IF you take the time to do a deep level investigation you will find that it is impossible for the Book of Revelation to be applied to 70 AD as you prefer to apply it , all evidence shows the it was written in 96 AD - but the real point is even if it was written in 74 AD - it is still impossible to accurately apply it to the 70 AD account of the temple destruction - it was not written before 70 AD which is proof enough that it is not at all about that temple.
Instead of accepting the obvious you are preferring to apply scripture to something it has no relation to which results in your misunderstanding.
The debate over whether revelation was written before or after 70 ad, is one that has lasted over 1000 years. When one states 'ALL' the evidence shows that the book was written in 96AD, it shows that they have not actually looked at 'all' the evidence.
Another flaw in your statement is where you are using John 1 to be the same as the Book of Revelation - John 1 is speaking of how Almighty God came to earth as a human man to those of His chosen and they did not know him , they did not accept him ,
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
In the Book of Rev it is all about Jesus Returning to earth , after the people of earth have learned that he is God incarnate in the flesh
entirely different than book of John
I apologize. thank you for noticing my typo. I quoted Revelation 1:1,4 but for some reason typed John 1:1,4. The verse is correct, just accidentally typed John instead of Revelation.
Revelation 1:1,4 This is the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants what must SOON COME TO PASS. John, To the seven churches in the province of Asia:
It is literally directed at a first century audience.
Audience relevance is very important. John, in revelation, was writing to the 7 churches in asia about things that were SOON COMING. It doesn't really make sense for John to tell the church about SOON COMING things that they would see, if they actually didn’t see them. And they wouldn’t occur for another 2000+ years to an entirely different audience.
There is greater level of famine in these latter days than there was in those days , the matter of currency is something that is important to understand , but it itself is a whole matter unto itself pertaining to these last days we now are living in - properly understood the Last Days is a reference to the last days just before the return of Jesus to reign on earth
So John wasn’t really prophesying about things soon to come? For example, if it was soon, then the Roman denarius would have been the currency and it would fit within the time frame.
No instead, your saying it wasn’t really to occur soon. It was to occur 2000+ years later and John was actually prophesying about the crypto currency called ‘denarius’?
Upvote
0