Before Jerusalem Fell

[JM]

It's online for free: http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/html/kgbj/kgbj.html

 

[Blueridge Believer]

Thanks for the link. I read Gentry's beast of Revelation. I believe that he makes his case well that Revelation was written before 70AD.

 

[AV1611]

 

[BobVigneault]

I dl'd that book a while ago. How in the world can anyone read that much writing on sreen? My eyes would glow for days if I tried to read that much on the screen. Any suggestions?

 

[caddy]

^
Print it up...

 

[JM]

I’ve never studied this issue of the dating the Book of Revelation in great detail before, just read commentaries and Revelation intro’s from my Bibles [28 of them] that seem to all make the case for the latter date of around 95AD.

What are a few of the reasons you reject or agree with this date?

Quote:
Irenaeus wasn't the only church father who held to the late date - Eusebius and Origen also held to the late date of Revelation. Polycarp - the bishop of Smyrna - said the church at Smyrna wasn't in existence during Paul's ministry. That would be a problem for an early date of Revelation, since Smyrna is one of the seven churches addressed in the book. Laodicea was devastated by an earthquake in AD 60. It took 25 years to rebuild it, and the statements concerning Laodicea in Revelation fit much better in the late date.

 

[caddy]

I actually have this. What a wonderful book. I have not finished it yet. Looking up some history on Gentry, I found out he went to Tennessee Temple, a local Baptist College here in Chattanooga back in the day.

 

[BobVigneault]

I’ve never studied this issue of the dating the Book of Revelation in great detail before, just read commentaries and Revelation intro’s from my Bibles [28 of them] that seem to all make the case for the latter date of around 95AD.

What are a few of the reasons you reject or agree with this date?

Quote:
Irenaeus wasn't the only church father who held to the late date - Eusebius and Origen also held to the late date of Revelation. Polycarp - the bishop of Smyrna - said the church at Smyrna wasn't in existence during Paul's ministry. That would be a problem for an early date of Revelation, since Smyrna is one of the seven churches addressed in the book. Laodicea was devastated by an earthquake in AD 60. It took 25 years to rebuild it, and the statements concerning Laodicea in Revelation fit much better in the late date.

The other church fathers were simply parroting Irenaeus.

 

[Kevin]

I actually have this. What a wonderful book. I have not finished it yet. Looking up some history on Gentry, I found out he went to Tennessee Temple, a local Baptist College here in Chattanooga back in the day.

His mom lived in the area when I did and she went to East Ridge PCA. I have heard Dr Gentry preach there a few times back in the 90's.

 

[py3ak]

JM

After reading Gentry, I think it is far more likely that Origen held to an earlier date. People say Origen held to a late date, but I think Gentry at the very least, casts some significant doubt on that point (and for me, at least, it was convincing that Origen held to an earlier date). Now that brings you to the value of Origen's testimony, which I'm not prepared to discuss.

 

[Kevin]

John A. T. Robinson, in Redating the New Testament, also agrees with a Pre 70 date for all the NT....


....and he is less suspicious of having a prior theological ax to grind

(i.e. Gentry MUST believe in a pre 70 date or else the rest of his writings are toast...therefore, I have always has a hard time taking his views without a grain of salt).

You have reversed things a bit re Gentry. This is his first book and all of his others follow and build on this.

Not sure I agree anyway...I think his "He Shall Have Dominion" has value aside from the dating issue.

 

[crhoades]

Still, Gentry must prove the pre 70 date or this does deflate MOST of the rest of his theology. If he wrote this book first - it was certainly a fine choice for a first book, seeing that most of his later work would suffer very much if this one critical point were disproved.

For what it's worth, Before Jerusalem Fell was actually Gentry's dissertation for Whitefield Theological Seminary before it was a book if I remember correctly.

 

[Kevin]

For what it's worth, Before Jerusalem Fell was actually Gentry's dissertation for Whitefield Theological Seminary before it was a book if I remember correctly.

It was.

 

[Kevin]

Still, Gentry must prove the pre 70 date or this does deflate MOST of the rest of his theology. If he wrote this book first - it was certainly a fine choice for a first book, seeing that most of his later work would suffer very much if this one critical point were disproved.

It sure is a good thing he is correct.

 

[puritan lad]

I outlined Gentry's best arguments here in a much shorter article...

Dating the Book of Revelation

Pretty rock solid on the internal evidence.

 

[BobVigneault]

Thank you for doing that Scott, big help. I look forward to reading it through. Blessings.

 

[Apologia]

I dl'd that book a while ago. How in the world can anyone read that much writing on sreen? My eyes would glow for days if I tried to read that much on the screen. Any suggestions?

My suggestions...buy the physical book!

http://www.pointsouth.com/Merchant2...OD&Store_Code=ABS&Product_Code=GENTRYK-BEFORE

(is that a shameless plug...or what?? )