John's Revelation

[eclipsenow]

The texts reads: "They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years." So this is clearly saying that at ALL these saints came to live together, and then reigned the full 1000 years.

Does it? You added that in mate. Revelation 20 is cheering on the martyrs - it specifically spells that out. It's an encouragement to all Christians alive that even if they're killed for Christ, it's worth it because they'll be safe in heaven.

"I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge."
(Heavenly thrones we've seen earlier in Revelation.)

"And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands."
(Martyrs for Christ spelt out a few times over.)

"They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years."

The martyrs reigned with Christ - where is Christ? He hasn't returned yet - no where does the passage spell that out. This is still in heaven. NOTE how they came to life without going to hell - the 'second death'. Basically we could call this 'second life'. It's heaven, the weird in between state when humanity is waiting for the actual resurrection.

Another argument the "millennium" can't be the current time is this. The texts says about the saints that are resurrected: "those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands." The mark of the beast is clearly connected to the time of the outpouring of the wrath of God which can't be happening while there are still believers on Earth because of God's promises

Well, the mark of the beast has been happening for 2000 years and counting. It happens to anyone who worships military power and money instead of worshipping Christ. And these martyrs are reigning with Christ from where Christ reigns now. (Heaven.) So both can and are happening simultaneously.

This notion of a multi-stage resurrection is not supported by any Biblical text.

I didn't say that - I think I was struggling to communicate them being 'coming to life' in heaven. Note - they didn't get RESURRECTED - they 'came to life'. John is explaining heavenly rest to his culture - it's our fault we don't get it immediately - and the Scofield bible's fault there are so many Millennials around but that's a historical questions.

Regarding the link you shared, just one thing...
"According to Scripture, the resurrection of both the just and the unjust occurs simultaneously." > This is refuted in the very same chapter (Rev 20:5) "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended."
This obliterates the main argument for the two age narrative...

That would be correct if it were not for the fact that John doesn't say the martyrs are Resurrected, he is showing them 'coming to life' and reigning with Christ where Christ is.

Again, show me where Christ returns to earth? It's a BIG DEAL in the rest of the New Testament - but here it's not even mentioned. No trumpets, no Son of Man on the clouds, no falling of the stars. Nothing. It's your assumption that he 'obviously' returned with the 'Resurrected' martyrs - but what if you're wrong and this camera of John's has a heavenly focus?

One more remark about Satan isn't bound in the current time, below texts indicate that Satan actually has a lot of authority in the world today.
- 1 John 5:19
- Eph 2:2
- Col 1:13
- 2 Cor 4:4

I love how you say "obliterates" as if you've even comprehended what I'm saying in the first place - or thought through this stuff for years. You haven't - nor have you comprehended what Riddlebarger is saying. A piece of advice? Tone it down a bit - you haven't earned the right to speak like this.

What did I say us Millennials say Satan is bound with regards to? What does REVELATION say he is bound specifically in regards to? Go on - quote me - just so I know you've grasped what I'm actually saying.

You're the master of false dichotomies. You think you've found some exception to a rule (I haven't even stated in the first place) then quote your exception and yell OBLITERATED!
Ha ha ha - oh the humanity! Just calm down a bit hey? You'll live longer.

 

[AdB]

Does it? You added that in mate. Revelation 20 is cheering on the martyrs - it specifically spells that out. It's an encouragement to all Christians alive that even if they're killed for Christ, it's worth it because they'll be safe in heaven.

"I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge."
(Heavenly thrones we've seen earlier in Revelation.)

"And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands."
(Martyrs for Christ spelt out a few times over.)

"They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years."

The martyrs reigned with Christ - where is Christ? He hasn't returned yet - no where does the passage spell that out. This is still in heaven. NOTE how they came to life without going to hell - the 'second death'. Basically we could call this 'second life'. It's heaven, the weird in between state when humanity is waiting for the actual resurrection.


Well, the mark of the beast has been happening for 2000 years and counting. It happens to anyone who worships military power and money instead of worshipping Christ. And these martyrs are reigning with Christ from where Christ reigns now. (Heaven.) So both can and are happening simultaneously.


I didn't say that - I think I was struggling to communicate them being 'coming to life' in heaven. Note - they didn't get RESURRECTED - they 'came to life'. John is explaining heavenly rest to his culture - it's our fault we don't get it immediately - and the Scofield bible's fault there are so many Millennials around but that's a historical questions.



That would be correct if it were not for the fact that John doesn't say the martyrs are Resurrected, he is showing them 'coming to life' and reigning with Christ where Christ is.

Again, show me where Christ returns to earth? It's a BIG DEAL in the rest of the New Testament - but here it's not even mentioned. No trumpets, no Son of Man on the clouds, no falling of the stars. Nothing. It's your assumption that he 'obviously' returned with the 'Resurrected' martyrs - but what if you're wrong and this camera of John's has a heavenly focus?



I love how you say "obliterates" as if you've even comprehended what I'm saying in the first place - or thought through this stuff for years. You haven't - nor have you comprehended what Riddlebarger is saying. A piece of advice? Tone it down a bit - you haven't earned the right to speak like this.

What did I say us Millennials say Satan is bound with regards to? What does REVELATION say he is bound specifically in regards to? Go on - quote me - just so I know you've grasped what I'm actually saying.

You're the master of false dichotomies. You think you've found some exception to a rule (I haven't even stated in the first place) then quote your exception and yell OBLITERATED!
Ha ha ha - oh the humanity! Just calm down a bit hey? You'll live longer.

It seems that you are actually the one hyping out on a word you feel is used improperly, probably this is because you are quite passionate about this subject.
I used "Obliterate" simply to indicate that in my opinion these texts I provided completely negated the assertion you made about Satan being bound in the pit in our current time. These texts clearly show that Satan does have a lot of authority in this current age even though only so much as God allows him to have. And just look around in the world, one can't deny that Satan is actively and very successfully deceiving the whole world.

Please remember this subject is not a salvation-critical subject, and I actually think that, if (some of) the events of Revelation are yet to happen, we are in no better position to evaluate what the texts mean as the Ethiopian Eunuch was able to understand the scriptures he was reading. But once Philip pointed him to the recent events surrounding Jesus, the Eunuch was so much convinced that he insisted on getting baptized there on the spot! Equally, if the events of Revelation have already happened, or are happening as we speak, then we should be able to connect these events in Revelation to the historical events with the same amount of confidence as the Eunuch experienced!

In my opinion you have not been able to show this clear and obvious relation, I feel there is a lot of assuming and "reading things into the text" and you may say the same of people who read these texts otherwise.

 

[eclipsenow]

I seems that you are actually the one hyping out on a word you feel is used improperly, probably this is because you are quite passionate about this subject.
I used "Obliterate" simply to indicate that in my opinion these texts I provided completely negated the assertion you made about Satan being bound in the pit in our current time. These texts clearly show that Satan does have a lot of authority in this current age even though only so much as God allows him to have. And just look around in the world, one can't deny that Satan is actively and very successfully deceiving the whole world.

You're not comprehending a single thing I posted - it's sad.

Is the gospel still advancing into other nations?

 

[AdB]

You're not comprehending a single thing I posted - it's sad.

Is the gospel still advancing into other nations?

Yes I've read what you wrote and have countered that, to which you have not responded yet...

It's quite a stretch to read "could not deceive [πλανήσῃ (planēsē) 4105: To lead astray, deceive, cause to wander.] the nations" as "could not prevail over the Church".
Or in other words "could not stop the spread of the Gospel"

And there is a difference between "not comprehending a single thing I posted" and "not being convinced by what you posted"
As I already said, you are not providing a clear and convincing straight forward explanation of the texts in such a manner that it's obvious that these events clearly have aleady happened, or are in the process of unfolding in our time.

And as I also said, this is not a salvation-critical subject. It's good to study this subject though because I believe Scripture has more than one application, Revelation in this case being both prophetic but akso holding spiritual truths...

 

[eclipsenow]

It's quite a stretch to read "could not deceive [πλανήσῃ (planēsē) 4105: To lead astray, deceive, cause to wander.] the nations" as "could not prevail over the Church".

Not at all - given Jesus practically used the same language. Again:

Compare: "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven" (Luke 10:17-18).

Are you really saying that's literal?

"3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended."

Are you really saying that's literal?

 

[AdB]

Not at all - given Jesus practically used the same language. Again:

Compare: "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven" (Luke 10:17-18).

Are you really saying that's literal?

"3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended."

Are you really saying that's literal?

Both are not about events in the physical realm.
Luk 10:17-18 is clearly alegorically comparing a huge defeat of Satan as him falling out of heaven like lightning.
Rev 20:3 is describing in high detail what is happening in the spirirual realm, but having consequences in the physical realm.

Also your paralleling of Luk 10:17-18 with Rev 20:3 doesn't hold because one is before the sacrifice of Christ and the other after.

 

[eclipsenow]

Both are not about events in the physical realm.
Luk 10:17-18 is clearly alegorically comparing a huge defeat of Satan as him falling out of heaven like lightning.
Rev 20:3 is describing in high detail what is happening in the spirirual realm, but having consequences in the physical realm.

Luke shows what happened as the Kingdom was declared - as does Rev 20. Both have consequences in the real world - lives changed by the gospel to be more like Jesus.

Also your paralleling of Luk 10:17-18 with Rev 20:3 doesn't hold because one is before the sacrifice of Christ and the other after.

There's a slight difference in biblical theology timeframe, but the language used is very similar. Indeed, the same language is used about the very death and resurrection of Jesus!

Another passage which relates the restriction of Satan's activities to Christ's missionary outreach is John 12:31-32: "Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the ruler of this world be cast out; and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." It is interesting to note that the verb translated "cast out" (ekball) is derived from the same root as the word used in Revelation 20:3, "and threw (ball) him [Satan] into the pit." Even more important, however, is the observation that Satan's being "cast out" is here associated with the fact that not only Jews but men of all nationalities shall be drawn to Christ as he hangs on the cross.

The binding of Satan described in Revelation 20:1-3, therefore, means that throughout the gospel age in which we now live the influence of Satan, though certainly not annihilated, is so curtailed that he cannot prevent the spread of the gospel to the nations of the world. Because of the binding of Satan during this present age, the nations cannot conquer the church, but the church is conquering the nations.
The Millennium of Revelation 20 | Monergism​

 

[AdB]

Luke shows what happened as the Kingdom was declared - as does Rev 20. Both have consequences in the real world - lives changed by the gospel to be more like Jesus.

Not the same situation and not the same phrasing.

In Luk 10:18 Satan is seen falling from heaven LIKE lightning (so by definition this is allegorically) as a result of the disciples going out in Jesus' name, so a visual event as expression of (or "as result of", or "coming after") victory. Also as said, this is happening before Jesus' sacrifice.
While in Rev 20:3 Satan is not able to deceive the nations because he's bound in the pit, so first the binding and as result of that the victory. This event is described in great detail (including the thousand years with start and ending defined) and has no indication that it's to be taken allegorically. And as said, this is happening after Jesus' sacrifice (even in your timeframe) so both events can never be talking about the same event.

It is interesting to note that the verb translated "cast out" (ekball) is derived from the same root as the word used in Revelation 20:3, "and threw (ball) him [Satan] into the pit."

Words having the same root doesn't mean they have the same meaning...

John 12:31 "will be cast out" is comprised of two words:
will be cast
ἐκβληθήσεται (ekblēthēsetai)
Verb - Future Indicative Passive - 3rd Person Singular
Strong's Greek 1544: To throw (cast, put) out; I banish; I bring forth, produce. From ek and ballo; to eject.
out.
ἔξω (exō)
Adverb
Strong's Greek 1854: Without, outside. Adverb from ek; out(-side, of doors), literally or figuratively.

While Rev 20:3 "threw" is:
he threw
ἔβαλεν (ebalen)
Verb - Aorist Indicative Active - 3rd Person Singular
Strong's Greek 906: (a) I cast, throw, rush, (b) often, in the weaker sense: I place, put, drop. A primary verb; to throw.

Strongs 906 is "ballo"
Definition: to throw, cast
Usage: (a) I cast, throw, rush, (b) often, in the weaker sense: I place, put, drop.

Strongs 1544 is "ekballo"
Definition: to cast out
Usage: I throw (cast, put) out; I banish; I bring forth, produce.
For which the "out" is even emphasized by Strongs 1854 "exo"
Definition: outside, without
Usage: without, outside.

So the direction of "casting" in John 21:31 is OUT, which I think is talking about Satan being cast out of Heaven because of Jesus sacrifice, thus not able any more to accuse the saints (Rev 12:10b).
While the direction of "throwing" Rev 20:3 is INTO a place, which is clearly the pit.


So in my view my assertions still stands that Rev 20:3 "could not deceive the nations" doesn't mean "could not prevail over the Church or prevent the Gospel from spreading", that Rev 20:3 and Luke 10:18 are two different events, and that the thousand years in Rev 20:3 are to be taken literally.

 

[eclipsenow]

Excellent remark!
And Rev 20 also clearly states the starting point with the binding of Satan.

All the verses eclipsenow mentioned are either speaking about generations to come in general, are clearly metaphorical because of the context or are in one line with a different number indicating it's not about a specific quantity.

Don't get ahead of yourselves - this is apocalyptic symbolism and I want to know by what right you modern 21st century people think you can dictate the terms on which this is meant to be read. SURELY the first step is to ask how the ancient original generation read it.

Because of intricate and unusual symbolic language, the Book of Revelation is hard for modern people to read. They are not used to this kind of literature. Not so for people in the ancient world who would have been more accustomed to the complex nature of apocalyptic literature. The very fact that an apocalypse was a common type of literature meant that if followed certain conventions of style, and people knew more what to expect from it. Because there were many other examples of apocalyptic writing, these conventions would have seemed less strange and cryptic. Also, apocalyptic literature was almost always a kind of literature for "insiders," that is to say, it was written for people who already knew something of the situation and of the symbols that were used to portray it. So, for the original audience of the Revelation of John, all these strange scenes would have been immediately intelligible. What the modern reader or biblical scholar has to do is to try to read the text with "ancient eyes," by being informed about the way the literature worked and the situation out of which it came.
Book Of Revelation | Apocalypse! FRONTLINE | PBS​

It's apocalyptic. If ANY book of the bible has numbers in it that are symbolic, it's this.

We should not be surprised that the imagery says Satan will be 'let loose' just before the end as John gives a number of examples of all the evil rulers and powers in the world gathering for the last battle against God - but it is always anti-climactic. God breathes, and they're gone. A simple breath from his mouth - and the worst most powerful evil army of all time is wiped out. It's almost an anti-climax.

That the Millennium is not literal but symbolic is OLD - even St Augustine accepted that.

Prof White again:
This view holds that while the precise historical circumstances of Revelation pertained to the Roman world at the end of the Ist century CE, that it nonetheless has a kind of universal and timeless message for God's dealing with humanity in all generations. Thus it looks for symbolic elements that may apply across the ages. This symbolic or allegorical view is what lay behind St. Augustine's reading of Revelation, in which he argued that the 1,000-year reign was not a literal number at all but a figurative way of describing the "age of the church" on earth. This view has been the dominant one in most mainstream Christian interpretation, especially in Catholic tradition. It has also been influential in some philosophical appropriations of Revelation in western thinking.​

So the argument for the 1000 year reign being 'literal' because it has an 'expiry date' is clever rhetoric, but not true to the texts. Our modern literal driving licenses are NOT a good guide for how to read ancient Middle-Eastern apocalyptic symbolism - unless you think THIS following image is literal?

 

[eclipsenow]

Not the same situation and not the same phrasing.

In Luk 10:18 Satan is seen falling from heaven LIKE lightning (so by definition this is allegorically)

Your word games are invalid because the context over-rides your twisting and turning at minutiae. Jesus saw Satan cast down NOT at his death and resurrection, but at the proclamation of his kingdom by his disciples. Satan is 'confined' (whatever word you want to use in the English) NOT from hurting the world, inspiring mad leaders like Hitler to do horrible things, etc - but confined regarding one thing in particular. So that he cannot deceive the nations!

The number 1000 is always symbolic, the martyred saints are before the heavenly thrones, Jesus is in heaven - and no where does this passage mention him returning to earth - and Satan is prevented from stopping the gospel going forward. Honestly - it's not hard. This is simply what the passage is about. Only the strongest futurist presuppositions and being absolutely obsessed with it being all about US could make someone want to read it otherwise.


John is writing in apocalyptic symbolism - so by definition - and the appropriate practice of hermeneutics and understanding how the ancients read it - it is most DEFINITELY - BY DEFINITION - symbolic.
Again, unless THIS is literal?

 

[AdB]

That the Millennium is not literal but symbolic is OLD - even St Augustine accepted that.

Yes there is symbolism, but it is an unfounded assumption to consider EVERYTHING symbolic by default. Then the eternal afterlive would also be symbolic?
And before Augustine amillennialism was hardly considered by anyone...

EDIT: I understand amillennialism treats the timespans given by Daniel very literal, allbeit with application of the day-year principle. Why is this not taken symbolic?

 

[AdB]

Jesus saw Satan cast down NOT at his death and resurrection, but at the proclamation of his kingdom by his disciples. Satan is 'confined' (whatever word you want to use in the English) NOT from hurting the world, inspiring mad leaders like Hitler to do horrible things, etc - but confined regarding one thing in particular. So that he cannot deceive the nations!

You actually confirm what I say while still trying to deny it. You still try to convince me that "Satan being confined" is only regarding him not able to stop the gospel, but you are only making the statement without providing any ground why.

Satan deceiving the nations would mean he is able to lead them astray in all kinds of ways, false religions, secularism, sociological ideologies, you name it. That is all still around in full force, so obviousely Satan is still able to deceive the nations.

 

[eclipsenow]

Yes there is symbolism, but it is an unfounded assumption to consider EVERYTHING symbolic by default. Then the eternal afterlive would also be symbolic?

That's not what we are saying. It says true things about true topics in metaphorical language. It speaks about the church age as a Millennium, it speaks about tyranny as seven seals, it speaks about chaos in nature as seven trumpets, and it speaks about the New World as a marriage feast. Just think about how many parables and metaphors Jesus spoke about - and how your logic here would negate all that teaching because it wasn't literal enough for you!

And before Augustine amillennialism was hardly considered by anyone...

There was a complicated unfolding of various hopes and dreams by extremists terrified of Rome's various persecutions of the church, yes.

EDIT: I understand amillennialism treats the timespans given by Daniel very literal, allbeit with application of the day-year principle. Why is this not taken symbolic?

It's apocalyptic writing complete with various kingdoms dressed up as various beasts - yes. (And if you're willing to grant that note how the ultimate beast (Rome) in revelation seems to be a compilation of the worst features of Daniel's beasts.)

And some Amils have tried to squish Daniel's 70 weeks into various schemes to come to Antiochus - which I'm sympathetic to - and some to Jesus - which would be very tidy theologically but doesn't deal with all the detail in Daniel. I personally lean to it not being strict units of time but rough fractions of the time to Antiochus - that is - there'll be a lot of peace and then about at the '63 week' chunk there'll be some nastiness.

There's the rub. Daniel is a specific vision answering a detailed and specific question.

John is writing generic theology he wants 7 churches to obey during the Roman persecution, and beyond. John is answering basically one question - why does God let this happen to his people? Why is it happening, what's the point, who's behind it and what does it all mean?

Timing doesn't come into it - but timing is the very heart of Daniel's question.
There's why Amils take Daniel's more specifically / literally. Because that's the question Daniel actually asked. John didn't - but said 4 times in his opening chapter that it was soon and he himself was caught up in it.

For someone who wants to read John literally, you sure hurry past his introduction which sets up the rules on how to read the entire book!

1. "to show his servants what must soon take place" (verse 1)
2. " blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it" (Verse 3). How could the early church obey something about 2000 years later?
3. "because the time is near." (verse 3)
4. "I, John, your brother and partner in the TRIBULATION and the kingdom and the PATIENT ENDURANCE that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus." (Verse 9 - ESV - capitals mine.) John already SHARES in *their* TRIBULATION! John was already in jail because of his gospel work, and already demonstrating the common theme throughout the rest of Revelation - that we overcome THIS time we are in by "patient endurance".

 

[AdB]

That's not what we are saying. It says true things about true topics in metaphorical language. It speaks about the church age as a Millennium, it speaks about tyranny as seven seals, it speaks about chaos in nature as seven trumpets, and it speaks about the New World as a marriage feast. Just think about how many parables and metaphors Jesus spoke about - and how your logic here would negate all that teaching because it wasn't literal enough for you!

You seem to completely misunderstand what I said...

There was a complicated unfolding of various hopes and dreams by extremists terrified of Rome's various persecutions of the church, yes.

So don't try to make it seem as if amil was the main thought from the start and would therefore be more creditable.

There's the rub. Daniel is a specific vision answering a detailed and specific question.

And so is Revelation... You are applying "one rule fits all" on one book yet "context matters" for the other...

And you still haven't addressed my main argument...

 

[eclipsenow]

You seem to completely misunderstand what I said...

Then say it properly - and prove me wrong - don't hide behind your accusation of my misunderstanding

And so is Revelation... You are applying "one rule fits all" on one book yet "context matters" for the other...

NO - go back and read the last few posts - YOU are the applying the "One rule fits all" for EVERY BOOK which is even worse. You're just picking and choosing what you want to read in context, not me. You grabbed the literal Amils out of context and implied that because they try to read some of Daniel Seven's as literal years - that means all years in the bible are literal. That's just nonsense.

Context DOES matter. Daniel asked the Angel a specific question about a specific timing for a specific event. Show me where the same happens in Revelation?

 

[AdB]

NO - go back and read the last few posts - YOU are the applying the "One rule fits all" for EVERY BOOK which is even worse. You're just picking and choosing what you want to read in context, not me. You grabbed the literal Amils out of context and implied that because they try to read some of Daniel Seven's as literal years - that means all years in the bible are literal. That's just nonsense.

Again you are misreading what I wrote, and again you fail to address my prime argument...

As I already indicated, I'm open to good explanation of any paradigm, I've also set forth the conditions on which I would consider it reasonable. So far you have not been able to convince me. No problem because like I also said this is not a salvation critical subject, so there is also no need for you to get so combative...

 

[eclipsenow]

Again you are misreading what I wrote, and again you fail to address my prime argument...

As I already indicated, I'm open to good explanation of any paradigm, I've also set forth the conditions on which I would consider it reasonable. So far you have not been able to convince me. No problem because like I also said this is not a salvation critical subject, so there is also no need for you to get so combative...

You're scolding me for not replying to 'your argument' but I'm not sure you remember which one applies where? Right now I'll make it simple.

Context DOES matter. Daniel asked the Angel a specific question about a specific timing for a specific event. Show me where the same happens in Revelation?

 

[AdB]

You're scolding me for not replying to 'your argument' but I'm not sure you remember which one applies where? Right now I'll make it simple.

Context DOES matter. Daniel asked the Angel a specific question about a specific timing for a specific event. Show me where the same happens in Revelation?

I don't think there is any use in trying to continue this argument... You keep deflecting on what I actually asked about. I wish you all the best in your walk with God and we'll see how the future turns out.

 

[eclipsenow]

I don't think there is any use in trying to continue this argument... You keep deflecting on what I actually asked about. I wish you all the best in your walk with God and we'll see how the future turns out.

This is YOUR deflection from what we are actually discussing at the moment - but if you want to copy and paste whatever previous argument you feel upset about - we can discuss that. If it was the long copy and paste from Strong's - the context over-rides any tiny little nuances you may feel you made in that post. I've already said this - and it's not my fault if you don't like that as an answer but it IS the answer. But there is one argument you have not bothered to address - and unlike you - I will not be all enigmatic about it. I'll be clear.

Context DOES matter. Daniel asked the Angel a specific question about a specific timing for a specific event. Show me where the same happens in Revelation?

 

[keras]

Context DOES matter. Daniel asked the Angel a specific question about a specific timing for a specific event. Show me where the same happens in Revelation?

Revelation 20 specifically states that Jesus will reign with His saints on earth for a thousand years.
The thousand years is reiterated six times . It is years, not an illogical and incorrect metaphor, as some like to make it.