[Duplicate response posts due to technological issues and unintended by the poster.]
Those texts totally expose your reasoning. They show that the phrase is a figurative term. There is a big difference between "a thousand" and 1,000 [one thousand] as you keep suggesting. The number 'one' is not included in the narrative, you must insert it in. Rather it is the more general thousand.
They confirm my reasoning. They do not show the phrase to be a figurative term. If it were so, an interpretation would be given whenever it was intended for the reader to take it figuratively and it makes no difference if the scripture says "a thousand years" or "one thousand years", the phrase is understood to mean "one thousand years" and nothing more beyond that. You are the one who is attempting to make the phrase out to be more than what it is; hence your resorting to semantics.
The figure a “thousand years” is employed ten times in Scripture – twice in the Old Testament and eight times in the New Testament. Significantly, of the eight mentions in the New, six are found in the same book of the Bible – Revelation. And of even greater note,
all are disproportionately found together within the same chapter – the one currently under examination –
Revelation 20. The two other New Testament references are found in the book of
2 Peter 3. In all the references, they indicate a large unspecific indefinite time period.
No they do not, even when presented in expressive terms such as a day being compared to a thousand years or a thousand years being compared to a day in the Lord's sight. A thousand years is always a thousand years. The word "day" in some instances, is expressed in figurative terms and can mean an unspecified period of time depending on how the context of scripture presents the term.
The two Old Testament passages are found in Psalm 90 and
Ecclesiastes 6. And in both references the figure ‘a thousand years’ is used in a symbolic or figurative sense to denote an indefinite time-span. The first mention is in Psalm 90:3-5, where we read,
“For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up.”
This passage is often advanced by Premillennialists as proof of a literal physical
future earthly millennium. Such people confidently advance it in such a way, as if it states, ‘For a thousand years in thy sight are but as tomorrow which is yet to come’. However, a careful reading of this inspired narrative reveals that it rather in stark contrast declares, “For a thousand years in thy sight are but
as yesterday when it is past.” This passage therefore does not in the slightest allude to the future, never mind to some supposed impending earthly post Second Advent temporal period, but clearly to the past. This passage simply reveals profound truth about God and His infinite view of time rather than any misconceived earthly idea about a future millennium.
The thousand years are notably "as yesterday" rather than 'as tomorrow' or 'as a future period after Christ's Coming'.
A ‘thousand years’ is here used to describe God’s eternal view of time, which is in stark contrast to man’s limited understanding. This text teaches us that time is nothing with the Lord. God lives in eternity and His perspective of time far exceeds the finite mind of man. A ‘thousand years’ in this life is but a flash in the light of eternity. This reading goes on then to describe the solemn reality of the fleetingness of time and the brevity of life, saying, “
we spend our years as a tale that is told” (v 9).
No wonder the Psalmist humbly prays to God, “teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom” (Psalm 90:12).
This passage is not used by premillennialists to support their belief in a literal thousand year reign of Christ on the earth. They do not need to. Revelation chapter 20 provides them all that they need. Most premillennialists know that the cited passage from Psalms is simply presenting the flow of time from the perspective of God.
In
Ecclesiastes 6:3,6-7 we find the second Old Testament reference to a thousand years. Here the term is simply used to represent an idea rather than outlining a specific measurable period of time. It reads,
“If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he…Yea, though he live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place? All the labour of man is for his mouth, and yet the appetite is not filled.”
This text is not remotely suggesting that a person could actually live to be a thousand years multiplied by two (or 2,000 years), such is, and has always been since the fall, a naturally impossibility. Rather, the text expresses a deep
spiritual truth that even if someone lives to an incomprehensible age outside of Christ and hope, this life is completely meaningless. The term a 1000 multiplied by 2 therefore represents a hypothetically number, which spiritually impresses the important reality of the brevity and futility of carnal life. No man in Scripture, or since, has ever lived to the age of 2,000 years old.
No one is attempting to say that it does. The cited passage is purely hypothetical but a thousand years, even in that case, is understood as simply being a thousand years.
Interestingly, the only place outside of
Revelation 20 that the term a thousand years is mentioned in the New Testament is in
2 Peter 3. There, it is significantly used in an entirely figurative sense. In this chapter, Peter is specifically addressing the cynics who live in the last days that doubt the appearing of the Lord at His Second Advent and indeed harbour the foolish notion that He will not come at all. It is in this context that he addresses these misguided doubters, saying, “there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” (
2 Peter 3:3-4).
Peter, however, says in response,
“For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (vv 5-9).
This familiar passage closely parallels the reading that we have just analysed in Psalm 90, indicating the same spiritual truth – that God is
not limited to time. Again, notably, the contrast between the number one and a thousand is employed to simply represent an important divine truth.
It parallels Psalm 90 because Peter was citing Psalm 90 and in this case, Peter was simply explaining that what may seem like a long time in our sight is not necessarily so in the sight of God.
Some theologians mistakenly attempt to use this passage to argue that one of God’s eternal days represents a literal thousand earthly years and that the commencement occurs at the time of Second Advent. However, they do err in their assumption, in that, this text simply indicates the briefness of time with God.
2 Peter 3 does
not in anyway indicate a future earthly millennium kingdom anywhere in this reading. Peter is simply reminding such people that time is absolutely nothing to the King of glory. He ultimately sits outside of time in the realm of eternity. Time is but a blink to His infinite mind and to the eternal state....
Peter thus outlines
two distinct yet contrasting time equations in this passage for the sole purpose of expressing a deep spiritual truth. Notwithstanding, and not surprisingly, the Premillennialist are swift to selectively advance the first aspect of this calculation as supposed evidence that one of God’s heavenly days represents a thousand literal temporal earthly years. However, whilst they unquestionably address, and happily literalise, the first part of this calculation they are understandably careful to side step the second part of the sum. Evidently, such is for the reason that it doesn’t fit their flawed hyper-literalist mode of interpretation.
Significantly, this reading in no place suggests the day of the Lord lasts a literal 1,000 years. The Premillennialist forces that into the reading. In the above passage it simply indicates
“one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (v 8).
Those who take the aforementioned verses to support a future 1,000-year millennium of peace are faced with an insurmountable inconsistency when they examine the detail of the remainder of the chapter, and try and get it to fit their paradigm
This mistake of claiming that a day is a thousand years in the sight of the Lord is not a mistake unique with premillennialists but a mistake the transcends the eschatological and denominational spectrum, but just as I mentioned concerning the cited passage from Psalms, premillennialists do not appeal to 2 Peter 3 to support their case for a literal thousand year reign. They do not need to. Revelation chapter 20 has all that is needed to bear witness to that teaching.
This passage is so clear, final and all-consummating that one wonders how anyone could remotely imagine that creation could survive such an all-consummating fiery event. One also wonders how the Holy Spirit could have possibly advanced more explicit language to indicate the idea of total devastation. Whatever way you look at this chapter there is absolutely no allowance made or possibility for a future post-Second Coming millennial kingdom on this earth. Peter knows of no other coming of Christ other than that which eradicate the heavens, elements and the earth in one stupendous conflagration.
As I have mentioned before, that chapter that you errantly insist that premillennialists appeal to is not the passage of scripture to which we appeal. It is only to Revelation chapter 20. It is Preterist and Amillennial adherents who appeal to the third chapter of 2 Peter to support their eschatology.
If this day lasts 1,000 years, as the Premillennialist passionately argues, then it is unquestionably a thousand years of awful and continuous judgment, which is in stark contradiction to the peaceful (albeit goat-infested) millennium that Premillennialists try to portray in their literature.
It will no doubt be a terrible time to give oneself over to evil since righteousness will be enforced upon the earth and anything contrary to Christ will be dealt with without delay but when the reign begins, there will only be the godly upon the earth. It will be their progeny who will rebel against Christ at the end of the reign. All may appear to be devoted to Christ during the thousand year reign, but the end of that reign will make plain where all truly stand.
The kingdom that you anticipate is a sin-curse, goat-infested, death blighted fiasco. We have the biggest religious turn-around in history: from a millennial kingdom where the nations wholesale supposedly submit to Christ in righteousness (as Premils portray) to a mass revival of Satanism as "the sand of the sea." Sadly, this is all done with Christ at the helm. The Premillennial millennium culminates in the greatest global uprising in history from the four corners of the earth as “the sand of the sea” against the “camp of the saints.”
This has to be the greatest falling away in history. It is the biggest religious deception in history. It is the most pronounced religious circus in history. It makes Christ out to be deceived - believing He had mass allegiance when in fact he had a millennium full of phonies. His outreach to the nations is a complete bust. It makes His efforts out to be a failure. His attempt to reign in righteousness, glory and power is an unmitigated mess.
So much for the perfect pristine paradise of unparalleled, historic and wholesale submission to the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ Premil millennium!!!
The curse of sin, while not absent, is greatly diminished under the rule of Christ. Mankind is being prepared for a final test for when he will be presented, after having lived under the direct reign of Christ and under the best conditions that he has ever known, a choice as to who to follow: Christ or Satan. Sadly, many will choose Satan. It will be at that time that Christ will be done with this present earth and replace it with a new creation in which there is neither sin, death, nor curse.
You are adding unto Scripture. Premils have to because the age they invent is unknown to the sacred pages. They have zero corroboration. Premil lacks corroboration for all its fundamental beliefs on
Revelation 20. Whether you look at the binding of Satan, the release of Satan 1,000 years after the second coming, the restoration of animal sacrifices in an alleged future millennium, a thousand years of peace, perfection and prosperity, two different judgment days, two different resurrection days, the rebellion of the wicked at the end of the millennium, these enjoy no other support in Scripture. I struggle with this, because the only way to authenticate and understand any doctrine is interpret it with other Scripture.
Interpreting scripture with scripture is not adding to scripture, but unless we interpret 2 Peter 3 with Revelation 20, those who insist that there is no thousand year reign to be established when Christ returns by relying only on 2 Peter 3 are going to be faced with a contradiction when confronted with Revelation 20. The only answer to this contradiction was simply that John received more revelation about the end times than Peter did.
You are totally missing the thrust. There it is absolutely nothing here to do with a future age, but time in the here-and-now. This text simply indicates the briefness of time with God.
2 Peter 3 does not in any way indicate a future earthly millennium kingdom anywhere in this reading. In fact, Peter is simply reminding the end-time scoffers that time is absolutely nothing to the king of glory; He ultimately sits outside of time in the realm of eternity. Time is but a blink to His infinite mind and to the eternal state. God is “from everlasting” (
Habakkuk 1:12,
Psalms 93:2).
Peter shows that the coming of Christ is final and climactic. There is no allowance for some future sin-cursed, goat-infested, death-blighted millennial age. Peter rather looks for a NHNE.
I have not all been saying that 2 Peter 3 is indicating a future earthly millennial Kingdom as you persist in accusing me of claiming and neither do other premillennialists as a whole but John in the twentieth chapter of Revelation does and he too is looking for a NHNE but after the thousand year reign, and that is all we need for a future thousand year reign of Christ to be a foregone conclusion.
ooh I liked that one. You said "numerous Scripture". Which are? There are other statements you made with nothing to back it up. 
