The rest of the dead is key in determining when the millennium is meaning

[Timtofly]

Yes, I can, and it's not hard. Are you somehow not capable of looking this up for yourself?

Leviticus 23:33 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 34 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, The fifteenth day of this seventh month shall be the feast of tabernacles for seven days unto the Lord. 35 On the first day shall be an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. 36 Seven days ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord: on the eighth day shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord: it is a solemn assembly; and ye shall do no servile work therein.

Ezra 3:4 They kept also the feast of tabernacles, as it is written, and offered the daily burnt offerings by number, according to the custom, as the duty of every day required;

The "offering made by fire unto the Lord" that had to be made "for seven days unto the Lord" was an animal sacrifice.

The details regarding the animal sacrifices and offerings that were required during the feast of tabernacles can be seen here:

Numbers 29:12 And on the fifteenth day of the seventh month ye shall have an holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work, and ye shall keep a feast unto the Lord seven days: 13 And ye shall offer a burnt offering, a sacrifice made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord; thirteen young bullocks, two rams, and fourteen lambs of the first year; they shall be without blemish: 14 And their meat offering shall be of flour mingled with oil, three tenth deals unto every bullock of the thirteen bullocks, two tenth deals to each ram of the two rams, 15 And a several tenth deal to each lamb of the fourteen lambs: 16 And one kid of the goats for a sin offering; beside the continual burnt offering, his meat offering, and his drink offering. 17 And on the second day ye shall offer twelve young bullocks, two rams, fourteen lambs of the first year without spot: 18 And their meat offering and their drink offerings for the bullocks, for the rams, and for the lambs, shall be according to their number, after the manner: 19 And one kid of the goats for a sin offering; beside the continual burnt offering, and the meat offering thereof, and their drink offerings. 20 And on the third day eleven bullocks, two rams, fourteen lambs of the first year without blemish; 21 And their meat offering and their drink offerings for the bullocks, for the rams, and for the lambs, shall be according to their number, after the manner: 22 And one goat for a sin offering; beside the continual burnt offering, and his meat offering, and his drink offering. 23 And on the fourth day ten bullocks, two rams, and fourteen lambs of the first year without blemish: 24 Their meat offering and their drink offerings for the bullocks, for the rams, and for the lambs, shall be according to their number, after the manner: 25 And one kid of the goats for a sin offering; beside the continual burnt offering, his meat offering, and his drink offering. 26 And on the fifth day nine bullocks, two rams, and fourteen lambs of the first year without spot: 27 And their meat offering and their drink offerings for the bullocks, for the rams, and for the lambs, shall be according to their number, after the manner: 28 And one goat for a sin offering; beside the continual burnt offering, and his meat offering, and his drink offering. 29 And on the sixth day eight bullocks, two rams, and fourteen lambs of the first year without blemish: 30 And their meat offering and their drink offerings for the bullocks, for the rams, and for the lambs, shall be according to their number, after the manner: 31 And one goat for a sin offering; beside the continual burnt offering, his meat offering, and his drink offering. 32 And on the seventh day seven bullocks, two rams, and fourteen lambs of the first year without blemish: 33 And their meat offering and their drink offerings for the bullocks, for the rams, and for the lambs, shall be according to their number, after the manner: 34 And one goat for a sin offering; beside the continual burnt offering, his meat offering, and his drink offering.


Why did you make no effort to see what it actually involved, which clearly included animal sacrifices and offerings, as the scriptures I posted above indicate?


LOL. Keep trying to get around it all you want, but you clearly made no effort to search the scriptures to see what was actually done during the feast of tabernacles. You just made assumptions instead.


Of course not. How does a song equate to actual descriptions of sacrifices? Do you have any other ridiculous questions?

Except the Feast of the Tabernacles was not the main part of this month. You left out the Day of Atonement. The Day of Atonement is not mentioned as necessary. The Feast of Tabernacles is. If you cannot tell the difference, why are you conflating Atonement with the celebration feast, after the Cross already accomplished the Atonement part?


That is like saying we cannot have communion either, because it should have only happened one time, the day of the Cross. Communion is just repeating the Cross over and over again in violation of your logic, that the Cross cannot keep happening over and over again. We know communion is a memorial.

You are the one dictating that God has to reinstate animal Sacrifices or not. You look at the words "feast of tabernacles", and then get bent all out of shape, because you have verses and don't even understand why the feasts were accomplished throughout time.

The Day of Atonement was not the passover when they left Egypt. The Day of Atonement was just prior to the Feast of the Tabernacles, the only day of the year the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies. We know that at the Cross, the veil was torn from top to bottom by God, thus rendering all sacrifices null and void. But that did not do away with the Feast of Tabernacles itself. Like communion, it is a yearly reminder of what the Cross Accomplished.

Leviticus 23:40-43

40 And ye shall take you on the first day the boughs of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and the boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook; and ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days.

41 And ye shall keep it a feast unto the Lord seven days in the year. It shall be a statute for ever in your generations: ye shall celebrate it in the seventh month.

42 Ye shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths:

43 That your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

This was not just about animal sacrifices. It was a reminder of being separated from Egypt and removed from the things of this world.

Obviously you interpret Zechariah 14 any way you feel like. Yet Jesus came as a baby. He was not a grown adult appearing on the mount of Olives and destroying the Roman occupation, setting up His own kingdom on earth. So Zechariah 14 is still a future event. The Feast of Tabernacles was more than just animal sacrifices. The Feast of Tabernacles was a memorial.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Humm...glad that you believe that the blood of the Lamb has already been shed on the Cross while he has confirmed a new covenant in which he is a mediator with His new building, right? All occurred at the Cross, agreed? The church already started after Pentecost in 32AD which means... the rebuilding of the fallen temple has already occurred (three days after Christ's death).

In a spiritual sense that is true, of course. I've never denied that.

This proves that you got the wrong temple in 70AD.

No, this proves your inability sometimes to differentiate between scripture that speaks of physical things and scripture that speaks of spiritual things. It's not as if it's always one or the other. I don't know how you came up with your hyper-spiritual approach to scripture, but it's wrong. You're not subjective and there is no balance to your approach.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Except the Feast of the Tabernacles was not the main part of this month. You left out the Day of Atonement. The Day of Atonement is not mentioned as necessary. The Feast of Tabernacles is. If you cannot tell the difference, why are you conflating Atonement with the celebration feast, after the Cross already accomplished the Atonement part?

I don't know what you're talking about. Zechariah 14:16-21 specifically references the feast of tabernacles and I showed scripture which indicates that animal sacrifices as sin offerings was a part of keeping the feast of tabernacles. What is it that you don't understand about this?

That is like saying we cannot have communion either, because it should have only happened one time, the day of the Cross.

No, it is not like saying that at all because there is no scripture which indicates that communion should not be taken after the day Jesus died. But, there is scripture which indicates that animal sacrifices for sins would never be performed again after Jesus's sacrifice.

Communion is just repeating the Cross over and over again in violation of your logic, that the Cross cannot keep happening over and over again. We know communion is a memorial.

Are you even thinking here? We are told to observe communion in remembrance of His sacrifice. Where is it said that animal sacrifices should be performed in remembrance of His sacrifice? Nowhere, right? Are you forgetting what we're talking about here?

You are the one dictating that God has to reinstate animal Sacrifices or not.

If you are going to interpret Zechariah 14:16-21 literally and apply it to the future, then YOU are the one dictating that because scripture indicates that animal sacrifices are part of keeping the feast of tabernacles.

You look at the words "feast of tabernacles", and then get bent all out of shape, because you have verses and don't even understand why the feasts were accomplished throughout time.

The Day of Atonement was not the passover when they left Egypt. The Day of Atonement was just prior to the Feast of the Tabernacles, the only day of the year the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies. We know that at the Cross, the veil was torn from top to bottom by God, thus rendering all sacrifices null and void. But that did not do away with the Feast of Tabernacles itself. Like communion, it is a yearly reminder of what the Cross Accomplished.

Leviticus 23:40-43

40 And ye shall take you on the first day the boughs of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and the boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook; and ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days.

41 And ye shall keep it a feast unto the Lord seven days in the year. It shall be a statute for ever in your generations: ye shall celebrate it in the seventh month.

42 Ye shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths:

43 That your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

This was not just about animal sacrifices. It was a reminder of being separated from Egypt and removed from the things of this world.

Obviously you interpret Zechariah 14 any way you feel like. Yet Jesus came as a baby. He was not a grown adult appearing on the mount of Olives and destroying the Roman occupation, setting up His own kingdom on earth. So Zechariah 14 is still a future event. The Feast of Tabernacles was more than just animal sacrifices. The Feast of Tabernacles was a memorial.

But the point is that animal sacrifices were part of it. And they were done as sin offerings. You can try to get around that all you want, but that is a fact. So, if the feast of tabernacles was going to be observed again in the future, which is what a literal, futurist interpretation of Zechariah 14:16-21 would imply, then that would mean animal sacrifices as sin offerings would need to be reinstated.

 

[TribulationSigns]

In a spiritual sense that is true, of course. I've never denied that.

Very good... BUT...

No, this proves your inability sometimes to differentiate between scripture that speaks of physical things and scripture that speaks of spiritual things. It's not as if it's always one or the other. I don't know how you came up with your hyper-spiritual approach to scripture, but it's wrong. You're not subjective and there is no balance to your approach.

No, it has to do with you being stuck with your own salad bar - picking which verse would be spiritual or physical to fit your doctrines. I can see the error in your doctrines because I was like you before with that belief. I have quoted tons of Scrpture on how Matthew 24 is understood yet you offered NOTHING to defend yourself by refuting my position with Scirpture. Only claimed that the context is physical because it sounds right to you? Really? Go ahead and respond to my post elsewhere and explain how the temple was rebuilt in 3 days if you agree that the builders of the building were the Jews which it seems you agreed is spiritual. If so, how did they fall that day before Christ rebuilt it in 3 days? And do you agree that the church, a new testament representation of God's Kingdom has already started after Pentecost? This proved that the temple has fallen before then! I am interested to see how you can explain this biblically about the physical temple in 70AD instead of being stuck in the salad bar with a salad dressing of Josephus.

 

[Timtofly]

I don't know what you're talking about. Zechariah 14:16-21 specifically references the feast of tabernacles and I showed scripture which indicates that animal sacrifices as sin offerings was a part of keeping the feast of tabernacles. What is it that you don't understand about this?


No, it is not like saying that at all because there is no scripture which indicates that communion should not be taken after the day Jesus died. But, there is scripture which indicates that animal sacrifices for sins would never be performed again after Jesus's sacrifice.


Are you even thinking here? We are told to observe communion in remembrance of His sacrifice. Where is it said that animal sacrifices should be performed in remembrance of His sacrifice? Nowhere, right? Are you forgetting what we're talking about here?


If you are going to interpret Zechariah 14:16-21 literally and apply it to the future, then YOU are the one dictating that because scripture indicates that animal sacrifices are part of keeping the feast of tabernacles.


But the point is that animal sacrifices were part of it. And they were done as sin offerings. You can try to get around that all you want, but that is a fact. So, if the feast of tabernacles was going to be observed again in the future, which is what a literal, futurist interpretation of Zechariah 14:16-21 would imply, then that would mean animal sacrifices as sin offerings would need to be reinstated.

No, it was not just about Sacrifices, and I gave the verses. You are the one wanting it to be all or nothing, even though the Cross fulfilled the Day of Atonement.


40 And ye shall take you on the first day the boughs of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and the boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook; and ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days.

41 And ye shall keep it a feast unto the Lord seven days in the year. It shall be a statute for ever in your generations: ye shall celebrate it in the seventh month.

42 Ye shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths:

43 That your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Not a single animal sacrifice mentioned in this command. The point of the word tabernacles was not about the sacrifices, even if they were once part of this feast. It was about the setting up of tabernacles called booths.

This is not even a reinstated feast. It is still celebrated by Israelites every year. It was never stopped. Zechariah points out it will not stop even after the Second Coming. Who is claiming this is a future process that returns? Do you think Israel should have stopped remembering they once left Egypt, at some point in the past?

Of course animal sacrifices were a part of evey feast and celebration. That was the OT economy. No one is denying that point. You are the one saying that Zechariah implies animal sacrifices are brought back, even though not even necessary according to Leviticus 23:40-43.

You claim this was fulfilled in the first century. Are you declaring that animal sacrifices were kept in force during your millennium, or are you hypocritical on that point, and declare them also null and void? How was this fulfilled and that animal sacrifices are still in force today in your millennium? You don't need a temple for animal sacrifices. A Tabernacle will also work. You literally have no excuse to deny animal sacrifices in your own millennium, if you are going to force them into the Day of the Lord.

Now some pre-mil may agree with you, they are reinstated as part of the feast. But that is not biblical, not even in Zechariah 14. Pretty sure the book of Hebrews made it abundantly clear no more animal sacrifices were needed, even if Jews thought it was because they had no temple, and rejected the Messiah. Those of Israel could have had a tabernacle any where in the world, after the Cross, and still practiced animal sacrifices. It would have been pointless where God was concerned, but still in obedience to the OT Law. Not having a temple is a weak argument. Most of those from Jacob still living to this day, according to the OT, still celebrate all the feast sans animal sacrifices. There will be no reintroducing the Law, just the writing of God's Law in all their hearts from birth, without them needing to be taught as children. We are told the feast of Tabernacles will continue. Certainly not a reason to claim Zechariah 14 will not be a future event. All the feast are still celebrated every year.


"And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one. And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited."

That is the proof that Zechariah 14 has been fulfilled. Last I checked, people are still trying to destroy Jerusalem. By the way, "that day", does not mean a single 24 hour day. Nor an indefinite period of time without boundaries. You seem to think this is not eternity, as you don't state eternity started in the first century.

I would compare Zechariah 14 to Isaiah 65 and Jerusalem under conditions of a new heaven and earth where war and destruction is not necessary, nor even a memory of the past. No one will even comprehend war, sin, destruction, decay, nor even death. Not even sorrow nor tears of regret will be known. Seems God will withhold rain, not longer than a year though. The feast of tabernacles may have a whole new meaning, if all former things have been removed from memory. We are only told that it is a yearly occurrence that all nations participate in.


Interesting that you interpret Isaiah 65 as future and Zechariah 14 as the past. Must be the words "new heaven and earth" even though you claim not all chapters have to have the same explicit terms. You don't think these verses are descriptive of a new earth:

"The mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be. All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses."

How is Jesus rearranging all this geography not a new earth?

We certainly had a new earth after the Flood. It was described as one continent that was broken up into several, at the time of the Flood. Peter pointed out that it would change again at the Second Coming, Zechariah 14 is part of that change. Even John said at the 6th Seal:

"And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places."

How is that not describing a new earth and configuration of heaven?

Your explanation seems to just symbolize things you cannot explain to fit your eschatology, and do away with a change of earth a thousand years before the NHNE, because that thousand years does not fit your eschatology either. The 6th Seal happens even before the first Trumpet. Yet you dismiss that fact and state history repeats itself in the book of Revelation. You make it sound better with the word recapitulation. John is not restating points. John is detailing the systematic removal of Adam's dead corruptible flesh over a period of time. The church is harvested first at the rapture/Second Coming, the 6th Seal. Then the lost sheep of Israel are harvested during the Trumpets, while Jesus is sitting on a throne in the newly changed geographical landscape of Zechariah 14. Then in the Thunders the wheat or lost Gentiles are separated from the tares. The tares removed from the Lamb's book of life and tossed into the LOF.


This is not an event over in the twinkling of an eye as viewed from different angles. Nor stretched out as the GWT judgment after there is no more creation. Matthew 25:31 is Jesus as King on the earth with His angels. The GWT is outside of creation with just the dead souls from sheol, death, and the sea. The rebel angels are loosed at the 5th Trumpet as the 1st woe. You miss the whole dynamic of the competition between both groups of angels to the point Satan and his angels have to be tossed out of heaven by the time of the 7th Trumpet. This is all lost when you claim there is one split second with different angles leading up to this instantaneous event.

Angels don't come in Revelation 19 to harvest lost souls. All those on earth are slain at Armageddon. No one left to harvest. The angels come at the 6th Seal symbolized by the stars falling to earth. That is when the angels come for the harvest. Armageddon is just the final clean up of Adam's dead corruptible flesh.

Comparing Scripture with Scripture is like putting the whole picture together. You seem to think it is the way to form your opinion into doctrine to make strong arguments, while discarding other verses that contradict your doctrine.

 

[keras]

What this passage indicates is that Christ is the one who put the new covenant into effect with His shed blood. As this passage indicates, a will or covenant is not in force and put in effect until the one making it has died and is "not put into effect without blood". So, once Jesus died, the new covenant went into effect. But, I suppose you will say your Bible says something different. I'm really wondering who exactly inspired your Bible.

So then; is it your belief that the day you accepted the Salvation of Jesus, you made a Covenant with Him? Maybe our acceptance of Jesus and our commitment to obey His Commandments, is a kind of personal Covenant.
But the idea of individuals making the New Covenant, at any time over the last nearly 2000 years, conflicts with what Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Hebrews 8:8-12 tell us. ....For all will know Me and I shall pardon their wicked deeds and remember their sins no more.

The real New Covenant can only be made when all the holy people of God are gathered together into one place, as is prophesied to happen soon after the world changing Day of the Lord's fiery wrath.
THEN, we Christians will go to live in all of the holy Land, - John sees us there in Revelation 7:9 and the New Covenant will guarantee our safety and prosperity. Proved by how the Lord destroys Gog when his vast army attacks us.

As for my Revised English Bible, 1987 Oxford Press, it is a complete retranslation from all the available ancient scriptures, by many expert translators and overseen by the British Church's. It is the preferred Bible of the Wickliffe Translators.
The REB uses modern language to correct and clarify many wrong translations. the prime example is in Luke 21:36 - .....to pass safely through all that is coming......REB, and to escape all these things......as most other Bibles render it.
However, their error is evident from just the previous verse, where it states this disaster will come upon everyone the whole world over.

Rapture to heaven believers grip onto this mis-translation and use it to support their false theory. A theory directly refuted by Jesus Himself. John 3:13

 

[Spiritual Jew]

So then; is it your belief that the day you accepted the Salvation of Jesus, you made a Covenant with Him? Maybe our acceptance of Jesus and our commitment to obey His Commandments, is a kind of personal Covenant.
But the idea of individuals making the New Covenant, at any time over the last nearly 2000 years, conflicts with what Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Hebrews 8:8-12 tell us. ....For all will know Me and I shall pardon their wicked deeds and remember their sins no more.

The new covenant was established long ago already as Hebrews 8:6 indicates and it "was established upon better promises" than the old covenant. The new covenant is all about God providing a way to have a personal relationship with Him through His Son which He did by way of His Son's death and resurrection. If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ then your sins have been forgiven and you are under the new covenant of grace by way of His shed blood.

The real New Covenant can only be made when all the holy people of God are gathered together into one place, as is prophesied to happen soon after the world changing Day of the Lord's fiery wrath.

It seems that you are just making things up instead of just accepting what Hebrews 8-10 says about how the new covenant was established by the blood of Christ long ago already. You can make things much easier on yourself if you would just allow the NT authors to interpret the OT prophecies for you.

As for my Revised English Bible, 1987 Oxford Press, it is a complete retranslation from all the available ancient scriptures, by many expert translators and overseen by the British Church's. It is the preferred Bible of the Wickliffe Translators.
The REB uses modern language to correct and clarify many wrong translations. the prime example is in Luke 21:36 - .....to pass safely through all that is coming......REB, and to escape all these things......as most other Bibles render it.
However, their error is evident from just the previous verse, where it states this disaster will come upon everyone the whole world over.

I was not talking about Luke 21:36, I was talking about Hebrews 9:15-17. Can you show me how the REB translates that passage? I don't know of any way to look up the text for that translation online. Is it different than the translation found here: https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/

Rapture to heaven believers grip onto this mis-translation and use it to support their false theory. A theory directly refuted by Jesus Himself. John 3:13

That isn't my belief, so I don't know why you're telling me this. But, since you brought it up, I don't think that verse is mistranslated when it says "and to escape all these things". I think the verse instead gets misinterpreted. The things that we will escape are the things that will happen on "that day" when "heaven and earth shall pass away". That is the context of Luke 21:33-36. But, believing that is referring to the same event as 1 Thess 4:14-17 when we will meet the Lord "in the air" and believing that is talking about being taken off of the earth doesn't mean it has anything to do with a pre-trib rapture or anything to do with being taken to heaven.

 

[keras]

since you brought it up, I don't think that verse is mistranslated when it says "and to escape all these things". I think the verse instead gets misinterpreted

Yes; you could be right, as to escape all these things....Luke 21:36, can simply mean that we won't be affected by them. It certainly does not mean or even imply a removal from the earth!

The new covenant was established long ago already as Hebrews 8:6 indicates

Until you read and understand Jeremiah 33:30-34 and Ezekiel 34:25-31 and see how it is impossible for the New Covenant to be in operation now, then discussion with you is fruitless.
Even Hebrews 8:10-12 proves the NC is not made yet.

 

[eclipsenow]

1000 - literal vs metaphor​

Literal means what it actually says and is not symbolic of something else. In the bible, 1000 tends to get used literally and numerically to count real things or people, like the number of men in a battle. It's very practical and statistical. But the moment the Hebrew authors use 1000 in a theological context, something interesting happens. Investigate the following theological statements about God and nature, God and his people, or even God and time. They're ALL symbolic!

Psalm 50: "I bring no charges against you concerning your sacrifices or concerning your burnt offerings, which are ever before me. I have no need of a bull from your stall or of goats from your pens, for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills." = Is the literal futurist really going to argue that God only owns a thousand hills? What about the other million or so on Earth?

Deuteronomy 1:11 - "11 May the Lord, the God of your ancestors, increase you a thousand times and bless you as he has promised!" = God was only going to grow his people a thousand times - from the literal number of people standing before Moses that day? What happened to more than the stars in the sky and grains of sand on a beach?

Psalm 91:7 - "A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand, but it will not come near you." = Is it a thousand or ten-thousand? Is it a gazillion or ten gazillion?

Isaiah 60:22 - "The least of you will become a thousand, the smallest a mighty nation." = You mean there are limits on God's kingdom - it will ONLY grow 1000 times in size from Isaiah's lifetime?

Judges 15:16 - "Then Samson said, “With a donkey’s jawbone I have made donkeys of them. With a donkey’s jawbone I have killed a thousand men.” = I love this one - as I've been a soldier. The image of a Sampson having a bookkeeper counting his kills is just hilarious. "997, 998, 999, 1000 - that's it Sampson! You're done for the day! Stand down Sampson - I'm writing this down!"

Job 9:3 - "Though they wished to dispute with him, they could not answer him one time out of a thousand." = Could Job's 'friends' actually answer his suffering 1 time in a thousand, or is the emphasis of this story that they had NO answers - only God had the authority to answer Job (and decided not to tell Job the real reason anyway. Job was just to trust God anyway, without an answer!)

GOD AND TIME SEEMS TO ALWAYS BE SYMBOLIC:-
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." = Is the literal futurist really bold enough to insist God is only faithful for a thousand generations? A generation was 40 years - so in 40,000 years God is unfaithful!!!???

Psalm 105:8 - "He remembers his covenant FOREVER, the promise he made, for a THOUSAND generations" = Well, which is it? Forever, or a thousand generations / 40,000 years?

Psalms 84:10 - "Better is one day in your courts than a thousand elsewhere; I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of the wicked." = Is one day with God’s people better than 1000 literal days or 2.7 years, or is this a qualitative assessment of how it is better to just invest your time with God? Is this verse actually equating ANY period of time with the wicked as beneficial to you?

Other consequences​

Revelation 20 has divided Christians and warped how they read the bible - but it’s meant to be a short image of our safety in Christ during these 'gazillion years' between the Lord's Resurrection and his Return. Yet futurist end-timers have turned it into the thin edge of the wedge that sometimes breaks apart how the Old and New Covenants fit together - and sometimes even what the gospel means!

Revelation is just not a future-history as John says in Chapter 1 that this stuff was about to start “soon”, the time was “near”, he “shares in their sufferings” (literally - tribulations!) and he wants them to “take his message to heart”. That means obey it. It’s hard to OBEY a message that is not even to or about you - but about what happens in 2000 years. Most futurists have not thought about these points.

What’s worse is it futurism makes the Apostle John out to be callous and indifferent to the suffering of the church in his time. If he is not writing to them and about them, but about some so-called “Great Tribulation” way off in the future, then John is in effect saying “You think you've got problems - wait till you see what happens in 2000 years!” It’s just not true to the book - he’s dressing up the events of the time in apocalyptic language and reminding them to stay faithful because one day the Lord will return. That’s it!

 

[1Tonne]

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 a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand 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 a thousand years. Revelation 20:4

Reading this without ever being indoctrinated into an end times viewpoint, most people would read it as literal. Unfortunately, most of us have been indoctrinated into one view or another. (Yes, I most likely have been indoctrinated into a viewpoint too.)
I look at these verses in a literal sense. So, the only people who are raised are those that spoke up for the testimony of God and then were killed for it. This is not all believers. There will be many believers who are still in the grave and also some that are left alive at this time who are not raised. The ones who are raised must reign for 1000 years with Christ. 1000 years is not an infinite number. So, this reign does come to an end. When it comes to an end, the scripture does not say where Jesus is. I believe that he is no longer here because then satan is once again set free to wreak havoc over the earth. In the end, Christ returns in the clouds and raptures up everyone, both believer and unbeliever, those who are alive and those who are in the grave. And all will go to the Great White Throne judgement.

I believe that this viewpoint also aligns with 1 Thes 4:13-17
13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as indeed the rest of mankind do, who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead, so also God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep through Jesus. 15 For we say this to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who remain, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.
I believe verses 13-14 are speaking about those that had been killed for their testimony of Jesus. We are not to worry about them as they will come and reign with Christ.
Then verse 15 speaks about the very end of time after the 1000 years when Jesus comes and raptures/takes everyone to be judged at the GWT.
Verse 16 then says that when he does come to rapture everyone to judgement, there will be a trumpet sound (This trumpet is also mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:51-54 and Rev 11:15). But before all this, the dead in Christ, that is the martyrs must be raised first.
You notice that I have underlined the word "and" in the verse 16 above. This word in Greek is "Kai". It can mean "and, also, even, indeed, or but." By using the word "and", it makes sense, but I believe that using the word "but" makes it even clearer. So, it would then say this, "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, but the dead in Christ will rise first." So, those who will reign for 1000 years must first be raised and reign with Christ for 1000 years and then he will return with a trumpet blast and rapture everyone up to the GWT judgement.

 

[eclipsenow]

oops... do not repeat this a thousand times - it might be wrong !

John did not "dress up" his language according to any whims or thoughts or ideas of his own nor originated by him, in his mind or otherwise.

You don't know biblical genres of writing. John DID present his message in apocalyptic symbols or is Jesus a space lamb with 7 eyes and 7 horns? Literally? See you want to claim one bit is literal but not others. it's the most symbolic book of the bible