No it is not. My premillenial position is not based upon when Revelation was written, but by what is written in Revelation. Your preterist position is contingent upon a pre-70AD authorship of Revelation. If it was written after the destruction of the temple, then it would necessarily be a futurist book. It could still be a "futurist" book even if it were penned at the time of the crucifixion or even before (as was Daniel).
All evidence (both internal and external) points to a post 90AD date for the book of Revelation.
Exactly, now you are catching on to my position, although you keep insisting otherwise. But I think you will get it eventually.
So let's not bring up Irenaeus and his buddies again, OK?
How old is the earth P-M? Is it 6,000 years as some claim or is it 6 billion years? Aren't you one to believe it is only 6,000 years old? Aren't you going against the evidence?
I've read some of this "evidence". I wouldn't place my apples in this cart.
But not necessarily a dispensationally futurist book. Historicists are "futurists" insofar as their future begins in the second century. Dispensationalists are really futurist oddballs in that their "future" doesn't actually begin until after the secret pretrib rapture. Isn't that what you guys think happens in chapter 4 verse 1, "Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after this."?
All evidence (both internal and external) points to a post 90AD date for the book of Revelation.
Rather dogmatic. I would agree that some fallible external sources provide superficial support for the idea of an AD90's date for the Book of Revelation.
Thanks.
I think any reasonable study of the evidence without tidy boxed bias would result in the same conclusions.