This is simply atrocious, biased research. Anytime the Bible or any compilation of books arranged at different times fit neatly into your precious wants, it is atrocious scholarship. Life is not so simple. The Bible is so complex. There are myriad outside sources and church fathers who discuss Revelation. This is junk research.
DATING THE BOOK OF REVELATION - new article
by EdenOne 50 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
EdenOne
BOTR
I think it's pretty simple in your case. Don't eat 'atrocious junk', don't even look at it. Then it won't offend your delicate eyes or aggravate your allergies. I can relate - I suffer from diverse allergies too.
Eden
-
jgnat
Huh. You can't date one book of the bible based on others. Especially a prophetic work. I'll preserve my delicate eyes for better scholarship.
-
EdenOne
You're absolutely entitled to that, Jgnat.
However, one must be aware that the only external evidence that the so cherished scholars rely on to attribute a later date to Revelation is a single sentence by Ireneaus. Did you know that? How many lines of evidence would you rely on before making a final judgement on such a delicate subject?
In his 5th book of "Against Heresies", (180 AD, 80 years after John passed away) when he was discussing the name of the antichrist and the identity of the "666", he says: "
"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 not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."
This is it. This is the foundation upon which so many scholars base their theory of a later date for Revelation, discarding entirely all internal textual evidence plus all cross-references with the other NT documents.
I could should you many, many articles regarding how the accuracy of the testimony of Ireneaus is very doubtful. But here is one article that will say it better than myself.
Eden
-
jgnat
It doesn't matter how shaky you declare other scholarship or sources. All of yours are candles floating in water. No matter how accurately you relate one to the other, none are connected to reality.
-
EdenOne
That's a fairly easy thing to say from someone who didn't bother to offer a better explanation.
And yet, I'm just defending my point of view. If I'm wrong, I will stand corrected. But it takes more than ad hominem attacks and generalistic remarks about the level of scholarship to make a difference.
Eden
-
Pterist
Thanks Eden, Excelent, "it tickles my ears" LOL, as I'm more convinced for Partial Preterism escathology
Shalom
-
sosoconfused
Not to be funny but how is the book of revelation truly prophetic if none of the things prophesied are really understood or have been fulfilled?
-
Pterist
This may already be covered ...but .......
Jerusalem is spoken of as still standing. Revelation 1-11 alludes frequently to the fall of Jerusalem. John is called to measure the temple, without any suggestion that it is destroyed (11:1). Jesus told His disciples that within their generation, not one stone of the temple would be left on top another (Mt. 24:2). The temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 and never rebuilt. Thus, it is evident that Revelation was written before that judgment.
Shalom
-
jgnat
I'm right. You haven't anchored your argument. It therefore has the quality of poplar fluff. Entertaining, but not at all useful.
Any dating of Revelation is subject to conjecture and at this late date will be inherently flawed. I see there are at least three other semi-contemporary sources for the dating of Revelation other than Ireneaus. You haven't referenced any of them. These would be anchors.
I don't care when Revelation was written. I don't think it can be known outside of a broad timeline but I am bothered when people state for a certainty using flawed methods.
In my line of work, I take care of contemporary records. Recently I came across a series of elder's stories that have invaluable information from the past hundred years. The transcriber failed to put the stories in context; that is who told the story, and when did they say it? This sort of failure breaks my heart because these first-hand tales are gold in understanding a people, culture, and time. It has context.
Historians two thousand years ago often failed in this respect as well. They also showed less care in confirming and naming their sources. It's not their fault. This sort of accuracy is a modern obsession.
