You Must Not Add To The Bible

[jerryp48]

I believe that God knew the final form the bible would take. After all God is a bit smarter than early fathers of the church who chose the books of cannon based on the basis of certain criteria. Many books, such as the Gnostic texts did not make it into the cannon because they were obvious frauds to the early church fathers. I wonder how they would vote on the BOM and POGP. I think they would have been rejected.

You're certainly entitled to that belief. You asked an honest question and have been given an honest reply. I hope even though you don't agree with the replies that you can be intellectually honest and admit that they have merit.

There are scriptures that I feel are problematic with Mormonism. This has never been one of them for me. I find it almost silly to see John's words as being applicable to anything other than the Book Revelation.

[Zakuska]

O.K. Have it your way. Your so-called prophets are adding to the Book of Revelation.

Earth to samova2133...

Jersey Girl isnt a Mormon.

[Jersey Girl]

O.K. Have it your way. Your so-called prophets are adding to the Book of Revelation.

What so-called prophets?

[samova2133]

Samova,

Biblically scholarship has generally concluded that the warning in Revelations were for those people taking the writings of the apostles and adding and subtracting things in their transcriptions. This was an ongoing problem at the time. They didn't have the internet nor did they have satellite broadcasts. An apostles words could only be read by letters that were duplicated into several epistles for distribution purposes. Many mistakes came out of this process and sometimes words were added or changed.

This makes perfect sense when you put the book and writing in it's proper context.

To believe the warning refers to the Bible as a whole is to ignore both how the book was compiled and when it was compiled.

O.K. have it your way. Your so-called prophets are adding to the Book of Revelation.

[Zakuska]

Now we got a broken record.

[samova2133]

What so-called prophets?

Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and all the other heads of your church down through the years.

Do they not claim to be prophets?

[Uncle Dale]

It doesn't matter if God knew the final form that the Bible would take. The Bible is not a book.

It was not considered to be one for many, many years after Revelation was finalized -- but the OP for

this thread puts us all into a pre-determined universe in which God has perfect foreknowledge of the

future, and seemingly communicates such knowledge to prophets.

If such a viewpoint is accepted, then there is no need for human beings doing anything. Calvin's Elect

will be saved and that's the end of the story.

If such a viewpoint is accepted, it also means that all the biblical manuscripts now extant are cursed --

for they exist in multiple variants, and at least a word or letter has been added or subtracted from all

of them.

Did a perfect set of texts exist when the canon was finalized -- centuries after John the Revelator? If

not, then the bishops who approved the canon are also cursed by the manuscript variants.

None of which makes any sense, whether we call the Bible a book or a library of books.

UD

[Zakuska]

I'll say it agian... Earth to samova2133.

Jersey Girl is not a Mormon.

:blush:

[Uncle Dale]

I'll say it agian... Earth to samova2133.

Jersey Girl is not a Mormon.

:blush:

This is starting to look bad for the OP.

Next thing you know, he'll be accusing me of following Brigham Young!

UD

[William Schryver]

Sorry, but I just can't help myself. It's late, and there's really only one more thing to tell our Sola Scriptura brother:

2 Nephi 29

6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?

7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

And by the way, Zakuska, unless she quit yesterday, I'm pretty sure Jersey Girl is still one of the "sisteren." She's kind of out there on the edge sometimes, but she's still a card-carrying member last I knew.

[Zakuska]

Its sad when he won't even listen to his fellow "Christian" brothers and sisters isn't it.

Unk Dale,

Paul must be the most cursed of anyone since Most of his letters where written after John Wrote the Book of Revelation and then added his Gospel to the Bible.

William,

Thats not how I understood Jersey Girls Status.

[Jersey Girl]

Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and all the other heads of your church down through the years.

Do they not claim to be prophets?

I could have predicted that you'd assume I was LDS because I disagree with your assertions regarding Revelation. I am not now, nor have I ever been LDS. The LDS church is not my church, nor are it's prophets, my prophets.

I couldn't care less what LDS prophets claim to be. I do care, however, that you are misusing scripture in an effort to attack the Book of Mormon and PoGP.

You have contradicted yourself repeatedly on this thread that you started. At one point you say that scholars cannot say when the books were written and then you persist in dating Revelation to 95 AD. Not only that, when it is pointed out to you that the Bible is NOT a book, but a collection of books, you devolve into personal attack "your so-called prophets" because you fail to make yourself teachable, you expect others to accept your premise when you are unwilling to consider what is being presented to you.

And you think the best response that you have is to attack those who disagree with you, offer you reasonable assessments, based on the obvious fact that you think anyone who would agree with your premise has got to be LDS.

Attack their prophets all you like! Attack their scriptures all you like! Only please do not misuse scripture in order to do it!

Its sad when he won't even listen to his fellow "Christian" brothers and sisters isn't it.

Oh knock it off, Zak.

[William Schryver]

This is starting to look bad for the OP.

Next thing you know, he'll be accusing me of following Brigham Young!

UD

You know, Dale, there still is time ...

I think they still have that font in the basement of the tabernacle. DCP could dunk you and I'd volunteer to be a witness. You know what they say, "Better late than never."

Let's all start a chant:

Dunk the Unk

Dunk the Unk

Dunk the Unk

[Jersey Girl]

Sorry, but I just can't help myself. It's late, and there's really only one more thing to tell our Sola Scriptura brother:

And by the way, Zakuska, unless she quit yesterday, I'm pretty sure Jersey Girl is still one of the "sisteren." She's kind of out there on the edge sometimes, but she's still a card-carrying member last I knew.

Card carrying member of what, Will?

Jersey Girl

(this is going to get good, just you wait and see)

[Zakuska]

I think we should arrange a Baptismal service for Uncle Dale and Jersey girl at the next Fair conference.

[Uncle Dale]

Dunk the Unk....

Been there -- done that -- even checked the officiating elders' LOA back to Oliver Cowdery and that other guy.

None of which makes the OP for this thread even half-way correct on anything.

Dunked Unk

[Jersey Girl]

I'll say it agian... Earth to samova2133.

Jersey Girl is not a Mormon.

:blush:

Say it three times fast. Jersey Girl is not a Mormon. Jersey Girl is not a Mormon. Jersey Girl is not a Mormon.

Jersey Girl is LSD.

(okay, that'll mess with their heads!)

[Zakuska]

AH well.. If we can't get'em when they're breathing we can always wait a year... Will get you in the End ya know unk.

I wonder if the Temple Ready software allows the submission of screen names?

[William Schryver]

This is a little like killing a mosquito with a shotgun, but here's something approaching overwhelming evidence to contradict the 96 A.D date in favor of the 67 -68 A.D. date.

Quotes from Scholars on the Date of Revelation

Robert Young (late 1800s)

"It was written in Patmos about A.D.68, whither John had been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the Book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus (A.D.175), who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou, ie., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius Severus, Orosius, &c., stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the earlier date." (Concise Critical Comments on the Holy Bible, by Robert Young. Published by Pickering and Inglis, London and Glasgow, (no date), Page 179 of the "New Covenant" section. See also: Young's Concise Critical Bible Commmentary, Baker Book House, March 1977, ISBN: 0-8010-9914-5, pg 178.)

Philip Schaff (1877)

"On two points I have changed my opinion--the second Roman captivity of Paul (which I am disposed to admit in the interest of the Pastoral Epistles), and the date of the Apocalypse (which I now assign, with the majority of modern critics, to the year 68 or 69 instead of 95, as before)." (Vol. I, Preface to the Revised Edition, 1882 The History of the Christian Church, volume 1)

"The early date [of Revelation] is now accepted by perhaps the majority of scholars." (Enyclopedia 3:2036)

"Tertullian's legend of the Roman oil-martyrdom of John seems to point to Nero rather than to any other emperor, and was so understood by Jerome. (Adv. Jovin. 1.26) (History 1:428)

"The destruction of Jerusalem would be a worthy theme for the genius of a Christian Homer. It has been called 'the most soul-stirring of all ancient history.' But there was no Jeremiah to sing the funeral dirge of the city of David and Solomon. The Apocalypse was already written, and had predicted that the heathen "shall tread the holy city under foot forty and two months." (The History of the Christian Church, Vol I; 6:38)

George E. Ladd (1972)

"The problem with this [Domitian date] theory is that there is no evidence that during the last decade of the first century there occurred any open and systematic persecution of the church." (George E. Ladd, A Commentary on Revelation - Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972, p. 8.)

Steve Gregg (1997)

"Many scholars, including those supportive of a late date, have said that there is no historical proof that there was an empire-wide persecution of Christians even in Domitian's reign." (Revelation: Four Views, p.16)

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown (1871)

"The following arguments favor an earlier date, namely, under Nero: (1) Eusebius [Demonstration of the Gospel] unites in the same sentence John's banishment with the stoning of James and the beheading of Paul, which were under Nero. (2) Clement Of Alexandria's story of the robber reclaimed by John, after he had pursued, and with difficulty overtaken him, accords better with John then being a younger man than under Domitian, when he was one hundred years old. (3) Arethas, in the sixth century, applies the sixth seal to the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), adding that the Apocalypse was written before that event. So the Syriac version states he was banished by Nero the Caesar. (4) Laodicea was overthrown by an earthquake (A.D. 60) but was immediately rebuilt, so that its being called "rich and increased with goods" is not incompatible with this book having been written under the Neronian persecution (A.D. 64)...(5) Cerinthus is stated to have died before John; as then he borrowed much in his Pseudo-Apocalypse from John's, it is likely the latter was at an earlier date than Domitian's reign. See Tilloch's Introduction to Apocalypse. But the Pauline benediction (Re 1:4) implies it was written after Paul's death under Nero." (Commentary Critical and Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible - 1871)

A.N. Wilson (1977)

"There is no concrete and inescapable reference, in any of the New Testament books, to the destruction of Jerusalem, and is this in itself not a pretty surprising fact? Would we not expect one of these writers, particularly those of a triumphalist turn of mind, to make it clear that the very core and centre of Jewish worship had been obliterated? Such a radical view inspired J.A.T. Robinson's 'Redating the New Testament,' which made a spirited case for supposing that all the books of the canon were completed before 70." (Paul: The Mind of the Apostle - p. 254)

"The historian who tries to date and place John's Revelation is guided by the author to a quite specific time span. The words of Revelation are written down four years after the Roman fire, and shortly after Nero's own death. We know that they were written before the ultimate calamity of the Sack of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70...He writes of the earthly temple as still in existence [Rev 11:1-2]." (Paul: The Mind of the Apostle - p. 11)

"In Paul's lifetime, and Nero's, there was no such thing as the New Testament--even though some of its individual writings (perhaps all of them in some primitive form) could be dated to before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70." (Paul: The Mind of the Apostle - p. 19)

Testimony from Early Church History

Epiphanius of Salamis (315-403)

"[John], who prophesied in the time of Claudius [Nero]...the prophetic word according to the Apocalypse being disclosed." (Epiphanius, Panarion/Heresies 51:12,33)

Clement (150-215)

"For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius,was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, end with Nero." (Miscellanies 7:17.)

(On the Timing of John's Banishment)

"And to give you confidence, when you have thus truly repented, that there remains for you a trustworthy hope of salvation, hear a story that is no mere story, but a true account of John the apostle that has been handed down and preserved in memory. When after the death of the tyrant [previously identified as Nero] he removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus, he used to journey by request to the neighboring districts of the Gentiles, in some places to appoint bishops, in others to regulate whole churches, in others to set among the clergy some one man, it may be, of those indicated by the Spirit." (Who is the Rich Man that shall be Saved?; Section 42)

The Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170)

"the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name."

"John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes to only seven churches, yet addresses all. " (ANF 5:603)

Note on the Muratorian Canon: Sometime between A.D. 170 and 200, someone drew up a list of canonical books. This list, known as the Muratorian Canon, is the oldest Latin church document of Rome, and of very great importance for the history of the canon. The witness of this manuscript, which is from the very era of Irenaeus and just prior to Clement of Alexandria, virtually demands the early date for Revelation. The relevant portion of the document states that "the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name" and "John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes to only seven churches, yet addresses all." The writer of the Canon clearly teaches that John preceded Paul in writing letters to seven churches. Yet, church historians are agreed that Paul died before A.D. 70, either in A.D. 67 or 68.

Syriac Vulgate Bible (sixth century)

"The Apocalypse of St. John, written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar." (Opening Title for the Book of Revelation)

Arethas (sixth century)

"Arethas in the sixth century, applies the sixth seal to the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), adding that the Apocalypse was written before that event" (From Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, 1871)

(On Revelation 6:12) "Some refer this to the siege of Jerusalem by Vespasian."

(On Revelation 7:1) "Here, then, were manifestly shown to the Evangelist what things were to befall the Jews in their war against the Romans, in the way of avenging the sufferings inflicted upon Christ."

(On Revelation 7:4) "When the Evangelist received these oracles, the destruction in which the Jews were involved was not yet inflicted by the Romans."

Papias (first century)

"Because of a statement by Papias, an early church father, that John the Apostle was martyred before a.d. 70, the Johannine authorship has been questioned." (John F. Walvoord on the Date of Revelation - The Bible Knowledge Commentary, p. 925)

"A fragment is, however, attributed to Papias which states that "John the theologian and James his brother were killed by the Jews". (Chapman, John. St. Papias. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI [Online Edition 2002]. Retrieved November 29, 2002 from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11457c.htm)

Examining the Evidence for the Late (Domitian) Date (AD96)

All belief in the late date rests upon one cryptic statment of Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons (130-200AD) who wrote his "Against Heresies" around AD 174. All those that hold to the late date do so because of this one uncertain phrase by Irenaeus, and it is highly controversial as to what Irenaeus said. Apologist H. Daniel Denham notes that the testimony of Irenaeus is considered the bastion of the evidence for the late date, and goes on to admit some problems with this "bastion of evidence." First, the Greek language of Irenaeus can be understood to refer not to the Revelation, but to John being seen on Patmos. Second, he observes it is possible that Irenaeus has been misunderstood. Scholar Robert Young stated that the name Domitianou, referring actually to Nero, was mistaken by later writers for Domitian. Irenaeus' quote is listed below, with a few comments from well-respected scholars:

Irenaeus' Solitary Quote (Used as Grounds for Late Date Theory)

"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the Revelation. For ('he' [John?] or 'it' [Revelation?]) was seen...towards the end of Domitian's reign." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3)

Robert Young (late 1800s)

"It was written in Patmos about A.D.68, whither John had been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the Book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus (A.D.175), who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou, ie., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius Severus, Orosius, &c., stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the earlier date." (Concise Critical Comments on the Holy Bible, by Robert Young. Published by Pickering and Inglis, London and Glasgow, (no date), Page 179 of the "New Covenant" section. See also: Young's Concise Critical Bible Commmentary, Baker Book House, March 1977, ISBN: 0-8010-9914-5, pg 178.)

H. Daniel Denham (1979)

"The testimony of Irenaeus is considered the bastion of the evidence for the Late Date...The obscurity of the testimony, as it has come down to us, must be considered as weak and inconclusive to demand the Late Date." (Date of the Book Of Revelation; H. Daniel Denham, Part 1, 1979)

Steve Gregg

"Since the text is admittedly "uncertain" in many places, and the quotation in question is known only from a Latin translation of the original, we must not place too high a degree of certainty upon our preferred reading of the statement of Irenaeus." (Revelation: Four Views, p. 18)

"Earlier in the passage, Irenaeus refers to "all the...ancient copies" of Revelation. This presupposes that that the book had been around a good long while before this statement was written. If there were "ancient copies," was not the original more ancient still? Yet, in Irenaeus' estimation, the time of Domition's reign was not considered to have been very ancient history, for he speaks of it as "almost in our day." How could Irenaeus speak of ancient copies" of a work the original of which has been written "almost" in his own time?" (Revelation: Four Views, p.18)

F.W. Farrar (1831-1904)

On Early Church Fathers that openly rejected Irenaeus' testimony

"The Alogi at the close of the second century rejected it [Revelation] only on internal grounds, and their judgment is of no importance. Gaius (circ. 200) appears to attribute it to Cerinthus. Dionysius of Alexandria (A.D. 247) was inclined, on the grounds of style, to assign it to some other John, but speaks of it with reverence. Eusebius wavers about it, placing it among the spurious books in one passage, and among the acknowledged books in another. Cyril of Jerusalem (386) deliberately excludes it from the Canon. The Council of Laodicea (A.D. 381) omits it. Amphilochius, in his Jamb. ad Selecus, says that 'most' regard it as spurious. Junilius, even in the sixth, says that among the members of the Eastern Church it was viewed with great suspicion. Theodore of Mopsuestia (429) never cites it. Theodoret (457) alludes to it very slightly. It is not found in the Peshito. The Nestorian Church rejected it. It is not mentioned in the sixth century by Cosmas Indicopleustes. Nicephorus (ninth century) in his Chronographia omits it. Even in the fourteenth century Nicephorus Callistus, while accepting it, thinks it necessary to mention that some held it to be the work of 'John the Presbyter,' regarded as a different person from 'John the Apostle.' " (F.W. Farrar; The Apocalypse)

"...the authority of Irenaeus was not regarded as decisive, even if his meaning be undisputed. Tertullian places the banishment to Patmos immediately after the deliverance from the cauldron of boiling oil, and Jerome says that this took place in the reign of Nero. Epiphanius says that St. John was banished in the reign of Claudius, and the earliest Apocalyptic commentators, as well as the Syriac and Theophylact, all place the writing of the Apocalypse in the reign of Nero. To these must be added the author of the 'Life of Timotheus,' of which extracts are preserved by Photius. Clemens of Alexandria and Origen only say that 'John was banished by the tyrant,' and this on Christian lips may mean Nero much more naturally than Domitian. Moreover, if we accept erroneous tradition of inference from the ambiguous expressions of Irenaeus, we are landed in insuperable difficulties. By the time that Domitian died, St. John was, according to all testimony, so old and so infirm that even if there were no other obstacles in the way, it is impossible to conceive of him as writing the fiery pages of the Apocalypse. Irenaeus may have been misinterpreted; but even if not, he might have made a 'slip of memory,' and confused Domitian with Nero. ... We cannot accept a dubious expression of the Bishop of Lyons as adequate to set aside an overwhelming weight of evidence, alike external and internal, in proof of the fact that the Apocalypse was written, at the latest, soon after the death of Nero. " (F.W. Farrar; The Apocalypse)

Internal Evidence for the Early (Neronic) Date

As stated earlier in one of the above quotes, scholar Robert Young (best known for the Young's Analytical Concordance and his Literal Translation of the Bible) believes Revelation was written during Nero's reign. Furthermore, he claims that the internal testimony of the book is "wholly in favor of the earlier date." The following points are evidences from within the Book of Revelation itself that confirm the early date of its writing:

(1) The time statements refer to soon events of cataclysmic Jewish importance. If it was written in 96 AD, there are no events soon from that time that could even remotely fit. If, however, it was before 70 AD, then the destruction of Jerusalem rises to the occasion as both Jewish and cataclysmic. The time statements demand we look here, and there is no historic support for a persecution of the Church under Domitian in the 90s.

(2) According to the epistles to the churches, the Judaizers were persecuting the churches (Revelation 2:9; 3:9). This assigns the book to the pre-AD 70 era, for the Jewish persecution of the Church dissolved at AD 70.

(3) The temple and the city were apparently still standing in Revelation chapter 11. John is sent to measure the city and temple, and Jerusalem is said to be under siege at the time of writing. It would not be possible for John to speak of these as still standing after 70 AD, for they were utterly destroyed at that date. And, if John is referring to some rebuilt temple in the far distant future, and he is writing in 96 AD, then his complete silence about the destruction of the temple and city in 70 AD is deafening--the destruction of Jerusalem is perhaps the greatest disaster in antiquity, and surely the greatest disaster in Israel's history. To imagine St. John overlooking the apocalyptic destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple while he discusses both as if they were still standing, is impossible. Rather, St. John is prophesing their impending doom just two or three years before they were made utterly desolate.

(4) There were "other apostles" still around according to Revelation 2:2. Tradition has it that all the apostles were dead before 70 AD and John was the only original possibly surviving past that time.

(5) Caesar Nero's name in Hebrew gematria adds up to 666. Since this was written about soon events, no other person can be found within this time scope whose name fits this requirement and description. For certain, none can be found in the soon future of 96 AD.

(6) Almost all scholars believe Revelation is inextricably linked directly to the Olivet Discourse. Since the best commentaries on the Olivet Discourse demonstrate that it is speaking of the events leading up to AD 70, so must Revelation be speaking of these same events.

(7) The 6th king in Revelation 17 is the one that persecutes the saints. The Roman emperors as listed by Josephus and Tacitus are as follows: (1) Julius, (2) Augustus, (3) Tiberius, (4) Caligula, (5) Claudius, then (6) Nero. Nero was the first and only Roman Caesar of the Julian line to persecute Christians. Nero's death ended the Julian dynasty. The one ruling after him reigned only a little while--Galba, for 6 months. If the 6th king is indeed Nero, he would be the one that "now is" according to the prophecy, and this would date the writing before 68 AD when Nero supposedly committed suicide. Nero also persecuted Christians for 42 months as is stated in the prophecy.

Card carrying member of what, Will?

Jersey Girl

(this is going to get good, just you wait and see)

Well (and I hope this doesn't go on for long, because I can't keep my eyes open any longer) I have certainly been under the impression all this time that you are still an active member of the church. And, as the primary chorister (or something like that, IIRC) that would make you a card-carrying member of the primary. Right?

[Jersey Girl]

See. I knew this was going to get good.

Well (and I hope this doesn't go on for long, because I can't keep my eyes open any longer) I have certainly been under the impression all this time that you are still an active member of the church. And, as the primary chorister (or something like that, IIRC) that would make you a card-carrying member of the primary. Right?

Wrong.

Such a smart man. No memory at all. Either that or I'm as noticeable as a day old bagel.

[Uncle Dale]

This is a little like killing a mosquito with a shotgun, but here's something approaching overwhelming evidence to contradict the 96 A.D date in favor of the 67 -68 A.D. date.

Quotes from Scholars on the Date of Revelation

Robert Young (late 1800s)

"It was written in Patmos about A.D.68, whither John had been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the Book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus (A.D.175), who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou, ie., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius Severus, Orosius, &c., stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the earlier date." (Concise Critical Comments on the Holy Bible, by Robert Young. Published by Pickering and Inglis, London and Glasgow, (no date), Page 179 of the "New Covenant" section. See also: Young's Concise Critical Bible Commmentary, Baker Book House, March 1977, ISBN: 0-8010-9914-5, pg 178.)

Philip Schaff (1877)

"On two points I have changed my opinion--the second Roman captivity of Paul (which I am disposed to admit in the interest of the Pastoral Epistles), and the date of the Apocalypse (which I now assign, with the majority of modern critics, to the year 68 or 69 instead of 95, as before)." (Vol. I, Preface to the Revised Edition, 1882 The History of the Christian Church, volume 1)

"The early date [of Revelation] is now accepted by perhaps the majority of scholars." (Enyclopedia 3:2036)

"Tertullian's legend of the Roman oil-martyrdom of John seems to point to Nero rather than to any other emperor, and was so understood by Jerome. (Adv. Jovin. 1.26) (History 1:428)

"The destruction of Jerusalem would be a worthy theme for the genius of a Christian Homer. It has been called 'the most soul-stirring of all ancient history.' But there was no Jeremiah to sing the funeral dirge of the city of David and Solomon. The Apocalypse was already written, and had predicted that the heathen "shall tread the holy city under foot forty and two months." (The History of the Christian Church, Vol I; 6:38)

George E. Ladd (1972)

"The problem with this [Domitian date] theory is that there is no evidence that during the last decade of the first century there occurred any open and systematic persecution of the church." (George E. Ladd, A Commentary on Revelation - Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972, p. 8.)

Steve Gregg (1997)

"Many scholars, including those supportive of a late date, have said that there is no historical proof that there was an empire-wide persecution of Christians even in Domitian's reign." (Revelation: Four Views, p.16)

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown (1871)

"The following arguments favor an earlier date, namely, under Nero: (1) Eusebius [Demonstration of the Gospel] unites in the same sentence John's banishment with the stoning of James and the beheading of Paul, which were under Nero. (2) Clement Of Alexandria's story of the robber reclaimed by John, after he had pursued, and with difficulty overtaken him, accords better with John then being a younger man than under Domitian, when he was one hundred years old. (3) Arethas, in the sixth century, applies the sixth seal to the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), adding that the Apocalypse was written before that event. So the Syriac version states he was banished by Nero the Caesar. (4) Laodicea was overthrown by an earthquake (A.D. 60) but was immediately rebuilt, so that its being called "rich and increased with goods" is not incompatible with this book having been written under the Neronian persecution (A.D. 64)...(5) Cerinthus is stated to have died before John; as then he borrowed much in his Pseudo-Apocalypse from John's, it is likely the latter was at an earlier date than Domitian's reign. See Tilloch's Introduction to Apocalypse. But the Pauline benediction (Re 1:4) implies it was written after Paul's death under Nero." (Commentary Critical and Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible - 1871)

A.N. Wilson (1977)

"There is no concrete and inescapable reference, in any of the New Testament books, to the destruction of Jerusalem, and is this in itself not a pretty surprising fact? Would we not expect one of these writers, particularly those of a triumphalist turn of mind, to make it clear that the very core and centre of Jewish worship had been obliterated? Such a radical view inspired J.A.T. Robinson's 'Redating the New Testament,' which made a spirited case for supposing that all the books of the canon were completed before 70." (Paul: The Mind of the Apostle - p. 254)

"The historian who tries to date and place John's Revelation is guided by the author to a quite specific time span. The words of Revelation are written down four years after the Roman fire, and shortly after Nero's own death. We know that they were written before the ultimate calamity of the Sack of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70...He writes of the earthly temple as still in existence [Rev 11:1-2]." (Paul: The Mind of the Apostle - p. 11)

"In Paul's lifetime, and Nero's, there was no such thing as the New Testament--even though some of its individual writings (perhaps all of them in some primitive form) could be dated to before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70." (Paul: The Mind of the Apostle - p. 19)

Testimony from Early Church History

Epiphanius of Salamis (315-403)

"[John], who prophesied in the time of Claudius [Nero]...the prophetic word according to the Apocalypse being disclosed." (Epiphanius, Panarion/Heresies 51:12,33)

Clement (150-215)

"For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius,was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, end with Nero." (Miscellanies 7:17.)

(On the Timing of John's Banishment)

"And to give you confidence, when you have thus truly repented, that there remains for you a trustworthy hope of salvation, hear a story that is no mere story, but a true account of John the apostle that has been handed down and preserved in memory. When after the death of the tyrant [previously identified as Nero] he removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus, he used to journey by request to the neighboring districts of the Gentiles, in some places to appoint bishops, in others to regulate whole churches, in others to set among the clergy some one man, it may be, of those indicated by the Spirit." (Who is the Rich Man that shall be Saved?; Section 42)

The Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170)

"the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name."

"John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes to only seven churches, yet addresses all. " (ANF 5:603)

Note on the Muratorian Canon: Sometime between A.D. 170 and 200, someone drew up a list of canonical books. This list, known as the Muratorian Canon, is the oldest Latin church document of Rome, and of very great importance for the history of the canon. The witness of this manuscript, which is from the very era of Irenaeus and just prior to Clement of Alexandria, virtually demands the early date for Revelation. The relevant portion of the document states that "the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name" and "John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes to only seven churches, yet addresses all." The writer of the Canon clearly teaches that John preceded Paul in writing letters to seven churches. Yet, church historians are agreed that Paul died before A.D. 70, either in A.D. 67 or 68.

Syriac Vulgate Bible (sixth century)

"The Apocalypse of St. John, written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar." (Opening Title for the Book of Revelation)

Arethas (sixth century)

"Arethas in the sixth century, applies the sixth seal to the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), adding that the Apocalypse was written before that event" (From Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, 1871)

(On Revelation 6:12) "Some refer this to the siege of Jerusalem by Vespasian."

(On Revelation 7:1) "Here, then, were manifestly shown to the Evangelist what things were to befall the Jews in their war against the Romans, in the way of avenging the sufferings inflicted upon Christ."

(On Revelation 7:4) "When the Evangelist received these oracles, the destruction in which the Jews were involved was not yet inflicted by the Romans."

Papias (first century)

"Because of a statement by Papias, an early church father, that John the Apostle was martyred before a.d. 70, the Johannine authorship has been questioned." (John F. Walvoord on the Date of Revelation - The Bible Knowledge Commentary, p. 925)

"A fragment is, however, attributed to Papias which states that "John the theologian and James his brother were killed by the Jews". (Chapman, John. St. Papias. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI [Online Edition 2002]. Retrieved November 29, 2002 from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11457c.htm)

Examining the Evidence for the Late (Domitian) Date (AD96)

All belief in the late date rests upon one cryptic statment of Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons (130-200AD) who wrote his "Against Heresies" around AD 174. All those that hold to the late date do so because of this one uncertain phrase by Irenaeus, and it is highly controversial as to what Irenaeus said. Apologist H. Daniel Denham notes that the testimony of Irenaeus is considered the bastion of the evidence for the late date, and goes on to admit some problems with this "bastion of evidence." First, the Greek language of Irenaeus can be understood to refer not to the Revelation, but to John being seen on Patmos. Second, he observes it is possible that Irenaeus has been misunderstood. Scholar Robert Young stated that the name Domitianou, referring actually to Nero, was mistaken by later writers for Domitian. Irenaeus' quote is listed below, with a few comments from well-respected scholars:

Irenaeus' Solitary Quote (Used as Grounds for Late Date Theory)

"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the Revelation. For ('he' [John?] or 'it' [Revelation?]) was seen...towards the end of Domitian's reign." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3)

Robert Young (late 1800s)

"It was written in Patmos about A.D.68, whither John had been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the Book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus (A.D.175), who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou, ie., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius Severus, Orosius, &c., stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the earlier date." (Concise Critical Comments on the Holy Bible, by Robert Young. Published by Pickering and Inglis, London and Glasgow, (no date), Page 179 of the "New Covenant" section. See also: Young's Concise Critical Bible Commmentary, Baker Book House, March 1977, ISBN: 0-8010-9914-5, pg 178.)

H. Daniel Denham (1979)

"The testimony of Irenaeus is considered the bastion of the evidence for the Late Date...The obscurity of the testimony, as it has come down to us, must be considered as weak and inconclusive to demand the Late Date." (Date of the Book Of Revelation; H. Daniel Denham, Part 1, 1979)

Steve Gregg

"Since the text is admittedly "uncertain" in many places, and the quotation in question is known only from a Latin translation of the original, we must not place too high a degree of certainty upon our preferred reading of the statement of Irenaeus." (Revelation: Four Views, p. 18)

"Earlier in the passage, Irenaeus refers to "all the...ancient copies" of Revelation. This presupposes that that the book had been around a good long while before this statement was written. If there were "ancient copies," was not the original more ancient still? Yet, in Irenaeus' estimation, the time of Domition's reign was not considered to have been very ancient history, for he speaks of it as "almost in our day." How could Irenaeus speak of ancient copies" of a work the original of which has been written "almost" in his own time?" (Revelation: Four Views, p.18)

F.W. Farrar (1831-1904)

On Early Church Fathers that openly rejected Irenaeus' testimony

"The Alogi at the close of the second century rejected it [Revelation] only on internal grounds, and their judgment is of no importance. Gaius (circ. 200) appears to attribute it to Cerinthus. Dionysius of Alexandria (A.D. 247) was inclined, on the grounds of style, to assign it to some other John, but speaks of it with reverence. Eusebius wavers about it, placing it among the spurious books in one passage, and among the acknowledged books in another. Cyril of Jerusalem (386) deliberately excludes it from the Canon. The Council of Laodicea (A.D. 381) omits it. Amphilochius, in his Jamb. ad Selecus, says that 'most' regard it as spurious. Junilius, even in the sixth, says that among the members of the Eastern Church it was viewed with great suspicion. Theodore of Mopsuestia (429) never cites it. Theodoret (457) alludes to it very slightly. It is not found in the Peshito. The Nestorian Church rejected it. It is not mentioned in the sixth century by Cosmas Indicopleustes. Nicephorus (ninth century) in his Chronographia omits it. Even in the fourteenth century Nicephorus Callistus, while accepting it, thinks it necessary to mention that some held it to be the work of 'John the Presbyter,' regarded as a different person from 'John the Apostle.' " (F.W. Farrar; The Apocalypse)

"...the authority of Irenaeus was not regarded as decisive, even if his meaning be undisputed. Tertullian places the banishment to Patmos immediately after the deliverance from the cauldron of boiling oil, and Jerome says that this took place in the reign of Nero. Epiphanius says that St. John was banished in the reign of Claudius, and the earliest Apocalyptic commentators, as well as the Syriac and Theophylact, all place the writing of the Apocalypse in the reign of Nero. To these must be added the author of the 'Life of Timotheus,' of which extracts are preserved by Photius. Clemens of Alexandria and Origen only say that 'John was banished by the tyrant,' and this on Christian lips may mean Nero much more naturally than Domitian. Moreover, if we accept erroneous tradition of inference from the ambiguous expressions of Irenaeus, we are landed in insuperable difficulties. By the time that Domitian died, St. John was, according to all testimony, so old and so infirm that even if there were no other obstacles in the way, it is impossible to conceive of him as writing the fiery pages of the Apocalypse. Irenaeus may have been misinterpreted; but even if not, he might have made a 'slip of memory,' and confused Domitian with Nero. ... We cannot accept a dubious expression of the Bishop of Lyons as adequate to set aside an overwhelming weight of evidence, alike external and internal, in proof of the fact that the Apocalypse was written, at the latest, soon after the death of Nero. " (F.W. Farrar; The Apocalypse)

Internal Evidence for the Early (Neronic) Date

As stated earlier in one of the above quotes, scholar Robert Young (best known for the Young's Analytical Concordance and his Literal Translation of the Bible) believes Revelation was written during Nero's reign. Furthermore, he claims that the internal testimony of the book is "wholly in favor of the earlier date." The following points are evidences from within the Book of Revelation itself that confirm the early date of its writing:

(1) The time statements refer to soon events of cataclysmic Jewish importance. If it was written in 96 AD, there are no events soon from that time that could even remotely fit. If, however, it was before 70 AD, then the destruction of Jerusalem rises to the occasion as both Jewish and cataclysmic. The time statements demand we look here, and there is no historic support for a persecution of the Church under Domitian in the 90s.

(2) According to the epistles to the churches, the Judaizers were persecuting the churches (Revelation 2:9; 3:9). This assigns the book to the pre-AD 70 era, for the Jewish persecution of the Church dissolved at AD 70.

(3) The temple and the city were apparently still standing in Revelation chapter 11. John is sent to measure the city and temple, and Jerusalem is said to be under siege at the time of writing. It would not be possible for John to speak of these as still standing after 70 AD, for they were utterly destroyed at that date. And, if John is referring to some rebuilt temple in the far distant future, and he is writing in 96 AD, then his complete silence about the destruction of the temple and city in 70 AD is deafening--the destruction of Jerusalem is perhaps the greatest disaster in antiquity, and surely the greatest disaster in Israel's history. To imagine St. John overlooking the apocalyptic destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple while he discusses both as if they were still standing, is impossible. Rather, St. John is prophesing their impending doom just two or three years before they were made utterly desolate.

(4) There were "other apostles" still around according to Revelation 2:2. Tradition has it that all the apostles were dead before 70 AD and John was the only original possibly surviving past that time.

(5) Caesar Nero's name in Hebrew gematria adds up to 666. Since this was written about soon events, no other person can be found within this time scope whose name fits this requirement and description. For certain, none can be found in the soon future of 96 AD.

(6) Almost all scholars believe Revelation is inextricably linked directly to the Olivet Discourse. Since the best commentaries on the Olivet Discourse demonstrate that it is speaking of the events leading up to AD 70, so must Revelation be speaking of these same events.

(7) The 6th king in Revelation 17 is the one that persecutes the saints. The Roman emperors as listed by Josephus and Tacitus are as follows: (1) Julius, (2) Augustus, (3) Tiberius, (4) Caligula, (5) Claudius, then (6) Nero. Nero was the first and only Roman Caesar of the Julian line to persecute Christians. Nero's death ended the Julian dynasty. The one ruling after him reigned only a little while--Galba, for 6 months. If the 6th king is indeed Nero, he would be the one that "now is" according to the prophecy, and this would date the writing before 68 AD when Nero supposedly committed suicide. Nero also persecuted Christians for 42 months as is stated in the prophecy.

Well (and I hope this doesn't go on for long, because I can't keep my eyes open any longer) I have certainly been under the impression all this time that you are still an active member of the church. And, as the primary chorister (or something like that, IIRC) that would make you a card-carrying member of the primary. Right?

Note to self: "Don't sing 'I'm a Child of God' where the Scarecrow can hear me, or I'll become a Mormon,"

UD

[William Schryver]

See. I knew this was going to get good.

Wrong.

Such a smart man. No memory at all. Either that or I'm as noticeable as a day old bagel.

Brain cramp alert!

I was just brushing my teeth and realized my error. I've been getting you mixed up with liz!

You're Lady Sundancer from back when. Duh!

OK, my brain in connected again -- by two of its last threads.

I apologize. I'm working through my third teenager, and it's really starting to take a toll ...

Can you find it in your heart to forgive me? I promise to never screw up again.

Until tomorrow, that is ...

UD:

Note to self: "Don't sing 'I'm a Child of God' where the Scarecrow can hear me, or I'll become a Mormon,"

I've been considering a change of avatar. This one's a full year old now. Do you think that would upset the equilibrium of the board?

[Zakuska]

Quick DCP fire up the deisel! We have two baptisms for the next fair conference!

Jersey Girl is the sundancer!!!

Where have I been!

[Uncle Dale]

Quick DCP fire up the deisel! We have two baptisms for the next fair conference!

Not unless I get to shave off his soup-strainer with a rusty table-knife first.

UD

[Jersey Girl]

Quick DCP fire up the deisel! We have two baptisms for the next fair conference!

Jersey Girl is the sundancer!!!

Where have I been!

Cherry picking scripture would be my first guess.

You didn't know it was me?