Why are some trying to fool us about chilioi(thousand) in the NT?

crossnote · Jun 18, 2020

An interesting discussion. Here the matter is whether the millennium consists of a literal 1000 years, rather than if the Millennium itself is a literal event.
What about the possibility that it is a literal event (IMHO Trib-->Christ Coming--->Millennium) but the time period is indefinite rather than an exact 1000 years?
I ask this mainly because the OT is rife with examples and prophecies of Christ's reign on earth that have yet to take place and yet the exactness of 1000 seems problematic linguistic-wise.

sovereigngrace · Jun 18, 2020

crossnote said:
An interesting discussion. Here the matter is whether the millennium consists of a literal 1000 years, rather than if the Millennium itself is a literal event.
What about the possibility that it is a literal event (IMHO Trib-->Christ Coming--->Millennium) but the time period is indefinite rather than an exact 1000 years?
I ask this mainly because the OT is rife with examples and prophecies of Christ's reign on earth that have yet to take place and yet the exactness of 1000 seems problematic linguistic-wise.

The New Testament interprets the Old Testament and shows us that Christ has been reigning since His First Advent, including His victorious resurrection and ascension to the right hand of Majesty on high thus fulfilling Ps 2 and many other old testament passages.

crossnote · Jun 18, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
The New Testament interprets the Old Testament and shows us that Christ has been reigning since His First Advent, including His victorious resurrection and ascension to the right hand of Majesty on high thus fulfilling Ps 2 and many other old testament passages.

I don't want to sidetrack the discussion into a premil/amil discussion. I could give oodles of unfulfilled OT prophecies about the Millennium but the major part of my question is 'can't the Millennium in Rev 20 be an indefinite period of time although it is a literal event?'.

DavidPT · Jun 18, 2020

DamianWarS said:
these sort of greek riddles intrigue me. I tried to check your sources but I was unable to find a single example for 5505 or 5507 in the singular.

5507 (chilioi) is an adjective and adjectives are not inherently singular or plural, they inherit their head noun's number as well as case and gender so it's a bit of an arbitrary discussion. In any event, there isn't a single biblical example in the singular.

5505 (chilias) is a noun and nouns can be singular or plural (the example "chilias" is singular) however there isn't a single biblical example where it is singular. They are all plural.

Now I also checked your quote "This is used, in the plural, for phrases in Scripture like 'the number of the men was five thousand.'" So I checked all the gospels where the feeding of the 5000 occurs (Matthew 14:21, Mark 6:44, Luke 9:14 and John 6:10) and each example is an adjective as well as plural and masculine (because it's addressing "men"). The word used is "pentakischilioi" [Strongs 4000] which is five-thousand and you're right it is used in the plural and I know it's rooted in the same word but it's a poor example to make your case as it is specific to 5000. but not that it matters, there isn't an example of the singular in scripture.

the strongest case would be when it is a noun because nouns can be plural or singular and this would make the case far clearly. Revelation uses the nouns many times and even uses it to describe "thousands of-thousands" (5:11) but otherwise, it is specific with another number like "forty-four thousand sealed". With the verses that are more the hot topics (Rev 20) they are all adjectives so their singular/plural parts only have meaning when we know what their nouns are. In each case, their nouns are "years". so it is "thousand(plural) year(plural)".

if the meaning is to convey "one thousand years" then this is correct. If the meaning is to convey "thousands of years" then this is incorrect. The latter should be 2 nouns thousand(normative, feminine, plural) year(genitive, neuter, plural). If the meaning is to convey an indefinite amount of "thousand years" it should probably use an indefinite pronoun to explicitly do this like "any" (greek doesn't have indefinite articles like English) however omitting this makes it quite cryptic or confusing if the indefinite is the intention like it's a code John chooses to keep secret and there's no reason to think this. The passage should be translated as it is agreed by basically all translations "a thousand years"

Now that you have provided all of that, where some of it is fairly easy to comprehend, and that some of it can be a bit over ones' head, assuming that maybe not everyone might fully grasp things such as(2 nouns thousand(normative, feminine, plural) year(genitive, neuter, plural), I know I don't---perhaps you can answer the following, then. As to me, in general I like to try and keep things somewhat simple. Even when keeping things simple, things can still be proved some of the time.

To illustrate what exactly I will be asking here, let me start out in this manner.

In the English language, two thousand. What English word plus the same English word equals two thousand?

Is not this English word thousand? thousand plus thousand equals two thousand. What does this tell us about thousand in general? By itself it equals exactly 1000, because if it didn't, it would be impossible to add thousand plus thousand then arrive at two thousand. I can't imagine any reasonable person trying or even wanting to dispute this.

With the above in mind. Let's use the exact same logic and apply it below in the exact same manner.

In the Greek language, dischilioi. We already know that equals 2000. So, what Greek word plus the same Greek word equals dischilioi?

Once it has been determined what Greek word plus the same Greek word equals dischilioi, what should this be telling us about this Greek word in general? By itself it has to literally be meaning exactly 1000 in order to arrive at 2000 if one were to add this same Greek word twice.

sovereigngrace · Jun 18, 2020

crossnote said:
I don't want to sidetrack the discussion into a premil/amil discussion. I could give oodles of unfulfilled OT prophecies about the Millennium but the major part of my question is 'can't the Millennium in Rev 20 be an indefinite period of time although it is a literal event?'.

Yes, but the detail outlined in Revelation 20 can only relate to an era before the second coming. Multiple scripture proves that sin, sinners, Satan, death and corruption are destroyed when Jesus comes. This is were Amillennialism is strong and premillennialism is weak. Premil lacks corroboration for every tenet it holds.

sovereigngrace · Jun 18, 2020

DavidPT said:
Now that you have provided all of that, where some of it is fairly easy to comprehend, and that some of it can be a bit over ones' head, assuming that maybe not everyone might fully grasp things such as(2 nouns thousand(normative, feminine, plural) year(genitive, neuter, plural), I know I don't---perhaps you can answer the following, then. As to me, in general I like to try and keep things somewhat simple. Even when keeping things simple, things can still be proved some of the time.

To illustrate what exactly I will be asking here, let me start out in this manner.

In the English language, two thousand. What English word plus the same English word equals two thousand?

Is not this English word thousand? thousand plus thousand equals two thousand. What does this tell us about thousand in general? By itself it equals exactly 1000, because if it didn't, it would be impossible to add thousand plus thousand then arrive at two thousand. I can't imagine any reasonable person trying or even wanting to dispute this.

With the above in mind. Let's use the exact same logic and apply it below in the exact same manner.

In the Greek language, dischilioi. We already know that equals 2000. So, what Greek word plus the same Greek word equals dischilioi?

Once it has been determined what Greek word plus the same Greek word equals dischilioi, what should this be telling us about this Greek word in general? By itself it has to literally be meaning exactly 1000 in order to arrive at 2000 if one were to add this same Greek word twice.

So, instead of voicing your rational and opinions, where exactly in Revelation 20 does it say “one thousand years“?

DavidPT · Jun 18, 2020

crossnote said:
An interesting discussion. Here the matter is whether the millennium consists of a literal 1000 years, rather than if the Millennium itself is a literal event.
What about the possibility that it is a literal event (IMHO Trib-->Christ Coming--->Millennium) but the time period is indefinite rather than an exact 1000 years?
I ask this mainly because the OT is rife with examples and prophecies of Christ's reign on earth that have yet to take place and yet the exactness of 1000 seems problematic linguistic-wise.

What you describe here is Premil. As for Premil, it doesn't matter whether the thousand years are a literal thousand years. It would not affect this position one way or the other. This position can still work if a literal thousand years are meant, and it can still work if a literal thousand years are not meant.

You might then be wondering, what is all the fuss about? Simple. While none of that might affect Premil one way or the other, it would certainly affect Amil. If the thousand years don't have to be a literal thousand years, this at least indicates Amil is a possibility. But if the thousand years have to be a literal thousand years, this would clearly indicate that Amil is an impossibility. This is one reason why Amils will go out of their way to try and disprove a literal thousand years.

What is basically going on here then, from the perspective of Premils such as myself, is an attempt to debunk Amil, and that Amils aren't standing for it. Why should it matter if the thousand years are literal years? Is something like that an impossibility, that there can be no such thing as a literal thousand years? So why should Amils care one way or the other? I already explained why. Because if the thousand years are a literal thousand years, Amils then know that their position cannot work whatsoever, as in zero chance.

DavidPT · Jun 18, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
So, instead of voicing your rational and opinions, where in Revelation 20 does it say “1000 years“?

Then debunk what I submitted in that post. Go through that post and show what Greek word plus the same Greek word equals dischilioi, and how that does not prove that this same Greek word by itself means a literal thousand.

shilohsfoal · Jun 18, 2020

Radagast said:
Who are these people, and which verse are they talking about?

Because the word chilias (χιλιάς, 5505) can certainly appear in the plural form ("thousands").

And even the word chilioi (χίλιοι, 5507) can be used in a figurative sense. For example, 2 Peter 3:8: "But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand (χίλια) years, and a thousand (χίλια) years as one day."

Peter is not being figurative. He is attempting to give you knowledge that you are not accepting. As he said, he rather we be not ignorant of that one thing and he is offering this knowledge in th e context of the coming of Christ.
In other words Peter knew how many thousands of years it would be till Christ comes. He was telling everyone but few get it.

shilohsfoal · Jun 18, 2020

Radagast said:
Who are these people, and which verse are they talking about?

Because the word chilias (χιλιάς, 5505) can certainly appear in the plural form ("thousands").

And even the word chilioi (χίλιοι, 5507) can be used in a figurative sense. For example, 2 Peter 3:8: "But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand (χίλια) years, and a thousand (χίλια) years as one day."

For example let us take the Lord's words.

Luke 13:32 But Jesus replied, "Go tell that fox, 'Look, I will keep driving out demons and healing people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach My goal.'

Now most people would say Jesus was trying to get somewhere in a 36 hour period. But that's not a day to Christ according to Peter . What Jesus was saying is he would be casting out devils and healing the sick for 2000 years and after that he will reach his goal.

Do you believe Jesus's goal was something as short sighted as being in a certain town three days from then or is his goal something far greater and more important?

crossnote · Jun 18, 2020

DavidPT said:
What you describe here is Premil. As for Premil, it doesn't matter whether the thousand years are a literal thousand years. It would not affect this position one way or the other. This position can still work if a literal thousand years are meant, and it can still work if a literal thousand years are not meant.

You might then be wondering, what is all the fuss about? Simple. While none of that might affect Premil one way or the other, it would certainly affect Amil. If the thousand years don't have to be a literal thousand years, this at least indicates Amil is a possibility. But if the thousand years have to be a literal thousand years, this would clearly indicate that Amil is an impossibility. This is one reason why Amils will go out of their way to try and disprove a literal thousand years.

What is basically going on here then, from the perspective of Premils such as myself, is an attempt to debunk Amil, and that Amils aren't standing for it. Why should it matter if the thousand years are literal years? Is something like that an impossibility, that there can be no such thing as a literal thousand years? So why should Amils care one way or the other? I already explained why. Because if the thousand years are a literal thousand years, Amils then know that their position cannot work whatsoever, as in zero chance.

Thanks for that, you addressed my question perfectly.
So the Amils can't have a literal 1000 year reign due to the non-literal nature of the Amil position?

crossnote · Jun 18, 2020

shilohsfoal said:
Luke 13:32 But Jesus replied, "Go tell that fox, 'Look, I will keep driving out demons and healing people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach My goal.'

Now most people would say Jesus was trying to get somewhere in a 36 hour period. But that's not a day to Christ according to Peter . What Jesus was saying is he would be casting out devils and healing the sick for 2000 years and after that he will reach his goal.

Most likely not...
John 19:30 (KJV) When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

sovereigngrace · Jun 18, 2020

DavidPT said:
Then debunk what I submitted in that post. Go through that post and show what Greek word plus the same Greek word equals dischilioi, and how that does not prove that this same Greek word by itself means a literal thousand.

I have showed you repeatedly that the setting of Revelation 20 is highly symbolic and saturated in figurative language. When one looks outside of that chapter for support for your doctrine there is zero corroboration. There is nothing! Zilch! Nada! That is why so many people are abandoning premillennialism. It has no support elsewhere in Scripture. People present Zechariah 14 forward but cannot correlate it with Revelation 20. They simply don’t agree. They conflict with each other.

Bruce Leiter · Jun 18, 2020

DavidPT said:
Some are trying to tell us that chilioi(5507) does not mean a thousand, but means a plural of thousands. Let's put that to the test, then.

dischilioi

from diV - dis 1364 and cilioi - chilioi 5507; two thousand:--two thousand

Mark 5:13 And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand(dischilioi); ) and were choked in the sea.

trischilioi
tris-khil'-ee-oy
from triV - tris 5151 and cilioi - chilioi 5507; three times a thousand:--three thousand.

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand(trischilioi) souls.

tetrakischilioi
tet-rak-is-khil'-ee-oy
from the multiplicative adverb of tessareV - tessares 5064 and cilioi - chilioi 5507; four times a thousand:--four thousand.

Matthew 16:10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand(tetrakischilioi), and how many baskets ye took up?

This should be plenty to make my point. It only stands to reason, that if dischilioi means 2000, trischilioi means 3000, tetrakischilioi means 4000, this obviously means chilioi must mean 1000.

To further prove this, consider the following.

If two in front of a thousand equals 2000, three in front of a thousand equals 3000, four in front of a thousand equals 4000, how much does a thousand equal?

If dis in front of chilioi equals 2000, tris in front of chilioi equals 3000, tetrakis in front of chilioi equals 4000, how much does chilioi equal?

This right here will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt as to whether someone is trying to fool others or not. Because if one answers the former correctly, and I'm sure one would, but then answers the latter differently, that's all the proof anyone needs to know without a doubt that this one is trying to fool others about what chilioi means in the NT.

Of course, it means a thousand, but in the Book of Revelation, it may mean a symbolic number. What do I mean? Well, in the gospels, preaching histories, it means a literal thousand. But in apocalyptic literature, which Revelation is, the numbers are very symbolic. For example, the number seven is God's perfect number. Numbers 3 and 10 are complete numbers, while six is the human number, which falls short of God's number. A thousand is, of course, 10 X 10, a complete period of time or number of people or events. In other words, I believe in order to interpret any number or word, we need to consider the kind of literature God used to reveal his truths in his Word.

shilohsfoal · Jun 18, 2020

crossnote said:
Most likely not...
John 19:30 (KJV) When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Jesus did not die three days after he said that.
Try again.

Luke 13:32 But Jesus replied, "Go tell that fox, 'Look, I will keep driving out demons and healing people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach My goal.'

I understand why you might believe Christ's only goal was to die, but he's not quite ready to rest yet.

John 5:17 But Jesus answered them, "To this very day My Father is at His work, and I too am working."

DavidPT · Jun 18, 2020

crossnote said:
Thanks for that, you addressed my question perfectly.
So the Amils can't have a literal 1000 year reign due to the non-literal nature of the Amil position?

Their theory is that the beginning of the thousand years began around the time of the cross or soon after, depending on which Amil you ask, and since it has already been way more than a literal thousand years since then, a literal thousand years can't be meant.

I could be wrong about the following since I can't provide the link where I saw this at the time, since this was several years back, but I seem to recall reading somewhere, that initially some early church father Amils did take the thousand years to be literal, but not after the 2nd coming, but prior to the 2nd coming. But once those thousand years came and went, Amils then started treating this same thousand years in a non literal sense.

Per Premil, like I pointed out, that position still works whether a literal thousand years are meant or not. Per Amil that position only works if a literal thousand years are not meant. Why is it that per Premil it can work either way, but per Amil it can only work one way? If Amil is the correct position, then it should be able to work either way like Premil still can.

DavidPT · Jun 18, 2020

Bruce Leiter said:
I believe in order to interpret any number or word, we need to consider the kind of literature God used to reveal his truths in his Word.

This same thousand years is mentioned in 2 Peter 3:8 as well. What kind of literature do you take that chapter to be consisting of?

crossnote · Jun 18, 2020

shilohsfoal said:
Jesus did not die three days after he said that.
Try again.

Luke 13:32 But Jesus replied, "Go tell that fox, 'Look, I will keep driving out demons and healing people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach My goal.'

I understand why you might believe Christ's only goal was to die, but he's not quite ready to rest yet.

John 5:17 But Jesus answered them, "To this very day My Father is at His work, and I too am working."

Okay, I'll try again.
When Jesus said "It is finished", what was finished?

I originally responded to this statement of yours...

Now most people would say Jesus was trying to get somewhere in a 36 hour period. But that's not a day to Christ according to Peter . What Jesus was saying is he would be casting out devils and healing the sick for 2000 years and after that he will reach his goal.

Peter was using a simile when he said 'is as', he never meant 1000 years = 1 day.

shilohsfoal · Jun 18, 2020

crossnote said:
Okay, I'll try again.
When Jesus said "It is finished", what was finished?

I originally responded to this statement of yours...

Now most people would say Jesus was trying to get somewhere in a 36 hour period. But that's not a day to Christ according to Peter . What Jesus was saying is he would be casting out devils and healing the sick for 2000 years and after that he will reach his goal.

Peter was using a simile when he said 'is as', he never meant 1000 years = 1 day.

Revelation does not say "as is" yet you want to except it as it does. I've learned long ago what day it is. Maybe you will start understanding it soon.

Matthew 12:8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.".

DavidPT · Jun 18, 2020

crossnote said:
Peter was using a simile when he said 'is as', he never meant 1000 years = 1 day.

If from man's perspective, one were to say---one day is to us as 24 hours, and 24 hours as one day, would that person be using a simile---resulting in, that this person never actually meant 24 hours = 1 day?

What I don't understand, if that is what the logic would be if coming from our perspective, and that we then apply this same exact logic in the exact same manner to God's perspective in 2 Peter 3:8, how can we then arrive at different conclusions concerning both? Per the former a simile is not meant, but that it is meaning one day literally means 24 hours, but when we apply this in the same manner to 2 Peter 3:8 though, now it's a simile, now it's not meant to be taken literally, that one day is meaning 1000 years, even though per the former the exact opposite would be true.

Why are some trying to fool us about chilioi(thousand) in the NT?

Berean

Well-Known Member

Berean

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jacks or better to open

Jacks or better to open

Berean

Berean

Well-Known Member

A sinner saved by God's astounding grace and love

Jacks or better to open

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Berean

Jacks or better to open

Well-Known Member

Similar threads