Is the thousand years of Revelation chapter 20 symbolic?

[iamlamad]

When is now? 90 AD? What takes place later happens now in 2020..

Of course; "now" back then was in John's present time when He was called up to heaven.

 

[Timtofly]

@Spiritual Jew just showed you Paul teaching the Ephesians about a spiritual resurrection.

The problem with calling it spiritual is the fact that Paul also called it going from one body to another body. Now the soul cannot do that at will, even though Paul said it would be preferable. Paul said it happened to him. He said it does happen at death.

What you all are confused with is the ability not the practice. One who remains firm in their own ability to save themselves are never given the ability, and they at death never realize in practice. They end up in sheol, surprised I assume. Some already made up their mind that is where they end up and do not care one bit.

Now those who accept God's gift of Atonement, are given the ability. It is not physical, but a spiritual credit to the reality. Paul claims that at death, the ability is concrete and the realization is immediate.

Most are taught they have to wait, and wait, and wait, some thousands of years, some hundreds of years. Wait where? The resurrection bodily happened with Christ in 30AD. Are you waiting for time to go back to 30AD? Paul never called it a bodily resurrection. Paul explained death was the door from one body to the heavenly body. Only those alive at the Second Coming will be changed both bodily, and death will be a instantaneous as any other death. It just happens as one is rising up into the air. Those who already died even minutes before the Second Coming, come with Christ not to Christ.

Some here are spiritual dispensationalist. They think the dead from certain dispensations go to heaven in split shifts. Some have gone, others have to wait. It is a guessing nightmare. Some claim most have to wait until the GWT and are among the unbelievers. How can any one split up the church and say some have to wait and others get to go at different times? In the OT all the church was in Abraham's bosom. At the Cross all of Abraham's bosom entered Paradise. Paul says the church goes every minute each member dies physically. No one waits any more. Christ opened the door, the church has entered one by one, or in some cases when a whole group is martyrd, at one time, over the last 1990 years.

 

[Timtofly]

All those verses are talking about the Holy Spirit. That is your theory, and you are welcome to it. But the church in general would disagree. Why are your theories so often different than most other believers?

Only one is talking about the Holy Spirit: in Eph. 3 I copied "his Spirit in the inner man;" to show that our "inner man" is the real us. All the rest of the verses are talking about the HUMAN spirit.

Take this verse for an example:

1 Corinthians 2:11
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?

Why would ANYONE imagine this is speaking of the Holy Spirit?

I am sorry to say, but your thinking is clear out of the ball park.

Why stay in the ball park of a 1600 year old apostate church? Only the Holy Spirit can be in a person. One's own spirit was a covering. John called it a robe of white.

Now when Moses came down from the mount, his face shown so bright, they had to cover it. Was Moses given his spirit in order to communicate directly with God? Are you saying it went back inside of him? Moses is the exception, not the rule. Jesus did the same thing on the mount of transfiguration. Was he letting his spirit out, or did their eyes see what normal eyes cannot? Notice Moses was also there....

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Therefore, I will agree, Paul does not mention an earthquake. But when we match scripture with scripture, I think it will be so. Can you prove with scripture that his sudden destruction cannot be an earthquake?

I already did. I'm confused as to why you ask me questions about things that I've already explained.

Once again, as I said before, notice how what Paul wrote lines up with what Peter wrote.

1 Thess 5:1 Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.

Compare that to this passage that obviously speaks of the same event:

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.
11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

Peter said the destruction will be by fire on the entire earth. I side with Peter. Paul said "they will not escape" and Peter makes the reason clear. There is no escaping fire coming down upon the entire earth. End of story. I have no interest in continuing this particular discussion because, to me, it's really not debatable. It's that obvious.

 

[Timtofly]

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.

Technically this translation does not say there is a new earth. It say it is laid bare. What a forest fire does, except trees, buildings, any structure will not be left as standing reminders. Nothing will be standing and nothing to build with. In the 6th seal, men have to go back to living in caves.

 

[DavidPT]

As for no interaction between the souls John saw and what's going on in Satan's little season, that's because the souls are in heaven while Satan's little season occurs on earth.

We are in agreement to a degree, at least in agreement about the little season they are told to rest paralleling with something significant taking place back on earth. I can't think of anything more significant than the 42 month reign of the beast, which I take to be meaning the GT mentioned in the Discourse.

Even though the little season they are told to rest in heaven during would be meaning the 42 month reign of the beast back on earth per my view, it would not be meaning satan's little season after the thousand years though, since I am applying this part---their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were(Revelation 6:11)--to that of the martyrs recorded in Revelation 20:4, and that they are already martyred before satan's little season even begins.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I can see no reason at all to not directly relate that to this: I agree. Both Paul and Peter speak of the very same Day of the Lord. Are you forgetting something here? Many people forget TIME. Do you imagine the Day of the Lord comes and ends in a flash - a second or less? Maybe you imagine it is a 24 hour day like all other "days."

Imagine? No. The context gives no indication whatsoever that the destruction that will come down on the day of the Lord, which is the day Christ returns, will take longer than a 24 hour day. It will probably be pretty quick if the amount of time it takes our bodies to change is any indication of how quickly things will happen on that day.

The truth is, the Day of the Lord is a long, extended period of time when God bring judgment first, then eternity.

Where do Paul or Peter even hint at such a thing? Nowhere that I can see. All I see in 1 Thess 4:13-5:6 and 2 Peter 3:3-13 are things that will occur on the very 24 hour day that Christ returns. We can derive from those 2 passages that just before the heavens and earth are destroyed by fire, the dead in Christ will be raised from the dead at the coming of the Lord and we will then be caught up with them to meet the Lord in the air. Once all believers are safely out of the way and have had their bodies changed to be immortal (1 Cor 15:50-54) then the fire comes down upon the unbelievers on the earth and destroys them.

Let's examine Peter's statement: Yes, He agrees with Paul, the DAY of the Lord will come as a thief. Peter probably read Paul's letter. Comparing scripture with scripture, this will happen at the 6th seal where John tells us the Day begins.

Next, Peter tells us "the heaven's will disappear with a roar." Where else do we read this? At the 6th seal John wrote, " the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together..." So this event would be in the first second or seconds of the Day of the Lord.

Next, Peter tells us, "the elements will be destroyed by fire..." Would this have to come in the first seconds, or could it come later in the Day? The way Peter wrote it, it could come later. It could be at the end of the Day. All we can prove from what Peter said is that sometime during this Day of the Lord, the elements will burn. Where else do we read about this?

1 Corinthians 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

Notice the time here: "THE DAY shall declare it." It is Day of the Lord timing. Where do we find "fire" that might give us timing information?

2 Thes. 1: 7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

So it seems the fire that tries the works of man, the fire that comes from elements burning may well come when Jesus comes. It is a coming for vengeance.

For what reason would there be any delay (beyond the changing of bodies to be immortal and catching up of believers to the Lord) in the burning up of the earth when Jesus comes? I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing your point here.

Do we see any hint of vengeance in His coming in 1 Thes. 4 - a coming FOR His saints? No, we see vengeance in His coming as shown in Rev. 19, His coming to Armageddon. It is at this coming that the armies of heaven are mentioned.

Why do so many people try to act as if two passages can't be related together if they don't contain the same details? I don't get it. Do you think Matt 24:29-31 doesn't relate to Rev 19 since Rev 19 doesn't mention the gathering of the elect? If not, then what basis is there for thinking 1 Thess 4:13-17 can't be related to 2 Thess 1:7-10?

You mentioned that 1 Thess 4 is a coming FOR His saints. It's also a coming WITH his saints, which should be understood be the souls of the dead in Christ.

1 Thess 4:14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.

Therefore, I conclude that this phrase from Peter is not at the START of the Day of the Lord, but after some TIME has passed. You may not believe it, but from the 6th seal to the coming in Rev. 19 is going to be over 7 years of time.

You're right. I don't believe it. Why would it say that the time of the wrath of the Lamb has come if it doesn't actually come down until 7 years later? Pretrib is so illogical that it boggles my mind.

Rev 6:12 I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red, 13 and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind. 14 The heavens receded like a scroll being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.
15 Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and everyone else, both slave and free, hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. 16 They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! 17 For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can withstand it?”.

How can they say "the great day of their wrath has come" if Jesus doesn't come to destroy His enemies for 7 more years? You can't say something has come if it won't come for 7 more years. That defies all logic.

The 6th seal is opened just before the 70th week, and Jesus coming to Armageddon is some unknown time after the week. This is still in agreement with Peter. The DAY is still ongoing at Armegeddon.

The 70th week has already been fulfilled by the prince (Jesus) who established the new covenant long ago. This is a topic better left for its own thread, so I'm not going to say any more about it here.

Paul did not specify what causes the destruction, but Peter did. It said it will be by fire. Now you are trying to align two scriptures that will not fit together.

Goodness. If you can't align 1 Thess 5:1-6 directly with 2 Peter 3:10-13 then no 2 passages can align together. Both say that the day of the Lord will come like a thief and that it will bring about destruction that people can't escape from. But, they don't align? Ugh. I'm just completely baffled by the way you look at scripture.

Paul's destruction is RIGHT THEN, at the same moment that those alive and in Christ are caught up, those left behind suffer the sudden destruction - at the START of the DAY.

Why is Paul's sudden and Peter's is not? How selective. I believe that only doctrinal bias could lead you to such a conclusion.

 

[Christian Gedge]

My friend, I don't allow myself any kind of offense. We are good - we just disagree on many points! ;-) You can deny a millennial reign "till the cows come home." But when it comes, look me up!

We will find the cows with Iamlamad on one of the “thousand hills.” (Psalm 50:10)

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Sorry, but Paul did not use that word.

He didn't use the word rapture either, so I guess that means the rapture won't ever happen?

 

[DavidPT]

The following is an argument used by Premils a lot, and has been used in this thread as well, since I recall seeing this argument in this thread.

Even though I myself agree that the thousand years are a literal thousand years, this argument, that because it is repeated 6 times in that same passage, it therefore proves the thousand years are literal, is a weak and unconvincing argument. That might be like the dragon being repeated 6 times in the same passage, and then someone arguing, well, since the dragon is mentioned 6 different times in this passage, one must conclude a literal dragon is meant, then.


A better argument would be, since every single place a cardinal number is followed by years in the Bible, the amount of years specified are literally meaning that amount, it then stands to reason, that when thousand is followed by years, so must it literally mean the amount specified here as well.

As to something like weeks, for example, it can mean a literal 7 day week, or can mean a week of years, such as in Daniel 9. There is no set pattern where a week always has to mean a literal 7 day week every single time. But as to cardinal numbers being followed by years, there is a set pattern, and that is that it literally means the amount specified every single time. And for this set pattern to not also apply to a thousand when it is followed by years, I find that to be unreasonable.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

My goodness. After all I said, this is your response?
Yes, I am only asking for scripture!

Is Eph 2:1-6 not scripture? Now I'm convinced that you're just messing with me by asking me questions that I've already answered. You can't fool me anymore with this game you're playing!

By definition "resurrection" means physically dead coming alive.

By YOUR definition. I don't interpret scripture by your definitions. Resurrection means to go from death to life which is what happens when we go from being dead in sins to spiritually alive in Christ.

You have appropriated this word and applied to the born again experience. All I ask is you show us where any writer in the bible uses this word for one being born again. Or now are you showing us that you believe something that cannot be proven with scripture?

Again, I showed you Eph 2:1-6. Do you not think that passage is about being born again? It says when we are saved/born again God raises us up with Christ in the heavenly realms (in a spiritual sense). How can God spiritually RAISING US UP not be a resurrection?

What else do you call going from being spiritual dead in trespasses and sins to being spiritually alive in Christ? I call it being born again - what God called it.

How about the phrase "raised up". Is that close enough? What you are showing me is there is no scripture where "resurrection" is used for the born again experience. Ephesians says we have been "raised" to sit at the right hand of God, but "resurrection" does not fit that either.

To go from DEAD in sins to LIFE in Christ doesn't fit the concept of a resurrection? Wow. This is the one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever been part of. If we can use your kind of logic (the word resurrection is there, so it can't be a resurrection) then we can say that Paul does not teach about a rapture since he never uses that word. Can you see how ridiculous that logic is?

Webster's

1 a: the rising of Christ from the dead
1.b: the rising again to life of all the human dead before the final judgment
1.c: the state of one risen from the dead
" from Late Latin resurrection-, resurrectio act of rising from the dead, from resurgere to rise from the dead, from Latin, to rise again...

I didn't know Webster's could dictate to us how we should understand scripture. Can you show me the scripture that says we should rely on Webster's for understanding?

Are you really so hyper-literal that unless a passage contains the word "resurrection" it can't be speaking of a resurrection?

I just know that no writer of the bible used that word, "resurrection" to refer to anything but a physical resurrection of someone dead to becoming alive. Why then should we change the biblical meaning? To fit some theory?

Again (and hopefully for the last time), using this kind of logic couldn't we say that using the word "rapture" changes the biblical meaning since the word isn't used in scripture? I'm not buying your line of reasoning here at all. Going from being dead in sins to alive in Christ is a resurrection because all resurrection means is to go from death to life (and it doesn't have to only mean bodily).

By the way, I can see in my notifications that you replied to several of my posts, so I guess we're not done discussing these things, after all.

Now you are being funny again! It is true, there are things I just could not let pass.

Let's be honest. We don't know each other personally at all. Apart from discussion on serious topics like this, I like to joke around and laugh a lot. But, I don't think it would be appropriate to joke around a lot when we're discussing God's Holy Word. The last thing I want to do is make light of holy scripture. But, it's nice to throw a joke in once in awhile to remind you that I'm human and not some bot that auto-responds to your posts.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Technically this translation does not say there is a new earth. It say it is laid bare. What a forest fire does, except trees, buildings, any structure will not be left as standing reminders. Nothing will be standing and nothing to build with. In the 6th seal, men have to go back to living in caves.

It's called a new earth in verse 13, not verse 7 (the verse I quoted in that post that you responded to here). In verse 7 it is referred to as the present earth.

However, there is finally something I agree with you about. I agree that the new earth will not be an entirely new earth but rather will be this earth renewed to perfection at which point "there will be no more death" and will only be a place "where righteousness dwells" (2 Peter 3:13).

 

[Spiritual Jew]

such as saying that no one would be saved/born again during a 1007 year period on the future. Why ask a question about something not written? If you can find a verse proving people are born again even during the 70th week, by all means SHOW it, and I will immediately change my thinking. I cannot find such a verse. But then, how COULD you show me such a verse when you deny the 1000 years?

My point: the born again experience MAY be only for the church age. Can you prove or disprove this statement by scripture?

Jesus very specifically said that one cannot see and enter the kingdom of God without being born again. And he made it clear that the only way to obtain eternal life was by believing in Him (John 3:16). He made no mention of that not being the case at some point in the future. So, the onus is on you to show where scripture teaches that what Jesus taught in John 3 will no longer be true at some point in the future. Can you do that?

Also, scripture never mentions such a thing as a "church age". Using the logic you like to use regarding it not being possible for there to be a spiritual resurrection just because the word "resurrection" isn't specifically used when it is described would mean that it is also not possible for there to be a "church age" since that phrase cannot be found in scripture.

So, if you insist that your method of reasoning regarding a spiritual resurrection is viable, then you have no choice but to agree with me that there is no such thing as a "church age" as well since "church age" can't be found in scripture.

More importantly, the concept of a "church age" followed by another temporal age can't be found in scripture, either.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You and I have already agreed that the blood of animals really cannot take away sins. At best God allowed animal blood to COVER sins. Yet God used the words "atone" for the sacrifices under the law. We both agree they were only POINTING ahead to Jesus' Sacrifice. Right?

I have said so many times, right? I haven't changed my mind on that. So, yes, you're right.

In other words, their sins were not really "removed" or place into the sea of God's forgetfullness until Jesus died. Still agree?

Yes, I'm tracking with you so far, but I'm sure you are going to go off the rails at some point here since I know where you're heading with this.

Yet by the very language we find describing those animal sacrifices, made it SEEM that animal blood was indeed removing their sins. Still agree?

Sure. I can sense you getting to your main point any time now.

Then you also believe that animal sacrifices will be reinstituted as sin offerings to atone for people's sins. I did not SAY that. You only inferred it. Did Moses have sin offerings back then? Did they really REMOVE sins?

Were any sins and the guilt thereof really REMOVED under the Old Covenant? Please answer.

You don't have to say please. The answer is obviously no. Only Christ's blood of the new covenant can permanently remove the sins of any person who has ever lived. He died for the sins of all people throughout history.

It specifically says, as I showed, that they would be sin offerings for the atonement of the sins of the Israelite people.

Isn't that exactly what Leviticus said they were for under Moses law?

Exodus 29:36 And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement:

Compare with:
Hebrews 10:4

For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

In other words, the bullock in verse 36 was only a temporary fix: it could not remove their sins, neither the guilt of their sins. They had to wait until Jesus death to get their sins GONE. AGree?

Yes. So, what is your point? With all that in mind why would animal sacrifices be necessary in the future? Remember...

Hebrews 10:1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.

The OT animal sacrifices were ONLY meant to be a foreshadowing of Christ's sacrifice. So, they served their purpose. For what possible reason would they be reinstituted to atone for people's sins even in the sense that they did in OT times? Please do not say they would be done in remembrance of Christ when the prophecy says no such thing and instead says they would be for the atoning of sins.

Why revert back to the ways of the inferior old covenant? That would imply that the new covenant of Christ's shed blood will somehow not be sufficient at that point. What a terrible thought!

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The following is an argument used by Premils a lot, and has been used in this thread as well, since I recall seeing this argument in this thread.

Even though I myself agree that the thousand years are a literal thousand years, this argument, that because it is repeated 6 times in that same passage, it therefore proves the thousand years are literal, is a weak and unconvincing argument. That might be like the dragon being repeated 6 times in the same passage, and then someone arguing, well, since the dragon is mentioned 6 different times in this passage, one must conclude a literal dragon is meant, then.

I don't know if you saw, but I said basically the same thing as well. I can't remember when or if it was in this thread, though. The only difference is I said the beast is mentioned 35 times in the book, so that must mean it's literal. If 6 times means something's literal then the beast must be very literal. What a scary sight it will be.

A better argument would be, since every single place a cardinal number is followed by years in the Bible, the amount of years specified are literally meaning that amount, it then stands to reason, that when thousand is followed by years, so must it literally mean the amount specified here as well.

I don't find this to be a particularly strong argument, either. Those other references aren't contained within a highly symbolic book like the "thousand years".

As to something like weeks, for example, it can mean a literal 7 day week, or can mean a week of years, such as in Daniel 9. There is no set pattern where a week always has to mean a literal 7 day week every single time.

To me, that proves that time periods mentioned within highly symbolic books should not be assumed to be literal.

But as to cardinal numbers being followed by years, there is a set pattern, and that is that it literally means the amount specified every single time. And for this set pattern to not also apply to a thousand when it is followed by years, I find that to be unreasonable.

I find your argument to be unreasonable. For some reason you're fine with a week (normally 7 days) being 7 years, but you can't accept that a thousand years can be anything but a thousand years. No, I don't find that to be reasonable at all.

 

[DavidPT]

Again (and hopefully for the last time), using this kind of logic couldn't we say that using the word "rapture" changes the biblical meaning since the word isn't used in scripture? I'm not buying your line of reasoning here at all. Going from being dead in sins to alive in Christ is a resurrection because all resurrection means is to go from death to life (and it doesn't have to only mean bodily).

Just out of curiosity, why do you then argue that no one in Revelation 20:4 lives again, meaning as of the first resurrection? How can a resurrection possibly not involve living again, regardless what sense it might be meaning in? Who could actually argue, then be expected to be taken seriously, that a resurrection doesn't involve living again, even though that is the very definition of a resurrection?

Using your example above, and if we start with Adam, initially he didn't need to be resurrected in any sense, meaning prior to the fall, correct? But after the fall, assuming your example above, would he not need to go back to the state he was previously in before the fall? And if he was spiritually alive before the fall, but then became spiritually dead after the fall, then became spiritually alive again before he is ever bodily resurrected, how can all of that not add up to that he lived again?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Just out of curiosity, why do you then argue that no one in Revelation 20:4 lives again, meaning as of the first resurrection? How can a resurrection possibly not involve living again, regardless what sense it might be meaning in? Who could actually argue, then be expected to be taken seriously, that a resurrection doesn't involve living again, even though that is the very definition of a resurrection?

David, I have explained my understanding of Rev 20 to you MANY times including several times recently. And you still don't know how I interpret it? Why? Anyway, I'll do it one more time.

I believe that the first resurrection is Christ's resurrection specifically.

Acts 26:23 that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles.”

I believe we spiritually have part in His resurrection when we're born again and go from being dead in our sins to spiritually alive in Christ (see Eph 2:1-6). Our souls and spirits go to be with Him in heaven when we physically die and we then "live and reign" with Christ there.

I believe that when John actually sees the souls of dead believers, they are in heaven and he sees them living and reigning with Christ there. He does not say that he sees them live again or come back to life. That's what premils miss.

The Greek word zao means to live or be alive and does not mean to come back to life. It can refer to someone being alive after previously being dead or to someone being alive who hasn't died. Or to those who have physically died but their souls are still alive (absent from the body, present with the Lord). But, it's not a word used to describe the actual act of coming back to life or being resurrected.

Rev 20:1 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived (Greek: zao) and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Strong's 2198: zao:

Definition

1. to live, breathe, be among the living (not lifeless, not dead)
2. to enjoy real life
   1. to have true life and worthy of the name
   2. active, blessed, endless in the kingdom of God
3. to live i.e. pass life, in the manner of the living and acting
   1. of mortals or character
4. living water, having vital power in itself and exerting the same upon the soul
5. metaph. to be in full vigour
   1. to be fresh, strong, efficient,
   2. as adj. active, powerful, efficacious

Notice that none of those definitions of the Greek word say to live again or come back to life.

If he intended to say that he saw them come back to life bodily then I believe he would have used the same Greek word translated as "lived again" within the phrase "lived not again" in Rev 20:5 (the "not" in between is a separate Greek word), which is anazao.

Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again (lived...again - Greek: anazao) until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection

Strong's 326: anazao

Definition

1. live again, recover life
   1. to be restored to a correct life
      1. of one who returns to a better moral state
   2. to revive, regain strength and vigour

 

[iamlamad]

Why stay in the ball park of a 1600 year old apostate church? Only the Holy Spirit can be in a person. One's own spirit was a covering. John called it a robe of white.

Now when Moses came down from the mount, his face shown so bright, they had to cover it. Was Moses given his spirit in order to communicate directly with God? Are you saying it went back inside of him? Moses is the exception, not the rule. Jesus did the same thing on the mount of transfiguration. Was he letting his spirit out, or did their eyes see what normal eyes cannot? Notice Moses was also there....

Can you PLEASE show this in scripture. I have never heard of such a thing.

I don't see how Moses has anything to do with human spirits - except he had one. EVERYONE Has a human spirit because if not they would be DEAD.

Your theory on human spirits might come from somewhere, but not the written word of God. Please do some research on this.

 

[iamlamad]

I don't know if you saw, but I said basically the same thing as well. I can't remember when or if it was in this thread, though. The only difference is I said the beast is mentioned 35 times in the book, so that must mean it's literal. If 6 times means something's literal then the beast must be very literal. What a scary sight it will be.

The six times is confirmation that is is REAL, not imagined. First it was "thousand years. Then it was THE thousand years. In fact, depending on which Greek manuscript, ever subsequent mention is THE thousand years, pointing to the first mention.

I know, you don't think it is "real" but symbolic. In my opinion, you take far too much of Revelation symbolically.

For your reasoning, you pick two mentions of "thousand" that is symbolic elsewhere in scripture, when there are probably a hundred uses NOT symbolic. You don't consider JOHN'S other uses of the word. (I just used hundred symbolically because I did not bother to count.

 

[iamlamad]

I find your argument to be unreasonable. For some reason you're fine with a week (normally 7 days) being 7 years, but you can't accept that a thousand years can be anything but a thousand years. No, I don't find that to be reasonable at all.

Of course "thousand" CAN be symbolic. The only way to determine is the CONTEXT. I find the context very convincing that it is a real 1000 years. Can you point to a word or words in those verses of context that would show the reader it SHOULD be symbolic?

Again I must ask, do you take the streets of Gold as symbolic? Do you take the river of life symbolic. Do you take the Holy City as symbolic? Or do you just pick and choose what ever you imagine must be symbolic to fit some theory? In other words, HOW do you choose? Just make the entire book symbolic?