That would be me, though I am no preterist. Dispensationalists have the inability to distinguish between preterism and any other doctrine that does not adhere to their own contrived and gloomy doctrine.
>>>This view would see the words of Jesus in Matt 24 and the book of Revelation as fulfilled in 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem.<<<
That is not true. I, personally, do not believe the book of Revelation was fulfilled in 70 A.D.; nor does Dr. Ken Gentry. Let the record show that Dartuser is not a straight shooter (no pun intended.)`
>>>Since the book of Revelation itself claims that it is a book of prophecy, those who hold to the preterist view must place the date of Revelation before 70 AD or else it cannot be prophecy, but merely writing down what already happened.<<<
That is correct. Dr. Ken Gentry and I, and also many preterists, hold that view, since we have been fresh out of prophets for about 1950 years. You see, the blood of all the prophets was blamed on Jerusalem in the Gospels, and Babylon the Great in the Revelation. For some reason, our miniscule, peonic minds somehow fell into the "trap" of believing that Jerusalem and Babylon the Great were the same city. Heaven forbid! LOL!
>>>This supposed early date for Revelation goes against the view of the vast majority of Biblical scholarship that John wrote Revelation on the isle of Patmos around 95 AD.<<<
Heaven forbid (again) that we be contrary to the majority who believed in the flat earth, in the past, and it's global warming counterpart, today!
>>>One particular preterist, Kenneth Gentry, wrote his PhD thesis defending an early date for Revelation; he sets out to 'prove' that it was written in the mid to late 60s AD. <<<
I have read that book, twice. It is a very well-written, heavily footnoted book, with very few challengeable discrepancies (so far, I have only found two questionable footnotes, out of hundreds.) It contains a remarkable array of historical and biblical information that challenges demolishes the status quo. This is THE BOOK dispensationalists do NOT want you to read.
>>>His approach consists of identifying both external and internal evidence. <<<
That is some scary stuff! Wait, isn't that what biblical historians are supposed to do?
>>>Since his external evidence goes entirely against the vast majority of Biblical scholarship, he was forced to weigh his arguments with a huge bias toward the internal evidence.<<<
This is very deceitful on the part of Dartuser by his omission. He knows (or should know) that nearly all, if not all so-called "historians" rely on a single paragraph by a second-century historian named Irenaeus for their so-called "proof."
Take careful note that Irenaeus was from the 2nd century: and his book was about a century removed from being "on-scene." Also take careful note that Ireneaus "contradicted" himself TWO PARAGRAPHS earlier in his own book, if the paragraph in question was interpreted correctly by this consensus of so-called "historians;" which it was not.
In other words, the so-called "historians" misinterpreted Irenaeus' words; and this post by Dartuser is much-ago about nothing, except as an attempt to smear the good name of a Reformed Presbyterian pastor and educator named Dr. Ken Gentry.
>>>This article examines the internal evidence that Gentry claims supports an early date and presents counter arguments to his.<<<
This ought to be fun…
Philip
Yes, the ole' false analogy.
I have read that book, twice. It is a very well-written, heavily footnoted book, with very few challengeable discrepancies (so far, I have only found two questionable footnotes, out of hundreds.) It contains a remarkable array of historical and biblical information that challenges demolishes the status quo. This is THE BOOK dispensationalists do NOT want you to read.
Lol ... Why would you assume I would not want someone to read this book? He lays out his case very well ... as you have said. Everyone SHOULD read the book.
Before Jerusalem Fell by Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.
Then get Hitchcock's thesis
www.pre-trib.org
read that and then decide for yourself whether Gundry's arguments hold water. Then read the Wayne House article ... then you are in a much better position to decide for yourself. I encourage everyone to read both.
all so-called "historians" rely on a single paragraph by a second-century historian named Irenaeus for their so-called "proof."
And there is where you expose your willful neglect. You have clearly not engaged Hitchcock's work. If you would have read his work, Chapter 2 of his thesis deals with the two earliest sources for the date of Revelation (Iraneus is actually the later of the two). Then you continue into chapter 3, you would find that he lists 20 more early citations that have evidence for the late date of Revelation.
This whole idea that the quote by Iraneus is somehow 'confusing' is a fabrication out of necessity. For almost 2000 years no reference who cites Iraneus was confused about what he meant ... it is only when the "early daters" required confusion on Iraneus' statement that his statement became confused.
In other words, the so-called "historians" misinterpreted Irenaeus' words; and this post by Dartuser is much-ago about nothing ...
It's not about nothing ... it strikes to the heart of your theology. You absolutely require the date of Revelation to be before 70 AD. And so you must reinterpret any data that contradicts that requirement ... or your entire system crumbles to nothing.
You don't seem to realize that with all the intricacies and ramifications that have resulted from even mild preterism, your theological system, while not purposely built on it, nonetheless, is currently teetering on ... the date of a book.
an attempt to smear the good name of a Reformed Presbyterian pastor and educator named Dr. Ken Gentry.
I have not smeared him. I have openly acknowledged that he indeed wrote a book that lays out his case well. He is probably an admirable man of God whom I will enjoy spending eternity with. But to equate my disagreement as to his eschatology ... and the presentation of a conflicting view with defaming his character ...