Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: HarleyD; P-Marlowe; topcat54

You would be wrong. TC54 has already acknowledged today that the late date of Revelation has considerable evidence.

It is clearly the most compelling.


84 posted on 09/01/2006 11:18:11 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]


To: xzins; P-Marlowe; Alex Murphy; HarleyD; Dr. Eckleburg; OrthodoxPresbyterian; TomSmedley
You would be wrong. TC54 has already acknowledged today that the late date of Revelation has considerable evidence.

Careful, I don't think I used that phrase. It is certainly not what I believe. All I conceded is that the date of Revelation is not an infallible dogma. Which is all I've ever said at any time.

Perhaps it's just wishful thinking on your part. I still do not believe the late date evidence is as compelling as the early date evidence.

89 posted on 09/01/2006 11:27:14 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies ]

To: xzins; P-Marlowe; topcat54
You would be wrong.... It is clearly the most compelling.

Perhaps but I have no dog in this fight except to say that the author's statement that "God has preserved His people" in reference to the Jews is flat out wrong and directly contradicts 1 Peter 2:9.

Besides, the evidence that the earth is 6 billion years old is equally compelling.

92 posted on 09/01/2006 11:29:36 AM PDT by HarleyD ("Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" Luk 24:45)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson