Book of Revelation - Early Date or Late Date?
- Thread starter oldhermit
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
as you realize from the question you are asking "when" rev. was written would make a great deal of difference as to the meaning of the context of the book. i also in the past researched to give a more accurate date of the writing of rev.,, the more i looked at this i realized that the other books/letters in the n.t. also bear information on this. i should also add that many may view this thread and ask themselves "why would it even matter what date Revelations was written?"
so it might prove helpful to explain first to explain the reasoning for dating Revelations. that is in around July a.d.70 the temple was completely destroyed as we know so the things written then in rev. would make no sense if the temple was still standing(if written before ad70),,,and if written after ad70,,,then all of the context mentioning "the temple of god then is future tense prophecy. so it i think is an extremely important question to resolve.
as i have stated in other post about rev.1;19 john is instructed to write things he had seen,thing he was seeing and things that were to come to pass(which covers the three tenses of time past,present and future) so the book of rev. is then divided into 3 sets of time-frames. good examples of this are the letters to the 7 churches where he states the things they had done(past tense),were doing(present tense),,and the things he would have them do (future).
also in rev. 17;10 the angel states to john that "5 are fallen(past tense),,1 is(present tense) and 1 is not yet come(future tense)",,,in rev.17;8 he states "shall ascend out" so in the present tense(at the time rev. was written) the beast that was,is not yet is was then at the time of the writing of the Revelation (in the bottomless pit present tense),,and would ascend out (future tense),,,
so when makes a "world of difference" as to the understanding of the dating process of the writing of Revelations. that is if it was written before the destruction of the temple(ad70) then the statements made are a future tense prophecy of the temple and were fulfilled in ad70.,,,,but if Revelations was written after ad70 then these spoken of the temple and Jerusalem are "future tense=after ad70 another temple would come",,,
Now as for proofs of things i have found/borrowed from other researchers,,,,,when did john receive and write rev?,,,so the other letters come into play,,,i refer to them as ear-marks(pun not intended).,,,In Matthew 26;51 "one of them that was with Jesus" cut off the ear of the high priest servant(a crime punishable by death) so at the time Matthew was written,Matthew did not use peters name.
in mark 14;47,,,again "one of them" is used again not stating peters name.,,,in Luke 22;50 again "one of them",,,,so at the time all three Gospels(matt. mark luke) were written if they would have stated who cut off the servants ear this would have put peter in great danger,more than he already was as a follower of Christ.
now peter was crucified in ad67-68,,,,which means all 3 of these Gospels were most probably written before peters death because they were still protecting his identity. but then when we look at the Gospel of john,,,(john 18;10-11) john gives "Simon peters full name" as to the very one who cut off the "ear" of the servant which if peter was still alive and his(johns) Gospel would have gotten into the hands of the high priest would have been a death sentence for peter.
so in a very high probability means that at the time john wrote his Gospel(his first book) peter was already dead and it made no difference if anyone knew who it was who cut off the servants ear. so then the Gospel of john was written after ad67-68,,,then he wrote john 1,2,3,(high probability),,,"after his first book/the Gospel",,,and then his last,Revelations.,,,
so then rev. was to be given to the 7 churches in Asia so it would need time to be copied and then passed around to them. so if john wrote (four books) after ad67-68(peters death),,,,and the time frame between ad68 and July ad70 is so small 1 1/2,,then if he wrote rev. and copies were sent to the 7 churches,(via a 6 month walk) then by the time they all received the Revelations,read the book/studied it ect. then it would have been of no help if it "applied to the temple destroyed in ad70",,,,the destruction of that temple would have by then been past tense.,,,,,,,,
so it might prove helpful to explain first to explain the reasoning for dating Revelations. that is in around July a.d.70 the temple was completely destroyed as we know so the things written then in rev. would make no sense if the temple was still standing(if written before ad70),,,and if written after ad70,,,then all of the context mentioning "the temple of god then is future tense prophecy. so it i think is an extremely important question to resolve.
as i have stated in other post about rev.1;19 john is instructed to write things he had seen,thing he was seeing and things that were to come to pass(which covers the three tenses of time past,present and future) so the book of rev. is then divided into 3 sets of time-frames. good examples of this are the letters to the 7 churches where he states the things they had done(past tense),were doing(present tense),,and the things he would have them do (future).
also in rev. 17;10 the angel states to john that "5 are fallen(past tense),,1 is(present tense) and 1 is not yet come(future tense)",,,in rev.17;8 he states "shall ascend out" so in the present tense(at the time rev. was written) the beast that was,is not yet is was then at the time of the writing of the Revelation (in the bottomless pit present tense),,and would ascend out (future tense),,,
so when makes a "world of difference" as to the understanding of the dating process of the writing of Revelations. that is if it was written before the destruction of the temple(ad70) then the statements made are a future tense prophecy of the temple and were fulfilled in ad70.,,,,but if Revelations was written after ad70 then these spoken of the temple and Jerusalem are "future tense=after ad70 another temple would come",,,
Now as for proofs of things i have found/borrowed from other researchers,,,,,when did john receive and write rev?,,,so the other letters come into play,,,i refer to them as ear-marks(pun not intended).,,,In Matthew 26;51 "one of them that was with Jesus" cut off the ear of the high priest servant(a crime punishable by death) so at the time Matthew was written,Matthew did not use peters name.
in mark 14;47,,,again "one of them" is used again not stating peters name.,,,in Luke 22;50 again "one of them",,,,so at the time all three Gospels(matt. mark luke) were written if they would have stated who cut off the servants ear this would have put peter in great danger,more than he already was as a follower of Christ.
now peter was crucified in ad67-68,,,,which means all 3 of these Gospels were most probably written before peters death because they were still protecting his identity. but then when we look at the Gospel of john,,,(john 18;10-11) john gives "Simon peters full name" as to the very one who cut off the "ear" of the servant which if peter was still alive and his(johns) Gospel would have gotten into the hands of the high priest would have been a death sentence for peter.
so in a very high probability means that at the time john wrote his Gospel(his first book) peter was already dead and it made no difference if anyone knew who it was who cut off the servants ear. so then the Gospel of john was written after ad67-68,,,then he wrote john 1,2,3,(high probability),,,"after his first book/the Gospel",,,and then his last,Revelations.,,,
so then rev. was to be given to the 7 churches in Asia so it would need time to be copied and then passed around to them. so if john wrote (four books) after ad67-68(peters death),,,,and the time frame between ad68 and July ad70 is so small 1 1/2,,then if he wrote rev. and copies were sent to the 7 churches,(via a 6 month walk) then by the time they all received the Revelations,read the book/studied it ect. then it would have been of no help if it "applied to the temple destroyed in ad70",,,,the destruction of that temple would have by then been past tense.,,,,,,,,
Last edited:
1
I posted a thread related to this a while ago.
Here's a video discussing the early date perspective by Ken Gentry.
[video=youtube;lLLE4srpZOA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLLE4srpZOA[/video]
I'd also suggest reading a book titled Before Jerusalem Fell by Ken Gentry, to get the early date perspective.
Here's a video discussing the early date perspective by Ken Gentry.
[video=youtube;lLLE4srpZOA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLLE4srpZOA[/video]
I'd also suggest reading a book titled Before Jerusalem Fell by Ken Gentry, to get the early date perspective.
2
Since the majority of scholars are trying to discredit Revelation, since now it is well defined as being written against that Roman institution who runs the world sinc 321 AD until now, I wouldnt believe a word of what any "scholar" says
Jesus himself says the book of Revelation is the "book of the Revelation of Jesus christ" written on the isle of Patmos by the disciple John, so it was written while John was alive.
Anyone who does not believe this is already out of the book of life...
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book of Revelation of Jesus christ, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book of Revelations of Jesus christ:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy of the book of the revelations of Jesus christ, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book of the Revelations of Jesus christ.
So even participating in the discussion is a trap from the enemy.
Hear what the spirit says to the churches and be warned.
If you have a different opinion than Jesus, then you need to be born again.
... Because you don't believe it is exactly correct and written by God.
it is the book written by John the disciple on the Isle of Patmos....
Jesus himself says the book of Revelation is the "book of the Revelation of Jesus christ" written on the isle of Patmos by the disciple John, so it was written while John was alive.
Anyone who does not believe this is already out of the book of life...
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book of Revelation of Jesus christ, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book of Revelations of Jesus christ:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy of the book of the revelations of Jesus christ, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book of the Revelations of Jesus christ.
So even participating in the discussion is a trap from the enemy.
Hear what the spirit says to the churches and be warned.
If you have a different opinion than Jesus, then you need to be born again.
... Because you don't believe it is exactly correct and written by God.
it is the book written by John the disciple on the Isle of Patmos....
Last edited by a moderator:
2
A true christian doesn't go on opinions
they say
show me from the Bible where we are wrong
ok
Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ , which God gave unto him , to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Rev 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
Rev 1:4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come;
So we have a promise to get a blessing if we read it
and keep it
and believe it
and if we dont read it
and hear it
and keep it
then we do not get the blessing
what is the blessing?
Psa 133:3 the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore.
they say
show me from the Bible where we are wrong
ok
Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ , which God gave unto him , to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Rev 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
Rev 1:4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come;
So we have a promise to get a blessing if we read it
and keep it
and believe it
and if we dont read it
and hear it
and keep it
then we do not get the blessing
what is the blessing?
Psa 133:3 the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore.
Yes, I am afraid the Iranaeus argument is the best if not the only external evidence that late date advocates have that is worthy of any degree of consideration. It has been accepted for many years as a credible argument. I am afraid however that the Iranaeus argument will have a tough time standing up to any critical analysis. At this point I really do not wish to offer a lot of comment on this. I was really more interested to see what evidence both internal and external that others might offer to defend their preference for a date.
yes i agree there is actually more evidence that would support the early date,,,,,there are two comments Iranaeus made as to the dating of rev. he also referred to the "ancient copies" of the Revelation in his 5th book/a.h.,,,,,so the dating process of rev. based on both comments made by Iranaeus would actually prove the "early date rather than the late date",,,
it is my belief that the (entire order of books written by john are incorrectly dated),,,that rev. was probably written and john 1,2,3 when he was older. but i also think that rev. is in (three stages of tense),,,,the generation then alive with Christ being the vast portion of the fulfillment Christ spoke of in the Gospels destruction of the temple/Jerusalem 70ad,ect.,,,
i almost posted things in support of the "early date",,,but i would rather see what others see and would rather not alter any others point of view (that is they my have very interesting proof,we will see) but as i said in the former post based on rev.1;19,,,,we would be wise to figure the actual,,, "when" Revelations was written. i think to understand it was written before ad70 would change the entire way the future tense(after ad70) portion of the same book are viewed,that is it would change it completely. but i will wait and see the views of the others also,,,,,
it is my belief that the (entire order of books written by john are incorrectly dated),,,that rev. was probably written and john 1,2,3 when he was older. but i also think that rev. is in (three stages of tense),,,,the generation then alive with Christ being the vast portion of the fulfillment Christ spoke of in the Gospels destruction of the temple/Jerusalem 70ad,ect.,,,
i almost posted things in support of the "early date",,,but i would rather see what others see and would rather not alter any others point of view (that is they my have very interesting proof,we will see) but as i said in the former post based on rev.1;19,,,,we would be wise to figure the actual,,, "when" Revelations was written. i think to understand it was written before ad70 would change the entire way the future tense(after ad70) portion of the same book are viewed,that is it would change it completely. but i will wait and see the views of the others also,,,,,
[FONT=ARIAL,HELVETICA,SANS-SERIF] Those who hold to the "late date," have Revelation written during the time of Domitian Caesar (AD 95-96). This date is determined by the following statement by Irenaeus (AD 130 to AD 202), as quoted by Eusebius, the church historian, in AD 325: "We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."
There are things about this statement that need to be noted. First, Irenaeus did not witness this. He referred to Polycarp (who supposedly knew the apostle John). Secondly, the key part — "it is not long since it was seen" — is ambiguous. According to Irenaeus recollection, Polycarp saw "it" sometime in AD 95-96, during the last part Domitian's reign. Thirdly, we do not know if the "it" Polycarp was referring to was John, the visions he saw, the name of anti-christ, or the book itself and we do not know if he meant that the book was written at that time or not. Furthermore, it comes to us through three people separated by three centuries. Simply put, this is hear-say.
This statement, even with all of this uncertainty, is the only evidence used to support the "late date" theory. It has been accepted by generations of people without really questioning it or examining it in light of the book itself. The late date has been passed on to us in the same way it was passed on to Eusebius, "…it [was] handed down by tradition…" Tradition is not the way to interpret Scripture.
Another statement by Irenaeus seems to indicate the earlier date also. In his fifth book, he speaks as follows concerning the Apocalypse of John and the number of the name of the Antichrist: "As these things are so, and this number is found in all the approved and ancient copies." Domitian's reign was almost in his own day, but now he speaks of the Revelation being written in ancient copies. His statement at least gives some doubt as to the "vision" being seen in 95 AD which was almost in his day, and even suggests a time somewhat removed from his own day for him to consider the copies available to him as ancient.
i spoke of two books the first was against heresies book 5 from Irenaeus,,,so i was unclear which "internal source whether rev. or a.h.book 5 you are asking",,,,in a.h. book 5 if we bare in mind his statement when referring to the number of the beast he refers to "approved and ancient copies",,,it is more probable that polycarp "saw the copy in ad95-96,during the end of Dominican's reign",,(not when it was written,afterward),,,so it seems ah book 5 supports the "early date also"
so in Revelations there is no evidence i see internal to support the "late date=after a.d.70" theory.,,,,(but) as most see rev. written closer to ad64 i see as i stated in my first post that it was written after peters death/ad67-68 and before ad70,,,why is because of the internal things found within the book of Revelations that denote the destruction in ad70,,,,,but i was going to wait until you stated your side as to the "early date",,,,and then narrow it down closer,,,,(when it was written),,,,,
[/FONT]
There are things about this statement that need to be noted. First, Irenaeus did not witness this. He referred to Polycarp (who supposedly knew the apostle John). Secondly, the key part — "it is not long since it was seen" — is ambiguous. According to Irenaeus recollection, Polycarp saw "it" sometime in AD 95-96, during the last part Domitian's reign. Thirdly, we do not know if the "it" Polycarp was referring to was John, the visions he saw, the name of anti-christ, or the book itself and we do not know if he meant that the book was written at that time or not. Furthermore, it comes to us through three people separated by three centuries. Simply put, this is hear-say.
This statement, even with all of this uncertainty, is the only evidence used to support the "late date" theory. It has been accepted by generations of people without really questioning it or examining it in light of the book itself. The late date has been passed on to us in the same way it was passed on to Eusebius, "…it [was] handed down by tradition…" Tradition is not the way to interpret Scripture.
Another statement by Irenaeus seems to indicate the earlier date also. In his fifth book, he speaks as follows concerning the Apocalypse of John and the number of the name of the Antichrist: "As these things are so, and this number is found in all the approved and ancient copies." Domitian's reign was almost in his own day, but now he speaks of the Revelation being written in ancient copies. His statement at least gives some doubt as to the "vision" being seen in 95 AD which was almost in his day, and even suggests a time somewhat removed from his own day for him to consider the copies available to him as ancient.
i spoke of two books the first was against heresies book 5 from Irenaeus,,,so i was unclear which "internal source whether rev. or a.h.book 5 you are asking",,,,in a.h. book 5 if we bare in mind his statement when referring to the number of the beast he refers to "approved and ancient copies",,,it is more probable that polycarp "saw the copy in ad95-96,during the end of Dominican's reign",,(not when it was written,afterward),,,so it seems ah book 5 supports the "early date also"
so in Revelations there is no evidence i see internal to support the "late date=after a.d.70" theory.,,,,(but) as most see rev. written closer to ad64 i see as i stated in my first post that it was written after peters death/ad67-68 and before ad70,,,why is because of the internal things found within the book of Revelations that denote the destruction in ad70,,,,,but i was going to wait until you stated your side as to the "early date",,,,and then narrow it down closer,,,,(when it was written),,,,,
[/FONT]
I believe that Revelation was written after 70AD. This is partially based on the belief that GOD would not leave his people without a witness as to what would happen up until the time he returns. Most of the OT prophecies were fulfilled during Christ's first appearance, so they don't do any good in that regard. The revelation, IMO, is GOD's prophetic word to his people of the kingdom of GOD after he was done with earthly Jerusalem. The name of the book is the unveiling of Jesus Christ. Jesus was not unveiled in 70AD.