The other Preterist argument is polluted by the same assumption that underlies their previous contention about the Temple. Preterists assume that the line of kings refer to a first century succession of Roman kings and then pronounces Nero as the one to which Revelation 17:10 refers. This is just an assumption and begs the question. John is - 3 - seeing, recording, and commenting on a vision of the future. Thus, the time frame that he is referencing would be that of whatever time he was viewing the future. This cannot then be used as a proof that he was viewing a particular time frame, without having previously, in some other way, established the period of time that he views in the vision. Preterists have not previously established when such a time frame is to take place. This line of reasoning by Preterists is not an internal proof for a Neronian date for Revelation. All of the alleged proofs for an early date presuppose a preterist interpretation (this certainly has not been established) as a false stating point in which they attempt to argue from. Regardless of the interpretation of this passage, it cannot be used as a proof for when Revelation was written. This passage is providing a landscape of biblical history of those kingdoms, not individual kings, which have persecuted Israel. The five that are fallen refer to the kingdoms of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medes/Persia, and Greece. The sixth empire that was reigning at the time when John wrote was Rome. The seventh that is to come will be the future kingdom of the antichrist, known in Revelation as the Beast. This view is consistent with the way in which kings (i.e., kingdoms) are used throughout both Daniel and Revelation. Revelation 17:10, says that the future leader and his empire will have a short life according to the words, “when he comes, he must remain a little while.” The adjective “little” has the idea of brevity (Rev. 12:12). God is saying that He has decreed the time of this final empire will be shorter than the six previous. This factor alone would eliminate the possibility of the seven kings being first-century Roman emperors. (Thomas D. Ice Liberty University)
I have been posting some thoughtful and well presented arguments for a late 95 AD writing of Revelation. I am very interested in thoughtfull well articulated presentations of an pre 70AD writing because I know that people have strong feelings on this topic and I am interested as to how they came to their conclusions differently than what I have already presented. For example is your view based on the mention of the temple in Revelation a proof that the temple was still standing when John wrote? and if so how do you respond to the fact that there was no temple standing when Ezekiel was told to measure it in his vision? Cant John have been told to measure a temple in his vision without a temple standing like Ezekiel was told to? Why or Why not? These are the kinds of responses that would edify all readers of a thread like this. Let us learn to stop all childish and personal attacks and present our reasons for mutual edification.
