Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Domitian

[101]

None of this thread is relevant.

The only relevant thing is that when Revelation was given to John, Nero (the 6th king) was reigning.

Therefore it was written sometime before A.D. 68.

Period.

End of story.

Revelation 17:10.

 

[riverrat]

I have learned one thing today. 101 has all the answers. He is right and everyone else is wrong.

 

[Rev20]

I have learned one thing today. 101 has all the answers. He is right and everyone else is wrong.

I have not been able to dispute any of the scripture he has posted, so far.

 

[Biblewriter]

None of this thread is relevant.

The only relevant thing is that when Revelation was given to John, Nero (the 6th king) was reigning.

Therefore it was written sometime before A.D. 68.

Period.

End of story.

Revelation 17:10.

This is correct only if you are correct in your interpretation that the seven kings mentioned were the first seven members of the line of Caesars.

But at the time this was said, five previous governments of Rome had already fallen, and she now had a sixth. Rome was first ruled by kings, then by consuls; followed by decemvirs and then by consular tribunes. (See “The History of Rome,” by Livy, book 5, chapter 2. And “the Annals of Imperial Rome,” by Tacitus, book 1, chapter 1.) During these governments, the ·Roman Senate had occasionally appointed dictators in extreme emergencies. These had always been given power for only six months or until the emergency was over. But Rome’s fifth form of government was different. One after another, military commanders began to violently seize dictatorial power by force of arms, as recorded by the ancient historian Appian in a book called “The Civil Wars.” This continued for a period of about a hundred years, finally ending when the Senate granted absolute power to Augustus Caesar, thus establishing Rome’s sixth government, the line of emperors called Caesars. This government was in power when the Revelation was given and lasted until the fall of the ·Roman empire. So the one which “has not yet come” has to be future. Calling each of these governments a king is in keeping with a principle commonly used in Bible prophecy, of calling a dynasty a king.

 

[101]

I see. So you're saying we're dealing with an illiterate angel who didn't know the difference in kings and kingdoms.

So when the angel says

Καὶ βασιλεῖς εἰσιν ἑπτά· οἱ πέντε ἔπεσον, ὁ εἷς ἔστιν, ὁ ἄλλος οὔπω ἦλθεν· καί, ὅταν ἔλθῃ, ὀλίγον δεῖ αὐτὸν μεῖναι.

He really should have said

Καὶ βασιλείας εἰσιν ἑπτά· οἱ πέντε ἔπεσον, ὁ εἷς ἔστιν, ὁ ἄλλος οὔπω ἦλθεν· καί, ὅταν ἔλθῃ, ὀλίγον δεῖ αὐτὸν μεῖναι.


Because, otherwise, it might sound like he was speaking of 7 literal kings--the 6th of whom was alive and reigning at the time John received this revelation. Unless of course ἔστιν does not in fact mean 'is', but means some other nebulous tense such 'will be', or 'might have been'.

..

 

[Interplanner]

'esti(n)' is present indicative.

 

[101]

'esti(n)' is present indicative.

Don't tell BW that.

He thinks it means 'kingdoms' instead of 'kings' and 'will be' instead of 'is'.

 

[Interplanner]

It's good for him to know there is someone here who can read and parse Greek instead of looking up Strongs #s, lol!!!

 

[101]

It's good for him to know there is someone here who can read and parse Greek instead of looking up Strongs #s, lol!!!

I'd be happy if we could even get Strong's in on the conversation.

Otherwise, in a Dispensationalist fantasy world, 'kings' means 'kingdoms' and 'is' means 'will be'.

 

[Interplanner]

True

 

[riverrat]

I have not been able to dispute any of the scripture he has posted, so far.

Your agreement with him proves to me that he can't be right.

 

[Biblewriter]

I see. So you're saying we're dealing with an illiterate angel who didn't know the difference in kings and kingdoms.

So when the angel says

Καὶ βασιλεῖς εἰσιν ἑπτά· οἱ πέντε ἔπεσον, ὁ εἷς ἔστιν, ὁ ἄλλος οὔπω ἦλθεν· καί, ὅταν ἔλθῃ, ὀλίγον δεῖ αὐτὸν μεῖναι.

He really should have said

Καὶ βασιλείας εἰσιν ἑπτά· οἱ πέντε ἔπεσον, ὁ εἷς ἔστιν, ὁ ἄλλος οὔπω ἦλθεν· καί, ὅταν ἔλθῃ, ὀλίγον δεῖ αὐτὸν μεῖναι.


Because, otherwise, it might sound like he was speaking of 7 literal kings--the 6th of whom was alive and reigning at the time John received this revelation. Unless of course ἔστιν does not in fact mean 'is', but means some other nebulous tense such 'will be', or 'might have been'.

My statement was not based on interpretation, but on a principle unquestionably used by the Holy Spirit in previous prophecies.

In Daniel 7, the prophet was shown a vision of four beasts. And then in verse 17 he was explicitly told that "Those great beasts, which are four, are four kings which arise out of the earth." But then, in verses 23 and 24, he was just as explicitly told that "The fourth beast shall be A fourth kingdom on earth, Which shall be different from all other kingdoms, And shall devour the whole earth, Trample it and break it in pieces. The ten horns are ten kings Who shall arise from this kingdom." (Daniel 7:23-24)

So here the scripture plainly says both that this beast is a king and also that it is a kingdom.

 

[Interplanner]

That is a good example of why we should not be so exacting about what these kinds of passages are saying. They are not NASA manuals; they move fluidly between categories we do not otherwise accept.

 

[Rev20]

Your agreement with him proves to me that he can't be right.

I was being facetious, Rat. At the time I wrote that, he had not posted a single line of scripture that I was aware of.

 

[Rev20]

My statement was not based on interpretation, but on a principle unquestionably used by the Holy Spirit in previous prophecies.

Anytime Biblewriter uses declarations like "unquestionably", "explicitly," and the like (which is most of the time,) it is an unquestionable fact that he is guessing.

 

[riverrat]

That is a good example of why we should not be so exacting about what these kinds of passages are saying. They are not NASA manuals; they move fluidly between categories we do not otherwise accept.

I do wish we had someone here who could translate your posts into understandable english!

 

[precepts]

The reason why Historians date Revelation to be in Domitian's time is because the world is not of God. How old would John have been in 98 ad, muchless to go and prophesy to other nations and kings afterwards. That's just pure stupidity.

 

[precepts]

My statement was not based on interpretation, but on a principle unquestionably used by the Holy Spirit in previous prophecies.

In Daniel 7, the prophet was shown a vision of four beasts. And then in verse 17 he was explicitly told that "Those great beasts, which are four, are four kings which arise out of the earth." But then, in verses 23 and 24, he was just as explicitly told that "The fourth beast shall be A fourth kingdom on earth, Which shall be different from all other kingdoms, And shall devour the whole earth, Trample it and break it in pieces. The ten horns are ten kings Who shall arise from this kingdom." (Daniel 7:23-24)

So here the scripture plainly says both that this beast is a king and also that it is a kingdom.

Yet you still interpret it to be kingdoms and not kings which is one-sided. What would be the logical explanation for the beasts being called kings and kingdoms? Not that in each beast kingdom there's a king that's a beast that represent the whole kingdom? sorta like the "Prince of Persia" Gabriel had to fight with before he fought with the "Prince of Grecia?"

The 4-5 beast kingdoms are the 4-5 fallen angels in Revelation, the 4-5 horsemen.

 

[Biblewriter]

The reason why Historians date Revelation to be in Domitian's time is because the world is not of God. How old would John have been in 98 ad, muchless to go and prophesy to other nations and kings afterwards. That's just pure stupidity.

Actually, the historical records say that he continued to preach for a long time after the death of Domatian. But in the Greek text of Revelation 10:11, which you are referring to, John was told he would prophesy again epi, which literally translates as on many peoples, nations, tongues, and kings. So he was told that he must again prophesy about, not to, many peoples, nations, tongues, and kings. as this this was done in the rest of the book, it was a reference to that, not to future work after the book was finished.

 

[Rev20]

Actually, the historical records say that he continued to preach for a long time after the death of Domatian.

If there was someone who claimed to be the Apostle John in the days of Domitian, he was probably a false Apostle. The one who claimed to know John, Polycarp, was not born until about AD70; so he would have been barely out of his teens when the so-called "Apostle John" turned 90. Besides, the oft-ignored context of Irenaeus's obscure statements in "Against Heresies" was that John wrote the apocalypse in times ancient to his own time:

"Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six; " [Roberts & Donaldson, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 01: Apostolic Fathers." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913, Book V.30.1, p.558]​

I am surprised you cannot see that, Biblewriter.
.

But in the Greek text of Revelation 10:11, which you are referring to, John was told he would prophesy again epi, which literally translates as on many peoples, nations, tongues, and kings. So he was told that he must again prophesy about, not to, many peoples, nations, tongues, and kings. as this this was done in the rest of the book, it was a reference to that, not to future work after the book was finished.

The word ἐπὶ (Strongs# 1909, pronounced "epi") is translated 790 times in the New Covenant: 170 to the word "on", and 620 to other words, such as "to", "unto", "by", "before", "against", "upon", "among", "toward", "in", and, etc.. Therefore, the proper translation is loosely derived from the context. For example, the highlighted words are translated from the Greek word ἐπὶ:

"That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." -- Matt 23:35 KJV​

"For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows." -- Mark 13:8 KJV​

"And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles." -- Matt 10:18 KJV​

In the Old Covenant it is translated similarly; for example, in this verse from Daniel it is translated as "before":

"neither have we hearkened to the voice of the Lord our God, to walk in his laws, which he set before us by the hands of his servants the prophets." -- Dan 9:10 LXX​

In Zechariah 13:7, Strongs#1910 is used as "upon" or "against":

"Awake, O sword, against my shepherds, and against the man who is my citizen, saith the Lord Almighty: smite the shepherds, and draw out the sheep: and I will bring mine hand upon the little ones." -- Zec 13:7 LXX​

In other words, Biblewriter, your implication that the word "epi" always means "on" doesn't hold water.
.

Clement of Alexandria did not state the time period that John was in Patmos, nor that he relied on Irenaeus:

"XLII. And that you may be still more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale, which is not a tale but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant's death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit." [Roberts & Donaldson, Clement of Alexandria, Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved (Quis Salvus Dives)?, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 02: Fathers of the 2nd Century." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913, Chap.XLII, p.603]​

That was quite a load for a 90 year-old. There was also this:

"Having come to one of the cities not far off (the name of which some give as [fn: Smyrna]), and having put the brethren to rest in other matters, at last, looking to the bishop appointed, and seeing a youth, powerful in body, comely in appearance, and ardent, said, "This (youth) I commit to you in all earnestness, in the presence of the Church, and with Christ as witness." And on his accepting and promising all, he gave the same injunction and testimony. And he set out for Ephesus. And the presbyter taking home the youth committed to him, reared, kept, cherished, and finally baptized him." [Roberts & Donaldson, Clement of Alexandria, Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved (Quis Salvus Dives)?, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 02: Fathers of the 2nd Century." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913, Chap.XLII, p.603]​

"Time passed, and some necessity having emerged, they send again for John. He, when he had settled the other matters on account of which he came, said, "Come now, O bishop, restore to us the deposit which I and the Saviour committed to thee in the face of the Church over which you preside, as witness." The other was at first confounded, thinking that it was a false charge about money which he did not get; and he could neither believe the allegation regarding what he had not, nor disbelieve John. But when he said "I demand the young man, and the soul of the brother," the old man, groaning deeply, and bursting into tears, said, "He is dead." "How and what kind of death?" "He is dead," he said, "to God. For he turned wicked and abandoned, and at last a robber; and now he has taken possession of the mountain in front of the church, along with a band like him." Rending, therefore, his clothes, and striking his head with great lamentation, the apostle said, "It was a fine guard of a brother's soul I left! But let a horse be brought me, and let some one be my guide on the way." He rode away, just as he was, straight from the church. On coming to the place, he is arrested by the robbers' outpost; neither fleeing nor entreating, but crying, "It was for this I came. Lead me to your captain;" who meanwhile was waiting, all armed as he was. But when he recognised John as he advanced, he turned, ashamed, to flight. The other [John] followed with all his might, forgetting his age, crying, "Why, my son, dost thou flee from me, thy father, unarmed, old? Son, pity me. Fear not; thou hast still hope of life. I will give account to Christ for thee. If need be, I will willingly endure thy death, as the Lord did death for us. For thee I will surrender my life. Stand, believe; Christ hath sent me."" [Roberts & Donaldson, Clement of Alexandria, Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved (Quis Salvus Dives)?, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 02: Fathers of the 2nd Century." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913, Chap.XLII, p.603]​

So, it appears the youth was appointed, and then grew up, after John was released from Patmos. How old would John have been then? LOL!

I can see John doing that while in his 60's (at which age Paul considered himself an old man,) but not approaching 100 years old. This is the stuff fantasies and fables are made of.