Featured A study of the "Revelation" - date & significance, then & now

Actually, none of these passages are metaphorical, but other figures of speech. Ps. 97:5 is hyperbole, and Micah 1:3 is an anthropormorphism. Zech. 14:1 is personification (or do you mean 4:1?). The great thing about grammatical-historical interpretation is that we know what the figures of speech are and how to interpret them as--wait for it--figures of speech!

I have no reason to interpret Rev. 10:1 other than literally--unless you have some special knowledge that I don't have about how an angel should always look.

And by the way, metaphors represent actual things. Just sayin'.

 

New heavens and Earth will be after the Second Coming, and that period will have JUST the Body of Christ, glorified state, living with God there, so how could that have happened yet?

 

I agree with you that the language is metaphorical and apocalyptic, but that does not mean that it can be ignored or that it can be made to mean the very opposite of what it rather obviously does.

Zechariah 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

The 'nations,' which must surely mean Gentiles, are coming against Jerusalem, and the Lord is going to fight against them. Half the city will be taken, and half not taken. I think that's pretty clear, leaving aside verse 4 which perhaps is more difficult..

How does this work in relation to AD 70? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Gentiles win and take the whole city?

 

Didn't paul state that Jerusalem would be under Gentile control until the end times, and God has then dealing withJews regarding that city?

 

Lol, considering this demonstration of gymnastics with numbers I'd say YOU'RE the one that's desperate:

"Irenaeus suffers from credibility issues and/or textual and scribal errors. He also wrote when he was very old and/or made major mistakes. For example, in the same work as the aforementioned quote, he states that Jesus was crucified when he was fifty years old. Thus, the principle source for the late dating of the Book of Revelation has some significant holes."

Wrong. If Irenaeus, as the original source that all others have built upon has shone this sort of gross error, it most definitely negates the consensus of the ECF.

This is called history also:

The "Syriac version" of the New Testament, which dates back to the second century A.D., states that Revelation was written during the reign of Nero making a date of 64-68 A.D.

The "Muratorian Fragment," dating back to 170-190 A.D., states that this work of John was written during the reign of Nero.

The "Aramaic Peshitta" version has a remark that places its date prior to 70 A.D. The title page of Revelation states this work of John was written right after the reign of Nero.

The "Monarchian Prologues," that dates back to 250-350 A.D., claims that Paul also wrote to these seven churches (possibly Romans which was a "circular letter," it went out to many addressees) following John's Book, thus, placing the book even before some of the other Pauline epistles.

A quote, arguably attributed to Papius (130 AD), states that John the Apostle was martyred before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
http://www.churchleadership.org/apps/articles/?articleid=57879&columnid=4624

IOW, external evidence is unreliable. Internal evidence should be the source for dating the book of Revelation.

 

Hank, there is a difference between the Virgin Birth and the Zech. verse about the mountains splitting. For one, the Virgin Birth is taught and assumed in many other passages, most of them clearly straightforward, like in Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans.

That Zech verse, by contrast, stands alone. The only ones close to them are like the ones I cited, ones I assume you would readily accept as figurative. And if you accept, say, Micah 1:3 as figurative why not this verse in Zechariah?

 

Are you willing to accept that John the Baptist was the Elijah who was prophesied to come? If so then you have a fulfillment that is in non-literal fashion.

 

Jesus is with us always. The verse does not say He will cease to be with us after the end of the age. The focus is on His help and presence during that time. It says nothing about a future absence. This usage is common, even among us today. Do I even need to give an example?

Not sure when the cut off for responding in this thread is. There is more I wanted to answer but other business calls.

 

There are many OT verses that disagree with that being nonsense. Also, you keep saying words like "became". But I showed from Scripture the terms like "is about to fade away", "is passing away", etc. You overlook this to put undue emphasis on your contention.

I suggest you read Josephus more carefully, or Ussher's Annals. The disaster to the Jews was not confined only to Jerusalem or Judea. It ranged all round the known world, wherever the Diaspora had reached. There were bloody reprisals in Cyrene, Antioch, Thessalonica, etc. Persecution of Christians from the Jews was put to an end.

This is exactly what Paul had assured the Thessalonians when he promised both relief and retribution to those who troubled them.

This is all I have time for.