Biblical history is the most misunderstood and misapplied of all legal historicisms, recklessly and consistently misunderstood throughout history. Not to be outdone, Borden sticks to the old routine: he repeats the usual misdiagnosis of principals, as well as the miscalculation of symbols and numbers used to obfuscate the very conclusions he so earnestly strives to explain. Early on, on page one, he makes his first mistake in commenting on Revelation’s intent: here, he posits in bold: “Apocalypse is a book written for each generation!” To many, the statement doesn’t seem unreasonable; however, the time frame was extremely short and written for a ‘particular’ generation.
The author continually predicts a futuristic ‘second coming’; however, with the same continuity, he would open the kabbalah of Daniel to understand when such writings were sealed until the ‘time of the end’, or the ‘second coming’ so persistently predicted. So we come to a pause: are the writings of Daniel and Revelation open to understanding or not? if ‘last days’ prophecy is closed to understanding, then no one can access the hidden language for envied understanding; on the contrary, if they are open to understanding, then that ‘last days’ event is history. How simple the restriction and how foolish the modern hierophants to contradict their own esoteric estimation.
By predicting the ‘Death of the Biblical Beast’, the author ignores the true premise of the biblical story: namely, the systematic march of a particular entity from one place to another (as ‘Chosen People’). Only they were obliged to fulfill the Ten Ages (episodic intervals of the Alliance), in a time in accordance with the messianic prerogatives; time that included the destruction of the Temple and its peculiar termination of the Covenant. This reviewer would praise the author for his interpretive perseverance, misguided as it was, and for his sincere ambition to illuminate an obtuse world, albeit loaded with traditional rote.
Dr. Borden’s forecast regarding Daniel’s visions opening to understanding, and thus the Apocalypse, in the middle of the first century AD. C., ignores his own futuristic requirements; because he proposes a future ‘time of the end’, after the first century AD. (after AD 70), which, along with his assertion of Daniel’s insight, makes no sense up to the limit imposed by Daniel’s non-access to futuristic time in Borden’s denouement. of evidence that he considers unassailable.
We should first recognize that the future ‘sequence of events’ is feasible only in parousia fulfillment: ie, an event continuing until the fulfillment and Daniel’s prophecy not being accessible until this ‘time of the end’; if so, then we should try parameters for entertainment. Development between the point in Daniel’s visions to parousia beginnings was sealed from understanding until the news of the ‘time of the end’. Hierophants cannot establish two parousia event; So what will be the time leading up to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 or some future destruction of the Temple? There, ‘relative negativism’ would seem to be indicated, to clear our mind of unfeasible possibilities and alert our cognition to 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 error with this misunderstanding of the purpose of Revelation: “Seven reasons will clearly illustrate that Revelation was initially written about the fall of Rome in the first century;…Without listing the many reasons, suffice it to say that all seven reasons are wrong. Furthermore, the author makes a huge mistake by questioning the following truths with a traditional miscalculation:
* The Beast is Israel, not Rome as claimed.
* Revelation Locusts must be Saints, not Demons as 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 erroneously proposed that the Medo-Persian Empire was inferior to Nebuchadnezzar’s Empire and thus represented the silver chest and arms in the Image. Reason ceases to be reason if we propose an inferior kingdom in order to conquer a superior kingdom. No, the lower kingdom that succeeded Nebuchadnezzar was his grandson Belshazzar, not the Medo-Persians.
* The hairy goat, Daniel 8, did not represent Greece as Borden proposed; the symbol was a much more sinister opportunist (Greece) with traits representing 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 more reliable exegesis available for those who need to know.
