WHEN WAS REVELATION WRITTEN?

Prophecy Questions Blog ^ | February 8, 2017 | Charles Meek

[grumpa]

Many Christians understand the book to have been written around AD 95/96. They simply take this late date for Revelation on faith, without ever checking it out. But there is strong and convincing evidence that the book was written prior to AD 70 when Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed. Over 130 authors, from different theological persuasions, have been identified as holding to a pre-AD 70 date, during the latter years of the reign of Nero, who ruled Rome from AD 54 to 68.

The argument for the late date of Revelation rests principally on a single AMBIGUOUS, THIRD-HAND comment by the second-century church father Irenaeus (c. AD 180). Scholars have puzzled over how to understand his comment, which can be interpreted in different ways, and there is considerable contrary evidence. This one blurb from Irenaeus is pretty much all the late daters have. Irenaeus, by the way, is known to have made other historical and theological errors, which the interested reader can explore on the Internet.

Actually, John, the author of Revelation, probably died prior to AD 70. . . .

[HarleyD]

What I really have problems with is the Pentecostal stuff where everybody and their brother are making *prophesies* and usually they are wrong

Yes, absolutely. Scripture, especially the Old Testament, had some VERY tough words for people who claimed God talked to them when He had not. God wanted these people to be stoned. Instead the people ended up just tolerating them. Eventually, by the time of Jeremiah, people were more willing to listen to these "lying prophets" than to what God was actually telling the people.

There is danger in accepting anything other than what is written.

[redleghunter]

:-)

[daniel1212]

At least you got it!

[af_vet_1981]

First things first; it seems to me that Charles S. Meeks is quoted in this woman's masters thesis (SNOW WHITE AWAKENS THE STORY OF EVE'S REDEMPTION) as to whether "whether women today are required by God to be subservient to men, specifically within the work and worship of Christian churches."

Most people accept that the Law has been fulfilled. As Charles S. Meek wrote, "We know that Jesus ushered in the New Covenant of grace, so why would every detail of the law still be in effect?"65 Indeed, Jesus declared that it must all be implemented, and Peter proclaimed that the first century was the time when the words of "all the prophets" would be executed, including the "restitution of all things" and the return of Jesus from the heavens (Acts 3:18-26).

The Law has no efficacy today, but most students of the Bible do not realize the implications of that fact. 1 Corinthians 15 (KJV):55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

The above passage states that the victory over death and the grave was the removal of sin (which Christ accomplished, Jn. 1:29). This is so because sin was the sting of death (sin is the reason death began). The final truth in this passage is that the strength of sin was the Law. The strength of sin, which was the sting of death, was none other than the Law of Moses. When the Law was 65 Charles S. Meek, MBA, Christian Hope Through Fulfilled Prophecy: Is Your Church Teaching Error About the Last Days and Second Coming? (Spicewood, TX: Faith Facts Publishing, 2013), 127. Meek is the editor and principal author of FaithFacts.org, one of the oldest Christian apologetics sites on the Internet. He is a contributor to the Fulfilled Covenant Bible.


Is this the same man who wrote the OP article ? Is this the same man who wrote Who We Are Faith Facts is a Bible-based, para-church ministry not affiliated with any denomination. Our mission is to further the gospel, that more may find a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and the blessings of Christian living. Faith Facts is brought to you from snowy cabin in Alaska.

[af_vet_1981]

The internal evidence can only give us some ideas as to when it was written. Nothing is guaranteed other than that range of years. The fact that the Temple’s destruction, and Jerusalem’s destruction, is not described as an accomplished fact might suggest it was written BEFORE A.D. 70. The fact that 666 = Nero would strengthen that suggestion since he died in 68. Other factors suggest it was written as the late 90s, however.

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Revelation, Catholic chapter one, Protestant verse seven,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

There is a significant internal problem with the preterist view of Revelation in the first Catholic chapter. I have not seen any credible evidence that the Early Church Fathers testified that every eye saw Him come in the clouds in 70 AD. St. Irenaeus should have known. Not only that, but I assume the Romans who pierced and crucified the Messiah would not have been at Jerusalem 37 years later due to the terms of service.

In AD 5, the standard term was increased to twenty years plus five years in the reserves.[9] In the period following its introduction, the new term was deeply unpopular with the troops. On Augustus' death in AD 14, the legions stationed on the rivers Rhine and Danube staged major mutinies, and demanded, among other things, reinstatement of a sixteen-year term.[10] Augustus prohibited serving legionaries from marrying, a decree that remained in force for two centuries.[11] This measure was probably prudent in the early imperial period, when most legionaries were from Italy or the Roman colonies on the Mediterranean, and were required to serve long years far from home. This could lead to disaffection if they left families behind.

[Elsie]

It doesn’t matter since no reference in the book shows the author was a “much later Roman”.

The first three chapters show that Catholic teaching was REALLY screwed up in those seven churches mentioned.

[Elsie]

He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

[Elsie]

No one has to avoid what doesn’t exist.

I've always wonder why certain folks avoid what DOES exist.

[Elsie]

I’d bet even Daniel does at times...

[Elsie]

So my approach to a lot of stuff is*wait and see*.

This is the ONLY rational thing to do much of the time!

[Elsie]

...we see through a glass darkly...

[Elsie]

There is danger in accepting anything other than what is written.

Unless it's something that Mary had to come back and tell us; then it's ok.

[Elsie]

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him:

To them that have eyes; let them see.

[WildHighlander57]

Also this one; very meticulous in its analysis.

https://www.google.com/search?lr=&as_qdr=all&q=Redating+the+New+Testament&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAONgFuLUz9U3MCopyK5S4gIxzcrMjTLytAQcS0sy8otC8p3y87P983IqARIroW0rAAAA&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwipqbTipojSAhVDllQKHcLZCNEQsQ4INjAK