A Guess
based on what? What would be a literal interpretation? Have you looked at all 59 English translations? Few have. Most know they don’t agree so a literal interpretation is limited to a particular version. You can’t trust the translators or anyone’s interpretation. What can you trust? Numbers.
Home 14
A Hypothetical View
of the Apocalypse that fits what is historically known. It relies on numbers and not interpretation. There are over 50 English translations of the Bible and there is very little agreement except when it comes to numbers. A thousand is a thousand. Ten is always ten. Seven is seven. We may not know what “heads” are but we can be sure there are seven of them.
Home 13
A Bare Record
known only to John the Apostle who clearly links John the Baptist to the Apocalypse. A “bare record” plus the use of the word “lamb” 27 times should force all bible scholars to consider John the Baptist as the original writer of the Apocalypse.
Home 12
A Clue
ignored by biblical scholars. John the Apostle knew Jesus was the Lamb. John the Baptist didn’t and John the Apostle knew this as well. So why would he use the word “lamb” 27 times and the word “Jesus” only 12 times? Who “bare record”? John the Baptist.
Home 11
A Courageous Author
willing to challenge established views on the Apocalypse. Josephine Massyngbaerde Ford may have been the first to suggest it was first written by John the Baptist. It was not well received and she later changed her mind. John the Baptist was preparing the way for the first coming, the Lamb of God. You will find the word “lamb” 27 times in the Apocalypse.
Home 10
A Jewish Original
according to the German scholar Vischer. The original was Hebrew and later translated into Greek by John the Apostle who added the churches, Antipas, and Jesus. The original must have been written by John the Baptist who knew the Lamb of God.
Home 9
A Missing Martyr
with Eusebius and Victorinus. Antipas can not be found in the Church History of Eusebius or in the Commentary of Victorinus. The missing stuff is adding up. Can it be explained? Has any one tried to? There is reasonable explanation. They were both looking at copy of the Apocalypse that didn’t have Antipas, the churches, or Jesus. They just had the Lamb.
A Problem
with the Victorinus commentary on the Apocalypse. The seven churches Victorinus mentions in his commentary on the Apocalypse are the ones Paul wrote to. The letters are to seven spirits not seven churches. Eusebius mentions six of the seven churches but never associates them with the Apocalypse. Could it be their copy of John’s Apocalypse did not mention them?
Home 8
A Clue
as to what they didn’t know. What the Fathers of the Church wrote has been thoroughly studied but what they left out has not. Victorinus in his Commentary on the Apocalypse fails to mention the seven churches. He does mention the seven churches that Paul wrote to. This by itself should concern no one but when combined with other similar omissions, it demands your attention.
A Famous Clue
that often goes unnoticed. What the early fathers of the Church wrote has been extensively studied but what has been overlooked is what the early fathers overlooked. A good example of this is Eusebius who was obsessed with martyrs didn’t mention Antipas in Chuch History. Martyrs from Pergamus are not missing, Carpus and Papylus, and a woman named Agathonice are mentioned as martyrs in Pergamus but not Antipas. Who has tried to explain this?
Home 7
apocalypse 