The history of the Bible is the most misunderstood and misapplied of all legal historicisms, recklessly and consistently misinterpreted throughout history. In order not to be left behind, Borden persists with the old routine: repeating the usual misdiagnosis of the principles, as well as the miscalculation of the symbols and numbers used to obscure the very conclusions that he so seriously endeavored to explain. At the top of page one, he makes his first mistake in commenting on Apocalypse’s intent: Here, he raises in bold: “Revelation is a book written for all generations!” For many, the claim does not seem far-fetched; however, the time period was extremely short and was written for a “particular” generation.

The author continually predicts a futuristic “second coming”; yet equally continually, it would open Daniel’s cabal to understanding when such writings were sealed until the ‘time of the end’, or the ‘second coming’ so persistently foretold. So we come to a pause: are the writings of Daniel and Revelation open to understanding or not? If the prophecy of the ‘last days’ is closed to the understanding, then no one can access the hidden language to obtain an envied understanding; on the contrary, if they are open to understanding, then that event of the “last days” is history. How simple the restriction and how foolish modern hierophants to contradict their own esoteric estimation.

In predicting the ‘Death of the Biblical Beast’, the author ignores the true premise of the Biblical story: that is, the systematic march of a particular entity from one place to another (such as ‘Chosen People’). Only they were obliged to fulfill the Ten Ages (episodic intervals of the Covenant), in a time consistent with the messianic prerogatives; whose time included the destruction of the Temple and its peculiar termination of the Covenant. This critic would praise the author for his perseverance in interpretation, however erroneous, and for a sincere ambition to illuminate an obtuse world, however loaded with traditional memory.

Dr. Borden’s forecast of Daniel’s visions opening to understanding, and thus Revelation, in the mid-1st century AD, ignores its own futuristic requirements; because it proposes a future ‘time of the end’, after the 1st century AD (after AD 70), which, together with its assertion of Daniel’s perception, is meaningless up to the limit imposed by Daniel’s lack of access to the futuristic time in the denouement of Borden. of the evidence that he maintains is unassailable.

We must first recognize that the future “ sequence of events ” is feasible only in Parousia fulfillment: that is, a continuous event until the fulfillment and the prophecy of Daniel will not be accessible until this ‘time of the end’; if so then we should try the parameters for achievement. Return between the point in Daniel’s visions of Parousia the beginnings were sealed to understanding until the present ‘time of the end’. Hierophants cannot establish two Parousia event; So what will be the time that will lead to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70? C. or any destruction of the Temple in the future? In this, “relative negativism” would seem indicated, to clear our mind of unviable possibilities and alert our knowledge about practicality. And we would warn the curious; such a technique is not ubiquitous in modern attempts to extract modernist concepts from already accomplished historical events.

Furthermore, the author makes a critical mistake with this misinterpretation of the purpose of Revelation: “Seven reasons will clearly illustrate that Revelation was originally written about the fall of Rome in the first century; …“Without listing the many reasons, suffice it to say that the seven reasons are wrong. Furthermore, the author is grossly wrong in disputing the following truths with a traditional miscalculation:

* The Beast is Israel, not Rome as claimed.
* The locusts of the Apocalypse must be saints, not demons as it is postulated.
* ‘Second Death’ is not Spiritual Death but ‘death’ of Spiritual Death.
* Revelation was not written between “69 and 79 AD”; was written in 60 AD
* In interpreting the Image in relation to Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, Borden wrongly proposed that the Medo-Persian Empire was inferior to the Empire of Nebuchadnezzar and therefore represented the Image’s silver chest and arms. Reason ceases to be reason if we propose a lower kingdom to conquer a higher kingdom. No, the lower kingdom that succeeded Nebuchadnezzar was his grandson, Belshazzar, not the Medo-Persians.
* The woolly goat, Daniel 8, did not represent Greece as proposed by Borden; the symbol was a much more sinister opportunist (Greece) with features that represented Israel’s heritage.

We cannot list all the errors, but we can recommend the book as a means of discovering the many errors in traditional teaching. There is a more reliable exegesis for those who need to know.