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

DavidPT said:

Revelation 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him thousands of years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousands of years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ thousands of years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousands of years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him thousands of years.
7 And when the thousands of years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.


When understanding it this way I'm not seeing where it is rendering any of the texts nonsensical. That at least indicates it's possible that thousands of years can be meant. The question then is, what do thousands of years look like? For instance, 1987 years. Would that be thousands of years? That amount of years appear to be how long it's been since the time of the cross up until now, give or take a few years. If Christ were to return within 10 years or less, that would indicate there are less than 2000 years from the time of the cross until He returns. But if Christ were to return roughly 2000 years after the time of the cross, where many Amils place the beginning of the thousand years, why not use dischilioi to describe this period of time, then?

Click to expand...

A or The thousand years is the time for which the Church on earth is given to build the Kingdom of God through the Gospel preached unto all the earth in the power of the Spirit.

This point is mainly overlooked, because we seem consumed with the thousand years binding of Satan in the pit. Satan, as has been shown, was bound by the cross of Christ, so the Kingdom of God could be preached unto all the nations of the earth. Could the Gospel of the Kingdom have been spread unto all the nations of the earth if Satan had not been bound? If you can answer this question, then you should be able to understand the thousand years is simply symbolizing whatever amount of time is needed to complete the Kingdom of God unto all the nations through the message of the Gospel.

DavidPT said:

Revelation 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him thousands of years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousands of years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ thousands of years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousands of years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him thousands of years.
7 And when the thousands of years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.


When understanding it this way I'm not seeing where it is rendering any of the texts nonsensical. That at least indicates it's possible that thousands of years can be meant. The question then is, what do thousands of years look like? For instance, 1987 years. Would that be thousands of years? That amount of years appear to be how long it's been since the time of the cross up until now, give or take a few years. If Christ were to return within 10 years or less, that would indicate there are less than 2000 years from the time of the cross until He returns. But if Christ were to return roughly 2000 years after the time of the cross, where many Amils place the beginning of the thousand years, why not use dischilioi to describe this period of time, then?

Click to expand...

Revelation 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him thousands of years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousands of years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ thousands of years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousands of years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him thousands of years.
7 And when the thousands of years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.


You have admitted this chapter is full of symbolic language, but yet insist the word "thousand" must be literal.

You have also admitted the Book of Revelation is not in chronological order.

You cannot show us any mortals alive on the planet at the end of Matthew 25:31-46.

You cannot explain why the time of the judgment of the dead, with reward for some, and destruction for others, is found in Revelation 11:18, and also at the end of Chapter 20?

You cannot explain why Christ returns in "flaming fire: in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, and also at the end of Chapter 20?

You cannot explain why God wants a rebuilt temple, with renewed animal sacrifices if Christ is the New Covenant sacrifice, once and for all?

You cannot explain why Christ is performing funeral services for many years after His Second Coming?

You claim wicked angels cannot now be bound in any way, no matter what we find in Jude 1:6?

You claim wicked angels cannot now be in the bottomless pit, no matter what we find in Revelation 9:11?

You want us to explain why the word "thousand" is not literal, but you are the one who has got much more explaining to do...

.

DavidPT said:

Actually though, I forgot to factor in a little season after the thousand years, assuming Amil. Logically then, if thousands of years are meant, the little season can't even begin until at least 2030 AD to 2033 AD, since it seems to me that one can't have thousands of years if it involves anything less than 2k years, therefore thousands of years have to involve at least 2K years or more.

Click to expand...

Not so, it is simply a indefinite symbolic number. That is it! Premils reject the figurative import of Rev 20. Amils recognize the overwhelming symbolic thrust of Revelation. They do not divorce Rev 20 from the rest of the book. From my experience, there doesn't seem to be any consistency in the Premil approach. They insist on a literal meaning for Rev 20 and the thousand years but are content to view much of the rest of the book as highly symbolic. For eg, is the “one hour” that the beast reigns with the “ten kings” in Revelation 17:12 is: i.e. is it literally sixty minutes?

Premil also ignore the repeated symbolic use of "a thousand" in Scripture. This is because the doctrine conflicts with numerous Scripture.

DavidPT said:

You must not be reading some of these other posts in this thread by other members, or that if you are, you appear to be missing that the claim by some of them, thousand is plural, thus thousands, thus thousands of years. One can't have thousands of years if it involves anything less than 2K. Already then, though I can't compete on the same level with some of these other posters, when it comes to Greek words in general, that still doesn't make me entirely disadvantaged though, because I still have the ability to test that with Scriptures and see whether it can even logically work or not.

Click to expand...

I have been reading them all. But the debate is largely moot. The phrase "a thousand years" is actually innately plural because more than one year is plural. We all agree that this period involved a considerable number of years (apart from claninja, with his phantom millennial beliefs). But the phrase "a thousand" or "a thousand years" naturally carries a figurative sense in history and every day life. Many say things like: "I have a thousand things on my mind." They do not say I have 943 things on my mind." It is a widely accepted classic figurative term in Scripture and society. It is only bias Premilleers who deny this. This is only one of a thousand reasons to reject Premil (excuse the pun!!).

DavidPT said:

The point is, if the thousand years aren't meaning a literal thousand years, but are meaning thousands of years, the period of time being symbolized would have to be at least 2K years or more. Anything less would tend to prove that it's better to take the thousand years as a literal thousand years, then.

Click to expand...

Oh I don't think so at all. A thousand years, as I said is simply a long duration of unspecified time. It could be anywhere between one day to more then a thousand years. The time is undefined for a reason. If we knew that in exactly one thousand years, the Kingdom would be complete, then we would know exactly when Christ will come again. As I also said, this time was given for building the Kingdom. So can you answer the question? Could the Gospel of the Kingdom have been spread unto all the nations of the earth if Satan had not been bound?

Radagast said:

No, it is simply that chilias (5505) is the noun and chilioi (5507) is the adjective.

Click to expand...

Interesting literary style though, perhaps Revelation's author date is a late one, it's using a linguistic convention not used anywhere else in the new testament, except 2nd peter.

Alterations in phrasing can mark a decade sometimes.

DavidPT said:

I already realize that some Amils see it like you do. But the point is, if thousand is plural because years are plural, or whatever other reasons, then thousand can't be understood like you are trying to understand it. thousands of years can't mean less than one thousand years, and it can't mean less than 2000 years. I'm not indicating I agree it's meaning a plural of thousand, but if it were, what you propose can't work unless it involves a period of time consisting of more than 2k literal years. So if satan were bound in 33 AD, give or take a year or two, this would indicate he can't be loosed from the pit until 2033 AD, give or take a year or two, at the earliest. That would have to be the logic if thousands of years are meant by a thousand years.

People who are arguing that a literal thousand years aren't meant by a thousand years, they all need to decide one way or the other as a group, as to exactly what is meant, then. Either a plural of thousands, or thousand like you are understanding it, or whatever other way there might be to understand this. This shouldn't have to be a multiple choice question with numerous choices to choose from.

Click to expand...

The symbolic number is given so that we cannot know how long the duration of time for building the Kingdom will be. We may only discern that it will take time, much time for the Gospel to accomplish it's purpose, through the power of the Holy Spirit, for building the Kingdom of God in heaven. And when the Kingdom is complete, at the end of this symbolic time, then the age of eternity on the new earth will begin.

DavidPT said:

IPeople who are arguing that a literal thousand years aren't meant by a thousand years, they all need to decide one way or the other as a group, as to exactly what is meant, then. Either a plural of thousands, or thousand like you are understanding it, or whatever other way there might be to understand this. This shouldn't have to be a multiple choice question with numerous choices to choose from.

Click to expand...

I think this is rich coming from a Premil. I will take this as theological posturing. Premil has got so many wheels within wheels within its camp that it is impossible to pin them down as a group on any given matter. They do not even know where to place the NHNE. They are split in two on whether it comes at or after the millennium. This is massive! All Amils agree that the thousand years are non-literal.

DavidPT said:

I realize all Amils agree the thousand years are non-literal. But if by a thousand years thousands of years are meant, it is nonsensical to think anything less than 2K years would still be thousands of years. For example. From the beginning of creation to now would be thousands of years. But, from 33 AD to right now would not yet be thousands of years. 1000 years are not thousands of years. Neither are 990 years thousands of years. Neither are 1000 years plus 990 years thousands of years. But 1000 years plus 1000 years, these are thousands of years. And anything greater than 2K would also be thousands of years.

And if it is correct that thousands of years are meant by a thousand years, and that if Amil is correct that satan was bound around 33 AD give or take a year or two, we are now 12 years or so away from the earliest satan can be loosed from the pit. Keep in mind, I'm Premil, so this is not anything I'm concluding myself, but that this would have to be the logic if satan was bound around 33 AD, and that thousands of years are meant by a thousand years.

Click to expand...

The phrase “a thousand “ is saw figuratively throughout Scripture. Those who do not have an agenda have no difficulty in understanding what it is getting at. It is only premillennialists with their theological agenda that have a difficulty getting their head around what it is talking about.

Amillennialists are overwhelmingly in agreement on this matter. You cannot say the same about premillennialists. They are all over the house. They are totally divided on every detail of their doctrine. That is because it is unbiblical.