Comment: again, Rev. 11...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Here you go. (see in situ)

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.