Who will populate the earth in the 1000 year Reign

Jamdoc said:

I don't see people living longer than 100 years as in Isaiah 65:20
I don't see animals all returning to herbivorism as in Isaiah 65:25
We're not in the millennium, even if you believe that Christ's millennial kingdom won't be physical and is "the church age"

Click to expand...

I disagree! Where does Revelation 20 talk about people living longer than 100 years or animals returning to herbivorism?

ewq1938 said:

That's because he was a real time eye witness to the event so the tense would be in the present. The resurrection of the dead is a future event for us.

Click to expand...

Not so. The Greek word for "first" (as in first resurrection) is protos. It is a contracted superlative meaning foremost (in time, place, order and/or importance). So which is the "first" (or protos) resurrection - Christ's or the resurrection that occurs at the Second Coming? This is a pretty simply question.

• Christ's resurrection is the "first" or foremost resurrection in time.
• Christ's resurrection is the "first" or foremost resurrection in place.
• Christ's resurrection is the "first" or foremost resurrection in order.
• Christ's resurrection is the "first" or foremost resurrection in importance.

sovereigngrace said:

It does not say "one thousand" but a more figurative "a thousand."

No, I am a Postrib, Idealist, Amillennialist.

Click to expand...

Revelation 20 uses the specific "thousand" six times. It seems pretty clear that the Lord is trying to get the point across and not wanting it to be viewed allegorically. Your argument might work if it only said thousand once.

And it not only uses "a thousand" but also uses "the thousand" and "the" is a definite article that signifies a uniqueness, not a generality.

Similar to stating that the prime consideration of real estate is location, location, location. it gets the point across.

Just like other places where it uses 42 months, 1260 days, etc just like Daniel did, and intended to be taken seriously. Unless there is something in the context to suggest that the "thousand" is to be taken figuratively, and there isn't, then it should be taken at face value.

ewq1938 said:

Only if one sticks to the language and context of Rev 20. The first resurrection is the first of two groups of the dead to live again. Christ's resurrection is not mentioned in the chapter because it isn't the subject.

Furthermore, Christ resurrected alone. The two resurrections in Rev 20 are groups of people...LARGE groups.

Click to expand...

This is an untenable private interpretation, that enjoys zero corroboration elsewhere in Scripture. If not, what Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that there are two distinct physical resurrection days (the first for the righteous, the second for the wicked) separated by a literal 1000 years+?

Copperhead said:

Revelation 20 uses the specific "thousand" six times. It seems pretty clear that the Lord is trying to get the point across and not wanting it to be viewed allegorically. Your argument might work if it only said thousand once.

Similar to stating that the prime consideration of real estate is location, location, location. it gets the point across.

Just like other places where it uses 42 months, 1260 days, etc just like Daniel did, and intended to be taken seriously. Unless there is something in the context to suggest that the "thousand" is to be taken figuratively, and there isn't, then it should be taken at face value.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter whether it says it's 666 times; it enjoys zero corroboration elsewhere in Scripture. We are talking about the most obscure and symbolic book in the Bible. It is saturated in figurative language. A thousand is used repeatedly throughout Scripture to describe an indefinite long period of time. The fact is, the millennium starts at the first resurrection. There was no resurrection before Christ's resurrection. It was the first resurrection.

sovereigngrace said:

I disagree! Where does Revelation 20 talk about people living longer than 100 years or animals returning to herbivorism?

Click to expand...

That comes from Isaiah 65. It describes a peaceful world where animals return to being herbivore and people have longer lifespans, but still die. That can't be eternity, since there is still death. That's describing the Millennium.

ewq1938 said:

Yes and a number of times it says "the thousand years".

Click to expand...

And? You could also apply that same reasoning to the “one hour” that the beast reigns with the “ten kings” in Revelation 17:12 is? i.e. is it sixty minutes? Of course not! It means a short period of time. The genre of Revelation and the symbolism of the book lends itself to this type of rhetoric and figurative language.

sovereigngrace said:

It doesn't matter whether it says it's 666 times; it enjoys zero corroboration elsewhere in Scripture. We are talking about the most obscure and symbolic book in the Bible. It is saturated in figurative language. A thousand is used repeatedly throughout Scripture to describe an indefinite long period of time. The fact is, the millennium starts at the first resurrection. There was no resurrection before Christ's resurrection. It was the first resurrection.

Click to expand...

Revelation is hardly obscure. It is 404 verses with over 800 references to the rest of scripture. Revelation is indeed symbolic, but virtually all the symbolism has been defined elsewhere in scripture.

Jamdoc said:

That comes from Isaiah 65. It describes a peaceful world where animals return to being herbivore and people have longer lifespans, but still die. That can't be eternity, since there is still death. That's describing the Millennium.

Click to expand...

That expressly relates to "the new heavens and new earth." When do you believe the new heavens and new earth arrives according to Revelation? Is it before or after the millennium?

Copperhead said:

Revelation is hardly obscure. It is 404 verses with over 800 references to the rest of scripture. Revelation is indeed symbolic, but virtually all the symbolism has been defined elsewhere in scripture.

Click to expand...

Exactly! So, where elsewhere in Scripture does it mention a literal future thousand year on earth?

sovereigngrace said:

And? You could also apply that same reasoning to the “one hour” that the beast reigns with the “ten kings” in Revelation 17:12 is? i.e. is it sixty minutes? Of course not! It means a short period of time. The genre of Revelation and the symbolism of the book lends itself to this type of rhetoric and figurative language.

Click to expand...

Is there any reason to believe it won't be 1 hour? a 1 hour session of the UN security council giving control to a world leader in a crisis?
Babylon is destroyed in an hour. How long do you think it takes to destroy a nation with ICBM's? Under an hour since it only takes half an hour for the missiles to launch and destroy their targets.

sovereigngrace said:

That expressly relates to "the new heavens and new earth." When do you believe the new heavens and new earth arrives according to Revelation? Is it before or after the millennium?

Click to expand...

After the millennium. Isaiah 65 refers to people still dying. It's not on the new earth where there is no more death.

sovereigngrace said:

Exactly! So, where elsewhere in Scripture does it mention a literal future thousand year on earth?

Click to expand...

And where in the context does it suggest "a thousand" and "the thousand" (both used) is to be taken figuratively or that it is symbolic?

ewq1938 said:

No, it is the proper context of Rev 20. Yours is a contextual fallacy taking the context of a different part of the bible and forcing it into Rev 20.

Click to expand...

If you employed the crucial interpretative rule - of interpreting Scripture with Scripture - you would have to immediately abandon Premil. The fact that you have zero support elsewhere in Scripture for your millennial period proves that point!

This has always been a flawed point. Rev 20 needs no corroboration to be correct. One must simply accept the context of the chapter and not insert other contexts into it.

"The rest of the dead lived not again" until after the thousand years making them the second resurrection also known as the last resurrection because no one is left after they "live again". This proves without a doubt that there are two resurrections mentioned. Even the fact that there is a resurrection of life and a resurrection of damnation proves there are two and in both are the righteous resurrected first.

Click to expand...

(1) You rubbish the use of other Scripture because you have no corroboration for your theory of 'the resurrection of the just' being the "first resurrection." (2) You then fail to show one single other Scripture in the sacred pages that that teaches two distinct physical resurrection days (the first for the righteous, the second for the wicked) separated by a literal 1000 years+. This shows that Premil is extra-biblical. It is a private interpretation of Rev 20 that conflicts with numerous other clear NT Scripture.

Copperhead said:

And where in the context does it suggest "a thousand" and "the thousand" (both used) is to be taken figuratively or that it is symbolic?

Click to expand...

I do not view it as a literal figure. It is constantly used in Scripture to describe a large amount or a long period of time rather than an exact number or literal period.

Moses employs `a thousand' in Deuteronomy 7:9 saying, "Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

1 Chronicles 16:13-17 also states, "O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones. He is the LORD our God; his judgments are in all the earth. Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A thousand and ten thousand are used together in Psalm 91, saying, "Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee" (vv 5-7).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A similar contrast between these two numbers or ideas is seen in Deuteronomy 32:30, where a rhetorical question is asked, "How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the Lord had shut them up?"

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Joshua affirms, on the same vein, in chapter 23, "One man of you shall chase a thousand: for the LORD your God, he it is that fighteth for you, as he hath promised you" (v 10).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Isaiah the prophet similarly declares in Isaiah 30:17, "one thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one."

This incidentally is the only passage in Scripture that makes mention of the actual number "one thousand," albeit, the term is used to impress a spiritual truth.

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Psalm 84:9-10 says, "Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed. For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The figure a thousand is also employed in Psalm 50:10-11 saying, "For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Ecclesiastes 7:27-28 succinctly says, "one man among a thousand have I found."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

In the same vein, Job 33:23 declares, "If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The distinct contrast between one and a thousand is again found in Job 9:2-3, where Job declares, "I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The same idea is intended in Isaiah 60:21-22, where the prophet instructs, in relation to the New Earth, "Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified. A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the Lord will hasten it in his time."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Amos 5:1-4 says, "The virgin of Israel is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon her land; there is none to raise her up. For thus saith the Lord GOD; The city that went out by a thousand shall leave an hundred, and that which went forth by an hundred shall leave ten, to the house of Israel."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Jamdoc said:

After the millennium. Isaiah 65 refers to people still dying. It's not on the new earth where there is no more death.

Click to expand...

So why are you placing it at the start? That doesn't make sense.