When was the Book of Revelation written?

[συνείδησις]

You are entirely correct that all does not necessarily mean every. But it does most certainly mean "the bulk of," or "most of." And we know of a certainty that most of Jerusalem and Judea did not turn to the Lord, and thus did not have the spirit of grace and supplication poured out on them, and did not mourn in repentance for what they had done. They only mourned in sorrow for the punishment they received.

Verse 14 is most certainly the last sentence of the statement that included verse 10. It was all one coherent statement. Beginning, by the way with the sentence that "it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem." Zechariah 12:9

The armies that came later were the Lord's armies, sent to punish Jerusalem for its wickedness. And the Lord most certainly did not seek to destroy them.

You are trying to extract a very small part of the overall statement, and claim that it has been fulfilled, while ingnoring the fact that the details contained in the rest of the statement were plainly not fulfilled.

In retrospect, I agree that verses 10-14 are one cohesive whole. However, there's nothing about verse 9 that requires it to be a part of that passage. It does fit in with the prior verses, though. That's simply a matter of interpretation. I'd bet money that if Jesus hadn't said that Zechariah 12:7 was fulfilled at his betrayal, your rules of interpretation wouldn't allow you to interpret that verse in the same way because they don't appear to go with verses 6 and 8.

 

[claninja]

Didn't that happen at the crucifixion?

According to John,the ‘they will look upon whom they have pierced’ was fulfilled at the crucifixion. But he doesn’t mention the mourning being fulfilled:

But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. He who saw it has borne witness— his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth— that you also may believe. For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken.” And again another Scripture says, “They will look on him whom they have pierced.”
John 19:34-37 - Bible Gateway passage: John 19:34-37 - English Standard Version

btw the word epi above means upon).

Yes, I agree it can mean upon.

 

[claninja]

And you are pretending that this happened in 70 A.D.?

You still haven’t answered the question I asked In post #423, even though I went through each of your objections........

Anyways, Jesus stated that immediately after the tribulation (siege of Jerusalem), the tribes of the earth will mourn when the sign of the son of man appears in heaven.

29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Matthew 24:29-30 - Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 24:29-30 - English Standard Version


So either Jesus was talking about the siege that would happen in the disciples lifetime, or he was talking about a 2000+ year later temple, but forgot to mention that the temple would be destroyed in their lifetime, rebuilt 2000+ year later, and then the end would be near.
But this does not fit with the teachings of the disciples, who believed it was the last days (acts 2:16-17), the end of the age (1 Corinthians 10:12), and the last hour (1 John 2:18).

 

[David Kent]

is intellectual dishonesty and unbelief.

Are you accusing him of lying?

 

[συνείδησις]

Are you accusing him of lying?

I would say that intellectual dishonesty is a form of lying to one's self.

 

[David Kent]

So either Jesus was talking about the siege that would happen in the disciples lifetime, or he was talking about a 2000+ year later temple, but forgot to mention that the temple would be destroyed in their lifetime, rebuilt 2000+ year later, and then the end would be near.
But this does not fit with the teachings of the disciples, who believed it was the last days (acts 2:16-17), the end of the age (1 Corinthians 10:12), and the last hour (1 John 2:18).

It was the end of the Jewish age.

 

[David Kent]

Reminds me of when people got excited when the EU had 10 members...fulfillment of prophesy...the rising of the Roman Empire again....and then they got more...gang....wrong again. Seems to be a pattern.

Yes but Christians knew that it was history,

 

[claninja]

It was the end of the Jewish age.

I agree. I would go even Farther and say it was the end of the old heavens and earth.

During the old covenant dispensation, God remained separate from his followers on earth (old earth). The temple was a picture of this. Additionally, no one was in heaven (old heaven)

Upon the death of Christ and the destruction of the temple, God now dwells with us in spirit on earth (new earth) and when we die, we now go heaven (new heaven) to be with him.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Yes but Christians knew that it was history,

The EU is still here but no ten kings

 

[faroukfarouk]

The EU is still here but no ten kings

With prophecy it's good for ppl not to speculate too much.

 

[David Kent]

The EU is still here but no ten kings

Of course it is history,

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Of course it is history,

Everything then is history. Fulfillment of prophesy is history and events that don’t are history. True but is it worth saying?

 

[Biblewriter]

How is that different from what you do? You completely ignored every bit of solid, verifiable evidence I presented showing that Zechariah 14:5 has been fulfilled simply because you think one detail hasn't been fulfilled.

IMO ignoring all of this to protect one's position

• Linguistic evidence
• Geologic evidence
• Photographic evidence
• Historical evidence
• Archaeological evidence
• Scriptural evidence

is intellectual dishonesty and unbelief.

Up to now, I have only concentrated on geological features, for that is what you were concentrating on. But the real intellectual dishonesty and unbelief is to pretend that a prophecy has been fulfilled when most (not just one) of the details of that prophecy have unquestionably (not just in my opinion) not been fulfilled.

The prophecy (not just the verse) says:
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. 5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee. 6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark: 7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light. Zechariah 14:4-7 KJV

Even assuming for the sake of the argument, that your interpretation is correct, that the meaning of the word Hebrew word "nus" is block, or blocked, rather than flee (which I completely reject) there is still zero basis for claiming that this prophecy has been fulfilled. The "solid, verifiable, evidence" you claim has all been directed toward that one word. And that is all the evidence you have presented.

You have ignored the facts that:

1. This was to happen at the time when the Lord's "feet shall stand... upon the mount of Olives."

2. At that time, the mount of Olives was to "cleave in the midst" with half of it "moving" (Masoretic text) or "leaning" (Septuagint text) to the north, and the other half to the south.

3. At that time, "the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee."

4. At that time, "the light shall not be clear, nor dark. But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light."

It is intellectually dishonest to ignore all this detail, while pretending a fulfilement of a single detail, which you have to rely upon an alternate text to even find, while ignoring the rest of this cohesive statement of prophecy.

 

[David Kent]

Up to now, I have only concentrated on geological features, for that is what you were concentrating on. But the real intellectual dishonesty and unbelief is to pretend that a prophecy has been fulfilled when most (not just one) of the details of that prophecy have unquestionably (not just in my opinion) not been fulfilled.

The prophecy (not just the verse) says:
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. 5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee. 6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark: 7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light. Zechariah 14:4-7 KJV

Even assuming for the sake of the argument, that your interpretation is correct, that the meaning of the word Hebrew word "nus" is block, or blocked, rather than flee (which I completely reject) there is still zero basis for claiming that this prophecy has been fulfilled. The "solid, verifiable, evidence" you claim has all been directed toward that one word. And that is all the evidence you have presented.

You have ignored the facts that:

1. This was to happen at the time when the Lord's "feet shall stand... upon the mount of Olives."

2. At that time, the mount of Olives was to "cleave in the midst" with half of it "moving" (Masoretic text) or "leaning" (Septuagint text) to the north, and the other half to the south.

3. At that time, "the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee."

4. At that time, "the light shall not be clear, nor dark. But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light."

It is intellectually dishonest to ignore all this detail, while pretending a fulfilement of a single detail, which you have to rely upon an alternate text to even find, while ignoring the rest of this cohesive statement of prophecy.

For once, I think I agree with you, but I can't remember what the connection that was with any of the previous discussion.

 

[συνείδησις]

The prophecy (not just the verse) says:
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. 5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee. 6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark: 7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light. Zechariah 14:4-7 KJV

You demonstrate right here how your framing of the prophecy affects it's interpretation. There is nothing that requires verses 6-7 to be included with the prior verses. That is your arbitrary decision.

Even assuming for the sake of the argument, that your interpretation is correct, that the meaning of the word Hebrew word "nus" is block, or blocked, rather than flee (which I completely reject) there is still zero basis for claiming that this prophecy has been fulfilled. The "solid, verifiable, evidence" you claim has all been directed toward that one word. And that is all the evidence you have presented.

I have mentioned a great deal of evidence, and provided 3 search words (zechariah + azal + yasul) so that any honest truth seekers can find the information for themselves. The evidence is there - you can't deny it.

You have ignored the facts that:

1. This was to happen at the time when the Lord's "feet shall stand... upon the mount of Olives."
2. At that time, the mount of Olives was to "cleave in the midst" with half of it "moving" (Masoretic text) or "leaning" (Septuagint text) to the north, and the other half to the south.
3. At that time, "the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee."
4. At that time, "the light shall not be clear, nor dark. But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light."

#1 is not required by the text. That is your interpretation that reflects your preconceived bias. What is it about the lord's feet on the Mt of Olives (which undeniably happened) that requires the next verse to happen? Nothing. Your bias requires it.

#2 has happened. It's just how you choose to interpret it based on your bias and ignorance. The word leaning takes on the meaning of dropped (as the lord's head did when he died), which is what happens when half of a mountaintop drops from landsliding, and is what happened on the Mt of Olives.

Your arbitrary decision places #3 and #4 with verses 3 - 5.

It is intellectually dishonest to ignore all this detail, while pretending a fulfilement of a single detail, which you have to rely upon an alternate text to even find, while ignoring the rest of this cohesive statement of prophecy.

I assure you that if you approach this honestly you will not be left standing because there is too much verifiable evidence contradicting your opinions. If you want to keep pretending that it doesn't exist, that's fine. All that I'm interested in doing is witnessing to the truth.

 

[David Kent]

The EU is still here but no ten kings

They don't have to be. The empire was removed by Constantine to Byzantium, thus fulfilling

• 2 Thess 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. (The Empire)
• 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. (The Emperor)

The fact is the Western Roman Empire was overthrown by 10 kingdoms. They gave the Pope his power and supported him. The papal forces overthrew three of them. After that no person ruled from Rome except the pope, until he had his dominion taken away in AD 1870.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

They don't have to be. The empire was removed by Constantine to Byzantium, thus fulfilling

• 2 Thess 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. (The Empire)
• 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. (The Emperor)

The fact is the Western Roman Empire was overthrown by 10 kingdoms. They gave the Pope his power and supported him. The papal forces overthrew three of them. After that no person ruled from Rome except the pope, until he had his dominion taken away in AD 1870.

So far no one in general history says this. I read a bit about the fall of Roman Empire and no one says this. I suspect that the wish to make the Bible being fulfilled colors the interpretation. But I think no one will convince you otherwise. I mean Revelation makes it sound like it is very big in human history but the events you describe are a blip in it. The fall of Jerusalem changed man's relationship with God forever but the fall of Rome had no impact on human history to speak of. Yet you insist that is it. Does not seem that many are convinced of this, not in an unbiased work I read.

 

[Biblewriter]

I have mentioned a great deal of evidence, and provided 3 search words (zechariah + azal + yasul) so that any honest truth seekers can find the information for themselves. The evidence is there - you can't deny it...

I assure you that if you approach this honestly you will not be left standing because there is too much verifiable evidence contradicting your opinions. If you want to keep pretending that it doesn't exist, that's fine. All that I'm interested in doing is witnessing to the truth.

I am not going to continue to argue with you. The only thing you have demonstrated is that your interpretation of one detail from this prophecy has been at least partially fulfilled. And that is all you have demonstrated, in your "too much verifiable evidence."

 

[συνείδησις]

I am not going to continue to argue with you. The only thing you have demonstrated is that your interpretation of one detail from this prophecy has been at least partially fulfilled. And that is all you have demonstrated, in your "too much verifiable evidence."

I'll cease too. If I posted all of the evidence here it would sidetrack and bury this thread.

 

[David Kent]

So far no one in general history says this. I read a bit about the fall of Roman Empire and no one says this. I suspect that the wish to make the Bible being fulfilled colors the interpretation. But I think no one will convince you otherwise. I mean Revelation makes it sound like it is very big in human history but the events you describe are a blip in it. The fall of Jerusalem changed man's relationship with God forever but the fall of Rome had no impact on human history to speak of. Yet you insist that is it. Does not seem that many are convinced of this, not in an unbiased work I read.

I really don't know what you are trying to prove. The early church writers, with unusual agreement nearly all said Rome would be overthrown by ten kings. They got that from Daniel and revelation. They believed that Antichrist would come from among those ten kings. They also believed that the removal of the empire and emperor would enable that to happen. Where did they get that from? Paul told them, 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

Paul told the church, and the church told us. "You know" said Paul. "We know" said Tertullian.

I showed you a map from about 410 which showed about 7 or 8 of the ten tribes.

In June 474, Julius Nepos became Western Emperor but in the next year the magister militum Orestes revolted and made his son Romulus Augustus emperor. Romulus, however, was not recognized by the Eastern Emperor Zeno and so was technically an usurper, Nepos still being the legal Western Emperor. Nevertheless, Romulus Augustus is often known as the last Western Roman Emperor. In 476, after being refused lands in Italy, Orestes' Germanic mercenaries under the leadership of the chieftain Odoacer captured and executed Orestes and took Ravenna, the Western Roman capital at the time, deposing Romulus Augustus. The whole of Italy was quickly conquered, and Odoacer was granted the title of patrician by Zeno, effectively recognizing his rule in the name of the Eastern Empire. Odoacer returned the Imperial insignia to Constantinople and ruled as King in Italy. Following Nepos' death Theodoric the Great, King of the Ostrogoths, conquered Italy with Zeno's approval.

Meanwhile, much of the rest of the Western provinces were conquered by waves of Germanic invasions, most of them being disconnected politically from the East altogether and continuing a slow decline. Although Roman political authority in the West was lost, Roman culture would last in most parts of the former Western provinces into the 6th century and beyond.​

The first invasions disrupted the West to some degree, but it was the Gothic War launched by the Eastern Emperor Justinianin the 6th century, and meant to reunite the Empire, that eventually caused the most damage to Italy, as well as straining the Eastern Empire militarily. Following these wars, Rome and other Italian cities would fall into severe decline (Rome itself was almost completely abandoned). Another blow came with the Persian invasion of the East in the 7th century, immediately followed by the Muslim conquests, especially of MachEgypt, which curtailed much of the key trade in the Mediterranean on which Europe depended. Wiki
​

According to Woodrow, Macchiavelli, the Roman historian described the empire being divided between the various Gothic tribes - their number being ten, Heruli, Suevi, Burgundians, Huns, Ostrogoths, Visgoths, Vandals, Lombards, Franks and Saxons, "These have ever since been spoken of as the ten kingdoms that rose out of the Roman Empire. "

Some of the Early Christians who believed that the let and hindrance was the
Roman Empire and Emperor were:
Justin Martyr
Hyppolytus
Tertullian
Cyril of Jerusalem
Jerome

Now I would like to know what you believe. As you seem to believe that the Antichrist was in the past, when did the ten horns appear before him.

You must also say that those early Christians got it wrong and also the Apostle Paul.

Otherwise you must agree with the futurist stargazers, that the ten toes will be a revived Roman Empire.

They seem to believe that the Roman Empire ended centuries ago, which leaves the image in Daniel 2 suspended in air till the toes.

​