When was the Book of Revelation written?

[David Kent]

I do not see the link, sorry. From reading what you posted on the previous page, I have do not know their millenial views. They obviously have one, but what it is I cannot tell. If the author is correct, Jerome modified it which means he did not agree with it, I assume.

Frankly speaking, the content is mostly the man making up what he thinks the details mean independent of the text itself. Not that the points are invalid, but the imagery is to give a certain impression and he finds some spiritual meaning to it all instead of seeing it for what it was, IMHO. So I am not convinced the author being discussed had much insight as to the text. Most certainly nothing from anyone who knew John or knew someone who knew someone who knew someone who heard John talk about it.

I saw nothing futuristic in it because the author obviously being a futurist. I suspect if the subject being discussed really had futuristic views of any weight, they would be posted. Otherwise it sounds pretty much like every Tom, Dick and Harry nowadays telling us who Bablyon is and who the Antichrist is and who the harlot is. Of course, the text itself is often ignored in these guesses.

So my conclusion is the guys centuries ago might also not have figured out the answer. It might be that they knew nothing about the fall of Jerusalem in detail. That information is important in understanding the text same as knowing the details of Jesus conception, birth and so on are important to understand the prophesy of him in the OT. If one never knew he was in Egypt or born in Bethlehem, one would be missing important information.

If you are saying that Elliott is a futurist, you don't know what you are saying. He did a refutation of a couple of varieties of futurism, not dispensationalism because it had barely started when he wrote his first edition in 1844, he also wrote a refutation of a couple of flavours of preterism.

 

[AFrazier]

By the way, it's worth saying that Eusebius believed that Jesus had already come back in the 300s. Just sayin'.

 

[David Kent]

"They match pretty well" is not grounds for claiming a prophecy has been fulfilled. Any and every prophecy that has actually been fulfilled has been fulfilled completely, in all of its details. For that is the test of a prophet of God.

"And if you say in your heart, 'How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?'-- when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him." (Deuteronomy 18:21-22)

In Matthew 24, only verse 2 speaks of A.D. 70, as does Luke 21:6. The actual prophecy about the events of A.D. 70 is in Like 21, particularly verses 20-24:

"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

These verses are missing from the Matthew account.

The two prophecies are the same. Put them side by side point by point together with Mark and you will see they are the same. Matthew and Mark use "abomination of desolation" using terminology which the Jewish Christians would understand "let the reader understand." Luke writing to gentiles explains what it meant. In all cases the Christians had to flee when they saw that AOD, that is the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem.

Matthew added questions that were nothing to do with the original discussion.

• and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Jesus answered that from verse 36 on. The BUT means a change of subject

The signs Jesus gave in all three gospels were for the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. All fulfilled.

• and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
• 36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

 

[David Kent]

Seriously, though ... I was a Dispensationalist once upon a time. I believed that the Revelation was absolutely a thing of the future. But there were certain passages of scripture that I just couldn't ignore.

I also was taught Dispensationalism when I was younger, I was in the Brethren and they were those who more or less invented it, or at least took it over. The answer is not preterism as that is another form of literalism like futurism.

 

[Biblewriter]

Yes, I have personally examined the Greek text, and yes, I am sufficiently familiar with the Greek language. Enough to know that a preposition in Greek doesn't determine word relationships. Person, number, gender, and declension determine association.

So, since you are an expert, what do the persons,numbers, genders, or declensions indicate about this question?

 

[Biblewriter]

Obviously, I expect you to disagree with that sentiment. And that's okay with me. I don't think that salvation hinges on one's eschatological point of view. So everyone here is good by me in their disagreement.

I ABSOLUTELY agree.

 

[Biblewriter]

I also was taught Dispensationalism when I was younger, I was in the Brethren and they were those who more or less invented it, or at least took it over. The answer is not preterism as that is another form of literalism like futurism.

Dispensationalism most certainly did not originate with the “brethren.”

 

[Biblewriter]

The two prophecies are the same. Put them side by side point by point together with Mark and you will see they are the same. Matthew and Mark use "abomination of desolation" using terminology which the Jewish Christians would understand "let the reader understand." Luke writing to gentiles explains what it meant. In all cases the Christians had to flee when they saw that AOD, that is the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem.

Matthew added questions that were nothing to do with the original discussion.

• and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Jesus answered that from verse 36 on. The BUT means a change of subject

The signs Jesus gave in all three gospels were for the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. All fulfilled.

• and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
• 36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Luke 21:20-24, which is the only part of the message,other than the prophecy about the destruction of the temple, that is about A.D. 70, is not included in the accounts in Matthew or in Mark.

 

[AFrazier]

So, since you are an expert, what do the persons,numbers, genders, or declensions indicate about this question?

Just read this. The arguments have already been spelled out. You'll want pages 45-67.

 

[Biblewriter]

Just read this. The arguments have already been spelled out. You'll want pages 45-67.

I am quite familiar with this miserable work, having labored through it long ago. But you will notice that, in the pages you cited, even Gentry admits that numerous noted scholars do not agree with his interpretation.

But I must ask, is your interpretation based on your own analysis, or upon that of Gentry. And do you have a copy of Irenaeus in Greek, or do you just have the sentence quoted by Gentry.

 

[AFrazier]

I am quite familiar with this miserable work, having labored through it long ago. But you will notice that, in the pages you cited, even Gentry admits that numerous noted scholars do not agree with his interpretation.

But I must ask, is your interpretation based on your own analysis, or upon that of Gentry. And do you have a copy of Irenaeus in Greek, or do you just have the sentence quoted by Gentry.

I quoted Gentry because he makes a thorough argument. I have seen the original text, as it exists. And I was of the opinion, before reading Gentry, that the text made more sense in pointing to John as the thing that had been seen.

And begging your pardon, but Gentry's work isn't a "miserable work." You really need to learn a little humility. He clearly put a lot of effort into it, and was very objective in his approach. Arrogance is unbecoming. Especially since you haven't really proven your point, however much you believe you have.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

"They match pretty well" is not grounds for claiming a prophecy has been fulfilled. Any and every prophecy that has actually been fulfilled has been fulfilled completely, in all of its details. For that is the test of a prophet of God.

OK, they match in the details that are known. The problem is, the Jews read the prophesies of the Messiah and still did not recognize that Jesus fulfilled the details. They don't to this day, most of them. So there have always been those who denied that the prophesies were fulfilled and those who saw the details as fulfilling the prophesies. So your position is not new. Was a position in the day of the fulfillment of prophesies. Just putting some perspective on it. I see the prophesies as being completely filled, those that pertain to the tribulation. If I used "pretty well" I was being conservative. I can use "completely filled" too.

"And if you say in your heart, 'How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?'-- when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him." (Deuteronomy 18:21-22)

Are you refering to Jesus here? That his prophesies did not come to pass and none of those things happened soon? You sure you want to say that?

In Matthew 24, only verse 2 speaks of A.D. 70, as does Luke 21:6. The actual prophecy about the events of A.D. 70 is in Like 21, particularly verses 20-24:

"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

These verses are missing from the Matthew account.

So of what significance is it that particular verses are missing in Matthew? Does it mean Jesus did not say them? And it is very odd that Jesus is talking about a period of time 2000+ years in the future and suddenly jumps to within 50 years (in your view.) Makes more sense that the whole of the thing up until verse 36 is answering the question as to when the temple will be destroyed, a completely different time period than when he bodily returns. And the events in Matt 24 match the events in Revelation.

That is how I see it anyway.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

The first pont max was Julius Cæsar

I meant of the Catholic church. He was head of the Cathollics when he legalized them. Constantine was the first pope as it were. THe first official head of the Roman Catholic church.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I've been hearing this, but I'm not sure where it's coming from. His proper name was Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus.

Maybe they are mistaking the name of his father which does include Domitius. Will not make that mistake again. Just goes to show that people report heresay believing it and it can be in full error. That is why I am dubious about heresay as evidence for anything. Might be true, but might be mistaken. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

This is absolutely incorrect. everything I posted was an actual cut and paste from English translations of the ancient documents themselves. Not a single word of it was from an article that anyone else wrote. Every word of itwas my own personal report of what I personally found in these ancient documents.

But why would a translation continue to use the name of the author? No one translates a work of someone and now and again inserts the name of the person who supposedly wrote the piece? Can you explain that? Do I need to go back to the post? A guy named Elliot or something wrote a piece that looks like it is ABOUT Victor~ because he keeps refering to him by name in the piece. If it is a translation, why does he do that?

Just a few days ago, a well known scholar personally wrote to me that, in preparing for a book he was writing on the same subject, he had only personally found about 30% of what I had found. (He was asking for permission to quote my research.)

I am sure that is satisfying for you. I am equally sure that in your piece, you did not use your own name. He might, because he was quoting you. You, however, did not. You don't use your name in any of your posts, rightly so. Neither does anyone else.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

The article I cut and pasted about what Victorinus said, was written by Jerome. The reason I posted that was to prove that Jerome had personally admitted that he had changed the words of Victorinus. Then I gave links to the original commentary by Victorinus and the revised version by Jerome.

You need to read more carefully.

Maybe we are not talking about the same post. Can you tell me what page it is on? I did not find any links in the bit by Elliot, either post. And uh, if Jerome changes the words that Vic wrote, what else did he change without bothering to tell us? The problem is, when a translator changes the words and only later admits it, it means that we cannot trust his work. That is a character flaw that he allows himself to edit what he is supposed to be translating and only some time later admits it. His whole work is then dubious.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

If you are saying that Elliott is a futurist, you don't know what you are saying. He did a refutation of a couple of varieties of futurism, not dispensationalism because it had barely started when he wrote his first edition in 1844, he also wrote a refutation of a couple of flavours of preterism.

Thanks for the input. Nice to read your statement that dispensationalism had a starting date and was unheard of before. Futurism belongs to dispensationalism, I understand. So where does Elliot stand, not that this matters much to us in general?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I also was taught Dispensationalism when I was younger, I was in the Brethren and they were those who more or less invented it, or at least took it over. The answer is not preterism as that is another form of literalism like futurism.

How can you call Preterism literalism? No one who thinks the events described in Rev that happened soon after the revelation thinks the beasts and creatures described literally appeared on earth exactly as described. The book itself says the pictures are metaphors. Thinking “soon” and “this generation “ means within 50 years doesn’t make one a literalist anymore that believing Jesus actually resurrected makes one a literalist.

 

[David Kent]

By the way, it's worth saying that Eusebius believed that Jesus had already come back in the 300s. Just sayin'.

I have a copy of Eusebius and read it all and don't recall him saying that, would you like to say where he said that.

There were two periods of Eusebius. one under persecution by the emperor and the other under Constantine, and my impression is that he was more reliable before Constantine. Only my impression. Most Christians accepted Constantine at the time, but when Constantine moved the empire to the East, some realised that the restraining power or 2 Thess 2: was being removed. The Waldensians claim that their separation from Rome was at the time of Bishop Sylvester who was Bishop of Rome at the time.

 

[Biblewriter]

I quoted Gentry because he makes a thorough argument. I have seen the original text, as it exists. And I was of the opinion, before reading Gentry, that the text made more sense in pointing to John as the thing that had been seen.

Why do both the translators of the standard version of Irenaeus and Wikipedia say that no complete copy of the Greek text of Against Heresies exists today? W. Wigan Harvey published a volume of fragments of Against Heresies in Latin, Greek, and Syraic. Is that the one you have seen?

And begging your pardon, but Gentry's work isn't a "miserable work." You really need to learn a little humility. He clearly put a lot of effort into it, and was very objective in his approach. Arrogance is unbecoming. Especially since you haven't really proven your point, however much you believe you have.

I called his book "miserable" because of the infantile nature of most of his arguments. As I have pointed out he even admits that his arguments about the claim that the Greek Text of Irenaeus are rejected by many noted scholars.

As to proof, have you read my analysis of the work of Irenaeus? I posted it in another thread.