Revelation Originally Apart of the Old Testament Canon

The Book of Revelation definitely Belongs in the Old Testament edited, and revised...

It is imperative to note that we are comparing Revelation to the original biblical Hebrew which is extinct, not to the standard Hebrew we use today.

" It is important in this connection to note the Hebraisms of the whole of this part of the book, which prove that the writer or—if he himself originally wrote Hebrew or Aramaic—the translator could neither write nor speak Greek correctly."

"The rhythmic form in which the whole is composed indicates a Hebrew author, whereas the Christian interpolations always spoil both context and rhythm."

"that the main apocalypse actually belongs to Jewish apocalyptic literature."

"Many linguists and historians now attest that the Evangels, the Acts, and the Book of Revelation were composed in Hebrew (see listing of these scholars included herein)."


"The whole apocalypse, of which xxii. 10-15 is the conclusion, is, like the shorter one which precedes it, in every part and feature (except where altered by the Christian compiler) thoroughly Jewish in spirit and conception, as was fully recognized by Mommsen ("Römische Gesch." v. 520-523). It presents the development of the whole eschatological drama according to the Jewish view. It is Hebrew in composition and style, and bears traces of having originally been written in Hebrew, as is shown by the words ρκήυη (tabernacle; xxi. 3) for ; (angels) mistaken for (Kings; ix. 14); ευίκηρευ (has conquered) for (is worthy); and others. The two apocalypses appear to have been, like that in Matt. xxiv., or like the Epistle of James and the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, in the possession of Essenes who joined the Judæo-Christian Church after the destruction of the Temple (comp. Rev. xxi. 22, showing that the author did not believe in the future restoration of the Temple). Hence it was easy for a member of the early Church to adapt the whole to the Christian view by substituting or inserting frequently, but not always skilfully and consistently, "the Lamb" for "the Messiah," and by occasionally changing or adding entire paragraphs"

"The last book in the New Testament canon, yet in fact one of the oldest; probably the only Judæo-Christian work which has survived the Paulinian transformation of the Church. The introductory verse betrays the complicated character of the whole work. It presents the book as a "Revelation which God gave . . . to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass," and at the same time as a revelation of Jesus Christ to "his servant John." According to recent investigations, the latter part was interpolated by the compiler, who worked the two sections of the book—the main apocalypse (ch. iv.-xxi. 6) and the letters to the "seven churches" (i.-iii. and close of xxii.)—into one so as to make the whole appear as emanating from John, the seer of the isle of Patmos in Asia Minor (see i. 9, xxii. 8), known otherwise as John the Presbyter. The anti-Paulinian character of the letters to the seven churches and the anti-Roman character of the apocalyptic section have been a source of great embarrassment, especially to Protestant theologians, ever since the days of Luther; but the apocalypse has become especially important to Jewish students since it has been discovered by Vischer (see bibliography) that the main apocalypse actually belongs to Jewish apocalyptic literature."

"Obviously, the writer of these visionary letters to the seven churches of Asia was in his own estimation a Jew, while believing in Jesus as the risen Messiah. He beheld him in his vision as "the faithful witness" (martyr) who is next to God, "who is, was, and will be" ("come" is the emendation of the late compiler), his seven angelic spirits standing "before his throne" (i. 4-5); "the Son of man" grasping seven stars in his right hand, while out of his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword (i. 13-16; ii. 1, 12 [taken from the apocalypse, xiv. 14]; iii. 1); who "holds the keys of hell and of death" (i. 18); who is "the holy and true one" that "holds the key of David" (iii. 7, with reference to Isa. xxii. 22); who is called also "the beginning of the creation of God" (iii. 14). However, the identification of "him who was dead and became alive again" with God, who is the First and the Last, the ever-living Almighty (i. 17; comp. i. 8 and ii. 8), is the work of the late compiler. The close of the visionary letters is found at xxii. 16, where Jesus is represented as saying, "I am the root and the offspring of David" (comp. Isa. xi. 1, 10), "the bright and morning star" (after Num. xxiv. 17 and [probably] Ps. cx. 3; comp. LXX.). To find in these chapters traces of a persecution of the early Christians by the Jews, as do most modern exegetes, is absurdly illogical. On the contrary, the writer condemns the anti-Jewish attitude of the Pauline churches; the document is therefore of great historical value. It is important in this connection to note the Hebraisms of the whole of this part of the book, which prove that the writer or—if he himself originally wrote Hebrew or Aramaic—the translator could neither write nor speak Greek correctly. As to the relation of this to the apocalypse which follows see below."

"Then he beholds (xviii. 1-8) one of the glorious angels descending from heaven, and crying out (in the words of the ancient seers—Isa. xxi. 9, xxiv. 11-13), "Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, and has become the habitation of demons," for all the nations have drunk of the glowing wine of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her (Isa. xxiii. 17; Jer. xxv. 15, 27). "Go out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins and receive not of her plagues" Jer. li. 6, 9); "for her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities" (Ps. cxxxvii. 8; Jer. l. 15, 29). In rhythmic sentences, taken from the Bible, the voice is heard saying: "Fill her cup double of what she offered you, and give her as much torment and grief as she has had glory and pleasure." All that is said of Babel (Isa. xlvii. 7-9; Jer. l. 32-34) is applied to her; and Ezekiel's lamentation over the fall of Tyre (xxvi. 16-xxvii. 36) is repeated by the kings of the earth overthe fall of Babylon (Rome). "Alas, alas, Babylon the great, mighty city! in one hour is thy judgment come!" is the refrain (xviii. 10, 19). The rhythmic form in which the whole is composed indicates a Hebrew author, whereas the Christian interpolations always spoil both context and rhythm."

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=R&artid=248

Reasons for excluding most Apocrypha books...

ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE CANONICITY OF THE APOCRYPHA

"# They are not, and have never been, in the Jewish canon.
# Josephus explicitly excluded them from his list.
# Philo (20 B.C.-50 A.D.) neither mentions or quotes them.
# Jewish scholars meeting at the Council of Jabneh did not recognize them.
# Most Church Fathers in fact rejected them.
# None of the Apocrypha claim inspiration or divine authority.
# Many of the Apocryphal books contain historical, geographical, and chronological errors.
# Many of the Apocryphal books teach heresy, contrary to the Word of God.
# Their literary style is legendary and fantasy. Some stories are grotesque and demonic.
# They lack the power and distinctive elements of the Word of God."

 

"And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. (Rev. 14:8)

Babylon was long gone by the time Rome conquered, even Persia had already taken over.... This is DANIEL talk....



Now in your claim that Revelation was originally apart of the new testament canon naturally simply isn't true.

Dave Hunt in his controversial book, A Woman Rides the Beast, page 335-336, wrote that council of Laodicea in 363 CE did not list the New of Revelation is the same thing Daniel talked about in his book. Daniel told you about future kingdoms that would rule the world, and now I’m going to explain some more about that last kingdom—the one with the 10 horns."

John uses some of the same phrases as Daniel. John uses "time, times, and half a time" (Rev. 12:14), just like Daniel (Dan. 7:25, 12:7). This term refers to 3½ years (compare Rev. 12:14 with Rev. 12:6 and 11:2-3). When the Antichrist confirms a 7 year covenant with Israel, he will stop the Jewish sacrifices "in the middle of the week (Dan. 9:27)." The Jews had a week of days (7 days) and a week of years (7 years). See Gen. 29:27-30. The "middle of the week" splits the last seven years on earth into two 3½ year segments. The references to "time, times, and half a time" "42 months" and "1260 days" refers to the last 3½ years on earth before Jesus returns (except for Rev. 11:3, which refers to the first 3½ years of the 7 year covenant).

John also speaks of "10 horns" (Rev. 12:3, 13:1, 17:3,12), the same as Daniel (Dan. 7:7,20,24). The 10 horns are 10 kings which will arise in the future. John tells us they "have not yet received a kingdom" as of 96 A.D., meaning they would arise at some time in the future. They STILL haven’t received a kingdom because they are still future kings as of this writing. Daniel tells us "And in the days of those kings (represented by the 10 toes on the statue) the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed…"
http://www.anointed-one.net/endtimes.html

Fact's of Revelation date the book back Before the Common Era.

[I.T. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John, New York 1919, 456, notes that Pergamon was the first place in the province of Asia to have such a temple. Yet Augustus also sanctioned temples in Ephesus and Nicea with the inscription 'To the goddess Roma and the divine Julius' (Dio Cassius, Hist. 51.6).]
this had been founded in 29 bc [Tacitus, Ann. 4.37; cf. 3.63; 4.55; and Suetonius. Aug. 52.]
and does not of itself require a late date.
Yet though emperor-worship can be read into the letters to the seven churches
it is not demanded by them (in strong contrast with the visions that follow).
Even if a gigantic statue of the Emperor Domitian was indeed erected in a temple at Ephesus,
[Cf. Reicke, NT Era, 279, for the references.]

What was going on around 200 B.C.?

200 BC: Completion of the Septuagint Greek Manuscripts which contain The 39 Old Testament Books and the 14 Apocrypha Books.

Now why is this important? One must first go into the book of Daniel

Daniel c.165 B.C.

Traditionally, the Book of Daniel was believed to have been written by its namesake during and shortly after the Babylonian captivity in the sixth century BC. Although this view continues to be held by traditionalist Christians and Jews, it has been discredited by critical scholars. Antiochus IV Epiphanes desecrated the altar around 167 BC, and the Book of Daniel (in its final form) was written, these scholars propose, in reaction to that incident. The citing of Antiochus as being the one whose abomination causes desolation is accurate, based upon independently documented historical data and careful analysis of the text. (A conceptual precedent of sorts was set by Manassah when he set up idols on temple grounds, which allegedly resulted in the desolation of Jerusalem by the god of Israel.) Traditionalists, attempting to establish an earlier date for the Book of Daniel, occasionally make reference to Josephus, who states that upon Alexander the Great's approach, a small party met him outside of Jerusalem, telling him that his presence was ordained by scripture. However, Josephus wrote about 400 years after the event in question, and cannot be justifiably considered as a reliable source in this matter. Additionally, some point to the Dead Sea scrolls found at Qumran dating to the mid-2nd-cent BC. These scrolls include several manuscript copies of Daniel, the premise being that there must have been much time between the original writing and the copying of the manuscripts found at Qumran, since it would have taken time for the book to have gained acceptance and be made available for copying.[11] However, it is more likely that the relatively large number of copies at Qumran was due to the current (at the time) popularity of this recently "published" book.

1. The word 'revelation' in Greek is apokalupsis
a. Which means 'an uncovering' or 'unveiling'
b. Thus a book intended to reveal, not conceal
2. The book is an example of apocalyptic literature
a. A literary style popular from 200 B.C. to 200 A.D.
b. Known for highly symbolic or figurative language
c. Written normally during times of persecution
d. Usually depicting the conflict between good and evil
e. Intended to encourage the righteous to persevere
f. Other examples: parts of Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah

IT IS CHALLENGING...
1. Not to the early church
a. They were familiar with the apocalyptic style and OT
symbology
b. They were familiar with the historical circumstances
prompting the Revelation
d. It evidently was intended to be understood by simply
listening - cf. Re 1:3
2. But to people today
a. Who are unfamiliar with apocalyptic literature and OT
symbology
b. Who are unfamiliar with the historical background of the
book
b. Who are prone to take things literally

[To properly interpret the book, we must understand its historical
context. We must also interpret it in a manner that would have been
meaningful to those to whom it was addressed...]

Revelation Is filled with imagery largely from Daniel.

Concerning manuscripts that were burned at the order of Constantine, there is really no mention of such a thing actually happening at the order of Constantine or at the Council of Nicea. The Arian party's document (about Christ being a creature) was abandoned by them because of the strong resistance to it and was torn to shreds in the sight of everyone present at the council (see Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology). Constantine (and the Council of Nicea, for that matter) had virtually nothing to do with the forming of the canon. It was not even discussed at Nicea. The council that formed an undisputed decision on the canon took place at Carthage in 397 (60 years after Constantine's death). However, long before Constantine, 21 books were acknowledged by all Christians (the 4 Gospels, Acts, 13 Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation ). There were 10 disputed books (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Ps-Barnabas, Hermas, Didache, Gospel of Hebrews) and several that most all considered heretical (Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthaias, Acts of Andrew, John, etc.)

Am I the first to claim Revelation has been twisted around taking Daniels prophecies and accrediting them to the apostles? We have two situations that help my case, the apocryphalness in Revelation has much to do with the Apocrypha

Constantine marched into Rome in 313 AD. After setting up his government in Rome, he legalized Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (Israel) became a personal advisor of Roman Emperor Constantine. He used libraries and books of his day to prepare his book Ecclesiastical History (c. 324 AD). Eusebius recorded the words of Dionysius the Bishop of Alexandria (c. 260 AD). Dionysius was a student of the more widely recognized Christian scholar Origen. In no uncertain terms Dionysius claimed Revelation was a forgery. There were other writers of the first three centuries who were also recorded by Eusebius as testifying regarding the alleged falseness of Revelation and the involvement of Cerinthus in the matter.

Being also an enemy to the divine Scriptures, with a view to deceive men, he said "that there would be a space of a thousand years for celebrating nuptial festivals." Dionysius also, who obtained the episcopate of Alexandria in our day, in the second book "On Promises," where he says some things as if received by ancient tradition, makes mention of the same man, in these words: "But it is highly probable that Cerinthus, the same that established the heresy that bears his name, designedly affixed the name (of John) to his own forgery. For one of the doctrines that he taught was, that Christ would have an earthly kingdom. And as he was a voluptuary, and altogether sensual, he conjectured that it would consist in those things that he craved in the gratification of appetite and lust; i.e. in eating, drinking, and marrying, or in such things whereby he supposed those sensual pleasures might be presented in more decent expressions; viz. in festivals, sacrifices, and the slaying of victims." Thus far Dionysius. But Ireneus, in his first book against heresies, adds certain false doctrines of the man, though kept more secret, and gives a history in his third book, that deserves to be recorded, as received by tradition from Polycarp. He says that John the apostle once entered a bath to wash; but ascertaining Cerinthus was within, he leaped out of the place, and fled from the door, not enduring to enter under the same roof with him, and exhorted those with him to do the same, saying, "Let us flee, lest the bath fall in, as long as Cerinthus that enemy of the truth, is within."

After this, he proceeds further to speak of the Revelation of John, as follows: "Some, indeed, before us, have set aside, and have attempted to refute the whole book, criticizing every chapter, and pronouncing it without sense and without reason. They say that it has a false title, for it is not of John. Nay, that it is not even a revelation, as it is covered with such a dense and thick veil of ignorance, that not one of the apostles, and not one of the holy men, or those of the church, could be its author. But that Cerinthus, the founder of the sect of Cerenthians, so called from him, wishing to have reputable authority for his own fiction, prefixed the title. For this is the doctrine of Cerinthus, that there will be an earthly reign of Christ; and as he was a lover of the body, and altogether sensual in those things which he so eagerly craved, he dreamed that he would revel in the gratification of the sensual appetite, i.e. in eating and drinking, and marrying; and to give the things a milder aspect and expression, in festivals, and sacrifices, and slaying of victims.

.... After this he examines the whole book of Revelation, and after proving that it is impossible that it should be understood according to the obvious and literal sense, he proceeds: "The prophet, as I said, having completed the whole prophecy, he pronounces those blessed that should observe it is also himself. "For blessed," says he, "is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book, and I, John, who have seen and heard these things." I do not, therefore, deny that he was called John, and that this was the writing of one John. And I agree that it was the work, also, of some holy and inspired man. But I would not easily agree that this was the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, who is the author of the Gospel, and the General (catholic) Epistle that bears his name. But I conjecture, both from the general tenor of both, and the form and complexion of the composition, and the execution of the whole book, that it is not from him. For the evangelist never prefixes his name, never proclaims himself, either in the Gospel or in his Epistle."
http://home.att.net/~bibarch/revelation.htm

Revelation is the only book in the Bible which claims to be the word of God. At the same time it is the book of which Christians have always been the most suspicious. It is addressed to the seven churches of Asia, but the seven churches of Asia rejected it. Concerning the attitude of ancient churchmen toward it, Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, says: "Divers of our predecessors have wholly refused and rejected this book, and by discussing the several parts thereof have found it obscure and void of reason and the title forged."

History
Babylon is first an ancient city, now in ruins in modern Iraq. But Revelation, written centuries after the city was abandoned, is all about the future from John's time re0101. Therefore we must understand the city to be symbolic of another power or powers. Revelation's first mention of the city appears in the verse we are studying.
To make sense of Babylon, we need to remember what the word means in the biblical setting. The people whom God had chosen as His representatives gradually fell into apostasy, turning to heathen gods. After the time of Solomon, Israel split into two kingdoms, and God allowed subjection of the less faithful ten tribes of the north to the Assyrians (722/721 B.C.). The Assyrian power ended around 605. (Remember that B.C. time counts backwards).
In 587, about 150 years after the fall of the Northern Kingdom, Nebuchadnezzar from Babylon breached the Jerusalem city wall, looted the temple and took captives to Babylon. Leaders of Judah, the Southern Kingdom, had followed the path of the tribes of the north in disregarding divine counsel through Jeremiah and others. Most of them went into captivity and were absorbed into the pagan kingdom of Babylon where we found the prophet Daniel.
Thus in predictive prophecy Babylon became a symbol of apostasy and of oppressors and seducers of God's people. As God had promised (Jer. 32:44), Jerusalem was re-established and the temple rebuilt (Neh. 3). Revelation draws from this symbolism and pictures the evil Babylon and the New Jerusalem as contrasting powers. We see the New Jerusalem come down in chapter 21. re2101.

Great city
Let's notice in our verse one significant clue about the character of Babylon. "Babylon is fallen . . . that great city. . . ." Was Babylon really a great city when she fell? We will be looking at the account of Babylon's fall from Daniel 5. The drunken, blasphemous kingdom could hardly be considered great in God's sight. Its description as "great" comes from Daniel 4. Let's pick up the story as Daniel speaks to King Nebuchadnezzar after interpreting his dream of a tree that was cut down.
"Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity. All this came upon the king Nebuchadnezzar.
"At the end of twelve months he walked in the palace of the kingdom of Babylon. The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty? While the word was in the king's mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, saying, O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee. And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen. . . ." (Dan. 4:27-32)
Thus Babylon became a symbol of assumed human greatness in defiance of God.
How good it is to know that, although oppression and evil persist now, God is ultimately in control and will be gracious to all who accept His way of happiness.



14:8 b
The fall of ancient Babylon

^ And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. (Rev. 14:8)

The Babylon role is played several times in the Scriptures. To understand, we need to look back to the original source of the symbol. Daniel tells us about Babylon. In Daniel 2 King Nebuchadnezzar had a dream (earlier than the dream of the cut-down tree). This is an amazing and interesting story. I suggest you read it from your Bible da02.
In the dream, the king saw an image. He was the head of gold and other kingdoms would follow (v. 39). The other metals were silver, brass and iron plus the feet and toes of iron and clay (in sequence of diminishing value). By comparing with chapter 7 and a simple knowledge of history, we find them to represent Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, and the division of Rome.
In chapter 3 we find the powerful story of the three Hebrews who stood for their faith before the furnace. They refused to bow to the image Nebucahdnezzar had set up. It was all of gold. He obviously didn't like the outcome of his dream where other kingdoms would take over.
In chapter 4 we read how Nebuchadnezzar lost his mind and behaved like an animal. After seven years, God restored him to his senses and he again became king. In chapter 5, the old king was apparently dead. Belshazzar was king and had a great feast. Let's read the story:

The story from Daniel 5 - For more, see comments on this chapter - Dan. 5.
Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand. Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein. . . . They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.
In the same hour came forth fingers of a man's hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king's palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote. Then the king's countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another.
The king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers. . . . Whosoever shall read this writing, and shew me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom. Then came in all the king's wise men: but they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof. . . .
Now the queen [likely Mrs. Nebuchadnezzar who declined the invitation to the feast], by reason of the words of the king and his lords, came into the banquet house: and the queen spake and said, O king, live for ever. . . . There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of thy father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him. . . . Forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and shewing of hard sentences, and dissolving of doubts, were found in the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar: now let Daniel [also absent from the feast] be called, and he will shew the interpretation.
Then was Daniel brought in before the king. And the king spake. . . . now if thou canst read the writing, and make known to me the interpretation thereof, thou shalt be . . . the third ruler in the kingdom.
Then Daniel answered and said before the king, Let thy gifts be to thyself, and give thy rewards to another; yet I will read the writing unto the king, and make known to him the interpretation. O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour. . . . But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him: And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses . . . till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will. Image in the public domain
And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this; But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou, and thy lords thy wives, and thy concubines, have drunk wine in them; and thou hast praised the gods of silver, and gold of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know: and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified:
Then was the part of the hand sent from him. . . . And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it. TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting. PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians. Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet. . . .
In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old [539 B.C.]."

 

The first suggestions of an apocalypse within the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) is found in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, and Micah. They discussed the coming "day of Yahweh." Many dozens of apocalyptic books appeared during the period 165 BCE to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 CE. One well known example is the "War Scroll" found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and probably written by the Essenes. Another example is preserved in the Hebrew Scriptures as the book of Daniel.

"(the standing of the temple is) unmistakable proof that Revelation was written before 70 A.D." (The Time is at Hand, p. 68).

Revelation 2:2 shows that there were other apostles around - yet it is believed that all but John were dead by 70 A.D.

The bible is it's own best reference for interpretation. Internal evidence -- words found in the book of Revelation, itself, prove it to be pre-70 AD in dating.

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; (Rev. 3:14).

Laodicea was destroyed by a mighty earthquake in 60 B.C. It was hit again in 65 AD.

One source says: " It was destroyed by an earthquake (A.D. 66, or earlier) and rebuilt by Marcus Aurelius. " Strong's Lexicon agrees. Aurelius was not even born until 121 AD, and died in 161 A.D. So how could there have been a church there if it was destroyed by an earthquake in the mid 60's and not rebuilt until decades later?

"Church Fathers weighed in on the authorship of Revelation. Justin Martyr avows his belief in its apostolic origin. Irenaeus (178) assumes it as a conceded point. At the end of the 2nd century, we find it accepted at Antioch, by Theophilus, and in Africa by Tertullian. At the beginning of the 3rd century, it is adopted by Clement of Alexandria and by Origen, later by Methodius, Cyprian, and Lactantius. Dionysius of Alexandria (247) rejected it, upon doctrinal rather than critical grounds. Eusebius (315) suspended his judgment, hesitating between the external and internal evidence. Some canons, especially in the Eastern Church, rejected the book, while most others included it."

"The dating of the work is still widely debated in the scholarly community."

So, where can we turn to find evidence for the dating of Revelation? Within the book itself! It will be shown, from internal evidence, that Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Now if you believe that the Hebrew Israelites were the true authors of Revelations, it would have to be written way before then, but it's given a late date even for an old testament book...

"During the last century, the critics of Germany have assailed the Apocalypse, denying, in the most positive terms, that it can have been written by the apostle John. Thus De Wette says: ‘Nothing stands so firm as that the apostle John—if he be the writer of the Gospel, and the first Epistle—did not write the Apocalypse;’ and Ewald says: ‘That the Apocalypse was not written by the same hand which wrote the Gospel and the Epistle, is clear as the light of the sun.’ The principal objection to the Johannean origin of the Apocalypse grows out of its style—its peculiar words and phrases; an argument by which this class of critics have shown themselves able to prove or disprove almost anything; by which they have proved that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, nor Daniel his prophecies, nor the Evangelists the Gospels which bear their names; by which they have proved that Homer did not write his poems, nor Plato his dialogues, nor Cicero but a part of his orations.

The style of the Apocalypse is not more different from that of the other
writings of John, than is the subject, the method, the object of the composition. How is it possible, in writing such a book as that before us,—made up, in great part, of visions, types, and symbolic representations,—that the style should not differ from that of a plain historic narrative, or a familiar loving epistle? Any competent critic would decide before hand that there must be peculiar expressions, and wide diversity of style. " Enoch Pond - Theology