Zone1 What you were never told about Revelation: A revaluation and reassessment

[DudleySmith]

A paper proposing that the book of Revelation was written before 68 A.D., not around 95 A.D. I've always thought the book was written by John the Apostle and not some other John, in any case, so I find the paper interesting.

What you were never told about Revelation: A revaluation and reassessment

There are three main subjects we examine One is the external evidence that comes from Polycarp's statement, with all of its uncertainty. We show that it is the only evidence used to support the "late date" theory of Revelation's

www.academia.edu

Introduction

Dating the Book of Revelation

One of the most important items in terms of interpreting the Bible is to understand the historical context in which it was written. Much of the debate concerning Bible Prophecy hinges on when Revelation was written.While dispensational scholars insist that John wrote his apocalypse in the mid 90's, a more compelling argument can be made for a much earlier date,around 65-66 AD.

Now one may ask, "Why is this important?" After all, it was nearly 2,000 years ago. What difference does 30 years make? Obviously, 30 years (or even 10 years) can make a big difference in the history of a nation. Germany and Japan in 1950 were quite a bit different than they were in 1940. In the same way, Rome and Jerusalem, the two main players in the Book of Revelation, were much different in 96 AD then they were in 66 AD. Thus the dating of the Book of Revelation becomes crucial in properly interpreting the book.

The author then goes on to list the external and internal evidence.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

Just MORE proof religion is all lies.

 

[Manonthestreet]

A paper proposing that the book of Revelation was written before 68 A.D., not around 95 A.D. I've always thought the book was written by John the Apostle and not some other John, in any case, so I find the paper interesting.

What you were never told about Revelation: A revaluation and reassessment

There are three main subjects we examine One is the external evidence that comes from Polycarp's statement, with all of its uncertainty. We show that it is the only evidence used to support the "late date" theory of Revelation's

www.academia.edu

Introduction

Dating the Book of Revelation

One of the most important items in terms of interpreting the Bible is to understand the historical context in which it was written. Much of the debate concerning Bible Prophecy hinges on when Revelation was written.While dispensational scholars insist that John wrote his apocalypse in the mid 90's, a more compelling argument can be made for a much earlier date,around 65-66 AD.

Now one may ask, "Why is this important?" After all, it was nearly 2,000 years ago. What difference does 30 years make? Obviously, 30 years (or even 10 years) can make a big difference in the history of a nation. Germany and Japan in 1950 were quite a bit different than they were in 1940. In the same way, Rome and Jerusalem, the two main players in the Book of Revelation, were much different in 96 AD then they were in 66 AD. Thus the dating of the Book of Revelation becomes crucial in properly interpreting the book.

The author then goes on to list the external and internal evidence.

Since it's not about Rome or Jerusalem as they existed I fail to see the significance

 

[The Irish Ram]

The whole Book from beginning to end tells the history of the Jews. If it were not written by John, Christ's youngest disciple, God would not have allowed it to be included in the Bible. More is written about the end times than any other time in history, including the time that Jesus walked this earth. Someone named John, somewhere, one day, would not have been able to foresee the future in the detail that Christ laid out to John and some of the other disciples. It is starting now...

 

[DudleySmith]

Just MORE proof religion is all lies.

^^^ This is just more proof you wouldn't know.

 

[DudleySmith]

Since it's not about Rome or Jerusalem as they existed I fail to see the significance

What do you mean? The 'City on Seven Hills" was actually much more likely to be Jerusalem, not Rome, for instance. Jerusalem is on seven hills. The chiasms in Revelation are fairly complex and cover many other books from both the Old and New Testament.

Everything in the New Testament fits in with the times it takes place in, no anachronism anywhere. See F.F. Bruce's books and Joachim Jeremia's excellent sociological work on the city and Jewish culture at the time.

 

[Manonthestreet]

What do you mean? The 'City on Seven Hills" was actually much more likely to be Jerusalem, not Rome, for instance. Jerusalem is on seven hills.

The book was not about the present......its prophecy.......so it really dont matter what date it was written

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

^^^ This is just more proof you wouldn't know.

I know more than you, obviously.

 

[DudleySmith]

I know more than you, obviously.

Obviously not. In fact you just prove you don't know squat.

 

[DudleySmith]

The book was not about the present......its prophecy.......so it really dont matter what date it was written

Yes, it does matter, just not to you.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Yes, it does matter, just not to you.

No it doesnt......

 

[norwegen]

Just MORE proof religion is all lies.

Actually, Revelation is quite true. Judea collapsed and Christianity began to grow with that hinderance out of the way.

When the link in the OP says that Rome was one of the principle players, it just means that Rome was the instrument by which the temple fell (largely, that is, as the Jews did themselves in as well).

 

[surada]

The whole Book from beginning to end tells the history of the Jews. If it were not written by John, Christ's youngest disciple, God would not have allowed it to be included in the Bible. More is written about the end times than any other time in history, including the time that Jesus walked this earth. Someone named John, somewhere, one day, would not have been able to foresee the future in the detail that Christ laid out to John and some of the other disciples. It is starting now...

No one knows for sure if John of Patmos is the John who was a disciple of Jesus.

 

[DudleySmith]

No one knows for sure if John of Patmos is the John who was a disciple of Jesus.

Yes, some do know; it's why he identified himself as John and only John. The earlier date makes it even more certain.

 

[DudleySmith]

The book was not about the present......its prophecy.......so it really dont matter what date it was written

Actually it was written at precisely the right time. The Apostles were all either being murdered or moving on to escape being murdered and it was time to start writing it all down. Soon Christians would no longer be taught directly by the Apostles and their immediate followers.

 

[LibertyKid]

The book was not about the present......its prophecy.......so it really dont matter what date it was written

Actually, the dating of the book means everything. The dating of the book of Revelation has been in debate for centuries as it has absolute ramifications on who John is writing too.

If prior to 70 AD and the destruction of Jerusalem and temple, then it makes sense that John is writing to the current church existing during that time. Why would John write about the temple when it was already destroyed. Why would John, in the first few sentences state that the events "Must soon take place" if the Temple was already destroyed and the events he was talking about would take place thousands of years later? The letter of Revelation would the have no meaning or relevance to the first century church that John was writing directly too.

The church today places itself to highly in the God's timeline. We think the Bible was for us, when in reality, it was written to the early church. The letters are for us to study and understand how those letters impacted the first century church. Instead, we pick and choose, using this mechanism to divide the faith amongst ourselves. We allow charlatans to try and take scripture fully out of context and sell their spiritual wares on prophecy while failing time and time again. When, in reality, the truth is right there in Revelation. Unfortunately many of you are too prideful and can't stand the thought John wasn't writing to you.

 

[The Irish Ram]

No one knows for sure if John of Patmos is the John who was a disciple of Jesus.

God knew and we know. There isn't a John on earth that can predict 2,000 years into the future. John of Patmos had a direct line to Jesus and Jesus told John what was going to happen. And we are living those predictions today. The New World Order is transitioning the world as we speak. Jesus nailed it...

 

[surada]

God knew and we know. There isn't a John on earth that can predict 2,000 years into the future. John of Patmos had a direct line to Jesus and Jesus told John what was going to happen. And we are living those predictions today. The New World Order is transitioning the world as we speak. Jesus nailed it...

Nobody predicted 2000 years into the future. He was writing to the first century Christians of the 7 churches.

There has been dozens of New World Orders. The Darbyites were charlatans just like the prophet Hal Lindsey.

 

[surada]

The book was not about the present......its prophecy.......so it really dont matter what date it was written

Revelation was contemporaneous. John of Patmos was writing to the 7 churches of the first century sometime between 75 AD and 95 AD. He tells them who the letter is for and when.. He also refers to himself as your brother in tribulation.

 

[Cougarbear]

A paper proposing that the book of Revelation was written before 68 A.D., not around 95 A.D. I've always thought the book was written by John the Apostle and not some other John, in any case, so I find the paper interesting.

What you were never told about Revelation: A revaluation and reassessment

There are three main subjects we examine One is the external evidence that comes from Polycarp's statement, with all of its uncertainty. We show that it is the only evidence used to support the "late date" theory of Revelation's

www.academia.edu

Introduction

Dating the Book of Revelation

One of the most important items in terms of interpreting the Bible is to understand the historical context in which it was written. Much of the debate concerning Bible Prophecy hinges on when Revelation was written.While dispensational scholars insist that John wrote his apocalypse in the mid 90's, a more compelling argument can be made for a much earlier date,around 65-66 AD.

Now one may ask, "Why is this important?" After all, it was nearly 2,000 years ago. What difference does 30 years make? Obviously, 30 years (or even 10 years) can make a big difference in the history of a nation. Germany and Japan in 1950 were quite a bit different than they were in 1940. In the same way, Rome and Jerusalem, the two main players in the Book of Revelation, were much different in 96 AD then they were in 66 AD. Thus the dating of the Book of Revelation becomes crucial in properly interpreting the book.

The author then goes on to list the external and internal evidence.

This is only true if you don't believe Revelation to be about the Last Days before the and after the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Other than that, the time in which the revelation was given to John doesn't matter to understanding the Book. He may have received the revelation 30 years prior to writing it down. Doesn't matter. It's still about the latter-days.