Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Domitian

[Straightshot]

Dump the truck load and move on

 

[Notrash]

As all this was thoroughly answered in the multi-part OP, there is no point in going over it again.

I read tthe multi-part OP. Where did you address the fact that there isno grammatical rule for english or greek stating that a prepositiin refers to its next earliest antecedent?

Or, where didyou quote the rule from greek or english grammer. I muust have missed it.

Your opening post is what gives the testimony that you have to misrepreaent the text of Ireneous AND ignore the context of his topic in order to justify translating the article as "it", meaning the vision.

Your correct aparently in your analysis that Eusebius was the first to refer to Ireneouses work and thus misinterpret it while likely searching for evidence of the date of authorship.

So again, Ireneouses account cannot beconstrued to support the late date theory because the topic of his discussiin has nothing to do with the date or time of the vision.

Either reveal and quote the grammatical rule which you alledge dictates that a pronoun refers to its next earlier antecedent OR admit and confess that you misrepresented the text in order to better support your vies.

You said that Ireneous said that if itwould be neccessary for them to know the name associated with the number, it would have been revealed in the apocolyptic vision. Ireneous DID NOTsay that, but said that if it would be neccessary that they know the name associated with the number, it would have been revealed BY HIM who beheld the vision.

The context and the text speaks for itself.

Thanks for your research to reveal that the ECF's did not refer to Ireneous but that it waa first misinterpreted by Eusebius and then referred to by subsequent readers and writers.

 

[Biblewriter]

I read tthe multi-part OP. Where did you address the fact that there isno grammatical rule for english or greek stating that a prepositiin refers to its next earliest antecedent?

Or, where didyou quote the rule from greek or english grammer. I muust have missed it.

Your opening post is what gives the testimony that you have to misrepreaent the text of Ireneous AND ignore the context of his topic in order to justify translating the article as "it", meaning the vision.

Your correct aparently in your analysis that Eusebius was the first to refer to Ireneouses work and thus misinterpret it while likely searching for evidence of the date of authorship.

So again, Ireneouses account cannot beconstrued to support the late date theory because the topic of his discussiin has nothing to do with the date or time of the vision.

Either reveal and quote the grammatical rule which you alledge dictates that a pronoun refers to its next earlier antecedent OR admit and confess that you misrepresented the text in order to better support your vies.

You said that Ireneous said that if itwould be neccessary for them to know the name associated with the number, it would have been revealed in the apocolyptic vision. Ireneous DID NOTsay that, but said that if it would be neccessary that they know the name associated with the number, it would have been revealed BY HIM who beheld the vision.

The context and the text speaks for itself.

Thanks for your research to reveal that the ECF's did not refer to Ireneous but that it waa first misinterpreted by Eusebius and then referred to by subsequent readers and writers.

What I said about this, in post #1, was, "Further, it is important to realize that Irenaeus did not say, 'for he was seen no very long time since...' He said 'For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day.' using the word 'that,' rather than 'he,' clearly shows that Irenaeus was saying that John’s vision had been so recent that if there was any need to know the Antichrist’s name at that time, it would have been announced in the vision. This clearly demonstrates that Irenaeus was referring to the time the Revelation was written, not to the last time John had been seen."

I consider this a complete answer to your specious argument.

 

[Notrash]

What I said about this, in post #1, was, "Further, it is important to realize that Irenaeus did not say, 'for he was seen no very long time since...' He said 'For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day.' using the word 'that,' rather than 'he,' clearly shows that Irenaeus was saying that John’s vision had been so recent that if there was any need to know the Antichrist’s name at that time, it would have been announced in the vision. This clearly demonstrates that Irenaeus was referring to the time the Revelation was written, not to the last time John had been seen."

I consider this a complete answer to your specious argument.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7791343-68/#post67025430
Your response was rebutted here. The topic of Ireneouses discussion is not when the vision was seen but the issue of it being unimportant for them of the second century to know the name associated with the number, because if it had been important for them to know the name it would have revealed by the person who beheld the vision. FOR HE (OR IT) (personal pronoun) was seen almost in their day, even during the reign of Domitian.

The following sentence continues the topic of John election to not provide the name saying;
BUT he gives us the number associated with the name now, so that when he appears (from Ireneouses faulty futurist perspective) they might avoid him.

It is highly unlikely that Irenous intended to have the word "that" used and thus refer to the vision. He would have used a derivative of taute or ekiome. As it is he used a word which I've read can be translated as He, or only "it" if vision is considered a masculine noun AND if vision was a proper subject introduced in the context. Otherwise, it is just the object of a prepositional phrase which gives further information describing John as; He who beheld the vision, in a passive way.

There is NOTHING CLEAR about your allegation, but it is clear that Eusebius could have also mistaken the interpretatiin of this pronoun while searching and seeking for evidence of the date of authorship.
What IS CLEAR is that Ireneous was preoccupied with the number and possible name of this alledged entity from his still futurists perspectives; BUT rather than risk wrongly naming the entity, defers that non-naming to apostolic preference and authority. That is the CLEAR 'voice", topic, context and scope of Ireneouses narrative.

His concern is NOT when John saw the vision, but the fact that even thougb he was seen and lived not so long ago, HE elected not to mentiin or suggest a name (earlier Ireneous suggests possibly "titan") associated with the number.

 

[Notrash]

Here is just one among many greek analysts who note the ambiguity and UN -clearness of Ireneouses statement if only this sentence is considered.

Irenaeus on the Date of the Book of Revelation | Taylor Marshall

Thus, as mentioned before, this account is removed from your list of four alledged early testimonies of the late date of authorship.

But this should be no matter to you; you claim 3 others.

 

[Biblewriter]

Here is just one among many greek analysts who note the ambiguity and UN -clearness of Ireneouses statement if only this sentence is considered.

Irenaeus on the Date of the Book of Revelation | Taylor Marshall

Thus, as mentioned before, this account is removed from your list of four alledged early testimonies of the late date of authorship.

But this should be no matter to you; you claim 3 others.

Correction: this account is allegedly removed fro your list of four early testimonies of the late date of authorship. You misplaced the word alleged, and should have added an ly at its end.