Is the mention of "a thousand years" in Revelation 20 is to be taken literally to mean a literal one thousand years?
That chapter repeatedly uses figure of speech and symbol after figure and symbol. So am I to understand that in a chapter filled with symbolic imagery three words out of that highly figurative passage should be taken literally while treating
everything else is read figuratively as intended?
Or is it thought the devil is actually, literally a dragon?
Is it thought there is an actual literal abyss that can contain the actual literal dragon?
Is it understood what John is reporting is a
vision?
When Psalm 50 states God owns the cattle on a thousand hills does that mean there are an actual literal thousand hills on which God actually literally owns the actual literal cattle? Does God not also own all the cattle on hills 1001, 1002, 10003, 100004
and all the cattle on all hills because He created all the hills and all the cattle that have ever existed?
Do you know, are you aware, the idea the 1000 years of Revelation 20 should be taken literally is a relatively new invention in Christian thought, doctrine, and practice? Do you know and are you aware it is not only a relatively new invention (less than 200 years old) but it is also a minority view?
Swodmanjr is correct: you have a serious problem with exegesis.
The thousand years of Revelation 20 began with the binding of satan at Calvary and continues to this day. It is not a literal 1000 years. According to Jude 1:6, satan has
always been bound.
That is the context for his binding in Revelation 20. This has long been the position of Christendom and it was not until the apocalyptic movements of the early- to mid-1800s that any other view was considered, much less considered orthodox and mainstream.
If what I have posted hasn't been understood then give some of the following a read,
.
"The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views" edited by Robert Clouse.
.
In this book four different noted theologians weigh in on the nature of the "millennium." Read this book with you Bible in the other hand, opened, and used, as you compare those authors' use and abuse of scripture to prove their respective positions. You'll be surprised.
.
"Four Views on the Book of Revelation" edited by Stanley Gundry.
"Five View on Law and Gospel" edited by Stanley Gundry
"Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond" edited by Stanley Gundry
"Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament" edited by Stanley Gundry
"Three Views on Hell" edited by Stanley Gundry
The above are all from the Zondervan Counterpoint Series wherein theologians from differing points of view make the case for that view. Each author also provides a critique of the alternative views.
.
"
The Case for Amillennialism" by Kim Riddlebarger
"
He Shall Hav Dominion" by Kenneth Gentry
"
The Blessed Hope" by George Eldon Ladd
"
Last Days Madness" by Gary Demar
.
Each of these books addresses one of the prominent eschatological views held since the NT era. Others have popped up afterwards. In these books you will see how and why the idead I've read supporting this op aren't just a matter of opinion but
cannot be once the Bible is examined exegetically. Pay particular attention to Riddlebarger's exegesis because although I don't agree with all of his conclusions his handling of scripture is impressive; nearly impeccable. The Demar book is a blunt treatment of modern-day false prognosticators.
it bolis down to this:
based on the posts I have here read, it is evident you don't know how the Bible teaches us the festivals have been fulfilled. Before I posted in this op I surveyed the web to view various sources for the idea the festivals are yet to be fulfilled so I understand your perspective is common. Common is not necessarily correct. What's common is not necessarily orthodox nor mainstreem.
You, apparently - based on the evidence in these posts - don't have much knowledge of the alternatives, nor and understanding of how alternatives could even possibly exist.
AND the conversational skills necessary to learn that information is lacking.
So I'm going to give you one last opportunity to give me a reason to stick around and walk through scripture
with you before I conclude you qualify for Titus 3:9-11 and move on to other ops. That's it. One last chance. So resist the urge to digress and ask me something or give me commentary with which I can work
op-relevantly. Resist the urge to add another fallacy response. The goal here is,
a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent, topical case from well-reasoned scripture...
...and it should be recognized from the outset that logically you're at a disadvantage because you're trying to prove a negative.[/INDENT]
