Heaven Or Hell

[Ain't Zwinglian]

the burden isn’t on me to explain why I take it literally,

Sure it is.

Another hermenuetical rule I follow is the clear texts interpret the obscure texts of Scripture. My two clear texts are I Thes 4 and I Cor 15. Premills start with a figurative and obscure text (Rev. 20) and interpret the clear text (I Thes 4 and I Cor 15).

Where do the clear texts say a literal 1000 year reign....it doesn't.

I'll stick with the clear texts, have fun with obscure texts.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Revelation is prophecy, which God said is given in riddles (Nu 12:6-8), which riddles are not teaching.

Absolutely correct....

Adding to this: John gives us the interpretative key on how to interpret literal from figurative in the Book of Revelation. In Rev. 1:20, As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

When do we interpret literally in the Book of Revelation? When St. John specifically tells us we can.

No such interpretative key is found anywhere in Rev. 20.

 

[1Tonne]

When any person uses the term "explicitly" they are demanding precision in Bible speak, where such precision does not exist. They are demanding a level personal belief and personal interpretation which is impossible to overcome from an exegetical standpoint. Impossible.

For example, where does the Bible EXPLICITLY state an eight year old boy can not be a pastor? It doesn't. Does this mean an eight year old boy can be a pastor? Of course not. An eight year old boy is disqualified through Paul's qualification criteria of a pastor in Timothy and Titus.

Or where does the Bible explicitly condemn abortion? It doesn't. But it is condemned under the Fifth Commandment....You shall not murder.

Anytime a person uses the term "explicitly" for the interpretation of Scripture, it demonstrates an elemental ability in handling the text of Scripture.

I flat out reject the usage of the term "explicitly" as a hermenuetical principle for interpreting Scripture.

I’m not demanding that the Bible use the exact wording I prefer—I’m asking whether Scripture contradicts a literal 1,000-year reign. You’ve spent a lot of time rejecting my position but haven’t provided a single passage that actually refutes it. (That is pretty weak. And really I should not even be bothering to engage with you by now)

Your examples (pastoral qualifications, abortion) prove my point. While the Bible may not explicitly state those things in one sentence, it provides clear teachings that together establish them. (Thanks for proving my point) Likewise, Revelation 20 fits within the broader biblical picture of a future reign of Christ on earth (Daniel 7, Zechariah 14, Isaiah 2).

So, I’ll ask again: Where does Scripture contradict a literal 1,000-year reign? If you can’t provide that, then rejecting it on the basis of ‘no parallel passage’ is just an arbitrary rule you’ve made up. I’m happy to continue discussing Scripture, but if we’re just going in circles, then this conversation isn’t productive.
If you can give me 2 verses that counter the literal 1000 years, then I will continue with you. If you cannot, then there is no need to continue. (I know you will want to leave one more post so that you feel like you have won this discussion. Feel free to go ahead. Just make sure you have those 2 verses in it)

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Where does Scripture contradict a literal 1,000-year reign?

No parallel text... via Scripture interprets Scripture.

I have no problem affirming that Scripture interprets Scripture—including Revelation 20.

In post #113 you affirmed this hermenuetical rule.

(Thanks for proving my point)

Yes, thank you for proving my point.....Scripture interprets Scripture needs a parallel text. Thank you for agreeing with me.

No need to continue you this conversation as "you proved my point" and Post #113 proves it. But thanks anyway for proving my point.

I am out of this conversation.

 

[1Tonne]

No parallel text... via Scripture interprets Scripture.

In post #113 you affirmed this hermenuetical rule.


Yes, thank you for proving my point.....Scripture interprets Scripture needs a parallel text. Thank you for agreeing with me.

No need to continue you this conversation as "you proved my point" and Post #113 proves it. But thanks anyway for proving my point.

I am out of this conversation.

No need to be so hostile. We are simply having a conversation.
Did you miss my last post?
"Your examples (pastoral qualifications, abortion) prove my point. While the Bible may not explicitly state those things in one sentence, it provides clear teachings that together establish them. (Thanks for proving my point) Likewise, Revelation 20 fits within the broader biblical picture of a future reign of Christ on earth (Daniel 7, Zechariah 14, Isaiah 2)." So, Scripture interprets scripture.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

No need to be so hostile. We are simply having a conversation.
Did you miss my last post?
"Your examples (pastoral qualifications, abortion) prove my point. While the Bible may not explicitly state those things in one sentence, it provides clear teachings that together establish them. (Thanks for proving my point) Likewise, Revelation 20 fits within the broader biblical picture of a future reign of Christ on earth (Daniel 7, Zechariah 14, Isaiah 2)." So, Scripture interprets scripture.

I am out of this conversation.

 

[1Tonne]

Actually, I am saying
1) there is more than one way to interpret prophecy (Nu 12:6-8), and
all interpretation of prophecy must be in agreement with authoritative apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) of Christ (Lk 10:16) if it is to be correct.

2) Then I am showing that your interpretation of prophecy is not in agreement with NT apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) of Christ (Lk 10:16), and am presenting the apostolic teaching to correct it.

Can you please show me a list of these NT apostolic teaching rules? Where do you get them from? Please list them and explain them.

It's not about the millennium being on the last day, it's about there being no millennium presented in apostolic teaching.
The "millennium" is a construct of man's personal interpretation of prophetic riddles (not spoken clearly, which riddles are subject to more than one interpretation) and which personal interpretation is in disagreement with authoritative NT apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) of Christ (Lk 10:16).

So, even though it says that there is going to be 1000 year reign in Christ, you have chosen to say that this verse is figurative? Please give me your reasoning without saying it does not agree with NT apostolic teaching. Why does it not agree? Please show me the rules.

and which personal interpretation is in disagreement with authoritative NT apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) of Christ (Lk 10:16).

I look at the verse and I take it as face value. So, I do not put my interpretation on it. You are saying that it does not actually mean what it says. You are saying that it is figurative and so you put your personal interpretation on it.

Revelation is prophecy.
God told Miriam that he gives prophecy in riddles (dark sayings), not clearly (Nu 12:6-8), to all but Moses.
It is God who states that prophecy is riddle (not clear).
If riddles are interpreted literally, then they are not riddles, contrary to God's statement regarding prophecy.

Funny thing is, it seems that even if we read it literally, most people do not understand it. That is the riddle. Find the true meaning without twisting it. So, no need to add your own context to it.
So, yes, it is a prophetic riddle. Sadly, you are missing it.

Yes, because your view is your personal interpretation of prophetic riddles.
My view is
the word of God regarding prophecy as riddle (Nu 12:6-8),
the authoritative NT apostolic teaching of Christ (Lk 10:16), which nowhere presents a "millennium," and
authoritative (Lk 10:16) NT apostolic teaching governs all interpretation of prophetic riddles not spoken clearly.

Not true. I am taking it at face value. So I do not make it figurative. You are the one who has a personal interpretation. When you make it figurative, what you are doing is called Eisegesis.
Eisegesis: The interpretation of a text, especially the Bible, by reading into it one's own ideas, biases, or agendas, rather than focusing on the text's original meaning.

However, the real issue is treating prophecy (Rev 20:4-6) as if it were didactics/teaching.

I treat it as if it is a riddle that we do not know. It may be written in plain literal text, like Rev 20, but many still will not understand it. You are a good example of this as you add your personal figurative interpretation and so therefore you have lost it's meaning.

 

[Clare73]

Can you please show me a list of these NT apostolic teaching rules? Where do you get them from? Please list them and explain them.

These rules are what you were responding to.

So, even though it says that there is going to be 1000 year reign in Christ, you have chosen to say that this verse is figurative?

Are you unaware that Revelation is prophecy, and prophecy is given in riddles (Nu 12:6-8); i.e., figuratively, not literally?

Please give me your reasoning without saying it does not agree with NT apostolic teaching. Why does it not agree?

Because your interpretation is nowhere presented in apostolic teaching.
It is simply your personal interpretation of prophetic riddles not spoken clearly (Nu 12:6-8).

Please show me the rules.

I look at the verse and I take it as face value. So, I do not put my interpretation on it. You are saying that it does not actually mean what it says. You are saying that it is figurative and so you put your personal interpretation on it.

God said that he gives prophecy in riddles (Nu 12:6-8). Revelation is prophecy (Rev 1:3), therefore, Revelation is given in riddles.
Those are the rules.

Funny thing is, it seems that even if we read it literally, most people do not understand it.

Of course you don't understand a figurative expression literally.

That is the riddle. Find the true meaning without twisting it.

Riddles by nature are "twisted," or they wouldn't be riddles, they would be teaching.

So, no need to add your own context to it.
So, yes, it is a prophetic riddle. Sadly, you are missing it.

Not true. I am taking it at face value. So I do not make it figurative.

So you are saying Rev is not prophecy, which God said is given in riddles (Nu 12:6-8) and, not being prophecy, Rev is therefore to be taken literally.
That puts you in disagreement with Rev 1:3.

You are the one who has a personal interpretation.

I have no personal interpretation of the riddles of Rev.

When you make it figurative,

I don't make it figurative. . . God made prophecy figurative (Nu 12:6-8). . .and John made Revelation prophecy (Rev 1:3), which God said is figurative.

Eisegesis: The interpretation of a text, especially the Bible, by reading into it one's own ideas, biases, or agendas, rather than focusing on the text's original meaning.

I treat it as if it is a riddle that we do not know. It may be written in plain literal text, like Rev 20,

Precisely. . .we do not know. . .it's all speculation.

God wouldn't call them dark sayings/riddles (Nu12:6-8) if they were written in plain literal text easy to see.

but many still will not understand it. You are a good example of this as you add your personal figurative interpretation and so therefore you have lost it's meaning.

God said it is the prophetic riddle (Nu 12:6-8) that is figurative text.
It's not interpretation if the interpretation is also figurative.
Interpretation explains in non-figurative terms the meaning of the figurative.

I think this pretty much covers the waterfront.

 

[1Tonne]

These rules are what you were responding to.

So, you are not going to list your rules. How can I know them if you do not tell me?

Are you unaware that Revelation is prophecy, and prophecy is given in riddles (Nu 12:6-8); i.e., figuratively, not literally?

I don't make it figurative. . . God made prophecy figurative (Nu 12:6-8). . .and John made Revelation prophecy (Rev 1:3), which God said is figurative.

God said it is the prophetic riddle (Nu 12:6-8) that is figurative text.
It's not interpretation if the interpretation is also figurative.
Interpretation explains in non-figurative terms the meaning of the figurative.

I agree that prophecy often contains figurative language, but that does not mean it is entirely symbolic. The same passage you referenced in Numbers 12:6-8 makes a distinction between how God speaks in riddles to prophets versus how He speaks plainly to Moses. However, even figurative prophecy points to real events.
For example, in Daniel’s visions, the beasts represent kingdoms, but those kingdoms were literal. Similarly, in Revelation, while some elements are symbolic, they refer to real events that will happen. The text itself gives us clues about what is symbolic and what is literal.
Revelation 20 specifically speaks of martyrs coming to life and reigning with Christ for 1,000 years. This is called 'the first resurrection,' and it is contrasted with 'the rest of the dead' who do not come to life until after the millennium. If this isn’t referring to a literal resurrection and reign, what does it mean? The text reads like a sequence of events, not just a symbolic idea.

Here are some examples where prophecy is written, and it is fulfilled exactly how it is written, literally. So, God did not make it into a riddle as you say.
1. The Birth of Jesus (Micah 5:2 & Matthew 2:1)

• Prophecy: "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times." (Micah 5:2)
• Fulfillment: "Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king..." (Matthew 2:1)
• Analysis: The prophecy names a specific town (Bethlehem), and Jesus was literally born there.

2. Jesus' Crucifixion (Psalm 22 & John 19:23-24)

• Prophecy: "They divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots." (Psalm 22:18)
• Fulfillment: "Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments and made four parts… They said therefore among themselves, 'Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be.'" (John 19:23-24)
• Analysis: The prophecy, written centuries before, describes an exact event that happened at Jesus' crucifixion.

3. The Fall of Tyre (Ezekiel 26 & Historical Record)

• Prophecy:Ezekiel 26:3-14 predicted that:
  • Many nations would come against Tyre.
  • Nebuchadnezzar would besiege it.
  • The city would be scraped bare like a rock.
  • Its ruins would be thrown into the sea.
  • Fishermen would spread their nets over its site.
• Fulfillment:
  • Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre (historical record).
  • Later, Alexander the Great literally scraped the old city ruins into the sea to build a causeway to the island city, fulfilling the prophecy exactly.
  • Today, the site of ancient Tyre is used by fishermen.

4. The Destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-24 & 70 A.D.)

• Prophecy: "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near… For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:20-22)
• Fulfillment: In 70 A.D., the Roman army surrounded and destroyed Jerusalem, exactly as Jesus predicted.

5. The Scattering and Return of Israel (Deuteronomy 28:64 & 1948)

• Prophecy: "Then the Lord will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other..." (Deuteronomy 28:64)
• Fulfillment: The Jews were exiled from their land in 70 A.D. and scattered worldwide, fulfilling this prophecy.
• Restoration Prophecy: "I will bring them back to their own land that I gave to their ancestors." (Jeremiah 30:3)
• Fulfillment: In 1948, Israel was reestablished as a nation, fulfilling this prophecy.

These examples show that when prophecy is given in plain, literal language, it is often fulfilled literally. This pattern strengthens the case for taking prophecies like Revelation 20 at face value unless the text itself indicates otherwise.
You have made a doctrine out of one verse in Numbers and applied it to all prophecy which is wrong. So, please stop adding your standards to how prophecy should be read. You are wrong.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

1 tonne said: That is the riddle. Find the true meaning without twisting it.

You said.....

Riddles by nature are "twisted," or they wouldn't be riddles, they would be teaching.

I laughed hard....such under the weather sarcasm revealed here. You just have an knack for somewhat cryptic irony. Keep those zingers coming.

 

[Clare73]

So, you are not going to list your rules. How can I know them if you do not tell me?

Rules:

1) Revelation is prophecy (Rev 1:3).
2) God gives prophecy in riddles not spoken clearly (Nu 12:6-8), where there is more than one way to interpret them.
3) all interpretation of prophecy must be in agreement with authoritative apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) of Christ (Lk 10:16) if it is to be correct, for Scritpure does not contradict itself.

Your interpretation of prophecy is not in agreement with NT apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) of Christ (Lk 10:16), and I am presenting the apostolic teaching which corrects it.

I think we've pretty much covered the waterfront on this.

 

[1Tonne]

Rules:

2) Revelation is prophecy (Rev 1:3).
3) God gives prophecy in riddles not spoken clearly (Nu 12:6-8), where there is more than one way to interpret them.
2) all interpretation of prophecy must be in agreement with authoritative apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) of Christ (Lk 10:16) if it is to be correct, for Scritpure does not contradict itself.

Your interpretation of prophecy is not in agreement with NT apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) of Christ (Lk 10:16), and I am presenting the apostolic teaching which corrects it.

I think we've pretty much covered the waterfront on this.

I understand your point, but Numbers 12:6-8 actually makes a distinction between how God speaks to most prophets (in visions and riddles) versus how He spoke to Moses (clearly and directly). However, even when prophecy is given in visions or figurative language, it still points to real events.

For example, in Daniel 2, Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the statue was symbolic, but it represented literal kingdoms that rose and fell in history. In Daniel 7, the beasts were symbolic, but they also referred to real-world empires.

If prophecy is always a 'riddle' with multiple valid interpretations, then how could Jesus and the apostles point to fulfilled prophecies as proof that God’s word is true? Jesus specifically said in John 13:19, 'I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He.'

Yes, some prophecy requires interpretation, but that doesn’t mean it is vague or open-ended. It ultimately has a real, intended fulfilment. If Revelation 20 doesn’t mean what it plainly says, what does it mean? And how do we know for sure?

 

[Clare73]

I understand your point, but Numbers 12:6-8 actually makes a distinction between how God speaks to most prophets (in visions and riddles) versus how He spoke to Moses (clearly and directly). However, even when prophecy is given in visions or figurative language,
it still points to real events.

The issue is not whether it points to real events.

The issue is correctly understanding the riddles (figurative language); i.e., if the "real events" are in reality what you think them to be.

For example, in Daniel 2, Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the statue was symbolic, but it represented literal kingdoms that rose and fell in history. In Daniel 7, the beasts were symbolic, but they also referred to real-world empires.

The key word there is "represented". . .
and we don't know what it represents without the key to the riddle given to us from God in Da 2:26-45.

If prophecy is always a 'riddle' with multiple valid interpretations, then how could Jesus and the apostles point to fulfilled prophecies as proof that God’s word is true? Jesus specifically said in John 13:19, 'I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He.'

Ya' think maybe God (Jesus of Nazareth, Jn 1:1, 13) actually understood God's prophecies?

Yes, some prophecy requires interpretation, but that doesn’t mean it is vague or open-ended. It ultimately has a real, intended fulfilment.
If Revelation 20 doesn’t mean what it plainly says, what does it mean? And how do we know for sure?

That is precisely the point. . .we don't know for sure because prophecy is given in riddles (Nu 12:6-8) which can be understood in more than one way.
However, what we do know for sure is that whatever it means, it does not contradict the NT apostolic teaching of Christ (Lk 10:16).

Keeping in mind that prophecy is not a matter of doctrine which is necessary for salvation, obedience and the knowledge of God.
So it is not necessary that we understand it correctly.
What is necessary is that our understanding of it be not in contradiction to NT apostolic teaching of Christ (Lk 10:16), for God does not contradict himself in his word, and to present contradictions in it is, by definition, to present error.

 

[1Tonne]

Whether it points to real events is not the issue.

The issue is correctly understanding the riddles (figurative language).

Ya' think maybe God (Jesus of Nazareth) understood God's prophecies?

That is precisely the point. . .we don't.
But prophecy is not a matter of doctrine necessary for salvation, obedience and the knowledge of God.

Micah 5:2 is a prophecy that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem. It even says the Bethlehem. So, how did the know whether to take this as literal or not. Based on what you have said, it should be figurative.
If we take it as figurative, then Bethlehem means "House of Bread,". If we take this meaning and we interpret how you do, then Jesus could have been born in a bakery.
So, please explain why Bethlehem was understood as literal while the 1000 years are not?

 

[Clare73]

Micah 5:2 is a prophecy that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem. It even says the Bethlehem. So, how did the know whether to take this as literal or not. Based on what you have said, it should be figurative.

Jesus is God. . .how he knows anything is not an issue.

If we take it as figurative, then Bethlehem means "House of Bread,". If we take this meaning and we interpret how you do, then Jesus could have been born in a bakery.

The prophecy was of "a ruler over Israel."
How many rulers over Israel were born in a bakery?

So, please explain why Bethlehem was understood as literal while the 1000 years are not?

This is where we started. . .

Because your understanding of the 1000 years contradicts NT apostolic teaching ( Th 4:16-17) of Christ (Lk 10:16).

 

[1Tonne]

Jesus is God. . .how he knows anything is not an issue.

But the prophecy was from God to the believers in God. This is the same with Revelation.

The prophecy was of "a ruler over Israel."
How many rulers over Israel were born in a bakery?

This prophecy was written before Jesus was born. So, going off your understanding, the Jews should have been interpreting it as figurative. So, they should have understood that Jesus was born in a bakery.

This is where we started. . .

Because your understanding of the 1000 years contradicts NT apostolic teaching ( Th 4:16-17) of Christ (Lk 10:16).

This is your personal doctrine made from one verse in Numbers.

I now have a personal question. (I am not trying to be offensive) I am struggling to understand your fixation on the verse in Numbers. My only conclusion is that you either have a mental issue, or you do not go to any church and so you only have yourself to test your understanding. Could this be the case? (Please understand, I am not being rude. I am just wanting to understand where you are coming from)

 

[Clare73]

But the prophecy was from God to the believers in God. This is the same with Revelation.

This prophecy was written before Jesus was born. So, going off your understanding, the Jews should have been interpreting it as figurative. So, they should have understood that Jesus was born in a bakery.

You could use a little "boning up" on the OT.

This is your personal doctrine made from one verse in Numbers.

I now have a personal question. (I am not trying to be offensive) I am struggling to understand your fixation on the verse in Numbers.

My "fixation" on the Nu 12:6-8 is because it is a clear statement from God that prophecy is not literal.
Your interpretation of prophecy (Rev 1:3) of Rev is literal, contrary to God's statement that prophecy is in riddles (Nu 12:6-8), not literal.
You are interpreting riddles as literal, even when your literal interpretations contradict NT apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) of Christ (Lk 10:16).
You are in error. . .which is the reason for my "fixation". . .for Biblical error will not serve you well in the future.

My only conclusion is that you either have a mental issue, or you do not go to any church and so you only have yourself to test your understanding. Could this be the case? (Please understand, I am not being rude. I am just wanting to understand where you are coming from)

I know you are not being rude. . .let's just say I have more Bible under my belt (way more) than you will for a long time.
There is so much that you are not even familiar with, much less versed in.
Prophetic riddles seem to be your main focus and domain, rather than the apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) of Christ (Lk 10:16).

 

[1Tonne]

You could use a little "boning up" on the OT.

Who do you think prophecy was to?

My "fixation" on the Nu 12:6-8 is because it is a clear statement from God that prophecy is not literal.
Your interpretation of prophecy (Rev 1:3) of Rev is literal, contrary to God's statement that prophecy is in riddles (Nu 12:6-8), not literal.
You are interpreting riddles as literal, even when your literal interpretations contradict NT apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) of Christ (Lk 10:16).
You are in error. . .which is the reason for my "fixation". . .for Biblical error will not serve you well in the future.

So, in Micah, should Bethlehem be read as literal?

I know you are not being rude. . .let's just say I have more Bible under my belt (way more) than you will for a long time.
There is so much that you are not even familiar with, much less versed in.
Prophetic riddles seem to be your main focus and domain, rather than the apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) of Christ (Lk 10:16).

So, do you go to a church?

 

[Clare73]

Who do you think prophecy was to?

So, in Micah, should Bethlehem be read as literal?

Did God say all prophecy was literal (Nu 12:6-8)?

So, do you go to a church?

Do you?

1) Revelation is prophecy (Rev 1:3).
2) God gives prophecy in riddles not spoken clearly (Nu 12:6-8), where there is more than one way to interpret them.
3) all interpretation of prophecy must be in agreement with authoritative apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) of Christ (Lk 10:16) if it is to be correct, for Scritpure does not contradict itself.

Your interpretation of prophecy is not in agreement with NT apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) of Christ (Lk 10:16), and I am presenting the apostolic teaching which corrects it.

I think we've pretty much covered the waterfront on this.

 

[1Tonne]

Did God say all prophecy was literal (Nu 12:6-8)?

No, God did not say all prophecy is literal, but He also did not say all prophecy is figurative. Numbers 12:6-8 only states that God often speaks to prophets in visions and riddles, but that does not mean prophecy is always symbolic and never literal.

We see many examples where prophecy is given literally and then fulfilled literally. For example:
-Micah 5:2 prophesied that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem—fulfilled literally in Matthew 2:1.
-Zechariah 9:9 predicted the Messiah would ride into Jerusalem on a donkey—fulfilled literally in Matthew 21:1-7.
-Psalm 22 describes details of crucifixion—fulfilled literally in Jesus' death (John 19:23-24).

So, the question is: If Revelation 20 doesn’t mean what it plainly says, then how do we determine the meaning is? Is it by looking at verses and assuming things?

The burden of proof now is on you to show that all prophecy is written in dark sayings when there are prophecies that are obviously not written in dark sayings. They are literal.