• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Dating Revelation - combined internal evidences for AD 60

In Revelation 18:10, 17. We know from historical records that it took from AD 66-70 for the Roman and the Zealot armies to complete Old Jerusalem / Mystery Babylon's destruction, so that it would exist no more at all, just as the angel predicted.
Hi Thanks

That is a common opinion which I did hold for a while in doubt today I see it little different.

I would be interested in the predictions of prophecy seeing he said no signs were given to wonder after. What were the signs that you say were fulfilled.?
 
Peter did indicate that Revelation was already written before 1 Peter was written. He made reference to "the church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you..." (1 Peter 5:13). This reference to "Babylon" is the church that was then in Old Jerusalem, with the saints saluting those "strangers" in Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia to whom Peter was writing. Peter was copying John's reference in Revelation to Old Jerusalem being Mystery Babylon.
I would offer.

Babylon is a reference to all false apostles, bringing false prophecy the oral traditons of dying mankind.

Babylon the strange women or called queen mother of heaven (not the bride of Christ)

Proverbs 2:16 To deliver thee from the strange woman, even from the stranger which flattereth with her words;

Proverbs 5:3For the lips of a strange woman drop as an honeycomb, and her mouth is smoother than oil:

Proverbs 5:20 And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?
 
I would be interested in the predictions of prophecy seeing he said no signs were given to wonder after. What were the signs that you say were fulfilled.?
Every sign listed in Luke 21:7-35 was "about to come to pass" in Christ's own generation before it passed away (Luke 21:36). Those "days of vengeance" against those who had been the "betrayers and murderers" of Christ were the fulfillment of "everything that had been written". (Luke 21:22). Christ announced an imminent fulfillment of all of those written signs before His generation had all died.
I would offer.

Babylon is a reference to all false apostles, bringing false prophecy the oral traditons of dying mankind.
No, it's not. Not according to John's interpreting angel, who in Rev. 17:18 specifically defines Mystery Babylon as being "that great city" - the same "great city...where also our Lord was crucified". (Rev. 11:8). You are trying to extend the definition of Mystery Babylon to create metaphors for it which the angel does NOT add to his interpretation of what Mystery Babylon was. Not a good idea.
 
Every sign listed in Luke 21:7-35 was "about to come to pass" in Christ's own generation before it passed away (Luke 21:36). Those "days of vengeance" against those who had been the "betrayers and murderers" of Christ were the fulfillment of "everything that had been written". (Luke 21:22). Christ announced an imminent fulfillment of all of those written signs before His generation had all died.

No, it's not. Not according to John's interpreting angel, who in Rev. 17:18 specifically defines Mystery Babylon as being "that great city" - the same "great city...where also our Lord was crucified". (Rev. 11:8). You are trying to extend the definition of Mystery Babylon to create metaphors for it which the angel does NOT add to his interpretation of what Mystery Babylon was. Not a good idea.
Hi Thanks

Yes not a good idea if it was that which was attempting to do

In chapter 11 he already established there will be no sign given to wonder after. Sign for unbelievers, prophecy for those who do believe God not seen.

No new signs were given to wonder after . and God is not adding to his written living word sealed with 7seals

Luke 11:29 And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.

Mark 13:7And when ye shall hear of wars and rumors' of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet.

Luke 21:9
But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.

Not a sign to wonder after, simply history repeating its self Just like in the days of Noah marrying wars rumors earthquakes, Signs of the times.

The Bible does not support seeking after sign to wonder after That would seem to come from Satan the king of lying signs to wonder after

It would seem the king of lying signs to wonder after gives the illusion that God is still adding to prophecy .

2 Thessalonians 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

Don't be like those who made Jesus into a circus seal saying. . work a miracle do a trick then when we see for our selves them we will believe for a little while maybe.

John 4:48Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.

John 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

Signs for unbelievers. . . prophecy for those who do not add to the living word of God
 
Does the idea of timeline hide truth from one and give it to another? The closer a person becomes to it the more accurate?

Or does God live outside of time limits having finished all the work in six days and Revelation a parable a summary of the whole .
Just wondering
 
Try not to be facetious. "The last hour" was the "hour" it took to bring down Mystery Babylon / Old Jerusalem (from AD 66-70).

When Peter wrote that to God a thousand years is as a day and a day as a thousand years, he was not indicating that time is irrelevant when it comes to God.
Actually he was. He was stating that God sees time entirely different then we do, which denotes an entirely different framework of understanding on God's part. A different thought process, while you try to force a human framework on God. It is still beyond our capability to comprehend, so it is understandable that you would reduce this to human terms. However, trying to say that that is how it actually is is going a little too far.
The intention of Peter comparing a thousand years with a single day was meant to confirm that if God made a prediction one day in advance or even a thousand years in advance, He would fulfill it exactly on time in either case. God never misses the appointed time for any of His predictions, whether it was Saul and his sons dying in battle on that same day that Samuel foretold this, or whether it was the Rev. 20 thousand-year millennium coming to an end exactly at the point of the "First resurrection" event.
It means that God is eternal, and that to Him, a day or a thousand years, doesn't matter, they are the same to Him in eternity. So...no, God isn't being slack or stretching out time. To Him, it makes no difference if it was one day, or a thousand years. To God it is the same. While our life is like a puff of smoke, here today and gone tomorrow, that concept is foreign to God, who has always been.
Yep, it was future to John who was writing it sometime between late AD 59 and early AD 60. The immediate future for John. Things that were "about to be hereafter" in John's own days, which was just before the approaching Laodicean earthquake in AD 60.
Who wrote it around 95 AD, as those contemporary to the times state that he was on the isle of Patmos during the reign of Domitian, and that the Revelation was written just after Domitian died in 96AD. (Probably around the same time that the three letters of John were written.)
 
Who wrote it around 95 AD, as those contemporary to the times state that he was on the isle of Patmos during the reign of Domitian, and that the Revelation was written just after Domitian died in 96AD. (Probably around the same time that the three letters of John were written.)
You have swallowed the usual misinformation about a late date. We have external sources that flatly declare that John was on Patmos by Nero's decree (the Syriac Peshitta title page of Revelation). The so-called "evidence" of a late date credited to Irenaeus is based on a single word being inserted into the text at the discretion of a translator of Irenaeus's statement about the number of the beast. This is flimsy proof at best, particularly when that very context of Irenaeus's statement contradicts a late date for Revelation's composition, when he speaks about having "ancient copies" of the apocalypse at the time.

At any rate, external evidence of a date for Revelation is immaterial when it comes to Revelation's own internal witness of datable events and that of scripture which points to an early date - specifically the AD 59-60 period.

And I don't buy your interpretation that time means nothing to God. Especially when He is predicting a particular timed event which will take place during mankind's history. God even boasts in the prophets of His ability to predict the timing of certain events.
 
Peter did indicate that Revelation was already written before 1 Peter was written. He made reference to "the church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you..." (1 Peter 5:13). This reference to "Babylon" is the church that was then in Old Jerusalem, with the saints saluting those "strangers" in Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia to whom Peter was writing. Peter was copying John's reference in Revelation to Old Jerusalem being Mystery Babylon.
"12 Through Silvanus, our faithful brother [j](for so I regard him), I have written to you briefly, [k]exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand firm in it! 13 She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings, and so does my son, Mark. 14 Greet one another with a kiss of love."

When you read the context, it quickly becomes clear that this is not what Peter is saying. However, that means you have to 1. Accept the testimony of scripture above the testimony of SELF, 2. Actually read the context.
 
You have swallowed the usual misinformation about a late date. We have external sources that flatly declare that John was on Patmos by Nero's decree (the Syriac Peshitta title page of Revelation).
If you knew anything about the Syriac version of revelation, you would know that it is not historical. In fact, it was found very late, and is not found anywhere in the Syrian historical tradition. It was written well over 7 centuries later. We have a contemporary who states that John wrote it at the end of the reign of Domitian, and John was freed from exile because after Domitian died, the Senate absolved and freed all who had been exiled by Domitian. (That includes Domitian's own daughter.)
The so-called "evidence" of a late date credited to Irenaeus is based on a single word being inserted into the text at the discretion of a translator of Irenaeus's statement about the number of the beast. This is flimsy proof at best, particularly when that very context of Irenaeus's statement contradicts a late date for Revelation's composition, when he speaks about having "ancient copies" of the apocalypse at the time.
It also has nothing to do with the number of the image of the beast. It has to do with what Irenaeus said, and even Eusebius stated that that is what it meant. Eusebius was an amillennialist. The point Irenaeus made was that if the Antichrist, if the beast had already come, then John would have told someone who it was. John never did, and he had about 40 years to do that, given your dating.
At any rate, external evidence of a date for Revelation is immaterial when it comes to Revelation's own internal witness of datable events and that of scripture which points to an early date - specifically the AD 59-60 period.
Really? Is that why no one has been able to show it. If it was written in the 59-60 period and was to point towards Jerusalem, John would have written about Jerusalem, which he did not. It is as though Jerusalem had already been destroyed, so not something that needed to be written about.
And I don't buy your interpretation that time means nothing to God. Especially when He is predicting a particular timed event which will take place during mankind's history. God even boasts in the prophets of His ability to predict the timing of certain events.
Of course not, because you have an abberant view of God. You believe God is temporal and not eternal, therefore time means something to God, since He lives in it, and is in fact as trapped in it as we are, right?
 
You have swallowed the usual misinformation about a late date. We have external sources that flatly declare that John was on Patmos by Nero's decree (the Syriac Peshitta title page of Revelation). The so-called "evidence" of a late date credited to Irenaeus is based on a single word being inserted into the text at the discretion of a translator of Irenaeus's statement about the number of the beast. This is flimsy proof at best, particularly when that very context of Irenaeus's statement contradicts a late date for Revelation's composition, when he speaks about having "ancient copies" of the apocalypse at the time.
I forgot to again deal with the same misconception you have used before. The revelation was written within 100 years of Irenaeus, either the short or the long. I'm not sure how less than 100 years makes anything ancient. What he was saying was that the copies closest to the original did not say that it was 616 or whatever the other number was that people were claiming. So the oldest manuscripts he could check said that it was 666. Again, everything John did with Revelation was within a life time of Irenaeus, that is, John's contemporaries were still alive in Irenaeus day.
 
It also has nothing to do with the number of the image of the beast. It has to do with what Irenaeus said, and even Eusebius stated that that is what it meant. Eusebius was an amillennialist.
Who cares what label Eusebius was classified? He was not inspired. And men have mistranslated that single inserted word added to what Irenaeus wrote and are thereby mistakenly believing a late date composition for Revelation.

But in the end, NONE of this external evidence is of any importance when compared to Revelation's INTERNAL witness of datable events. All of that INTERNAL witness points to an AD 59-60 date, and not a bit later or earlier than that.

Really? Is that why no one has been able to show it. If it was written in the 59-60 period and was to point towards Jerusalem, John would have written about Jerusalem, which he did not. It is as though Jerusalem had already been destroyed, so not something that needed to be written about.
If you think that John was not writing about Jerusalem's prophesied physical destruction in the near future in Revelation, you haven't read the book at all. The evidence for Jerusalem's predicted destruction in the near future and a vivid description of it is saturating John's apocalypse. Only someone deliberately trying to avoid that subject will labor not to find it in those pages.

Of course not, because you have an abberant view of God. You believe God is temporal and not eternal, therefore time means something to God, since He lives in it, and is in fact as trapped in it as we are, right?
We all know that God "inhabits eternity". But when He deals with mankind, He uses temporal language to communicate exactly when events will happen in real time for us. God is not talking to Himself in prophecy. He is talking to us who are temporal creatures, and He has used temporal language and terms to which we can more easily relate.

I forgot to again deal with the same misconception you have used before. The revelation was written within 100 years of Irenaeus, either the short or the long. I'm not sure how less than 100 years makes anything ancient. What he was saying was that the copies closest to the original did not say that it was 616 or whatever the other number was that people were claiming. So the oldest manuscripts he could check said that it was 666. Again, everything John did with Revelation was within a life time of Irenaeus, that is, John's contemporaries were still alive in Irenaeus day.
You still miss the point. Irenaeus spoke about having "ancient COPIES" of John's apocalypse. If even the COPIES were ancient, then the original composition of Revelation would have been even older still. This completely contradicts the common misperception that Revelation was written almost in Domitian's days. This proves that the one single inserted word that the translators have added to Irenaeus's original writing in that context about the number of the beast has been completely misunderstood and has led everyone astray on this point since then.

Revelation was produced long before Irenaeus's access to those "ancient COPIES" of the apocalypse. It was originally written and sent to the churches between AD 59-60, and not a bit later or earlier than that. Internal evidence trumps all.
 
I normally don't like posting entire web pages..but in this instance it's hard to convey the entire description of the who, what, when, where and why's of the 70th week in short responses. The following is from Got Questions.

The question is asked....

What are the seventy weeks of Daniel?


The “seventy weeks” prophecy is one of the most significant and detailed Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. It is found in Daniel 9. The chapter begins with Daniel praying for Israel, acknowledging the nation’s sins against God and asking for God’s mercy. As Daniel prayed, the angel Gabriel appeared to him and gave him a vision of Israel’s future.

The Divisions of the 70 Weeks
In verse 24, Gabriel says, “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city.” Almost all commentators agree that the seventy “sevens” should be understood as seventy “weeks” of years, in other words, a period of 490 years. These verses provide a sort of “clock” that gives an idea of when the Messiah would come and some of the events that would accompany His appearance.

The prophecy goes on to divide the 490 years into three smaller units: one of 49 years, one of 434 years, and one 7 years. The final “week” of 7 years is further divided in half. Verse 25 says, “From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’” Seven “sevens” is 49 years, and sixty-two “sevens” is another 434 years:

49 years + 434 years = 483 years

The Purpose of the 70 Weeks
The prophecy contains a statement concerning God’s six-fold purpose in bringing these events to pass. Verse 24 says this purpose is 1) “to finish transgression,” 2) “to put an end to sin,” 3) “to atone for wickedness,” 4) “to bring in everlasting righteousness,” 5) “to seal up vision and prophecy,” and 6) “to anoint the most holy.”

Notice that these results concern the total eradication of sin and the establishing of righteousness. The prophecy of the 70 weeks summarizes what happens before Jesus sets up His millennial kingdom. Of special note is the third in the list of results: “to atone for wickedness.” Jesus accomplished the atonement for sin by His death on the cross (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17).

The Fulfillment of the 70 Weeks
Gabriel said the prophetic clock would start at the time that a decree was issued to rebuild Jerusalem. From the date of that decree to the time of the Messiah would be 483 years. We know from history that the command to “restore and rebuild Jerusalem” was given by King Artaxerxes of Persia c. 444 B.C. (see Nehemiah 2:1-8).

The first unit of 49 years (seven “sevens”) covers the time that it took to rebuild Jerusalem, “with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble” (Daniel 9:25). This rebuilding is chronicled in the book of Nehemiah.

Converting the 360-day year used by the ancient Jews, 483 years becomes 476 years on our solar calendar. Adjusting for the switch from B.C. to A.D., 476 years after 444 B.C. places us at A.D. 33, which would coincide with Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:1–9). The prophecy in Daniel 9 specifies that, after the completion of the 483 years, “the Anointed One will be cut off” (verse 26). This was fulfilled when Jesus was crucified.

Daniel 9:26 continues with a prediction that, after the Messiah is killed, “the people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.” This was fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The “ruler who will come” is a reference to the Antichrist, who, it seems, will have some connection with Rome, since it was the Romans who destroyed Jerusalem.

The Final Week of the 70 Weeks
Of the 70 “sevens,” 69 have been fulfilled in history. This leaves one more “seven” yet to be fulfilled. Most scholars believe that we are now living in a huge gap between the 69th week and the 70th week. The prophetic clock has been paused, as it were. The final “seven” of Daniel is what we usually call the tribulation period.

Daniel’s prophecy reveals some of the actions of the Antichrist, the “ruler who will come.” Verse 27 says, “He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’” However, “in the middle of the ‘seven,’ . . . he will set up an abomination that causes desolation” in the temple. Jesus warned of this event in Matthew 24:15. After the Antichrist breaks the covenant with Israel, a time of “great tribulation” begins (Matthew 24:21, NKJV).

Daniel also predicts that the Antichrist will face judgment. He only rules “until the end that is decreed is poured out on him” (Daniel 9:27). God will only allow evil to go so far, and the judgment the Antichrist will face has already been planned out.

Conclusion
The prophecy of the 70 weeks is complex and amazingly detailed, and much has been written about it. Of course, there are various interpretations, but what we have presented here is the dispensational, premillennial view. One thing is certain: God has a time table, and He is keeping things on schedule. He knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10), and we should always be looking for the triumphant return of our Lord (Revelation 22:7).
This is full of false assertions and factual errors. If you want to know the ACTUAL interpretation and facts, watch the 7 part video series in my profile link. I would point you to my book, but people don't like to read actual research these days.
 
If you knew anything about the Syriac version of revelation, you would know that it is not historical. In fact, it was found very late, and is not found anywhere in the Syrian historical tradition. It was written well over 7 centuries later. We have a contemporary who states that John wrote it at the end of the reign of Domitian, and John was freed from exile because after Domitian died, the Senate absolved and freed all who had been exiled by Domitian. (That includes Domitian's own daughter.)
This is absolute hogwash and untrue.
 
I've already told you I am not a dispensationalist in the sense you are probably thinking of. I am a Preterist, and enjoy reading historical records that match up with the time-relevant language in the NT that spoke of what time those events would take place. It all gives added confirmation that we serve a predestinating God that "orders all things after the counsel of His own will". He fulfills His promises to the letter, and in the time He pre-determined for them to occur.

If you want to concentrate on the subject of the millennium of Revelation 20, there are other posts already established on that theme or you could start another.
The evidences that point to an early date of Revelation (and actually all of the New Testament) does not mean you have to be a preterist. I believe (and have proven) that the timeline of the end is just about upon us. But I also have shown that all the New Testament was written before 70 AD and most likely by 60 AD and in Aramaic.
 
This is full of false assertions and factual errors. If you want to know the ACTUAL interpretation and facts, watch the 7 part video series in my profile link. I would point you to my book, but people don't like to read actual research these days.
Perhaps if I get bored.
 
LOL...if you say so.

What is so biblically true about your videos that I should spend the time viewing them?
Glad you asked. All the information is from original sources and given so you can check it out for yourself. No reliance on denominational views, church tradition and assumptions. It blasts a lot of sacred cows and is about as politically incorrect as it comes. And it is consistent with all of the Bible, all of history, all of known science. It is as close to the actual way to understand these things as you can get.
 
Who cares what label Eusebius was classified? He was not inspired. And men have mistranslated that single inserted word added to what Irenaeus wrote and are thereby mistakenly believing a late date composition for Revelation.
There was no mistranslation. You are mistranslating what Irenaeus wrote. I know, I have already seen your argument.
But in the end, NONE of this external evidence is of any importance when compared to Revelation's INTERNAL witness of datable events. All of that INTERNAL witness points to an AD 59-60 date, and not a bit later or earlier than that.
There is no internal evidence. It is again, you placing your own interpretation on some rather clear passages.
If you think that John was not writing about Jerusalem's prophesied physical destruction in the near future in Revelation, you haven't read the book at all. The evidence for Jerusalem's predicted destruction in the near future and a vivid description of it is saturating John's apocalypse. Only someone deliberately trying to avoid that subject will labor not to find it in those pages.
I don't think that, I know John was not writing about Jerusalem's prophesied physical destruction in the near future. That is the reason the preterist has no solid proof in Revelation, and it has been that way for an incredibly long time.
We all know that God "inhabits eternity". But when He deals with mankind, He uses temporal language to communicate exactly when events will happen in real time for us. God is not talking to Himself in prophecy. He is talking to us who are temporal creatures, and He has used temporal language and terms to which we can more easily relate.
Yes God uses temporal langauge. However, we can't force our understanding of time on God's understanding of eternity. It doesn't work that way.
You still miss the point. Irenaeus spoke about having "ancient COPIES" of John's apocalypse. If even the COPIES were ancient, then the original composition of Revelation would have been even older still. This completely contradicts the common misperception that Revelation was written almost in Domitian's days. This proves that the one single inserted word that the translators have added to Irenaeus's original writing in that context about the number of the beast has been completely misunderstood and has led everyone astray on this point since then.
Again, the manuscripts were under 100 years old. People who knew John were still alive in Irenaeus time. You are not understanding his use of ancient.
Revelation was produced long before Irenaeus's access to those "ancient COPIES" of the apocalypse. It was originally written and sent to the churches between AD 59-60, and not a bit later or earlier than that. Internal evidence trumps all.
It was written around 95 AD. That was the accepted date for the early church. There is no syriac textual tradition for Revelation. It was not found with the syriac texts. There were a few other books that also were not present, and thus have no textual tradition. There is no way to know where it came from, other then it was 7th century or later.
 
This is absolute hogwash and untrue.
The book of revelation was not a part of the Syrian Peshitta New Testament, and came later. Again, I believe it was 6th century or later. The Peshitta New Testament was from 4th or 5th century. Anyone could have added that it was during the time of Nero, and that wouldn't make it true. Again, Irenaeus said it was towards the end of the reign of Domitian.
 
Back
Top