Okay, you answered one-seventh of the question. Who are the other six?
Now you answer ME a question...
Well, you didn't answer mine. It seems hardly fair.
When -- in the 1st century -- did the Romans cause an IMAGE to speak? By what technology?
They had magicians in the ancient world, too. You'll recall Moses met some in Pharaoh's court.
Actually, this undermines your interpretation a good deal more than it does mine. Has it not occurred to you that making an image speak is not much of an accomplishment these days, and most people would react to it, not with awe, but with amusement? I mean, if you want an "image that speaks," you can buy various kinds down at Toys 'R' Us for very reasonable prices, but I wouldn't expect anyone to fall down in idolatrous worship before them.
By WHOSE SCHOLARSHIP do you believe Revelation was written before 70 AD?
Chilton, for one. But there are many sources that argue that. I gave you the link above, why don't you check it for yourself. The obvious question in any case is that, since Rev 1:1 says it concerns "things that must shortly take place," if it doesn't concern the events of AD 70, what else can it possibly be referring to?
I think it's odd that you take verses about images speaking to be absolutely literal to the extent that you are asking what "technology was used," but you take Rev 1:1 to be so non-literal that you make it absolutely meaningless. "These events must shortly take place, sometime with in the next 2500 years or so." Uh-huh.
I gave you a link to a CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA that freely admits Revelation was written in 95 AD.