You seem to be making your own hermeneutics up as you go to support your own doctrine.
No.
Revelation 20:1-7 is self supporting.
At least Amil is consistent.
Questions to help you see its inconsistency you ignore.
Plus some definite errors you introduce about the nature of the new testament church which I will point out.
Both numbers are obviously figurative terms - one represents a small period of time the other represents a long period of time.
This is not reliable because the Bible mentions specific numbers of years in a few places.
Just because it rounds out to a neat
"a thousand" is not disbelieve the text.
It's not hard to work out.
It is hard to take six mentions of
"thousand years" and scoff them off as exaggeration or trivial figure of speech.
You must have other reasons to want to do so.
SIX TIMES the Holy Spirit told you
"a thousand years" or
"the thusand years." So you must have other reasons
why you don't believe it.
When the word of God says one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day it should be believed.
But do not let this one thing escape you, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day.
The Lord does not delay regarding the promise, as some count delay, but is long-suffering toward you, not intending that any perish but that all advance to repentance. (2 Pet. 3:8,9)
So your scoffing at the number of years is not the main problem. You must have other reasons to not believe in the millennium.
If they are based on errors made elsewhere by proponents of a literal interpretation that may be your just tossing out the baby with the bathwater. And notfully knowing of all the events of that future time is neither sufficient reason to oppose it.
There is no other corroboration in the rest of the Bible to support a literal interpretation of this thousand years. Quite the opposite!
There is plenty other passages supporting a time extended of Christ reigning on the earth vindicating some promises to Israel and
shepherding nations under His world wide administration.
And you also don't understand that the church is perfected into
"one new man" That is one new humanity and is no longer
described as many nations.
Abolishing in His flesh the law of the commandments in ordinances,
that He might create the two in Himself into one new man, so making peace,
And might reconcile both in one Body to God through the cross, having slain the enmity by it. (Ephesians 2:15,16)
Refusing to allow the cross to terminate national distinctions to divide the Body of Christ into "national" churches - ie.
Anglican, German, Greek, Chinese, American, Dutch "churches" is a self defeating heresy weakening the victory of unity.
And Paul said there
cannot be stratification, schism and division of the church into factions of ethnicity, race, and other forms of social divisiveness.
And have put on the new man, which is being renewed unto full knowledge according to the image of Him who created him,
Where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free man, but Christ is all and in all. Put on therefore, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, inward parts of compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, long-suffering; (Col. 3:10)
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave nor free man,
there cannot be male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:28,29)
Do when the New Testament speaks of Christ and a remnant of overcomers shepherding the NATIONS it does not mean
they in the "one new man" are kings over each other. It means those not brought into this transformative oneness of the divine life of sons of God will reign over nations transferred into the next age. And that is the millennial kingdom.
You thought all the saved go to heaven and eternity begins right after the second coming.
The thought is so strong in you that nothing of this makes sense. But the word of God means what it says.
We may have to drop our traditional concepts to believe what is written.
And out of His mouth proceeds a sharp sword, that with it He might smite the nations; and He will shepherd them with an iron rod; and He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. (Rev. 19:15)
And he who overcomes and he who keeps My works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations;
And he will shepherd them with an iron rod, as vessels of pottery are broken in pieces, as I also have received from My Father; (Rev. 2:26,27)
Six times God told you
"a thousand years" and you don't believe such a time could be future to the church age.
On the same rationale you could dismiss
four-hundred thirty years as just a figure of speech.
And I say this: A covenant previously ratified by God, the law, having come four hundred and thirty years after, does not annul so as to make the promise of none effect. (Gal. 3:17)
What is your hermeneutic rule which determines what number of years is only a figure of speech?
And if
"a thousand years" is a hyper-literal interpretation why the hypocrisy of using it yourself to say
it had to be a time span in the past? An indefinite long period of time could be future as well as past.
So you're not consistent but hypocritical using a double standard.