Anyone's view on eschatology is largely based on when you think Revelation was written, there seem to be two credible views on this. Hank Hanegraaff has slamed Tim Lahey's "Left Behind" series, largely based on the presupostion that Revelation was written around A.D. 95, Hank insists it was written around A.D. 65. John MacArthur has been a guest on Hank's show many times over the years, they have both acknowledged friendship and I thought they were cut from the same cloth as far as doctrine/theology was concerned. They are not, and I haven't heard John on the show since Hank's book "The Apocolypse Code" was released. In that book Hank slams Tim's views repeatedly, yet he does not slam John's views, wich are essentially the same.
From the "Legacy Study Bible";
"Revelation was written approximately A.D. 65-66. It is instructive to note that the A.D. 95-96 dating of Revelation is largely dependent on a single, and markedly ambiguous, sentence in the writtings of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons. There is strong evidence however, that Revelation was not written decades after the destruction of Jerusalem. Just as it is unreasonable to suppose someone writting a thesis on the future of terrorism in America in the aftermath of 9/11 would fail to mention the World Trade Center, it streches credulity to suggest Revelation was written after the devistation of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple yet make no mention of the cataclysmic event. Futhermore, if John wrote in A.D. 95, it is incredible to suppose he would not mention the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy. Finally, New Testament documents, including the book of Revelation (11:1), speak of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple as intact at the time they were written. Indeed, we can be certain that the entire canon was completed prior to A.D. 70."
From the "MacArthur Study Bible";
"Revelation was written in the last decade of the first century (ca. A.D. 94-96), near the end of Emperor Domitian's reign (A.D. 8--96). Although some date it during Nero's reign (A.D. 54-68), their arguements are unconvincing and conflict w/the view of the early church. Writting in the second century, Irenaeus declared that Revelation had been written toward the end of Domitian's reign. Later writters, such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Victorinus (who wrote one of the earliest commentaries on Revelation), Eusbius, and Jerome affirm the Domitian date.
The spiritual decline of the 7 churches (chaps. 2,3), also argues for the later date. Those churches were strong and spiritualy healthy in the mid 60's, when Paul last ministered in Asia Minor. The brief time between Paul's ministry there and the end of Nero's reign was too short for such a decline to have occured. The longer time gap also explains the rise of the heretical sect known as the Nicolations (2:6,15), who are not mentioned in Paul's letters, not even to one or more of these same churches (Ephesians). Finally, dating Revelation during Nero's reign does not allow for John's ministry in Asia Minor to reach the point at wich athorities would have felt the need to exile him."
_________________
"I'm wrong about fifty percent of the time, I'm just not sure wich fifty percent!"