















The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site immediately. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2013 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul.
General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here


Comment: again, Rev. 11...
again, Rev. 11...
...is a reference to the second temple. Otherwise, why would John not even mention the fulfillment of Christ's most apocalyptic prophecy, as every other fulfilled prophecy in the Bible was noted by the writers? I agree with Sproul -- if the second temple had already been destroyed, John's silence about it is "deafening!"
For that and a long list of other reasons, I personally subscribe to the early date of Revelation; that it was a letter to the seven churches during the time of Nero about what was to happen "soon," in 70 AD.
By the way, 7 years isn't in Revelation; so I don't see where those scholars you mentioned got that either.
Didn't mean to come off argumentative, though. Thanks for your reply.
Replies to this comment: