Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's right. It makes a difference for preterists, but not for any other of the major eschatological views.My question is, how does being before or after 70AD affect one's eschatology? I think the issue comes in seeing some parts of Revelation as referring to the fall of Jerusalem.
The eschatology forum is the best place for dating advice. LolI was hoping you had a revelation about dating-- I have two teenagers and wanted some enlightenment.
Sometime between 60 and 100 AD.
I have the encouragement of knowing that all evangelical scholars are in agreement with me.That's a rather precise and inflexible date range, don't you think?
I was hoping you had a revelation about dating-- I have two teenagers and wanted some enlightenment.
That's true if they're preterists, but not if they're historicists or idealists.Post Mills usually argue for prior to 70AD because they interpret Revelation to be mostly about the fall of Jerusalem, minus the last couple of chapters.
Right. My main exposure to Post Mill is Jeff Durbin and his crew. I believe they are all partial preterists.That's true if they're preterists, but not if they're historicists or idealists.
It's definitely the most popular form of postmillennialism today, but in the past the others were much more common (they're still very prevalent in certain circles, though).Right. My main exposure to Post Mill is Jeff Durbin and his crew. I believe they are all partial preterists.
It's definitely the most popular form of postmillennialism today, but in the past the others were much more common (they're still very prevalent in certain circles, though).
You mean you dated for time, times and half a time?Yeah, I dated her back in middle school for a week and a half. A week and a half I'd like to forget.
Actually, that could make a cool reality show. A dating show with premill dispensational 'end times' themes.
I haven't read him, but I think he'd fall into the idealist camp.Question for you.
So, from reading the Bible and listening to Kim Riddlebarger on the subject, his brand of Amill is really what seems to make the most sense to me. Besides being Amill, which one of the above labels does that view fall under?
I haven't read him, but I think he'd fall into the idealist camp.
Hello Steve,
I believe that Irenaeus's comment IS the shaky evidence. It's not at all clear that he was talking about the Book of Revelation vs. John himself.
I think it's time to reread Riddlebarger.And to add onto Jacob's post #23,
"TylerRay said: I haven't read him [Riddlebarger], but I think he'd fall into the idealist camp."
True, but it needs to be qualified to distinguish it from the older form of idealism (per Wm. Milligan of the 18th century). All of the contemporary amil commentators are "modified" or "eclectic" idealist (G.K. Beale's terms), correcting the early idealism in "that it disregards all the specific time texts and historical particulars in the book", to quote Jacob.
And to add onto Jacob's post #23,
"TylerRay said: I haven't read him [Riddlebarger], but I think he'd fall into the idealist camp."
True, but it needs to be qualified to distinguish it from the older form of idealism (per Wm. Milligan of the 18th century). All of the contemporary amil commentators are "modified" or "eclectic" idealist (G.K. Beale's terms), correcting the early idealism in "that it disregards all the specific time texts and historical particulars in the book", to quote Jacob.