Book of revelation dating
Dispensationalist writers John Ankerberg and John Weldon write, “[I]ndeed, it is becoming an increasingly persuasive argument that all the New Testament books were written before 70 A. — within a single generation of the death of Christ. Consider the following from “The Identification of Babylon the Harlot in the Book of Revelation” written by D. The problem for Tommy is that there are lots of scholars that don’t agree with him, and the list is growing every year.
dissertation that was later published in book form as . Robinson, no conservative himself, comes to some startling conclusions in his groundbreaking book As Gentry and others have pointed out and Ice fails to acknowledge, the pre-A. 70 date of composition for Revelation has a long and distinguished history. As Wilson notes, “Throughout the nineteenth century the majority of New Testament scholars favored a pre-70 dating of the Book of Revelation.” Tommy offers no contrary scholarship to the pre-A. 70 date except to say that most scholars agree with him.
This is the fifth installment of my response to Tommy Ice’s article “Answers and Clarifications for Gary De Mar.” You can reference the other four posts here, here, here, and here. 95, the question for De Mar is “What does the hour of testing refer to? There are many scholars who believe that Revelation was written before A.
Tommy brings up the dating issue of when Revelation was written. Here’s how Tommy presents the issue: De Mar believes this time-period refers to “the conflagration leading up to the destruction of A. 70, the tribulation period.” However, his view presupposes that Revelation was written around A. 65, which Mark Hitchcock and most scholars throughout church history have demonstrated is impossible.
9 & 10 Exposition of Revelation 22 Identifying Gog & Magog Open Letter to Mac Deaver Paradise by Kurt Simmons Most commentators assign the book of Revelation the date of 96 A. However, the evidence for this date is so equivocal and ambiguous, its probative value is practically nothing and, in fact, is assigned more by tradition than by solid evidence. is, one would think that there must be considerable evidence to support this position. It is like the doubt the New International Version throws upon Mark 16:9-20 by separating the text from the rest of the gospel with the note: "The most reliable early manuscripts omit Mark 16:9-20." We possess about 6,000 manuscripts.
As we shall see, the better view is that the book was written sometime between 56-70 A. and is primarily concerned with the church's victory over the persecutions of Nero and the Jews, and the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome. Mark 16:9-20 are missing in only two, and these two manuscripts are probably the worst in our possession (the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).He takes the position that Revelation was written around A. 95 while I and many others believe with good exegetical and historical reasons that it was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A. Josh Mc Dowell takes a similar approach to dating the New Testament books: Most liberal scholars are being forced to consider earlier dates for the New Testament. Ragan Ewing in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Theology degree at Dallas Theological Seminary, a bastion of dispensational thinking. In fairness, either John or the apocalypse may be the subject.But what is the point of saying the vision was seen in recent times?
Search for book of revelation dating:
The oldest of these lacks the books of II Peter, II and III Jno., Jude and the Revelation.