Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias
You showed NT authors QUOTING OT SCRIPTURES, and are pointing to differences between an English translation of a Greek quotation of a Greek OT on the one hand, and an English translation of a HEBREW OT on the other? Seriously? Revelation isn't quoting Matthew, nor vice versa.
Of course He prophesied the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. That, however, is not Revelation 18.
This is not AD 70 material. This has to do with His glorification and Ascension to the throne in fulfillment of Daniel 7. See my thread "The Son of Man" over in the Apostolic Articles section.
I notice you didn't touch the dating of the Revelation issue... |
No. Revelation is not quoting Matt, but they are the same thing. Matt is speaking directly to the people and the city by name, whereas in revelation it is doing the same thing but is using symbolic language to say the same thing.
Actually
Rev 18 is in fact referring to Jerusalem's destruction in AD70 and as pre the method of the book, it is using symbolic type language.
Jesus telling them that some of them would not die until the coming of the Son of man surely was referring to AD70.
The dating of Revelation can get bogged down and there are some points to both views, so it seems the internal evidence is what we should try to use to decided. There are several points to indicate an early date writing, not the least of which, the temple is still standing.
Threaded Mode
