always read by the proponents of the early date that the ECF's who believed in a late date take that directly from Irenaeus and his supposed vague statement. Is that true?

markedward
Dec 6th 2008, 06:04 AM
I'm not a huge expert on the Irenaeus statement, but it is true.

Literally every early Christian writing that claimed John wrote the Revelation during the rule of Domitian relied upon Irenaeus' statement.

Irenaeus' statement itself is pointed out by linguistic experts as "ambiguous". Certain individuals who have heavily studied his writings point out certain mannerisms in the text (including the possibility that the text seems to have been corrupted to some extent).

First, part of the phrasing of Irenaeus' claim "it was seen not long ago" (or whatever it goes as) uses certain words that Irenaeus only ever used to describe people rather than things (such as visions). A careful study of Paul's epistles shows his tendencies to use such-and-such word in such-and-such case. Likewise with Irenaeus. And people have pointed out that whatever this word is, Irenaeus consistently uses it elsewhere to describe people (such as John), not things (such as the vision). (Sorry, I don't remember off the top of my head - if you like, I do own a book that presents this argument well. I can type it up and email it to you.)

Second, Irenaeus does specifically refer to "ancient" copies of the Revelation. First notice his usage of the word copies. He's not speaking of the original document; the Revelation has already been around long enough that there are multiple copies being spread around. But also note the word ancient. They're not just copies, they're ancient copies. So if his copies are newer, probably relying upon older copies, then relying upon ancient copies, how old could the original be?

Third, the context of the statement in question makes the most sense when referring to John as the one who "was seen not long ago". Let me find the full statement...


We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision.

For [it] was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.If the "it" refers to the visions... well, how is that going to help them identify the antichrist? If the "it" refers to the book, again, how's that going to help? But if the "it" refers to John (more on this in a second), the text reads more logically: if he was seen not very long ago, then it could thus "have been announced by him". The vision had already been given and it codified the beast, so they can't appeal to the vision itself as helping them identify Domitian. Likewise with the actual book. But with John, the sentence just seems to flow better: he was seen not long ago during Domitian's reign, so he could have been asked to announce who the antichrist was. But, what is pointed out, again, is that the text (not just this passage, but Irenaeus' work as a whole) may have been corrupted (according to these linguistic guys). The word for "it" is one single letter away from the word for "he" in the original language, and the characters look similar. Someone could have mistaken the "he" for "it" when they read or copied it, leading to the interpretation that "it" is the vision rather than "he" is John.

It was only a later writer (Eusebius, I think), who referred back to Irenaeus when claiming that John wrote the Revelation during Domitian's reign, and it spread from there.

On, on a final note, early-date people also try to discredit Irenaeus' in regards to his date-keeping in general. He was born in 135 AD - and thus writing a few decades after that - yet regards Domitian's rule in the 90's AD as being "almost in [his] day". It is also pointed out that he misinterpreted one of the gospels as claiming Christ was nearing 50 years of age when the general consensus is that the gospels support Him as being not much older than 33-35 at His crucifixion.

BrckBrln
Dec 6th 2008, 06:10 AM
I'm not a huge expert on the Irenaeus statement, but it is true.

Literally every early Christian writing that claimed John wrote the Revelation during the rule of Domitian relied upon Irenaeus' statement.

Irenaeus' statement itself is pointed out by linguistic experts as "ambiguous". Certain individuals who have heavily studied his writings point out certain mannerisms in the text (including the possibility that the text seems to have been corrupted to some extent).

First, part of the phrasing of Irenaeus' claim "it was seen not long ago" (or whatever it goes as) uses certain words that Irenaeus only ever used to describe people rather than things (such as visions). A careful study of Paul's epistles shows his tendencies to use such-and-such word in such-and-such case. Likewise with Irenaeus. And people have pointed out that whatever this word is, Irenaeus consistently uses it elsewhere to describe people (such as John), not things (such as the vision). (Sorry, I don't remember off the top of my head - if you like, I do own a book that presents this argument well. I can type it up and email it to you.)

Second, Irenaeus does specifically refer to "ancient" copies of the Revelation. First notice his usage of the word copies. He's not speaking of the original document; the Revelation has already been around long enough that there are multiple copies being spread around. But also note the word ancient. They're not just copies, they're ancient copies. So if his copies are newer, probably relying upon older copies, then relying upon ancient copies, how old could the original be?

Third, the context of the statement in question makes the most sense when referring to John as the one who "was seen not long ago". Let me find the full statement...

If the "it" refers to the visions... well, how is that going to help them identify the antichrist? If the "it" refers to the book, again, how's that going to help? But if the "it" refers to John (more on this in a second), the text reads more logically: if he was seen not very long ago, then it could thus "have been announced by him". The vision had already been given and it codified the beast, so they can't appeal to the vision itself as helping them identify Domitian. Likewise with the actual book. But with John, the sentence just seems to flow better: he was seen not long ago during Domitian's reign, so he could have been asked to announce who the antichrist was. But, what is pointed out, again, is that the text (not just this passage, but Irenaeus' work as a whole) may have been corrupted (according to these linguistic guys). The word for "it" is one single letter away from the word for "he" in the original language, and the characters look similar. Someone could have mistaken the "he" for "it" when they read or copied it, leading to the interpretation that "it" is the vision rather than "he" is John.

It was only a later writer (Eusebius, I think), who referred back to Irenaeus when claiming that John wrote the Revelation during Domitian's reign, and it spread from there.

On, on a final note, early-date people also try to discredit Irenaeus' in regards to his date-keeping in general. He was born in 135 AD - and thus writing a few decades after that - yet regards Domitian's rule in the 90's AD as being "almost in [his] day". It is also pointed out that he misinterpreted one of the gospels as claiming Christ was nearing 50 years of age when the general consensus is that the gospels support Him as being not much older than 33-35 at His crucifixion.

I admit, all of this is compelling but, if true, then why is it that the majority of scholars believe in a late date (I'm taking this from the Reformation Study Bible and the ESV Study Bible)? I know the majority doesn't make it right but still.

markedward
Dec 6th 2008, 06:41 AM
I admit, all of this is compelling but, if true, then why is it that the majority of scholars believe in a late date (I'm taking this from the Reformation Study Bible and the ESV Study Bible)? I know the majority doesn't make it right but still.A majority of Christian scholars believe in the late-date (secularists and a minority of Christian scholars believe in the early-date or an extended period of writing, lasting between the early- and late-dates), probably as a result of the intense literalism applied to the Bible. As a full preterist, I do interpret various parts literally, but other parts I interpret symbolically or otherwise. Whereas I interpret "soon" as literal and "coming" as metaphorical, most Christian scholars interpret "soon" as non-literal (not necessarily metaphorical, but as something other than the natural meaning of "soon") and "coming" as literal. This, I think, started relatively early on and gradually increased over time, leading to a belief that I term "perpetual imminence" (more and more people began to interpret the "soon" statements as referring to them and not John's era). But, indeed, a good few of early Christian writers expressed full preterist tendencies. So I can't exactly explain this shift, but I believe it came about through a previously unseen amount of literalism being applied to eschatological prophecy, along with, perhaps, misinterpretations of Scripture or resulting events.

As a side-note, I read an article (some time ago) that cited a 19th-century Christian who claimed that the early-date was the majority view of the time, claiming it was "universally" held among Christians.

To be honest, sometimes a question simply might not be able to be answered. I don't fully understand the interpretation of the late-date any more than I understand a Jehovah's Witness' denial of the trinity or a Mormon's belief that God was once a man. (Not to call late-daters non-Christians, but it's a belief I don't think is supported in Scripture.)

thepenitent
Dec 6th 2008, 05:06 PM
I go with 95AD. The compelling argument Gentry makes with the internal evidence is outweighed by the external evidence.

markedward
Dec 6th 2008, 08:00 PM
I go with 95AD. The compelling argument Gentry makes with the internal evidence is outweighed by the external evidence.Gentry does argue against the external evidence as well, and that just about all of it goes back to the Irenaeus' statement, which he (and many others) have shown is ambiguous and possibly corrupted text.

thepenitent
Dec 6th 2008, 09:00 PM
Gentry does argue against the external evidence as well, and that just about all of it goes back to the Irenaeus' statement, which he (and many others) have shown is ambiguous and possibly corrupted text.

Well, Eusebius disagrees with Gentry on this point and cites Iranaeus as evidence that the Apostle John was banished to Patmos by Domitian. Further, Eusebius says the writing of Iranaeus is just one instance of the "ample evidence" that it was Domitian who banished John to Patmos. Unfortunately this "ample evidence" has not survived the centuries, but I will take Eusebius' word for it that it did exist during his time. He had no reason to mistate the state of the historical record as it existed during his time. The point being that if the Roman emporer Domitian was the one who sent John to Patmos then the 95 AD (approx) date of Revelation is the correct one. (see: "The history of the Church", Eusebuius, Chapt 3, 17-20)

markedward
Dec 6th 2008, 09:19 PM
Well, Eusebius disagrees with Gentry on this point and cites Iranaeus as evidence that the Apostle John was banished to Patmos by Domitian.This is what I was saying. Eusebius relies upon Irenaeus, and Irenaeus was ambiguous... Eusebius was interpreting the previous quote of Irenaeus that has been mentioned.


Further, Eusebius says the writing of Iranaeus is just one instance of the "ample evidence" that it was Domitian who banished John to Patmos. Unfortunately this "ample evidence" has not survived the centuries, but I will take Eusebius' word for it that it did exist during his time. He had no reason to mistate the state of the historical record as it existed during his time. The point being that if the Roman emporer Domitian was the one who sent John to Patmos then the 95 AD (approx) date of Revelation is the correct one. (see: "The history of the Church", Eusebuius, Chapt 3, 17-20)Reading that section of the text (Book 3.17-20), I can see no point in which Eusebius claims that "ample evidence" says John was exiled to Patmos by Domitian. He only refers to Irenaeus (and only in 3.18). He does mention that other sources speak of Domitian's persecution, but he only speaks of one source that claims Domitian sent John to Patmos - and, again, he directly quotes the Irenaeus statement we already spoke of, which, again, is commonly agreed by linguistics to be ambiguous and probably corrupt.

Eusebius relies solely upon Irenaeus in his claim that John was exiled to Patmos by Domitian.

BrckBrln
Dec 6th 2008, 09:41 PM
What about my earlier question. Why didn't Nero just kill John like he did Peter and Paul instead of exiling him which seems to be what Domitian liked to do?

And what about the earthquake that destroyed Laodicea in 60AD? Are we to assume they rebuilt in some five years? I know they were wealthy and refused help from Rome but is that a good amount of time to rebuild back in those days?

thepenitent
Dec 6th 2008, 10:23 PM
This is what I was saying. Eusebius relies upon Irenaeus, and Irenaeus was ambiguous... Eusebius was interpreting the previous quote of Irenaeus that has been mentioned.

Reading that section of the text (Book 3.17-20), I can see no point in which Eusebius claims that "ample evidence" says John was exiled to Patmos by Domitian. He only refers to Irenaeus (and only in 3.18). He does mention that other sources speak of Domitian's persecution, but he only speaks of one source that claims Domitian sent John to Patmos - and, again, he directly quotes the Irenaeus statement we already spoke of, which, again, is commonly agreed by linguistics to be ambiguous and probably corrupt.

Eusebius relies solely upon Irenaeus in his claim that John was exiled to Patmos by Domitian.

Paragraph 18: "There is ample evidence that at that time the apostle and evangelist John was still alive and because of his testimony to the word of God was sentenced to confinement on the Patmos"

This comes from the section of the book dealing with the persecution of Domitian.

Eusebius, "The history of the Church", Penguin Classics edition pg. 80

thepenitent
Dec 6th 2008, 10:27 PM
Further, there is no historical record of Nero ever exiled anyone to Patmos. Livy does record Domitian sentencing people to confinement on Patmos.

markedward
Dec 6th 2008, 10:30 PM
What about my earlier question. Why didn't Nero just kill John like he did Peter and Paul instead of exiling him which seems to be what Domitian liked to do?Sorry, I didn't see this.

It's generally traditions (and a lot of apocryphal works) that claim Peter and Paul were executed by Nero. Even though to us, these two men were "pillars of the faith", it's a bit of a stretch to claim that they each had personal audience with Nero and that he personally administered their executions (actually, I believe that Scripture depicts Peter as remaining in Jerusalem, with James). But not every Christian met the same fate from Nero's persecution, and John never claims that Nero (or any of his direct officials) personally sentenced him to exile... he simply says he was on Patmos in suffering for the kingdom.


And what about the earthquake that destroyed Laodicea in 60AD? Are we to assume they rebuilt in some five years? I know they were wealthy and refused help from Rome but is that a good amount of time to rebuild back in those days?Well, first, John was writing to the church in Laodicea... not to the whole city of Laodicea - there's no reason for us to believe that when John wrote to the church in Laodicea that he was actually speaking of the entirety of the city's populace or even the city's physical condition. Second, the extent of their richness was, even in secular histories, not affected by the earthquake. Third, it's possible that the "riches" the church boasts of are their "spiritual riches", only to be countered by Christ's claim that they are "wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked". They think they're super-spiritual, but are "neither hot nor cold". Fourth, it's possible (though I think this may a bit of a stretch) that the Revelation may even have been written pre-60 (pre-70 doesn't automatically mean post-60), and that when Christ claimed He would "spue" the church from out of His mouth it was a prophetic reference to them being rocked by the earthquake. Again, I think this last one is a stretch.

markedward
Dec 6th 2008, 10:53 PM
Paragraph 18: "There is ample evidence that at that time the apostle and evangelist John was still alive and because of his testimony to the word of God was sentenced to confinement on the Patmos"It seems that we are reading different translations of even that text. Mine reads as this:


It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word.

I have the Greek text of Eusebius here, so I'll check out more information on this.

Literalist-Luke
Dec 8th 2008, 04:32 PM
Here's the article that convinced me of the 95AD date for Revelation:

http://www.oasischristianchurch.org/air/Rev_Date.pdf

markedward
Dec 8th 2008, 05:15 PM
Here's the article that convinced me of the 95AD date for Revelation:

http://www.oasischristianchurch.org/air/Rev_Date.pdfGood read, but the author seemed a little antagonistic towards preterists. He said that the preterist position utterly fails based on the internal evidence (really? then I guess it's all just a big coincidence, regarding the sixth king, 666/616, Nero Caesar, parallels to Christ's first-century-aimed prophecies, etc.), and proceeded to call them "agenda driven". What in the world is that supposed to mean? Just because I disagree with the late-date I suddenly have an "agenda"? He's trying to paint preterists as the Enemy and it comes off as insulting.

BrckBrln
Dec 8th 2008, 05:27 PM
Here's the article that convinced me of the 95AD date for Revelation:

http://www.oasischristianchurch.org/air/Rev_Date.pdf

That was a good read. I'm becoming more convinced of the late date.

thepenitent
Dec 8th 2008, 05:28 PM
Although I lean to the 95 AD date I am quite sympathetic to much of the preterist position. (disclosure: I lean to a historicist interpretation). The writings of Gentry and other preterists and partial preterists changed my mind about Matthew Chapter 24. I now agree that the majority of this chapter is concerned with the destruction of Isreal in 70 AD. It has also forced me to reject much of the futurist interpetations of scripture I used to believe in. In fact, the writings of preterist scholars have convinced me that dispensational eschatology is the least convincing of the various end time scenarios.

Literalist-Luke
Dec 8th 2008, 05:34 PM
Good read, but the author seemed a little antagonistic towards preterists.Surely you're not going to just dismiss it based on your perception of his feelings toward your position, regardless of the facts.
He said that the preterist position utterly fails based on the internal evidence (really? then I guess it's all just a big coincidence, regarding the sixth king, 666/616, Nero Caesar, parallels to Christ's first-century-aimed prophecies, etc.), and proceeded to call them "agenda driven". What in the world is that supposed to mean? Just because I disagree with the late-date I suddenly have an "agenda"? He's trying to paint preterists as the Enemy and it comes off as insulting.Never mind the historical data, huh?

Literalist-Luke
Dec 8th 2008, 05:35 PM
Although I lean to the 95 AD date I am quite sympathetic to much of the preterist position. (disclosure: I lean to a historicist interpretation). The writings of Gentry and other preterists and partial preterists changed my mind about Matthew Chapter 24. I now agree that the majority of this chapter is concerned with the destruction of Isreal in 70 AD. It has also forced me to reject much of the futurist interpetations of scripture I used to believe in. In fact, the writings of preterist scholars have convinced me that dispensational eschatology is the least convincing of the various end time scenarios.You should read opposing viewpoints to test your own and see if yours hold up.

markedward
Dec 8th 2008, 05:42 PM
Surely you're not going to just dismiss it based on your perception of his feelings toward your position, regardless of the facts.No... but when he's enlightening me to the fact that I have an "agenda", that just makes me more wary of what else he's telling me. I wasn't aware that I had an "agenda", so when he is telling me that I am "agenda-driven", it's obvious that he's trying to depict the preterist as the Enemy of the faith. "Everyone beware of the preterists! They have an agenda and they will suck you in if you listen to what they have to say!"

If he wants to say I'm wrong... I'd be fine with that. It happens all the time, and it's straightforward. But claiming I'm trying to by conniving about eschatology is just inane.


Never mind the historical data, huh?That's not what I said. He claimed that the "internal evidence" utterly fails the preterist position - this is entirely dishonest, because the strongest support for the preterist position comes from within Scripture. He didn't even deal with the internal evidence that much; he made one section about the temple, but ignored the rest of the book, which, again, has strong evidence for the preterist position in regards to the mark of the beast, the parallels with Christ's first-century-aimed prophecies, the sixth king being currently in power at the time it was written, the theme of judgment following suit with the OT judgment prophecies on Israel/Judah/Jerusalem, etc.

thepenitent
Dec 8th 2008, 06:30 PM
You should read opposing viewpoints to test your own and see if yours hold up.

I will assume when you say "you" here you are referrin to Christians generally (not me specifically) and are citing my post as evidence in support of the proposition. I assume this because my post shows this is exactly what I have done and that I have benefited from doing so.

Ltanner09
Dec 8th 2008, 07:23 PM
Around 550 BC Daniel was told to shut up the vision of the prophecy, for its fulfillment would be in the distant future. (500+ years)

However in Revelation John is told NOT to seal up the vision because the time is at hand. Are we to believe the time at hand is 2,000 years?

This indicates the events in Revelation were to happen quickly as opposed to the events in Daniel.

bennie
Dec 8th 2008, 07:41 PM
Around 550 BC Daniel was told to shut up the vision of the prophecy, for its fulfillment would be in the distant future. (500+ years)

However in Revelation John is told NOT to seal up the vision because the time is at hand. Are we to believe the time at hand is 2,000 years?

This indicates the events in Revelation were to happen quickly as opposed to the events in Daniel.


there is still prophecys in daniel that needs to be fullfilled. Not all have come to pass.

bennie

Ltanner09
Dec 8th 2008, 08:03 PM
there is still prophecys in daniel that needs to be fullfilled. Not all have come to pass.

While I don't agree, let's assume you're correct and test your theory.

Daniel was told to seal his vision for it's fulfillment was 2500+ years away.
John was told the time was "at hand", and that means 2,000+ years?

But Daniel's vision was fulfilled. Christ fulfilled all of the requirements of Dan 9:24 (the 70 weeks).
John's vision was only several years away, as opposed to 2,000.
"Soon, at hand and quickly" doesn't mean the far distant future.

bennie
Dec 8th 2008, 09:59 PM
While I don't agree, let's assume you're correct and test your theory.

Daniel was told to seal his vision for it's fulfillment was 2500+ years away.
John was told the time was "at hand", and that means 2,000+ years?

But Daniel's vision was fulfilled. Christ fulfilled all of the requirements of Dan 9:24 (the 70 weeks).
John's vision was only several years away, as opposed to 2,000.
"Soon, at hand and quickly" doesn't mean the far distant future.

hi

Daniel 8

Daniel's Vision of a Ram and a Goat

1 In the third year of King Belshazzar's reign, I, Daniel, had a vision, after the one that had already appeared to me. 2 In my vision I saw myself in the citadel of Susa in the province of Elam; in the vision I was beside the Ulai Canal. 3 I looked up, and there before me was a ram with two horns, standing beside the canal, and the horns were long. One of the horns was longer than the other but grew up later. 4 I watched the ram as he charged toward the west and the north and the south. No animal could stand against him, and none could rescue from his power. He did as he pleased and became great.

5 As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between his eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground. 6 He came toward the two-horned ram I had seen standing beside the canal and charged at him in great rage. 7 I saw him attack the ram furiously, striking the ram and shattering his two horns. The ram was powerless to stand against him; the goat knocked him to the ground and trampled on him, and none could rescue the ram from his power. 8 The goat became very great, but at the height of his power his large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven.
9 Out of one of them came another horn, which started small but grew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land. 10 It grew until it reached the host of the heavens, and it threw some of the starry host down to the earth and trampled on them. 11 It set itself up to be as great as the Prince of the host; it took away the daily sacrifice from him, and the place of his sanctuary was brought low. 12 Because of rebellion, the host of the saints [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan8&version=31#fen-NIV-21974a)] and the daily sacrifice were given over to it. It prospered in everything it did, and truth was thrown to the ground.
13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, "How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrender of the sanctuary and of the host that will be trampled underfoot?"
14 He said to me, "It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated." The Interpretation of the Vision

15 While I, Daniel, was watching the vision and trying to understand it, there before me stood one who looked like a man. 16 And I heard a man's voice from the Ulai calling, "Gabriel, tell this man the meaning of the vision."

17 As he came near the place where I was standing, I was terrified and fell prostrate. "Son of man," he said to me, "understand that the vision concerns the time of the end."
18 While he was speaking to me, I was in a deep sleep, with my face to the ground. Then he touched me and raised me to my feet.
19 He said: "I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end. [b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan8&version=31#fen-NIV-21981b)] 20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. 21 The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. 22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.
23 "In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become completely wicked, a stern-faced king, a master of intrigue, will arise. 24 He will become very strong, but not by his own power. He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy the mighty men and the holy people. 25 He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.
26 "The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future." 27 I, Daniel, was exhausted and lay ill for several days. Then I got up and went about the king's business. I was appalled by the vision; it was beyond understanding.


the time of the end has not come yet, hence i say there is prophecys in daniel that has not been fullfilled yet.

bennie

bennie
Dec 8th 2008, 10:01 PM
While I don't agree, let's assume you're correct and test your theory.

Daniel was told to seal his vision for it's fulfillment was 2500+ years away.
John was told the time was "at hand", and that means 2,000+ years?

But Daniel's vision was fulfilled. Christ fulfilled all of the requirements of Dan 9:24 (the 70 weeks).
John's vision was only several years away, as opposed to 2,000.
"Soon, at hand and quickly" doesn't mean the far distant future.


hi

what do you understand when it says the vision need to be sealed up?

bennie

Cyberseeker
Dec 8th 2008, 10:35 PM
Although I lean to the 95 AD date I am quite sympathetic to much of the preterist position. (disclosure: I lean to a historicist interpretation)
Not a bad lean you got there bro. ;)


The writings of Gentry and other preterists and partial preterists changed my mind about Matthew Chapter 24. I now agree that the majority of this chapter is concerned with the destruction of Isreal in 70 AD.
Have you considered the possibility of double fulfillment - a principle that can be demonstrated in other prophecies?

Partaker of Christ
Dec 9th 2008, 01:02 AM
Good read, but the author seemed a little antagonistic towards preterists. He said that the preterist position utterly fails based on the internal evidence (really? then I guess it's all just a big coincidence, regarding the sixth king, 666/616, Nero Caesar, parallels to Christ's first-century-aimed prophecies, etc.), and proceeded to call them "agenda driven". What in the world is that supposed to mean? Just because I disagree with the late-date I suddenly have an "agenda"? He's trying to paint preterists as the Enemy and it comes off as insulting.

If you claim that the beast is Nero Caesar (666/616) then you have to agree, that Revelation was writen after Nero.

John writes:
Rev 17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

Rev 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

If the beast is Nero, then wouldn't he be one of the five, or one not yet come. If Nero is the sixth king, then he is not the beast.

markedward
Dec 9th 2008, 01:58 AM
If you claim that the beast is Nero Caesar (666/616) then you have to agree, that Revelation was writen after Nero.No I don't.

The beast is both generic and specific. When, in Daniel 2, Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar that there were four kingdoms, and that Nebuchadnezzar was the first kingdom, do we suppose that Nebuchadnezzar was a mass of land with a capital city and people walking all over him? Or is it that the first kingdom was, generically, the Babylonian Empire, and specifically, Nebuchadnezzar, who was currently in power, and subsequent kings, who had yet to come at that time? Likewise, the beast (Roman Empire generically, Nero Caesar specifically, the man whose name is numbered as 666/616) in chapter 13 persecutes the Christians, while the beast (Roman Empire generically, and likely Vespasian specifically) in chapter 17 destroys the harlot (Jerusalem).

But this is deviating more from the date of the book to what is depicted within it. For that, I'll have to step out.

thepenitent
Dec 9th 2008, 03:46 AM
there bro. ;)


Have you considered the possibility of double fulfillment - a principle that can be demonstrated in other prophecies?[/quote]

Yes and I do believe in it. My former Pastor called them near/far prophecies.

Cyberseeker
Dec 9th 2008, 05:39 AM
Far/near prophecy is exactly what Matthew 24 is.

The near fulfillment is the fiery destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 and the far prophecy is the fiery end of the world. (2 Pet 3:10, Matt 24:35)

Ltanner09
Dec 9th 2008, 06:34 PM
Bennie;
The phrase (sealing up a vision) is an idiom (see Isaiah 29:11-12). Here's how the idiom is used: when the time of fulfillment for a specific prophecy was far away, that word or book would be "shut up, sealed" for that duration of time. When the time of fulfillment of a prophecy was at hand, that word or book would NOT be any more sealed. So, the idiom pertains to the specific prophecy given and the duration unto its fulfillment. To see this in action, note what the sealing of vision/prophecy means at Dan 8:26, Dan 12:4,9, and Rev 22:10:


Daniel 8:26
And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.

Daniel 12:4
But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end

Daniel 12:9
...Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end

Revelation 22:10
...Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

bennie
Dec 10th 2008, 04:17 AM
Bennie;
The phrase (sealing up a vision) is an idiom (see Isaiah 29:11-12). Here's how the idiom is used: when the time of fulfillment for a specific prophecy was far away, that word or book would be "shut up, sealed" for that duration of time. When the time of fulfillment of a prophecy was at hand, that word or book would NOT be any more sealed. So, the idiom pertains to the specific prophecy given and the duration unto its fulfillment. To see this in action, note what the sealing of vision/prophecy means at Dan 8:26, Dan 12:4,9, and Rev 22:10:

Daniel 8:26
And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.

Daniel 12:4
But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end

Daniel 12:9
...Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end

Revelation 22:10
...Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.





hi

dan12:He replied, "Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end. 10 Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.

11 "From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. 12 Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days. 13 "As for you, go your way till the end. You will rest, and then at the end of the days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance."

my question then is: When did Daniel rise and get his allotted inheritance?
It says that it will happen at the time of the end. The appointed time of the end.

bennie

Ltanner09
Dec 10th 2008, 05:18 AM
my question then is: When did Daniel rise and get his allotted inheritance?
It says that it will happen at the time of the end. The appointed time of the end.

Before the cross souls went to Paradise. When Christ arose the souls of believers were raised. When a believer dies now their soul is raised.
The end, in Dan 12, came upon the OT way of doing business... at the cross.

markdrums
Dec 10th 2008, 06:29 PM
hi

dan12:He replied, "Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end. 10 Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.

11 "From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. 12 Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days. 13 "As for you, go your way till the end. You will rest, and then at the end of the days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance."

my question then is: When did Daniel rise and get his allotted inheritance?
It says that it will happen at the time of the end. The appointed time of the end.

bennie


The question to ask yourself is "The end of WHAT?"
It's not about the end of time in general, as in "end of the world".... but the end of the age. This is also true with Matthew 24.
Jesus wasn't speaking about the end of the world/planet... he was speaking about the end of the (sacrificial system / Old Covenant) age, and the destruction of Jerusalem & the temple.

Words like near, soon, at hand, need to be taken in their intended context... which is "near, soon, & at hand".
If Daniel's vision was about an event 400 years in the future, and it was considered FAR-OFF... then why would soon, & at hand in Revelation mean over 2000 years?

I have to agree with the earlier dating of Revelation for several of the reasons given in previous posts.
One thing to point out as well; If Revelation was written AFTER the destruction of the temple, why was it not mentioned?
An event of that magnitude would have been a key point in showing Jesus' prophecy being fulfilled. Not only that, but the temple was a key stone in the Jew's identity.

Look at it this way, If an author is writing something about New York city prior to 9-11, there's probably not going to be a mention of the WTC Towers..... But if he/she is writing AFTER 9-11, they'll most certainly bring it up, seeing how it was a HUGE event in History.

The same would be true of Revelation.
To write AFTER the fact & never mention it, makes little sense.