Steven, how in the world can the scholars miss that Babylon was Jerusalem? The parallels from Revelation 18 and Matthew 23-24 are quite numerous! Also Rev 11 and many other places make it abundantly clear.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews is there some bias in academia for the sake of the modern Jewish people or something? Does that come across as sounding 'anti-semitic' or something - to say that Jerusalem was Babylon?
@@williambrewer in fairness I think, there are some strong points for Rome especially if you take a late date. Sitting on seven hills. The city that rules over the kings of the earth….. etc. You know my position, but I think a good case could be made for Rome.
I hold to the late date, but I'm glad you shared this. My pastor for a while was Dr. Mark Hitchcock who debated Hank Hannegraff on this topic (you can find it on RU-vid). Mark lays out both internal and external evidence to support the late date (it was the subject of his doctoral dissertation iirc). Maybe you could invite Mark on! 😅
@@LesMartin I watched that debate and I thought he did poorly as well. Dr. Hitchcock, as I recall, did his dissertation on the subject. He should have debated someone more like Kenneth Gentry on the subject.
@@LesMartinit’s since been made pretty clear by former BAM employees that Hank memorizes what other people write for him, and doesn’t really “know” scripture. That’s why he answers all similar questions with the same phrases every time.
The biggest problem to me with the early date of the Revelation, specifically in applying it to the fall of Jerusalem, is that NONE of the pre-Nicene fathers have that understanding. They all, insofar as I have been able to research it, see the book as a prophecy about FUTURE persecution, or as a rather eclectic collection of allegories expounding the commentators' favorite theological hobby horses.
That’s fair. I would add however that Revelation was a disputed book for quite some time in church history. Many didn’t even see it as canonical. And some didn’t think it was penned by John the apostle. It isn’t as if they had a uniform view that is widely accepted today. My view on the book makes it possible for the preterist and the futurist to contribute something to the understanding of the book.
I'm so glad my amillennial idealist view does not rest on when the date was. It fits either way and the typology for the destruction of Jerusalem fits either in past (if later date) or future (if earlier date) Very interesting topic though that I need to look into more at some point Lord willing.
Hello Steven, there was a statue of Rome in Caesarea Maritima. Could it be the statue of Revelation 13? Patmos is located on the roman waterway between Caesarea and Ephesus. I believe John is telling Asia Minor about what is happening in Judea, somewhere around 70 CE.
It was written pre-70 AD. The evidence internally and externally just backs it up much better than those who late date it due to the writings of ONE man that wasn’t even born until AD 130.
I am for the early date, and base it primarily on Scripture (see the references). I believe the Apostle John wrote the book of Revelation before AD 70, but lived to witness Jesus coming in judgment upon Israel and the destruction of Jerusalem and the 2nd Temple. In John 21:20-23 Jesus tells Peter that John will remain alive till He (Jesus) “comes “, (meaning coming in judgment upon Israel, 66-73 AD). Sometime after that I believe John was martyred. See: Matthew 20:20-23 and Mark 10:35-40. Also, a careful look at the 7th chapter of Daniel references the 4th Beast and the Saints occupying the Kingdom. Also see: Matthew 16:28.
Jesus does not tell John that he will remain alive till he comes. Instead, Jesus tells Peter that if John were to live, it's none of Peter's business. 22. Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. Then, John sets the record straight about the rumor that he would live. 23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? 24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
See videos: New research expands on J Atwill's discovery that the story of Jesus is a parody of Emperor' Titus' victories. Paul the Apostle: Liar and Conman | James Valliant, Rabbi Tovia Singer
This was an enjoyable video. I would prefer an early date. It'd be easier by a long shot, but, unless I have strong evidence to the contrary, I assume that early Church testimony is sound, and external evidence is more reliable than internal evidence on most things. Thus, Irenaeus' testimony is just too strong. His "I don't know" on the number has little bearing on "He wrote a short while ago, during the reign of Domitian," and that cannot have been a short regency instead of imperial rule. The same is true about Christian martyrs under Domitian. The Christian historians and hagiography testify to Domitian persecuting, albeit to varying degrees. We don't have contemporary witnesses to a lot of things in antiquity, so it's very hard for the absence of contemporary testimony to constitute evidence of absence for me. If we assume an absence of evidence is evidence of absence, then a lot of biblical events must disappear, too. The Exodus, for certain, would have to go.
I think you might enjoy this video: Cracking the Code: Dating the Book of Revelation ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EDx-oPWT4eo.html. It might not persuade you but I hope it could provide some food for thought.
See videos: New research expands on J Atwill's discovery that the story of Jesus is a parody of Emperor' Titus' victories. Paul the Apostle: Liar and Conman | James Valliant, Rabbi Tovia Singer
It’s been a couple decades since I was really into this topic, but I’m pretty sure that Irenaeus also got the age of Jesus and the name of the Emperor over Pontous Pilate wrong. So he’s not a good witness for this debate.
Prior to the TR there limited translations available. Wycliffe based his translation off of the Latin. The Coptic was based on mostly Alexandrian manuscripts. The Syriac Peshitta was based on the Byzantine Greek manuscripts mostly
