- Oct 12, 2020
- 7,394
- 2,496
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
And why did you choose that approach instead of looking at how the number "thousand" is used elsewhere in scripture? The term "thousand" is used figuratively several times in scripture. Is that not something to take into consideration?The way I look at it, if this thousand years are involving this age rather than after Christ returns, it would not be unreasonable to not take them literally. But if they are instead meaning post the 2nd coming, it is perfectly reasonable to take them literally in that case. The way I have decided whether they are literal or not is based on how other numbers followed by years are interpreted in the Bible.
I find this to be a weak argument. This would be like me arguing that the word generation is used literally throughout the Bible when a number is in front of it, so why wouldn't that be true in the following verse as well?They are always interpreted literally, thus they literally mean the amount of years specified. I find it to be unreasonable, if that is the pattern throughout the Bible, that this same pattern wouldn't also apply to a thousand when it is followed by years.
Deuteronomy 7:9 Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments.
This clearly isn't referring to a literal thousand generations. But, the word is used literally in every other verse in scripture that has a number before that word (Examples: Exodus 20:5, Exodus 34:7, Numbers 14:18, Deut 5:9, Deut 23:2-3;8, 2 Kings 10:30;15:12, Matthew 1:17).
Why does the word generation mean a literal number of generations in all the other verses throughout the Bible besides those that refer to "a thousand generations", but not in the verses that refer to "a thousand generations"? Because the word "thousand" is a common word to use to figuratively describe a large, undefined number.Why wouldn't it? Why does it mean a literal amount of years in all these other verses throughout the Bible, but not if the number is a thousand and it is also followed by years?
"So what"? Why is that not significant to you? Can you at least acknowledge since that is the case, it can be true in Revelation 20 as well?And so what if a thousand doesn't mean in the literal sense every time in the Bible? Who is arguing that is.
Of course. But, since it isn't always literal, that's something for you to seriously consider when interpreting Revelation 20.Does that then mean it can't also be meaning in the literal sense as well at times?
It does. The word "thousand". That isn't insignificant. Why are you trying to downplay how the word "thousand" is used in scripture?Look how Amils argue in regards to this. They use examples not even involving years, as if a cattle on a thousand hills somehow has something in common with a thousand years.
Obviously, that is not the logic that Amils are applying to the term, so you're once again (for the thousandth time) making a straw man argument here. The point is that the term "thousand" is used figuratively a number of times in scripture, so there's no reason to think it's not possible for that to be the case in Revelation 20 as well.Per the former it is meaning every hill. If we apply that same logic to a thousand years, that has to mean it is meaning every single year since the beginning of time, and includes every single year until time is no more, which is ludicrous.
Upvote
0