Dating the Book of Revelation

Bro John wrote:Dear sir, I just sent my piece to your email.  I meant to type horns and not heads in the 2nd to last paragraph.

Hey Bro...can we continue here? It's just easier for a point by point discussion.

Let's take your first point about the dating for BOR.

Bro John wrote:It is said of this woman that she committed fornication with the kings of the earth, and as a result all the world was made drunk from the wine of the wrath of her fornication.  (Rev 17:2).  This was not known in sacred or secular history before 70.

Why has this not happened before 70AD? Surley it had been happening since the inception of Israel as they committed harlotries with the surrounding nations? It's all through the bible.

Rejoice not, O Israel, for joy, as other people: for thou hast gone a whoring from thy God, thou hast loved a reward upon every cornfloor.
Hosea Chapter 9:1

yes, the former did occur but you will have a hard time finding the latter in scripture.

Bro John wrote:yes, the former did occur but you will have a hard time finding the latter in scripture.

By the latter...you are referring to this part?

....and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

This I read simply as the people living in the land (Judah/Isreal) who have been partaking of and been seduced by those idolatries. Which most definately happened. So much so that they didn't recognize their own Messiah.

Awake, awake, stand up, O Jerusalem, you who have drunk at the hand of the Lord the cup of his fury; you have drunk the dregs of the cup of trembling and have drained it out. (Isaiah 51:17).

All Rev 17:2 is saying to me is that Jerusalem/apostate Israel has been whoring after other gods and all the people of the land have partaken. Which happened for the entire history of Israel. You only get a meagre amount of prophets who were not falling around legless with the intoxication of idolatry by the time Jesus enters the scene.

Yes, that is the part.  But it says all the world has been made drunk by mbtg, not Israel.  It is incumbent now upon you to prove they are one and the same.  

Yes, mbtg has drank of that cup per Isaiah but that was at the destruction of the 1st temple with nebbie & the babylonians.  She drank again at the destruction of the 2nd temple with Titus/Vespasian and the Romans.  She will drink again at the end of the world at the hand of the 10 kings and the scb.

Rev 18:3 also states that all NATIONS have drunk of her angry wine produced by her copulation with the kings of the earth.  As you know, nations NEVER means circumcised Jews.  Hence, the inhabitants of the earth in Rev 17:2 could never be Israelites.

One thing more..... mbtg is one and the same in chapters 17 & 18 which i pointed out in my book.  See Rev 17:18, and 18:16, 19 where she is called "that great city" in both.

Bro John wrote:Yes, that is the part.  But it says all the world has been made drunk by mbtg, not Israel.  It is incumbent now upon you to prove they are one and the same.  

Yes, mbtg has drank of that cup per Isaiah but that was at the destruction of the 1st temple with nebbie & the babylonians.  She drank again at the destruction of the 2nd temple with Titus/Vespasian and the Romans.  She will drink again at the end of the world at the hand of the 10 kings and the scb.

Rev 18:3 also states that all NATIONS have drunk of her angry wine produced by her copulation with the kings of the earth.  As you know, nations NEVER means circumcised Jews.  Hence, the inhabitants of the earth in Rev 17:2 could never be Israelites.

There are lots of parties vaguely intimated at in the relevant verses...
Israel, Jerusalem, the inhabitants of the land, the kings of the earth, the nations......all of them are getting drunk. That's the thrust of the message I'm getting from these texts. Apostasy is rampant and everyone is in an orgy of drunken fornication with eachother. Of course the nations were negatively affected by Israels apostacy.....Israel was supposed to be a beacon of true religion to the outside world, and they failed horribly.

I think there is a danger in overanalysing these things while passing over the simple message of what is being written to these 1st century people. Basically there is a beast on the loose (a fearsome animal who can destroy the body, obviously the world power) and there is a age old harlot...the unfaithful of the great city. The same mother of harlots who is described in the rest of the bible. Jerusalem.

Bro John wrote:One thing more..... mbtg is one and the same in chapters 17 & 18 which i pointed out in my book.  See Rev 17:18, and 18:16, 19 where she is called "that great city" in both.

Sure Bro.....I have no problem with that at all.

Dear sir, I cannot concur.  Rev 17:2 says "the inhabitants of the earth" were made drunk which is identical to "all nations" in Rev 18:2.  One is not the other.  A Jew is not a Gentile.  

Are you saying the Hellenistic Dionysian orgies were the result of Israel's interactions with the Greeks?  If so, that is a non starter for me.    

I appreciate your caution not to over analyze.  It is not good to over-bake a chicken.  Neither is it good to under-cook it either.

Bro John wrote:Dear sir, I cannot concur.  Rev 17:2 says "the inhabitants of the earth" were made drunk which is identical to "all nations" in Rev 18:2.  One is not the other.  A Jew is not a Gentile.

Not really bro because earth can mean land as well. Not identical at all.

For example Rev 1:7 says...Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Kindreds means clan or tribe and I take this to mean tribes of the land, Jews....not nations of the whole world.
Tribe is usually a descriptor of the Israelites right? Not the peoples who made up the nations.

So you can't really say that "inhabitants of the earth" is 100% gentile nations.
It can mean dwellers in the land, that land being Israel.

Bro.....Rev is just borrowing terminology from OT texts like Jeremiah. Jerusalem is likened to Babylon, so John uses the same kind of phrasiology. This is very broad picture painting mate...he's not trying to nail down exact particulars about who exactly is responsible for who's apostacy....they are all mad drunk together.

Jer 51:7-8 Babylon hath been a golden cup in the LORD'S hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore the nations are mad.

I'm really not seeing this point at all ruling out a pre 70AD writing of Rev.

Yes and I am absolutely saying that Israel, just by fornicating with the "kings of the earth" are responsible for the nations remaining in darkness. They were supposed to spread the truth of Jehovah and instead reinforced the heathen religions and even copied them!

bro john wrote:Dear sir, I do not wish to beat a dead horse to death. Earth can mean land but not here. John told us "the inhabitants of the earth" were made drunk. Certainly we are not talking about land. John and the Holy Ghost equated "the inhabitants of the earth" with "all nations" which have not ever been Jews.

If your only reasoning that earth cannot be land in that particular verse is that the phrase "all nations" is mentioned in the next chapter involving a similar theme then this is sketchy at best Bro.

John is not "equating" anything....it's just two seperate verses in a very symbolic book that could very well be describing the interaction of aposate Israel with two seperate parties but using a similar paint brush.

bro john wrote:The word kindred is a clan or tribe derived from a common ancestor which would apply to all, Jew and Gentile, alike.

Where is the word tribe (φυλαὶ / phulai) ever used in relation to non-Israelites in the bible Bro?
The word is used in Matt, Luke, Acts, Philli, Rom, Heb, James.....and as far as I can see it's always pertaining to Israelites. Every single time.

bro john wrote:Sir, the text says the people of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication. Dear sir, the Gentiles were mad upon their idols prior to coming in contact with Israel. The Jews were not the causation of Gentile idolatry then, whether it be Babylonian, Medo/Persian, Greek, or Roman. Remember, the Israelites brought the Egyptian gods with them at the time of the Exodus. Remember, Balaam told Balak how to trip up the Israelites and make them sin. It was the other way around, sir. But not now.

Bro, even if it all does mean gentiles only (I don't think this is proven by any stretch) it makes no difference whether heathen nations had idols before, during or after contact with the tribes of Israel. Being "drunk" with Israel is simply a general phrase. It's borrowed from Jeremiah and all I take it to mean is that Israel have had a negative spiritual effect on the nations around them by not teaching them the true faith and instead whoring after their gods, which could be tantamount to taking them from mildly half cut, or tipsy, on their idolatrous perversions of the gospel of the seed of the woman first given in genesis..........to full on smashed out of their minds due to the continuous fornication with the harlot.

Apostacy from the true faith is always responsible for idolatry. The true faith started in the garden. Everyone is decended from Adam.

Your point is.....

"Rev can't be written before 70AD because in this time period the inhabitants of the earth/land were not "drunk" because of apostate Isreal"

Sorry brother but this is not enough reason for me to abandon the idea that the book can be written before 70AD. There's too much assumtion involved and too much variance of opnion possible on what "drunk" means etc.

Bro John wrote:It is also said that mbtg  "that great city"  ruled or "reigned over the kings of the earth." (Rev 17:18)  Her directing the beast or ruling over kings was never known prior to 70 with the exception of David/Solomon.

There are two responses to this Bro.

Firstly, you mentioned Solomon yes?

1 Kings Chapter 10:24
And all the earth sought to Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart.

The wisdom which God put in David/Solomon's heart was obviously the knowledge of the one true God and everything that flows from that. When did the remit to Israel change so that they were no longer to be spirtual rulers over the earth? I would venture that it changed with the entrance of the Messiah and was properly done and dusted with the destruction of the temple in 70AD. So essentially the harlot reigned over the kings of the earth for the whole of it's existence until that privaledge was taken away....first by Christ, and when that was ignored.....violently by the Romans.

Secondly, there is a strong argument to be made that "king/s of the earth" could refer to the current sovereign of Israel.

Consider the following.

Acts 4:26-27
26 The kings of the earth took their stand,
And the rulers were gathered together
Against the LORD and against His Christ.'
27 "For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod
and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered
together

So in the above, at least Herod is named "king of the earth".

So could easily be read the harlot (apostate Jerusalem) rules over the king of the land (Herod).

Dear sir, the scripture states "and the woman which thou sawest IS that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth."  

the key word is is. at the time of john's writing.    jerusalem was not reigning over rome whether it was 30 ad or 100 ad.  sir, saying it does not make it so.  unless you can prove jerusalem was reigning over rome please let's save both our times,  it can be abundantly proven, however, that jerusalem IS reigning over the kings of the earth today and have been since she hopped atop the scb.

Bro John wrote:Dear sir, the scripture states "and the woman which thou sawest IS that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth."  

the key word is is. at the time of john's writing.    jerusalem was not reigning over rome whether it was 30 ad or 100 ad.  sir, saying it does not make it so.  unless you can prove jerusalem was reigning over rome please let's save both our times,  it can be abundantly proven, however, that jerusalem IS reigning over the kings of the earth today and have been since she hopped atop the scb.

Maybe you missed my last post?

1st......"reigneth over" can refer to spiritually reigning, not necessarily political. The bible is after all primarily a religious book, not geopolitical.

2nd..."kings of the earth" could quite easily be referring to Herod, not neccesarily gentile kings. (Acts 4:26-27)

All I'm doing is coming at this book from the point of view of 1st century Christians, rather than a 20th century conspiracy theorist (which believe me I was and partially still am!).

Bro.....there's no doubt the vatican and the talmudic world views are terribly evil and have gotton the world in big trouble and I would find it amazing if they did not have a big hand in running things for satan....they can most certainly be seen as "types" of harlot and beast if you want to make a philosophical application to the current world situation........but the BOR is clearly about the destruction of Jerusalem prmiarily...clear to me anyway. So any seeming anomalies like you are pointing out can be explained.

Anyway, if you think that the BOR is prophesying things of today....why does it matter to you when it was written? Why do you say, according to your intepretation of the players....it has to be 95AD? For example, John is seeing a vision of the harlot reigning over the kings of the earth. You say, that didn't happen around 70AD, but why does that mean the book wasn't written in 65AD for instance....and prophesying hundreds of years into the future?

Dear sir, I see in my first two arguments a reason why it could not be written before 70.  Jerusalem did not make the whole world drunk with her wine, and neither did she reign over the kings of the earth.  How you say she reigned over Herod is a mystery to me.  You disagree and have another viewpoint.  That's fine.  However, I remain unconvinced by your arguments.  Let's look at the rest of what I wrote to you.  You have a very high hill to climb in my estimation.  The id of the ten toes (10 caesars) beginning with Tiberius when Jesus announced the time is fulfilled and the kingdom is at hand (Mark 1:15, the beginning of the 70th week of daniel) happens to land on Domitian (81-95) giving a secondary proof that the bor was written in 95. This would mean that the canon of scripture was now closed.  We then had the entirety of the Word of God, although it took much time to settle the issue.  So.... a question for you. In the preterist scheme who are the 10 toes?

Bro John wrote:Dear sir, I see in my first two arguments a reason why it could not be written before 70.  Jerusalem did not make the whole world drunk with her wine, and neither did she reign over the kings of the earth. 

But Bro....let's think about this logically. Lets start all over again and pretend that neither of us knows anything about the others viewpoint on what all the prophecies mean.

We both agree that Revelation contains prophecy correct? We may not agree on exactly what the prophecy is, but at least we agree that it is describing events that are future to the time that it was written.

Now, I say the book could be written before 70AD....let's say my reasoning for this are that nowhere in the book is there any direct description or even slightest mention of the fullfillment of the destruction of Jerusalem that Jesus talked about so much. I say....thats a bit odd...I feel the book might well be written before the event happened. Let's say that is my one and only reason.

Now...you say...the book was written in exactly 95AD. You must have a reason for this completely apart from any feelings about what you think about what the "harlot" did or how, or to what degree...because we BOTH must take whatever is written as  FUTURE events.

If you say.....

"it could not be written before 70.  Jerusalem did not make the whole world drunk with her wine, and neither did she reign over the kings of the earth"......

Why can't I say....

"it could not be written before 96AD.  Jerusalem did not make the whole world drunk with her wine, and neither did she reign over the kings of the earth"

So do you see how your first two points are irrelevant to the actual dating of the book?

I just want to get this sorted first before we move on to any other evidence we both might have specifically relating to the dating of Revelation. Thanks.

Dear sir, My first 2 arguments point out the bor could not be written before 70 ad.  You are correct, my arguments do not prove when it was written.      

Preterists need the book to be written before 70 ad.  

The remainder of my argument proves why it cannot be.  I look forward to your rebuttal on the id/timing of the 5 fallen kings, the 6th, the 7th, and the 8th.  And concerning the scb how could he be one of the 7 yet the 8th?  Thank you, sir.

Bro John wrote:Dear sir, My first 2 arguments point out the bor could not be written before 70 ad.  You are correct, my arguments do not prove when it was written.      

Preterists need the book to be written before 70 ad.  

The remainder of my argument proves why it cannot be.  I look forward to your rebuttal on the id/timing of the 5 fallen kings, the 6th, the 7th, and the 8th.  And concerning the scb how could he be one of the 7 yet the 8th?  Thank you, sir.

OK...I'm glad we got that sorted out Bro.

I'm very interested in the dating of this book, because if it can be shown the book cannot have been written before 70AD then, as you have pointed out, the preterist position must be completely discarded. And as the preterist...or at least semi-preterist position is one that I have been looking seriously into recently, obviously the result of this thread could force me to rethink that stance. And if that's the case then I will have no problem doing so, as I changed my mind on more than one occasion regarding the book and I have nothing invested in any particular viewpoint.

Ok lets get onto the next bit.

Bro John wrote:
The id of the ten toes (10 caesars) beginning with Tiberius when Jesus announced the time is fulfilled and the kingdom is at hand (Mark 1:15, the beginning of the 70th week of daniel) happens to land on Domitian (81-95) giving a secondary proof that the bor was written in 95.

Why is the fact that Domitian was the 9th emporer after Tiberius a proof that Rev was written in 95AD?

Dear sir,

The id of the ten toes (10 caesars) beginning with Tiberius when Jesus announced the time is fulfilled and the kingdom is at hand (Mark 1:15, the beginning of the 70th week of daniel) happens to land on Domitian (81-95) giving a secondary proof that the bor was written in 95. This would mean that the canon of scripture was now closed. We then had the entirety of the Word of God, although it took much time to settle the issue.

Dear sir, as I said it was a secondary, and not a primary proof.
Do you deny that the Mark 1:15 scripture begins the 70th week? If so, please make your position clear from scripture.
Also, may I please have your interpretation of the 10 toes if you deny they are the 10 Caesars I propound? Thank you, sir.

Bro John wrote:Dear sir,

The id of the ten toes (10 caesars) beginning with Tiberius when Jesus announced the time is fulfilled and the kingdom is at hand (Mark 1:15, the beginning of the 70th week of daniel) happens to land on Domitian (81-95) giving a secondary proof that the bor was written in 95. This would mean that the canon of scripture was now closed.  We then had the entirety of the Word of God, although it took much time to settle the issue.

Uhm.....I'm not sure why you need to repeat an entire paragraph from a previous post Bro?

Bro John wrote:
Dear sir, as I said it was a secondary, and not a primary proof.

Not sure what this means? Does it mean it's not really a proof at all?
Maybe evidence? But you would have to show how it all ties together.
 

Bro John wrote:
Do you deny that the Mark 1:15 scripture begins the 70th week?  If so, please make your position clear from scripture.

What if I agree with you that Mark 1:15 scripture does indeed begin the 70th week?
Why does that prove Rev was written after 70AD?
Or......secondarily prove it?
 

Bro John wrote:
Also, may I  please have your interpretation of the 10 toes if you deny they are the 10 Caesars I propound?  Thank you, sir.

What if I agree with your interpretation of the 10 toes? (I'm not saying I do, but lets say I do...hypothetically for now).
Why does that prove Rev was written after 70AD?

I don't see how any of this ties in to actually dating Rev? Is there a prophecy in scripture that gives a specific date, or time window, that the canon of scripture will be closed or something? Does the bible say that the last book of the bible will be written in the reign of the last of the ten toes (Caesars)?

There is a time window for the Messiah to come. We agree? In the 70th week, which is exactly when Jesus came.
There is a time window for the destruction of Jeru. We agree? Within the generation of those people Jesus gave the Olivet discourse to. And indeed, that came to pass also.

But where is this time window for the closing of the canon of scripture?

Dear sir, I've done alot of thinking about what you have said.  the 10th toe Domitian 81-96 may be just coincidence.  I cannot prove from scripture when the bor was written.

Having said that whenever the book was written, the 8th beast which was not presently in existence but had been previously.  since the mystery of mbtg and the scb are one, neither was she present at the time of the writing of the bor.  I look forward to your comments.

Bro John wrote:Dear sir, I've done alot of thinking about what you have said.  the 10th toe Domitian 81-96 may be just coincidence.  I cannot prove from scripture when the bor was written.

OK.

Bro John wrote:
Having said that whenever the book was written, the 8th beast which was not presently in existence but had been previously.  since the mystery of mbtg and the scb are one, neither was she present at the time of the writing of the bor.  I look forward to your comments.

Sorry mate but again... I'm having great difficulty understanding what you're trying to get across?

Can you take me through this step by step in small bite sized chunks? Pretend you're talking to a 13 year old.

mbtg and the scb are a mystery, singular.  rev 17:7 

the scb is not in existence at the time of the writing of the bor but had been beforehand. he will once again return.  Rev 17:8,11  the same with mbtg.  at the time of the writing of the bor she was not but had been before.  she too will return and hop atop the scb.  notice the scb has no crowns on his horns like the beast from the sea Rev 13.  This is because mbtg is the dignity until the 10 kings throw her off and destroy her.  

let's go through the preterist scenario as it relates to this if you don't mind.  the only way a pre 70 writing of the bor can occur is if tiberius is the 1st king fallen of the 5 kings.  otho would be the 6th, the one who is (69) and vitellius the 7th who continues a short space. (69)  vespasian would be the 8th. (69 - 81)  he actually was the emperor in power when his son, Titus took Jerusalem.  no other scenario works out grammar wise for a pre 70 writing of the book.

but there is another issue.  which king was vespasian in the past if he once was before?

Bro John wrote:mbtg and the scb are a mystery, singular.  rev 17:7 

Bro.... can you please slow down? I said bite sized chunks yeah? It's no use throwing a wall o text of interpretations at me. I'm a relative beginner at this stuff.

Firstly, I'm not sure why you're placing so much emphasis on singular mystery.

This is how the verse reads...

Revelation 17:7 (KJV) And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

The most natural way for me to read this is that we are being told about two separate entities, that are nonetheless related to each other.

A woman
A beast

The angel says he's gonna tell John the mystery of the woman..... and also of the beast that carries her. Two mysteries that we need to get to the bottom of here... not one.

Now, I'm trying to see why you would say that it is one singular mystery, as you could possibly read the verse as saying that there is a mystery of the woman/ beast relationship? Is that right? However I see that as a quite unnatural way of seeing things.

Is this important to your argument that there is just one mystery here rather than two?

i read one mystery.  yes, it is one of the arguments that the bor could not be written before 70.

Bro John wrote:i read one mystery.  yes, it is one of the arguments that the bor could not be written before 70.

OK well..... would you say it's reasonable to read the verse from my point of view?

That John is being told about the mystery of the woman..... and also about the mystery of the beast that carries her?

Two entities that need identifying and therefore 2 mysteries?

i think it is reasonable to read it as it has been given to us; that is, 1 mystery.  but preterists must have 2.  if it is 1 preterism is over....

imo this is why john marvels at mbtg. (rev 17:7) did she hop atop the 8th beast who was not even existence at the time of the writing of the bor?  no. hoiw could she?  neither she or he were then.  yet she returned just as he yet in another form many years hence.

Bro John wrote:i think it is reasonable to read it as it has been given to us; that is, 1 mystery. 

So..... John has a vision. There is a woman... and there is a beast. There are exactly two main players at this point.

He doesn't know what either of these two things represents at this point. Agree or disagree?

Surely the whole point of chapter 17 is to achieve two things. To identify the woman and the beast.

They are two separate entities and therefore we have two questions.

Who is the woman?
Who is the beast?

So explain to me why this is not two mysteries?

There are loads of mysteries in this book.... and two of them are pretty much solved in chapter 17.

Bro John wrote:
but preterists must have 2.  if it is 1 preterism is over....

Uhm OK? But is this gonna be another of those times where I say.... OK... hypothetically let's say I agree that there is one mystery there. How does it follow that preterism is over?

And then it turns out that it doesn't follow?

i believe john does know who the 2 represent.  he saw mbtg who was then the sun clothed woman in chapter 12 go into the wilderness.  that's where mbtg is found in 17. he saw the scb the 8th head previously in chapter 13. it is the mystery behind them that he does not understand.  there are two entities but one mystery that binds them together.  how can mbtg come back after being destroyed is his question.  he marvelled.  

preterism is over if like the 8th beast who was previously (but is not at the time of the writing of the bor) mbtg is also not there at the time.  she was gone in 70. lay out your 5 fallen kings, the 1 who is (at the time of the writing of the bor) the 1 who is yet to come and remain a short time, and the 8th.  lastly, lay out which of the 7 kings the 8th has become for he was of the seven. (rev 17:8,11)

if you stay with the grammar it will prove preterism is not possible.  again, the only possibility that stays with the grammar is tiberius 1st, otho 6, vitellius 7, and vespasian 8.  no other list is possible.  but who was vespasian in the past?  please give me your list and we'll see.   thank you, sir.

Bro John wrote:i believe john does know who the 2 represent.  he saw mbtg who was then the sun clothed woman in chapter 12 go into the wilderness.  that's where mbtg is found in 17. he saw the scb the 8th head previously in chapter 13. it is the mystery behind them that he does not understand. 

Wait... the sun clothed woman and the beast in chapter 13 are ALSO symbols Bro.

So John in the vision in chapter 17 may see a similarity between the symbols but the mystery of the 2 identities is still unknown.

So my point stands. John does not know the ID of either party.

1. The whore / sun clothed woman
2. The beast of rev 13 and 17.

Two mysteries still to be revealed.

Think about it mate....

Me: Hey John, who does the beast in Rev 17 represent?

John: He represents the beast of rev 13

Me: Oh.... thanks for that. You've really uh.......... solved the mystery for me, I can sleep easy tonight, cheers.

Dear sir, i will be happy to lay out my understanding of all 4 entities.  but first let's have a look at your list that i was asking about above.  maybe after we go through that with a fine toothed comb you will sleep easier.

Bro John wrote:Dear sir, i will be happy to lay out my understanding of all 4 entities.  but first let's have a look at your list that i was asking about above.  maybe after we go through that with a fine toothed comb you will sleep easier.

Bro....the John I reference in my previous post is not Brother John....my new best mate on the internet.

It is the John who wrote the book of revelation under inspiration from God.

You are saying he already new who the whore and the beast represent by the time of Rev 17:7.
You say he had solved the mysteries of their true identity...because they were the same as the woman in wilderness (Rev 12) and the beast in Rev 13.

I'm saying this is not a solution to their identity, obviously.....because those two things are also themselves symbols/charicatures.

So it follows then, that the mysteries of the identity of 1. The whore and 2. The beast in Rev 17 were still yet to be solved. Hence my quite understandable interpretation that when the angel says "I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns."...he means what he says...and he's gonna solve these two things for good.

And sure enough....the beast is solved in that very chapter. It's Rome/Roman Empire. The city of seven hills. The city with the mad rush of kings. And is supported with a plethora of under-king-lings. And by extension, in a broader sense...antichristian political tyranny...if you like.

And also the identitly of the whore can be left in no doubt. It's that "great city" which is also known as "Babylon" which we are told the horns of the beast destroy. Seeing as the book reminds us on many occasion that these things will shortly come to pass....only candidate is Jerusalem...which is that "great city" where our Lord was crucified, and that is called a harlot literally all the way through the bible.

2 mysteries solved.

The exact identity of the horns, kings.....deadly wound, coming back....7th-8th-of the 7......etc etc....this is all sesondary detail that is wildly open to individual opinion. Not all preterists agree on the fine details, not all dispy's do, not all historicists do, not all idealists do. And you are centainly not going to prove any particular viewpoint wrong based on these fine details sir. I understand that you've put a heck of a lot of work into your particular brand of historo-futurism or whaetver you wish to call it and I deeply respect your dedication, but the fact remains that Revelation is like a cartoon you would find in a newspaper. It's painting very flamboyant pictures, and regardless the individual brush strokes....it's the overall picture that should be appreciated.

Three massive clues to the theme of the book...

1. Jesus was constantly at spiritual war with apostate Israel during His ministry and His second favourite subject was their coming destruction. Parables, direct personal attacks, shocking prophecies, He even gave a specific timeframe for it to occur. And it did occur exactly as He said.
2. No mention at all of Jerusalems destruction fulfilled....in the entire book of Rev...which is a book absolutely bursting with judgements on someone. Quite a staggering omission if the book was indeed written after the fact. Do we have any other judgement prophecy in the entire bible where the fullfillment thereof is not mentioned after it has already occured? God is never shy to say...I told you what you would get....and there it is.
3. The opening verse of Rev.
Rev 1:1
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: