Quote Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
Are you by this statement, conceding that there was a fulfillment in 70 AD as preterists believe?

I think even DD has stated that a double fulfillment isn't excluded by preterism...so sure, it's plausible.

However, double fulfillment isn't necessary for preterism, but it seems to make it absolutely necessary for futurism in order to explain the imminence language.

LJ
I don't rule out double fulfillment in Revelation as impossible. But since I believe the evidence is firm enough to support that John's Revelation was after 70 CE, it's highly improbable. I admit that the only real stickler against futurism are the "imminent" verses in Rev, and something I've struggled with. But I think Psalms 90:4 is an adequate explanation for that. Likewise, there are far more sticklers such as this against preterism -- such as the evidence against Rev occurring prior to 70 CE, just to name one -- which weigh more against preterism, and is why I've come to doubt its veracity.