Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Date of Revelation
Pre-trib Study Group ^ | Dr. Thomas Ice

Posted on 11/29/2010 5:26:42 PM PST by dartuser

Preterists teach that the Book of Revelation is primarily a prophecy about the Roman war against the Jews in Israel that began in A.D. 67 and ended with the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70. In order for Revelation to be a prediction of the future (Rev. 1:1, 3, 11, 19; 22:6-10, 16, 18-20) and if it was fulfilled by August A.D. 70, then it had to have been written by A.D. 65 or 66 for the preterist interpretation to even be a possibility. Preterist Ken Gentry has noted this major weakness when he said of fellow early date advocate David Chilton, “if it could be demonstrated that Revelation were written 25 years after the Fall of Jerusalem, Chilton's entire labor would go up in smoke.”

Since a preterist interpretation of Revelation requires an early date of the final book in the Bible, preterists go to great lengths in their attempts to make their view appear viable. The Domitianic date is the overwhelmingly accepted view of scholarship in our day and throughout most of church history. Nothing in Revelation itself contradicts such a conclusion. It appears the major reason that preterists believe in an early date for Revelation is that their system requires it. In this instance the saying is true that necessity is the mother of invention.

(Excerpt) Read more at pre-trib.org ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: kennethgentry; revelation; tommyice
Preterism is a theological view that uses a few prooftexts to construct an elaborate, but faulty, scheme whereby they view most, if not all, of Biblical prophecy as having been fulfulled in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70.

The dating of the book of Revelation by preterists to pre-date AD 70 is one of the easiest refutations of the position. This article outlines some of the evidences that preterist must try to overcome if their position is to have any credibility. Based on the Iraneus quotes alone ... the preterists are facing an impossible task.

1 posted on 11/29/2010 5:26:48 PM PST by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dartuser

Thanks for the info...


2 posted on 11/29/2010 5:31:27 PM PST by wireman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wireman

Look for another article in a few minutes.


3 posted on 11/29/2010 5:44:48 PM PST by dartuser ("The difference between genius and stupidity is genius has limits.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

Why worry about end of world as it will come when it comes however that maybe.. Just be ready.


4 posted on 11/29/2010 5:47:39 PM PST by scbison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

I doubt it..............


5 posted on 11/29/2010 5:56:36 PM PST by M-cubed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

I think you are confusing the term “preterist” with “post-millenial.”

A preterist does not believe Jesus will return.

A post-millenial does.


6 posted on 11/29/2010 6:27:30 PM PST by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

Good article. Thanks for posting.

For anyone interested, here are additional resources debunking the false teachings of Preterism and partial Preterism:

Not long ago at the Pre-Trib Study Group conference in Dallas, TX, futurist Dr. Mark Hitchcock clearly and decisively won the debate against partial Preterist (though he refuses to call himself that) Hank Hanegraaff.

Soon after, Dr. Hitchcock spoke at another conference, discussing material presented at the debate.

An mp3 audio of that presentation is available free online, as is a video version. At the following link, scroll down the page to:

Dr. Mark Hitchcock - A.D. 95 - Defending the Traditional Date of Revelation

http://deanbible.org/andromeda.php?q=f&f=%2FAudio+Files%2FWHBC+Guest+Speakers+and+Conferences%2FChafer+Theological+Seminary+Pastors+Conferences%2F2008+-+Chafer+Theological+Seminary+Pastors+Conf

In addition, some helpful articles:

Has Bible Prophecy Already Been Fulfilled?
by Dr. Thomas Ice
http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-HasBibleProphecyAlrea.pdf

A Case for the Futurist Interpretation of the Book of Revelation
by Dr. Andy Woods
http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Woods-ACasefortheFuturistI.pdf

Preterism
by Dr. Randall Price
http://www.raptureready.com/featured/price/15rp.pdf

Gary Demar’s End Times Fiction
by Dr. Thomas Ice
http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-GaryDemarsEndTimesFic.pdf

A Review of Hank Hanegraaff’s The Apocalypse Code
by Dr. Thomas Ice
http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-AReviewofHankHanegra.pdf

An Assessment of Kenneth L. Gentry’s Internal Evidence for Dating Revelation
by Dr. Robert Thomas
http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Thomas-AnAssessmentofKennet.pdf

Preterism and Zechariah 12-14
by Dr. Thomas Ice
http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-PreterismandZechariah.pdf


7 posted on 11/29/2010 6:44:31 PM PST by onthelookout777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
The dating of the book of Revelation by preterists to pre-date AD 70 is one of the easiest refutations of the position.

Not so fast, my friend ...

The passage in Irenaeus is ambiguous. It could mean that the "apocalyptic vision" was seen toward the end of Domitian's reign, or it could mean that "he who saw the apocalyptic vision" (that is, the Apostle John) was seen toward the end of Domitian's reign.

Eusebius thought it meant the former, but he was writing 200 years after the fact.

There's a much bigger problem for those who reject out-of-hand the preterist interpretation, and it's right there in chapter 1 verse 1:

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near. Revelation 1, NKJV
Why should Christians look to an ambiguous passage in a Church Father when the Scripture is so clear? I'm not even a sola scriptura Christian, but that seems like a case where the scriptura brooks no contradiction and requires no clarification.
8 posted on 11/29/2010 6:50:58 PM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

What follows is excerpted from a paper entitled

A Case for the Futurist Interpretation of the Book of Revelation

“Revelation’s ‘Time Texts’

“The argument most relied upon by preterists to contend for a first century fulfillment is Revelation’s so called ‘time texts.’

“Because Revelation makes use of the words ‘shortly’ or ‘quickly’ or tavcos (Rev 1:1; 2:16; 3:11; 11:14; 22:6, 7, 12, 20), ‘near’ or ‘at hand’ or ejgguvs (Rev 1:3; 22:10), and ‘about to’ or mevllw (1:19; 3:10), preterists believe that they have the literary license to locate the fulfillment of most of John’s prophecies in A.D. 70.

“However, the preterist errs in assuming that these words are technical expressions that always have the same definition every time they are used. In fact, each of these terms has a broad semantic range and therefore its meaning must be determined by its context rather than through the imposition of an artificial ‘one size fits all’ grid.

“For example, besides always understanding these words chronologically indicating when Christ will return, it is also possible to understand them adverbially or qualitatively indicating the manner of Christ’s return.

“In other words, when the action comes it will come suddenly or with great rapidity. The New Testament allows for such a usage. For example, while it is true that Scripture often uses ‘shortly’ or ‘quickly’ (tacos) in a chronological sense to indicate ‘when’ (1 Timothy 3:14), Scripture also uses the same word in a qualitative sense to indicate ‘how.’

“For instance, Acts 22:18 uses tacos to indicate manner when it says, ‘Make haste, and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about me.’

“The LXX also displays an adverbial use of these expressions by using them in prophetic contexts that would not be fulfilled for hundreds and sometimes thousands of years or more into the future (Isa 13:22; 51:5; Zeph 1:7, 14; Obad 15; cf. Isa 5:26; 13:6; 58:8; Joel 1:15; 2:1; 3:14).

“Given the broad semantic range of these terms, ‘context is king’ in determining whether the chronological or adverbial meaning is applicable.

“Because the context of Revelation involves global events that have not yet come to pass, an adverbial rather than a chronological meaning should be assigned to these words.

“While Revelation’s ‘timing texts’ pose no obstacle to the futurist interpretation, these texts pose considerable problems for the preterist interpreter.

“Partial preterist interpretive problems are created by the fact that Revelation’s ‘timing texts’ are found at the end of the Book of Revelation as well as the beginning (Rev 22:6, 7, 10, 12, 20).

“The partial preterist system still wants to hold to a future bodily appearing and final judgment (Rev 20:7-15). However,the use of tavcos and ejgguvs in Revelation 22 is injurious to the partial preterist system, because the existence of these words at the end of the book logically leads to the conclusion that the entire Book of Revelation was fulfilled in A.D. 70 rather than just most of it.

“If the use of tavcos and ejgguvs in the early chapters of Revelation lead partial preterists to conclude that most of the book’s prophecies were fulfilled in A.D. 70, then surely these identical words found at the end of the book should also lead to the conclusion that the entire book was fulfilled in A.D. 70...”

http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/case-for-futurist-interpretation-of-book-revelation


9 posted on 11/29/2010 7:12:44 PM PST by onthelookout777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
A preterist does not believe Jesus will return.

Almost ... if you read the main proponents of preterism in its various forms; you will find that full preterists (and some partial preterists) believe that Christ already returned in the coming of the Roman army in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Some, if not most, partial preterists would still support a future return of Christ.

10 posted on 11/29/2010 7:23:04 PM PST by dartuser ("The difference between genius and stupidity is genius has limits.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

“Almost ... if you read the main proponents of preterism in its various forms; you will find that full preterists (and some partial preterists) believe that Christ already returned in the coming of the Roman army in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. “

Yes, I could have been clearer. A full preterist thinks Jesus has already returned and will not be returning again.

Whereas a postmillenial still looks for the second coming of Christ; as do premillenialists and amillenialists.


11 posted on 11/29/2010 8:15:30 PM PST by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Campion
The passage in Irenaeus is ambiguous.

A common view for preterists ... out of necessity. The vast majority of Biblical scholars date the book in AD 95. The burden of proof is on the preterists ... and so far the "ambiguous passage" from Iraneus argument only holds credibility with preterists.

There's a much bigger problem for those who reject out-of-hand the preterist interpretation, and it's right there in chapter 1 verse 1:

Hardly ... A first year Greek student will recognize the adverbial grammar possibilities in the so-called time texts of Revelation 1. These are not technical terms with fixed meaning but rather, as with all words, the definitions and usage are determined by the context.

Further, a second year Greek student will also find plenty of evidence that what is being employed here is "figure of speech." There are plenty of examples of the same usage in the LXX for events that didn't happen for hundreds if not thousands of years ... yet the words are the same ... "at hand" or "shortly." Use your favorite Bible software with appropriate search filters and you will find a bunch.

For example, Isa 13:22, written almost 100 years before the fall of the Babylonian Empire, uses the same construct when Isaiah says its destruction will come soon, that it is near.

The stance that these time texts must refer to a short time just doesnt stand up to exegetical or historical examination.

12 posted on 11/29/2010 8:23:30 PM PST by dartuser ("The difference between genius and stupidity is genius has limits.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Campion; dartuser
[...] things which must shortly take place [...] for the time is near.

[...] the Scripture is so clear? I'm not even a sola scriptura Christian, but that seems like a case where the scriptura brooks no contradiction and requires no clarification.

What contradiction? It has been but two prophetic days... a short time, indeed.

13 posted on 11/29/2010 9:09:08 PM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson