Before I depart this thread let me give two suggested interruptions to Irenaeus statement for first is basically what you guys hold and that is and I quote for a book I'll mention at the end of this post. Here is the quote ""Did Irenaeus mean: "the Revelation was seen in a vision by John almost in our generation"? This is the commonly accepted view
or was he saying "John, who saw the Revelation, was seen alive almost in our generation"? This is a grammatically possible view--one which I hold to be preferable."<----end of quote. The quotes or Quotes came from "The Beast of Revelation by Dr. Kenneth Gentry, a good book at least us post mills think it is, I know you premill would condemn it and burn it just like the Nazi burn unauthorized books.
Oh I hold to the second view, John was seen alive in our generation. He did live a long life even though the Romans tried to kill him several time.
Oh I probably won't be coming back to this thread, I can not spend to much time freeping on FR and get other stuff done.
So you accuse others of using only books supporting their view then do the same yourself? Just wow!
>> This is a grammatically possible view—one which I hold to be preferable<<
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 Domitians reign.
who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, The apocalyptic vision was seen. You cant distort that to fit your view.
There is no way to grammatically change the meaning of that portion of what Irenaeus wrote. Do try to do so is deceit and grammatical illiteracy. Its for that was seen referring to the vision. NOT for he was seen.