Here is Don Preston's 2nd Affirmative and my 2nd Negative...
Don's 2nd Affirmative
(Caps for emphasis only).
The contrast between Dr. Bale and myself is graphic. I presented well documented syllogistic arguments based on the explicit statements of scripture. He complained that I didn’t offer one “historical” argument!
Bale’s negative can be reduced to just a few (false) claims, and logical fallacies:
#1 - Who was Sodom in Revelation? Bale ignored the Biblical data that I presented, claiming falselyfrom Zephaniah, that Edom and Moab were spiritually called Sodom. False. YHVH simply said that their fate would be LIKE that of Sodom. I took note of this; Bale ignored it. This is NOTHING like YHVH calling Jerusalem– outright- Sodom (Isaiah 1 / Ezekiel 23). His objection is untenable.
#2 - Was Revelation a post eventu production? Bale wrote over 250 words suggesting that Revelation may have been written pseudonymously AFTER AD 70. He gave examples of some pseudonymous productions. But when Vic Valentino cornered him on this, he said: “I don’t claim that this prophecy is written post eventum. I give it as an example.” (FB- 10-18-21).
Think about that! HE DOES NOT BELIEVE WHAT HE OFFERED! He was just throwing up a cloud of “could be, but who knows” stuff hoping to distract from my Biblical arguments! If he does not believe that Revelation is a post facto, pseudonymous production, why waste 250+ words suggesting it??
While condemning me for giving my “interpretation” he cites “many NT critics and scholars” who say Revelation was NOT A GENUINE PROPHECY. This impugns the inspiration of Revelation, so he tells us he does not believe what he offered!!! Amazing.
#3– Obfuscation- He seeks to negate what Jesus said about Jerusalem being the source of martyrdom. He lists a number of martyrs that died outside of Jerusalem but, WHO WERE KILLED BY JEWS nonetheless! I explicitly said that Jesus was not speaking in a woodenly literalistic way when he said, “It is not possible that a prophet perish outside of Jerusalem.”
Think about this: The ONLY way Bale can counter what I have presented is to prove that Jesus’ words do not mean what they say! Dr. Bale vainly imagines that if he can find just ONE EXAMPLE of a Christian martyr outside Jerusalem he has answered the argument. Wrong. All it proves is his desperation to avoid the explicit words of Christ.
#4 - My logical fallacy? I argue that if Babylon of Revelation was Jerusalem then Revelation was written prior to AD 70. Bale says I am guilty of a “converse error” logical fallacy: “If A is true then B is true.”
Well, the “if - then” (modus ponens) form of argumentation is perfectly valid. Anyone who knows logic knows this. Paul used this: “If A is true, then B is true,” extensively in 1 Corinthians 15. Was Paul guilty of a “converse error” Mr. Bale?
FACT: Revelation predicted– as a future event- the destruction of “Babylon.”
If Babylon was Jerusalem, then Revelation was written before AD 70. There is no fallacy on my part.
#5 - Bale says I blatantly misrepresented him when I noted that he admitted that you cannot definitively prove the late date. No, HERE ARE HIS OWN WORDS: “I don't want to claim definitively that Revelation was written in the reign of Domitian because it is not historically conclusive....” (Facebook - Sep 17, 2021, 4:35 PM). I did not misrepresent him. He made a false accusation.
Let me further establish my proposition, by examining the theme of The Avenging of the Martyrs,- a theme that permeates Revelation - to help identify Babylon of Revelation.
Deuteronomy 32- The Song of Moses.
The Song predicted what would happen in Israel’s last days 32:19f / 32:31:
The Gentiles would be called - v. 21f. Since the Gentiles would be called in Israel’s last days, and Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles - (fulfilling Deut. 32–> Romans 10:20) - this means that Paul’s generation was the time of Israel’s last days.
Israel would become the vine of Sodom– v. 32. Babylon in Revelation was spiritually called Sodom (11:8). The only city in the Bible to be spiritually designated Sodom was Jerusalem. Bale has not refuted this.
Song 32:43-”Rejoice Oh Gentiles with my people, for the Lord has avenged the blood of his saints.”
Thus, in Israel’s last days- the first century generation- (not fifth century Rome!!) - God would avenge the blood of the martyrs by judging Israel- not Rome.
Isaiah 2-4 is a united prophecy of:
The Last Days– (2:2f).
The Day of the Lord (2:19-21), when men would run to the hills and cry to the rocks “Fall on us!” This cannot describe an earth burning, end of time event!
The Day of the Lord - “At that time” would be a time of famine and warfare on Jerusalem (3:1-3, 13-14, 25-25). Israel’s men would die by the edge of the sword, Jerusalem destroyed (3:25-26).
“In that day” “the Branch” of the Lord would come (4:1).
“At that time” the Lord would purge the blood guilt from Jerusalem through judgment and fire (4:4).
Like the Song that it draws from, inspiration says that in the last days Day of the Lord judgment on Jerusalem, God would avenge the blood of the saints. There is no “subjective interpretation” here. It is fact.
As Jesus was led to his death the women who loved him wept. He turned and said to them: Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. 29 For indeed the days are coming in which they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, wombs that never bore, and breasts which never nursed!’ Then they will begin ‘to say to the mountains, “Fall on us!” and to the hills, “Cover us!” ’
JESUS QUOTED DIRECTLY FROM ISAIAH 2:19-21 AND APPLIED IT TO THE COMING DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM! That is heaven’s own interpretation of Isaiah.
Note: Jesus appeared at the time foretold by the OT prophets- the last days ( Hebrews 1:1-2 / 1 Peter 1:19-20). Jesus said he and the apostles were living in the time anticipated by the OT prophets (Matthew 13:17).
Peter affirmed that the first century generation was the “last days” foretold by the prophets (Joel 2:28f / Acts 2;15) – “This is that spoken of by the prophet Joel...It shall come to pass in the last days.” He urged his audience: “save yourselves from this crooked and perverse generation” a direct echo of Deuteronomy 32:5!
So, Jesus applied Isaiah 2 to his generation and the impending judgment of Jerusalem and the NT writers tell us they were living in the time foretold by the OT prophets for the Day of the Lord to avenge the blood of the martyrs. They even cite the verses above. They did not speak of another, far distant time, another Day of the Lord, another avenging of the martyrs.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’ “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore,indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!
Bale totally ignored this text. Little wonder why!
Fact: Jesus: Jerusalem had slain the prophets.
Fact: She would also kill him (Matthew 21:33f).
Fact: She would kill Jesus’ apostles and prophets.
Fact: She was guilty of all the blood shed on the earth.
Fact: She would fill the measure of her father’s blood guilt, and be destroyed in the first century generation.
These are not disputable facts, unless you want to pervert the text. BALE HAS NOT ANSWERED THIS.
So, All the blood of all the righteous, including the prophets, of Jesus and Jesus' apostles and prophets, would be avenged in the destruction of Jerusalem-- Jesus.
All the blood of all the righteous, including the prophets, Jesus and Jesus’ apostles and prophets, would be avenged in the destruction of Babylon-- Revelation.
Therefore, Babylon was Jerusalem.
Since Revelation was written before the destruction of Babylon, that means Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem.
Mr. Bale needs to answer this.
No city other than Jerusalem did or could do what Revelation says “BABYLON” HAD DONE! Rome didn’t and couldn’t.
1 Corinthians 4:9-10
For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like those condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to human beings.
Fact: Jesus, and Paul, said that Israel would fill the measure of their blood guilt by killing his apostles and prophets. Paul said God had set forth the apostles “last of all as men condemned to die.” Were the apostles the last men to ever die for Christ? No. That is not the point. But as Jesus said Israel would fill the measure of her sin by killing the apostles, Paul declares that the apostles were the last to die– in order to fill up that measure of sin! (See Colossians 1:24f for more on this).
In Revelation Babylon’s cup of sin was now full because in her was found the blood of the apostles and prophets of Christ. Perfect correspondence. (Jerusalem was even responsible for the death of Paul and Peter. Nero’s inner circle of Jews prompted him to persecute the Christians).
Bale tried to deflect the force of this by citing highly debatable, uninspired “church tradition” written long after the fact, that records the death of the apostles. Evidently, Bale trusts uninspired, dubious “tradition” (written LONG after the facts) more than Scripture itself.
1 Thessalonians 2:14-16
For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans, who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.
Paul undeniably repeats the elements of Matthew 23. Israel - not Rome - was guilty of killing the prophets, Jesus and Jesus’ apostles and prophets. In so doing they were filling the cup of their sin. Judgment was imminent.
Bale has not touched this.
2 Thessalonians 1:4-12
Fact: Paul addressed living Christians at Thessalonica circa AD 50-51.
Fact: Those Christians were being persecuted by their Jewish countrymen (Acts 17:1-7).
Fact: Paul promised those living Christians “relief” (anesis, relief from the pressure of their persecution).
Fact: That relief would come when their Jewish persecutors became the persecuted: “It is a righteousthing with God to repay with tribulation, those who are troubling you.”
Fact: That relief would come when the Jewish persecutors were: “punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.”
Fact: This is a verbatim quote of Isaiah 2:19-21- THE SAME VERSE QUOTED BY JESUS in Luke 23. Paul quoted Isaiah to predict the coming Dayof the Lord judgment on Israel for persecuting the saints.
So... Isaiah predicted the last days Day of the Lord to avenge the martyrs (4:1-4), when Jerusalem would be destroyed (Isaiah 3:24-25).
Jesus applied Isaiah 2:19-21 to AD 70 (Luke 23:28-31).
Paul quoted from the very verses from Isaiah that Jesus applied to AD 70, to predict the coming soon judgment on the Jews for persecuting the Thessalonians.
That judgment would be in the lifetime of the Thessalonians- as Jesus said in Matthew 23:36.
Fact: The martyrs cried out for vindication / vengeance.
Fact: They were told to rest “for a little while” Bale would have that to be hundreds of years!!! Hardly qualifies for “a little while”!!
Fact: Revelation 6:12f - Their vindication would come at the Dayof the Lord, when men would “run to the mountains, hide in the caves and cry “fall on us”– A DIRECT QUOTE OF ISAIAH 2:19F!
So, Isaiah 2-4 foretold the last days Day of the Lord when the blood guilt of Jerusalem would be cleansed through judgment and the destruction of Jerusalem. It would be when men would run to the hills, hide in the caves and cry to the rocks “fall on us from the presence of the Lord!”
Fact: Jesus applied Isaiah 2:19f to the coming judgment on Jerusalem for killing him.
Fact: Paul applied the same verses that Jesus applied to AD 70, to the coming judgment of the Jews for persecuting the saints.
Fact: John also quoted THE SAME VERSE from Isaiah that Jesus applied to AD 70 to the coming soon judgment on Babylon, the city that killed the prophets, Jesus, and Jesus’ apostles and prophets.
We have perfect correspondence between Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, Paul and Revelation.
Moses predicted the vindication of the martyrs in Israel’s last days.
Isaiah is irrefutably a prophecy of the last days Day of the Lord when the martyrs would be vindicated by the destruction of Jerusalem. This is no “subjective interpretation.” It is FACT.
Jesus undeniably applied Isaiah 2:19f to the impending AD 70 judgment on Jerusalem for killing him.
Paul quoted verbatim from the same verses that Jesus quoted from Isaiah, to speak of the impending judgment on the Jews for persecuting the saints.
John, in Revelation, quoted VERBATIM from the same verses that Jesus applied to AD 70, the same verses that Paul quoted to speak of the impending judgment on the Jews for persecuting the saints.
John- like Jesus and Paul- cited Isaiah to speak of the coming soon, (not centuries away) judgment on “Babylon” for killing the prophets, Jesus, and Jesus’ apostles and prophets. Jesus had earlier explicitly laid the blame for killing the prophets, himself, and his apostles and prophets at the feet of Jerusalem (Matthew 23 / Luke 11:49). Not Rome- no other city than Jerusalem.
After these things I heard a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, “Alleluia! Salvation and glory and honor and power belong to the Lord our God! 2 For true and righteous are His judgments, because He has judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication; AND HE HAS AVENGED ON HER THE BLOOD OF HIS SERVANTS SHED BY HER.” (My emphasis).
Revelation 19:1-2 After these things I heard a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, “Alleluia! Salvation and glory and honor and power belong to the Lord our God! 2 For true and righteous are His judgments, because He has judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication; AND HE HAS AVENGED ON HER THE BLOOD OF HIS SERVANTS SHED BY HER.” (My emphasis).
Revelation 19:2 is a direct citation of Deuteronomy 32:43- a prediction of the avenging of the martyrs in Israel’s last days.
Therefore, Revelation 19, (just like Revelation 6 which applied Isaiah 2-4 to the soon coming vindication of the martyrs), spoke of the soon coming avenging of the martyrs, in Israel’s last days in the destruction of “Babylon.” It is NOT the judgment of Rome.
Revelation 19 quotes from the Song to declare its fulfillment in the judgment of Babylon.
The Song is about Israel’s last days judgment for shedding innocent blood.
Therefore, the judgment of Babylon is the judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.
The Song- and Revelation 19- is not about Rome.
So, Deuteronomy 32– Vindication of the martyrs in the judgment of Israel in her last days.
Isaiah 2-4– The vindication of the martyrs at the destruction of Jerusalem at the last days Day of the Lord.
Luke 23:28-31– Isaiah 2:19f applied by Jesus to the coming AD 70 judgment of Jerusalem.
1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 / 2 Thessalonians 1– Paul cited the verses from Isaiah that Jesus applied to AD 70, to speak of the imminent Day of the Lord against the Jews for persecuting the saints.
Revelation 6 & 19- quoted from the same verses from Isaiah 2 that Jesus applied to AD 70 to speak of the coming soon Day of the Lord to vindicate the blood of the martyrs– predicted by Deuteronomy 32- for Israel’s last days.
For Bale to falsify any of this he must demonstrate– definitively- that Israel and her blood guilt- is NOT the focus in this unbroken chain of evidence. He has admitted repeatedly that he cannot definitively do this!
Rome is not in Deuteronomy 32, Isaiah 2-4, Matthew 23:29f, Luke 23:28-31, Thessalonians, or Revelation.
Since Revelation is about the vindication of the martyrs in the judgment of Babylon, in fulfillment of these earlier prophecies, and since each of these earlier prophecies are about Israel’s blood guilt and the AD 70 judgment of Jerusalem, this is definitive, internal Biblical proof that Babylon of Revelation was Old Covenant Jerusalem.
This will be my second negative in response to Mr. Preston’s second affirmative. Quotes of Preston shall be in bold and quotations As I noted in Preston’s first affirmative, he gave not one documentation of historical evidence nor a single piece of evidence beyond his interpretation of what he believes to be “Scripture” and “inspired” to assist him in definitively proving the date of Revelation is before 70 CE. I would remind readers and Mr. Preston that the debate is not over whether the text itself is “inspired by God”. The debate is over when the Revelation was written: before or after 70 CE. Mr. Preston claims he will prove definitively that the Revelation is written before 70 CE. That is his affirmative.
Preston falsely claims I “ignored the Biblical data that I [Preston] presented…” He gives Deuteronomy 32; Isaiah 1, 2-4; Ezekiel 23; Joel 2, Matthew 13, 21, and 23; Luke 11 and 23, Acts 2 and 17; Romans 10; 1 Cor. 4 and 15; 1 Thess. 2; 2 Thess. 1; 1 Peter 1, Hebrews 1, and Revelation 6, 11, and 19 as his proof. Not one chapter or verse he gave from any of these texts tells us about the Revelation of St. John and not a single one of these gives us any details about when the date of the Revelation was given. Nothing provided gives us any definitive way to make a claim about the dating of Revelation nor does it give us any way to historically document the Revelation being written before or for that matter after 70 CE. I have obviously not ignored the internal data. It is just that none of the evidence Preston has given can lead us to conclude definitively that Revelation was written before 70 CE. Preston at best gives us nothing beyond telling us his interpretation of Revelation. I could give my interpretation as well of the text but it would not prove the dating of Revelation one bit in any impactful way that makes it a fact, definitive, and conclusive.
Preston notes my mention that Revelation may have been written as a post eventu production (meaning after the event and thus after 70 CE). He writes that I “wrote over 250 words suggesting that Revelation may have been written pseudonymously AFTER AD 70”. Nowhere do I claim in my first negative that this has to be true that it is a post eventu production. I do in fact give it as an example, as there are many myriads of reasons that Revelation could be written after 70 CE instead of before 70 CE and this is, in fact, one of those. To reiterate, this debate is not over the text of Revelation being inspired or not and it is not a debate over who has the superior interpretation of “Scripture”. It would be beneficial for Preston in this debate to quit arguing over what is and is not inspired as it is irrelevant to the debate and irrelevant to dating the Revelation.
Don gives a comment I made on Facebook to a Vic Valentino. This comment thread is irrelevant to the debate and I believe does break the rules of debate as we are supposed to be debating what is in the written debate, not what is outside of the debate like a comment thread on Facebook. This violates the rules of the debate we agreed upon where “no arguments or material shall be altered by additions, deletions, or any other alterations in any way”. This is not in the first affirmative nor is Vic Valentino and my conversation on Facebook in my first negative in response to Preston’s first affirmative. This is adding and trying to alter the arguments or material given by adding him into what is already written. I do not see Preston mention him in his first affirmative. This seems to be nothing more than some kind of diversionary tactic, an attempt to obfuscate from the written debate itself. It is definitely a red herring. It is also irrelevant to the debate and I would ask Preston to remain professional and stick to the written debate, its affirmatives and negatives, and not Facebook comments.
“Think about that! HE DOES NOT BELIEVE WHAT HE OFFERED!” This debate again, and I must reiterate this for the reader, is not about what I believe personally about the text from a religious perspective. The debate is over whether Revelation is written before or after 70 CE. Preston gives yet again a red herring, a straw man, and an ad hominem here. It also again violates the rules of the debate. Preston of note also breaks Rule 6 of Hedge’s Rule of Conduct.
“He was just throwing up a cloud of ‘could be, but who knows’ stuff hoping to distract from my Biblical arguments! If he does not believe that Revelation is a post facto, pseudonymous production, why waste 250+ words suggesting it??” This statement is ad hominem, a straw man, editing on the offense, and a red herring. This is a debate and in this portion, I am to argue in the negative. It is again not a debate over my interpretation or beliefs about the text itself from a religious perspective. It is a debate over dating a text. I gave this as an example of why Preston is not necessarily correct. I do not argue it as a fact as to whether Revelation is a post facto production or not. Here Preston of note breaks Rule 4 and 6 of Hedge’s Rule of Conduct.
“While condemning me for giving my ‘interpretation’ he cites ‘many NT critics and scholars’ who say Revelation was NOT A GENUINE PROPHECY. This impugns the inspiration of Revelation, so he tells us he does not believe what he offered!!!” I did not “condemn” Mr. Preston. This is the fallacy of editing on the offense. I did point out he has offered not a single source of historical data beyond ambiguous texts and his interpretation of the texts. If you read them, nowhere do they claim or offer us any evidence inside of them that the Revelation is written before or after 70 CE. This again is not a debate over whether the Revelation is an “inspired text of God” or not. Preston next accuses me of obfuscation and that I seek to “negate what Jesus said about Jerusalem being the source of martyrdom. He lists a number of martyrs that died outside of Jerusalem but, WHO WERE KILLED BY JEWS nonetheless!” It seems Preston leaves out I also mention martyrs who were killed by Gentiles. Nonetheless, Preston gives nothing but his interpretation here that he believes Jerusalem should be identified as the “Babylon” mentioned in Revelation. His argument would be better served by trying to use some historical documentation if he can find any, but instead, all we get is again an interpretation of a text that amounts to nothing more than “it is true because I believe it and declare it so” (an argument of authority).
“Think about this: The ONLY way Bale can counter what I have presented is to prove that Jesus’ words do not mean what they say! Dr. Bale vainly imagines that if he can find just ONE EXAMPLE of a Christian martyr outside Jerusalem he has answered the argument. Wrong. All it proves is his desperation to avoid the explicit words of Christ.” Mr. Preston uses a false dichotomy, the statement is loaded in the same manner as a loaded question, he begs the question, tries for an illegal proof reversal here, and delivers a lot of ad hominem fallacies consistently here presenting false claims and suggesting I don’t believe the words of Jesus… which again, is irrelevant to the debate. Again he employs an argument about my personal interpretations and beliefs that are irrelevant to this debate over the Revelation’s dating. Red herring is used again here as well.
Of note, Preston because he uses ad hominem here breaks Rules 2 and 4 of Hedge’s Rules of Conduct.
Preston tries for a red herring about 1 Corinthians 15 and tries to declare that his converse error is a valid argument. Then he claims that Revelation’s usage of the term “Babylon” is Jerusalem and presents it as a fact when it is nothing more than his interpretation. Again absolutely irrelevant to prove definitively whether the text is written before or after 70 CE. Many fallacies were made here on Preston’s part. Nowhere does he show us Revelation was written before 70 CE.
Preston in his fifth point again returns to Facebook comments instead of sticking to the written debate itself. Comments on Facebook are irrelevant to this debate. In a debate, Preston and I should be sticking to what is written inside the debate itself. I am to argue in this debate for a later date but I will not in the debate argue for it as being conclusive. Preston is attempting some form of misrepresentation. You can read what my affirmative is to be in the propositions of the debate we agreed to. He continues with nothing more than his interpretation of some texts that give us nothing about the date of Revelation and I am not in this debate arguing over superiority or inferiority over someone’s interpretation of a Bible book. He erroneously claims that the texts he gives are “not disputable facts unless you want to pervert the text”. Claiming your interpretation as fact does not mean it is a fact. A divine fallacy is employed here and false dichotomies abound since people all interpret the texts he references differently. The debate is not over this. It is a red herring because Preston keeps bringing irrelevant things up like what is inspired or non-inspired when he should be debating about the date of Revelation.
Of note, Preston breaks the rules of the debate we agreed upon as noted up top when I discussed his first attempt to bring a Facebook post into this. He also because he attempts a misrepresentation breaks Hedge’s Rule of Conduct 2 and 4.
“Bale tried to deflect the force of this by citing highly debatable, uninspired ‘church tradition’ written long after the fact that records the death of the apostles. Evidently, Bale trusts uninspired, dubious ‘tradition’ (written LONG after the facts) more than Scripture itself”. This is filled with fallacies. The debate is not over inspiration nor non-inspiration. He tries what seems to come close to an ergo decedo fallacy here. I am not arguing over church tradition being inspired or non-inspired. I simply gave some historical works that aid in potentially documenting the dates of the deaths of the apostles which does contradict Preston’s argument. These documents share what happened to the apostles and it should be noted, could obviously be debated about, which leaves the matter of the times of their deaths inconclusive. A lot of this is non-sequitur, loaded statements, and I suppose it is also an attempt at a divine fallacy again since he brings up inspiration and non-inspiration again which is irrelevant to the debate. Preston brings up Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians where not a single piece of the information therein these texts shows us that Revelation was written before 70 CE. Preston breaks Hedge’s Rule 2, 4, 6, and 7 here.
In conclusion, Preston adds nothing of substance to this debate to prove definitively that Revelation was written before 70 CE. He certainly writes a lot and gives his interpretation of what he believes about the texts he quotes from, but he gives absolutely nothing that definitively dates the Revelation to be before 70 CE. So far, Preston has not given anything other than his subjective interpretation of what he believes the Bible and Revelation are about. He covers nothing about the book itself except interpretations of what he believes Revelation is about and while we should look at internal data, nothing he has given to us proves definitively the Revelation was written before 70 CE. None of the “Scripture” he gives us says anything about the book of Revelation nor when it was written, and when he quotes Revelation itself, there is nothing internally found to give any indication it was written definitively before 70 CE. Multiple times Preston breaks the rules he agreed to in this written debate and one can only hope that for the sake of a decent debate that Mr. Preston can be professional and do a better job in his 3rd and final affirmative.