The Book of Revelation.................

[Composer]

Composer, it seems you have the same problem in every thread you post on. You want proof of the authenticity of the bible or quran in irrelevant threads. Here...I will spoon feed you 2 links since you have a hard time understanding this thread is about the Book of Revelation. Kindly take your arguments there so people here can discuss the relevant topic.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/93799-why-believe-bible.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/94171-should-bible-taken-100-true.html

Thank you for the Links.

I am certainly aware of the Thread topic and my points are most pertinent, in fact crucial.

IF you are of the belief that the Book of Revelation can be taken as the literal words of a God, then it is incumbent on those claiming this, that they do so FIRST.

Unless of course they are not claiming that and just want to discuss the hypothetical rantings of a story book section called the Book of Revelation?

So this Thread (for starters) should in all fairness be placed on hold, until its position is made clear with legitimate evidence provided as required to establish its tenure?

In reality the christian ideology that their entire book is legitimate (apart from the bits they aren't sure of even now despite alleged 2000 years of holy spirit guidance LOL! e.g. Mark 16:9-20) is founded upon nothing more than a ' blind faith and empty speculation ' that it is all literally a God's Word.

Thank you

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Thank you for the Links.
I am certainly aware of the Thread topic and my points are most pertinent, in fact crucial.
IF you are of the belief that the Book of Revelation can be taken as the literal words of a God, then it is incumbent on those claiming this, that they do so FIRST.
Unless of course they are not claiming that and just want to discuss the hypothetical rantings of a story book section called the Book of Revelation?
So this Thread (for starters) should in all fairness be placed on hold, until its position is made clear with legitimate evidence provided as required to establish its tenure?
In reality the christian ideology that their entire book is legitimate (apart from the bits they aren't sure of even now despite alleged 2000 years of holy spirit guidance LOL! e.g. Mark 16:9-20) is founded upon nothing more than a ' blind faith and empty speculation ' that it is all literally a God's Word.
Thank you

By comparing corresponding passages or verses can help discern which is literal or symbolic in Revelation. Jesus based his beliefs not on credulity but by reasoning on Scripture.

Yes, scholars are sure about Mark 16:9-20 were Not part of the original.
There aren't corresponding verses. The style of writing changes after verse 8.

Those verses are omitted from: the Sinaitic Manuscript; the Vatican 1209; Sinaitic Syriac codex and Armenian Version too.

Both Jerome and Eusebius agree Mark's record closes at verse 8.

 

[Ba'al]

IF you are of the belief that the Book of Revelation can be taken as the literal words of a God, then it is incumbent on those claiming this, that they do so FIRST.

That's absurd. That means every time we discuss a bible topic(hundreds), we would go through the process of debating the authenticity of the bible. Only a bunch of fools would do that.

So this Thread (for starters) should in all fairness be placed on hold, until its position is made clear with legitimate evidence provided as required to establish its tenure?

This position has been discussed. What's the point of doing it again and again? What grade are you in?

 

[Composer]

That's absurd. That means every time we discuss a bible topic(hundreds), we would go through the process of debating the authenticity of the bible. Only a bunch of fools would do that.

Nope!

The authenticity or otherwise of the bible text only needs to be legitimately established ONCE.

So far it remains as illegitimate and a mere man made story book with the sum total as alleged evidence of ' blind empty faith! '.

 

[jtartar]

Let me rephrase my question. When was Revelation written as compared to the other NT books and gospels?

Watchman,
The Book of Revelation was written in 96CE by John the Apostle, while he was imprisoned on the island of Patmos. The last books of the Bible was written in 98CE, also by the Apostle John, John, 1,2,3John, probably from Ephesus, shortly after John was released form Patmos. Paul and Peter wrote their last books in about 64, 65CE.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Watchman,
The Book of Revelation was written in 96CE by John the Apostle, while he was imprisoned on the island of Patmos. The last books of the Bible was written in 98CE, also by the Apostle John, John, 1,2,3John, probably from Ephesus, shortly after John was released form Patmos. Paul and Peter wrote their last books in about 64, 65CE.

Sorry, but this is very inaccurate. The book of Revelation first appeared in 95 CE (or 96 CE if you wish) but could have been written much earlier, as early as 75 CE.
It can't be proven historically that the apostle John wrote it, but it is very likely due to its theme. However, because the language in the letters and the Gospel of John are written in a much more sophisticated and refined Greek, scholars have dismissed the possibility the John actually wrote them.
Do you have any historical proof that John didn't die on Patmos? Do you really believe that Peter ever wrote a book?

 

[Bennettresearch]

Let's all thank Ba'al.
We have an extant book that has survived in the Bible. It is a book of controversy as a lot of nonsense has been written about it over the centuries. Therefore, the discussion is about what it is saying, not whether it is a storybook. How can you determine if it is fiction if you don't know what it is saying???????
At least the discussion is back on topic now
Craig

 

[Bennettresearch]

That's absurd. That means every time we discuss a bible topic(hundreds), we would go through the process of debating the authenticity of the bible. Only a bunch of fools would do that.



This position has been discussed. What's the point of doing it again and again? What grade are you in?

Which the subject of your post has been sabotaging.

 

[Bennettresearch]

By comparing corresponding passages or verses can help discern which is literal or symbolic in Revelation. Jesus based his beliefs not on credulity but by reasoning on Scripture.

Yes, scholars are sure about Mark 16:9-20 were Not part of the original.
There aren't corresponding verses. The style of writing changes after verse 8.

Those verses are omitted from: the Sinaitic Manuscript; the Vatican 1209; Sinaitic Syriac codex and Armenian Version too.

Both Jerome and Eusebius agree Mark's record closes at verse 8.

Scholars have manuscripts by scribes where they write their ideas in the margins. They say that the original only went to chapter 16. This is all well and good but totally irrelevant. What does this have to do with Revelation????

 

[URAVIP2ME]

There are verses that one can compare with Revelation with other Bible books.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Sorry, but this is very inaccurate. The book of Revelation first appeared in 95 CE (or 96 CE if you wish) but could have been written much earlier, as early as 75 CE.
It can't be proven historically that the apostle John wrote it, but it is very likely due to its theme. However, because the language in the letters and the Gospel of John are written in a much more sophisticated and refined Greek, scholars have dismissed the possibility the John actually wrote them.
Do you have any historical proof that John didn't die on Patmos? Do you really believe that Peter ever wrote a book?

Why do you think Peter never wrote a book?
1Pt 1:1; 2 Pt 1:1; 3:1.

It is just generally believed that John was exiled to Patmos by Domitian and released by Emperor Nerva. After release to Ephesus where John wrote his gospel and letters 1,2,3, and died in Ephesus under the rule of Trajan.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Why do you think Peter never wrote a book?
1Pt 1:1; 2 Pt 1:1; 3:1.

It is just generally believed that John was exiled to Patmos by Domitian and released by Emperor Nerva. After release to Ephesus where John wrote his gospel and letters 1,2,3, and died in Ephesus under the rule of Trajan.

The letters by supposed apostles in the NT are not from the original apostles according to almost all biblical scholars nowadays. Paul didn't even write the letters in the NT. Scholars say he probably wrote Galatians and his scribe wrote the rest.
There is no historical proof of how John got to Patmos. There is no historical proof that he ever left. It is more likely that it was a self imposed exile to get away from the looney followers of Paul.

 

[Bennettresearch]

There are verses that one can compare with Revelation with other Bible books.

This kind of thinking is why you get off track so easily. I have been studying Revelation since 1995. In the process, I have gone through the Bible OT and NT.
The main text of Revelation, that is not an addition by someone else, only refers to OT symbology and the language used by the prophets to disguise their prophecies from being understood by the wrong people. NT correspondences are about the true doctrine of Jesus.
To compare Revelation with other writings is backwards. You have to compare the other writings to Revelation to either determine if they are relevent or to see where any relevence applies. This is why I was telling you to forget about what Daniel was saying and only see the use of his prophetic language. Daniel helps to understand Revelation but Revelation is not a continuation of Daniel. The Romans are shared in common but the prophecy is different and Daniel's prophecy is done around 70 CE when the Temple was once again destroyed.
People want to keep projecting the OT prophecies into the future because they didn't turn out the way they would like them to. They were not scripts and there were some predictions that didn't come true. This hold true for the Essenes also. It can almost be called wishful thinking because they didn't prevail over the Romans.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

This kind of thinking is why you get off track so easily. I have been studying Revelation since 1995. In the process, I have gone through the Bible OT and NT.
The main text of Revelation, that is not an addition by someone else, only refers to OT symbology and the language used by the prophets to disguise their prophecies from being understood by the wrong people. NT correspondences are about the true doctrine of Jesus.
To compare Revelation with other writings is backwards. You have to compare the other writings to Revelation to either determine if they are relevent or to see where any relevence applies. This is why I was telling you to forget about what Daniel was saying and only see the use of his prophetic language. Daniel helps to understand Revelation but Revelation is not a continuation of Daniel. The Romans are shared in common but the prophecy is different and Daniel's prophecy is done around 70 CE when the Temple was once again destroyed.
People want to keep projecting the OT prophecies into the future because they didn't turn out the way they would like them to. They were not scripts and there were some predictions that didn't come true. This hold true for the Essenes also. It can almost be called wishful thinking because they didn't prevail over the Romans.

Many prophecies have both minor and a major fulfillment.
Surely isn't Genesis 12:3; 22:17,18; Rev 22:2 future?

How could Daniel's prophecy be done around 70 when Daniel 12:2, 13 has not yet occurred?

Sorry I was not clear about corresponding verses.
I'll use Rev 7:14 as an example:

.....These are the ones which come out of great tribulation [ Matt 24:21; Mark 13:19] and they have washed their robes, and made them white [Isaiah 1:18; John 1:29] in the blood [ Heb 9:14, 22; 1John 1:7; Rev 1:5] of the Lamb.

 

[Brother2]

Hi folks. ah the poor children of men explaining away the Creators Words in Scripture and His prophecies and His creation.

All this talk and debates over dates and times of writing of Epistles etc.

Our God has taken care of His Writings, all authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what they did, God is the Executive Author of the Bible.

So, how wonderful it is for us to be able to discuss these things on this Forum.

Shalom. May God bless all here. brother2.

 

[lockyfan]

All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

2 timothy 3:16-17

So we use the ENTIRE bible not just part or half.

There are many other scriptures that back up what revelation says as well.

 

[tumbleweed41]

So we use the ENTIRE bible not just part or half.

There are many other scriptures that back up what revelation says as well.

Ah, so the Bible is backed up by the Bible, well then it must all be true.....

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Ah, so the Bible is backed up by the Bible, well then it must all be true.....

As far as what Jesus taught he believed the Bible is religious truth [John 17v17]

Jesus used logic and reasoning on existing Scripture as the basis for his thinking and beliefs.

Since the Bible is back by Bible, so to speak, it shows the internal harmony between the many writers. The Bible is unique in corresponding and parallel verses or passages that can be studied or researched by subject or topic arrangement.

The people of Acts [17v11] did not just accept what they were hearing but they first searched or researched what they were learning to see if it was found in Scripture.

Often the clergy instead of listening to the words that came out of Jesus mouth they put words in his mouth, so to speak, in order to further their own agenda, often political. So, what Jesus taught is not wrong.
What did Jesus say or teach that is not true?

 

[tumbleweed41]

As far as what Jesus taught he believed the Bible is religious truth [John 17v17]

Jesus used logic and reasoning on existing Scripture as the basis for his thinking and beliefs.

Since the Bible is back by Bible, so to speak, it shows the internal harmony between the many writers. The Bible is unique in corresponding and parallel verses or passages that can be studied or researched by subject or topic arrangement.

The people of Acts [17v11] did not just accept what they were hearing but they first searched or researched what they were learning to see if it was found in Scripture.

Often the clergy instead of listening to the words that came out of Jesus mouth they put words in his mouth, so to speak, in order to further their own agenda, often political. So, what Jesus taught is not wrong.
What did Jesus say or teach that is not true?

Do you understand at all what circular reasoning is?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Do you understand at all what circular reasoning is?

Did Jesus understand his logic and reasoning on existing Scripture is?
Why did Jesus refer or quote Scripture as the final authority on matters?