Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ A Future Millennium

[Justaned]

All the critical Greek texts have chilia eth

Chilioi and Chilia are the same Greek word; it’s just that one is a masculine plural, the other is neuter plural, so they have corresponding endings. When used by itself, the Greek word means one thousand. When used as an adjective, it has to be the same gender as the noun it modifies (“years” in this case). But the word always means one thousand.

I have seen where some people have tried to argue that “chilioi” is the plural form of “chilia”, and should therefore be translated “thousands” and not “thousand”, but they are mistaken. Both words are plural and are different only because of the gender of the noun they modify. So chilioi (masculine plural) or chilia (neuter plural) makes no difference, they both mean a thousand.

You can see this in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible done before the birth of Christ by Jews living in Alexandria, Egypt):

2 Samuel 19:18 refers to “a thousand men” brought from Benjamin and uses chilioi

Psalm 90:4 refers to “a thousand years” and uses chilia

Xila eth is even lesser explored rendering and could in fact be talking of a long period of time rather than specific one thousand years.

Nope. As far as the Greek goes, it could not mean anything other than a thousand years.

If John had wanted to express something larger than a thousand, or some indefinite large number, there are other words in Greek which he could have used, as he did in Revelation 5 when describing the number of angels around the throne.

Why do interlinears have Chilia Ete isn't that the specific and correct way to express a thousand years. While chilioi Etos or chilia eth can be used they do open the door for pural debate which you seem to deny has any merit yet it continues on.

Help me understand if it was cut and dried as you suggest then why did the early church question what was meant? Some believed it was a literal one thousand years and others a unspecific period of time. Why was that debated?

There has to be something in the way this is said that begs the question and you keep denying it anything to do with the Greek words used but everyone else says it is the Greek sentence construction.

[titus213]

everyone else

Such as?????

I know of no one who understands Greek who makes a claim that the language structure is the culprit.
You yourself saw how the Latin Vulgate translated the phrase exactly as "a thousand years", and it was not translated by a premil translator.

The reason for the debate in the early church is the same as it now -- interpretation of the "thousand years". Literal? Figurative? That's where the difference is. The phrase means what I have said.

Most of those who interpret ALL the number references in Revelation as figurative prefer, of course, to also interpret the thousand years that way. And vice versa.

[Justaned]

everyone else

Such as?????

I know of no one who understands Greek who makes a claim that the language structure is the culprit.
You yourself saw how the Latin Vulgate translated the phrase exactly as "a thousand years", and it was not translated by a premil translator.

The reason for the debate in the early church is the same as it now -- interpretation of the "thousand years". Literal? Figurative? That's where the difference is. The phrase means what I have said.

Most of those who interpret ALL the number references in Revelation as figurative prefer, of course, to also interpret the thousand years that way. And vice versa.

Literal or Figurative, does it mean a literal thousand years or a figurative long period of time. Again too many have stated the sentence structure of this passage is not definitive and therefore we can't prove it to be literal or figurative. You say that is not true.

The Vulgate does have it as a 1000 years and you said the problem was perpetuated by the Catholic church. Yet the Catholic church is the one that translated the Vulgate. Doesn't your reasoning impeach itself?

[titus213]

In no way shape or form were the early church fathers dispensationalist millennialist, they were historic millennialist (which is very different from dispensationalism) and amillennialist.

That's right.
I didn't say they were dispensationalist (as I mentioned previously somewhere along the way, I am not dispensational myself). But the early fathers did emphasize the literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, especially the ones that spoke of a literal millennnium. It wasn't until Origen, and then later the dominant influence of Augustine's City of God in the 5th century that the total allegorizing / spiritualizing of these prophecies took over.

The Vulgate does have it as a 1000 years and you said the problem was perpetuated by the Catholic church. Yet the Catholic church is the one that translated the Vulgate. Doesn't your reasoning impeach itself?

Umm, no -- because the problem is not one of translation; that is the point I have been trying to make with all this discussion about the Greek terminology. The problem is one of interpretation; the issue is hermeneutics, not grammar. The method of interpretation being applied to these prophecies is where the difference lies. The major move in this regard came with Augustine (who thought that the premil position up to that time opened the door to a revival of Judaism when Jesus returned, and he just couldn't see how that could be). So yes indeed, the problem of interpretation was perpetuated and kept alive by the Catholic church and the official position it took in favor of Augustine's exclusively figurative method.

By the way, I do recognize that there are sincere, Bible-believing Christians who approach these matters from the amil (and even postmil) perspective. On the other hand, I also recognize that one's decision regarding this issue of interpretation will have a major impact on other doctrines, as well. It does make a difference.

[Ray]

Ray quotes me as saying:

"In your attempt to understand Greek without knowing Greek, and relying on dictionary definitions you seem to be only selecting the one that you want to agree with your preconceived viewpoint. Because in fact, NO GREEK LEXICON LIMITS THE WORD 'hemera' TO A 24-HR. DAY!!!"

also:

"the Greek word is not restricted to a single, 24-hr. day. No Greek dictionary suggests that the word can only refer to a 24-hr. day."

And then Ray comments:

As one of the definitions given by Greek scholar James Strong for the "last day"
escatos hemera found in Jn 6:39,40,44,54, Jn 11:24 & 12:48

* of the last day of this present age, the day Christ will return from heaven, raise the dead, hold the final judgment, and perfect his kingdom

Ray,

The original statement you made was that the Greek word for “day” – the word “hemera” – always refers to a 24-hr. day. I said you were wrong. You are wrong, as anyone using any Greek lexicon can readily see.

Now you come along and quote James Strong’s interpretation of the phrase “last day” in John 5. That has nothing to do with your original claim, that the word “day” in Greek can only mean a 24-hr. day. But that is not the point you were making. And in fact, in his concordance Strong does not say the Greek word “hemera” means a 24-hr. day. He gives several possible meanings for the Greek word “hemera”, not limiting it to a 24-hr. day, just as I said.

You then go on to cite A.T. Robertson, who was indeed a great Greek scholar as you say. It is true that he believed in a so-called “general” resurrection. It is not true that he suggested the Greek verb “zoopoieo” means general resurrection. He knew better. The verb doesn’t mean that, as (once again) anyone can discover by checking any Greek lexicon or even Robertson's own book of word studies.

His opinion about a so-called “general” resurrection is contradicted by other highly regarded Greek experts, so it is interesting merely as one scholar’s personal opinion. My guess is that he was post-millennial, given the times in which he lived. One can find language experts holding to all the current millennial viewpoints, including postmil, amil, and premil. Which goes to show that the language itself apparently isn’t the sole determining factor in arriving at a viewpoint regarding the millennium.

Hello Brother Fisher,
Above you wrote:
" It is not true that he (A.T. Robertson) suggested the Greek verb “zoopoieo” means general resurrection. He knew better. The verb doesn’t mean that, as (once again) anyone can discover by checking any Greek lexicon or even Robertson's own book of word studies."

Brother Fisher,
Unless the edition of "Word Pictures in The New Testament" by A.T. Robertson
which I own has a misprint. Below is as I have quoted before an exact quote from "Word Pictures in The New Testament" by A.T. Robertson

"I Cor. 15:22 (shall be made alive) This is the greek verb zoopoieo, here, to restore to life meaning general ressurection. Some to eternal life or salvation, others to judgement."

You also wrote above :
"Now you come along and quote James Strong’s interpretation of the phrase “last day” in John 5. That has nothing to do with your original claim, that the word “day” in Greek can only mean a 24-hr. day."

Did I in fact say that the word "day" in the Greek can "ONLY" mean a 24-hr.
day? (I don't think I did)


Below are the definitions given in James Strong's concordance for the word "day" hemera as used in John 6:39,40,44,54,11:24,12:48


Lexicon Results Strong's G2250 - hēmera ἡμέρα
Transliteration
hēmera
Pronunciation

hā-me'-rä (Key)

Outline of Biblical Usage 1) the day, used of the natural day, or the interval between sunrise and sunset, as distinguished from and contrasted with the night

a) in the daytime

b) metaph., "the day" is regarded as the time for abstaining from indulgence, vice, crime, because acts of the sort are perpetrated at night and in darkness

2) of the civil day, or the space of twenty four hours (thus including the night)

a) Eastern usage of this term differs from our western usage. Any part of a day is counted as a whole day, hence the expression "three days and three nights" does not mean literally three whole days, but at least one whole day plus part of two other days.

3) of the last day of this present age, the day Christ will return from heaven, raise the dead, hold the final judgment, and perfect his kingdom

4) used of time in general, i.e. the days of his life.

[titus213]

Brother Fisher,
Unless the edition of "Word Pictures in The New Testament" by A.T. Robertson
which I own has a misprint. Below is as I have quoted before an exact quote from "Word Pictures in The New Testament" by A.T. Robertson

"I Cor. 15:22 (shall be made alive) This is the greek verb zoopoieo, here, to restore to life meaning general ressurection. Some to eternal life or salvation, others to judgement."

Hello Ray,

Here is the quote I have in my copy. But even if your quote is correct, he says the Greek verb means "restore to life". IF he says anything about "general resurrection", it would be his interpretation on what "restore to life" is speaking about (a general resurrection). The Greek verb itself does not mean "general resurrection", and he would never have claimed that it did.

But as I say, in the 3 copies of his Word Picture I have consulted, he says nothing about general ressurection.

Quote from my hard copy of Word Studies at 1 Corinthians 15:22:

Shall be made alive [zōopoiēthēsontai]. First future passive indicative of [zōopoieō], late verb (Aristotle) to give life, to restore to life as here. In verse 36 [zōopoieitai] is used in the sense of natural life as in Joh 5:21; 6:63 of spiritual life. It is not easy to catch Paul’s thought here. He means resurrection (restoration) by the verb here, but not necessarily
eternal life or salvation. So also [pantes] may not coincide in both clauses. All who die diein Adam, all who will be made alive will be made alive (restored to life) in Christ. The same problem occurs in Ro 5:18 about “all,” and in verse 19 about “the many.”

Did I in fact say that the word "day" in the Greek can "ONLY" mean a 24-hr. day? (I don't think I did)

I know it's hard sometimes to keep track of what was said, where, and when -- especially if the comments are flying fast and furious. But yes, you did, and that's why I responded with a correction. Here is what you said:

Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:28 pm
As you know through you studies of the Greek Language,There are several words in the Greek Language for the English word "day" but the word "day" used in the passages I presented is the greek word "hemera" and has the meaning of a Literal 24 hour day.

[Ray]

Brother Fisher,
Unless the edition of "Word Pictures in The New Testament" by A.T. Robertson
which I own has a misprint. Below is as I have quoted before an exact quote from "Word Pictures in The New Testament" by A.T. Robertson

"I Cor. 15:22 (shall be made alive) This is the greek verb zoopoieo, here, to restore to life meaning general ressurection. Some to eternal life or salvation, others to judgement."

Hello Ray,

Here is the quote I have in my copy. But even if your quote is correct, he says the Greek verb means "restore to life". IF he says anything about "general resurrection", it would be his interpretation on what "restore to life" is speaking about (a general resurrection). The Greek verb itself does not mean "general resurrection", and he would never have claimed that it did.

But as I say, in the 3 copies of his Word Picture I have consulted, he says nothing about general ressurection.

Quote from my hard copy of Word Studies at 1 Corinthians 15:22:

Shall be made alive [zōopoiēthēsontai]. First future passive indicative of [zōopoieō], late verb (Aristotle) to give life, to restore to life as here. In verse 36 [zōopoieitai] is used in the sense of natural life as in Joh 5:21; 6:63 of spiritual life. It is not easy to catch Paul’s thought here. He means resurrection (restoration) by the verb here, but not necessarily
eternal life or salvation. So also [pantes] may not coincide in both clauses. All who die diein Adam, all who will be made alive will be made alive (restored to life) in Christ. The same problem occurs in Ro 5:18 about “all,” and in verse 19 about “the many.”

Did I in fact say that the word "day" in the Greek can "ONLY" mean a 24-hr. day? (I don't think I did)

I know it's hard sometimes to keep track of what was said, where, and when -- especially if the comments are flying fast and furious. But yes, you did, and that's why I responded with a correction. Here is what you said:

Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:28 pm
As you know through you studies of the Greek Language,There are several words in the Greek Language for the English word "day" but the word "day" used in the passages I presented is the greek word "hemera" and has the meaning of a Literal 24 hour day.

Brother Fisher,

"The Word Pictures " That I quoted from was the "Concise Edition" Yet I have seen what you have posted in another Edition. Because the "general resurrection" is in fact mentioned in the Concise Edition is the reason I quoted from it.

Again Brother Fisher, you wrote quoting me:
" Did I in fact say that the word "day" in the Greek can "ONLY" mean a 24-hr. day? (I don't think I did)

then you said:
"I know it's hard sometimes to keep track of what was said, where, and when -- especially if the comments are flying fast and furious. But yes, you did, and that's why I responded with a correction. Here is what you said:"


again quoting me:
Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:28 pm
As you know through you studies of the Greek Language,There are several words in the Greek Language for the English word "day" but the word "day" used in the passages I presented is the greek word "hemera" and has the meaning of a Literal 24 hour day.[/quote]

Where I must again ask do I state that word "day" in the Greek can "ONLY" mean a 24-hr. day?
As you stated that I said "hemera" can ONLY mean a 24-hr.day.
Yet what I did in fact state is that "hemera" has THE (not Only) meaning of a literal 24-hr.day. Do you disagree that "hemera" has the meaning (not Only Meaning) a literal 24-hr.day ?
Would you agree that where ever a Literal 24-hr day is mentioned in The Scriptures the greek word hemera is used?

[titus213]

Ray,
you stated that in some passages you listed, the word MEANS a literal 24 hr. day.

That is incorrect. The word itself does not mean a literal 24 hr. day; your interpretation of the word in those verses is that, from all the possible meanings it can have, it must mean a 24-hr day.

As I replied to you back then:

The Greek word 'hemera' does not mean a literal 24 hour day. It MAY mean that, if it is used in a context that requres it. But it has the same wide meanings as our English word does (a day of infamy; the day of the horse and buggy; etc). For example, see Romans 2.5 "the day (hemera) of God's wrath", or 2 Tim 3.1 and how it uses the word "hemera" when speaking of the "last days". There are numerous examples of a non-24 hr. day use of the Greek word in the New Testament!

I do agree that wherever a literal 24-hr day is mentioned in the New Testament the Greek word hemera is used.

But in the Gospel of John, we have evidence that he sometimes uses the terms "hour" and "day" in the sense of a long period. The "hour" of John 5.25 has already lasted nearly 2000 years; Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day (John 8.56).

[Ray]

Ray,
you stated that in some passages you listed, the word MEANS a literal 24 hr. day.

That is incorrect. The word itself does not mean a literal 24 hr. day; your interpretation of the word in those verses is that, from all the possible meanings it can have, it must mean a 24-hr day.

As I replied to you back then:

The Greek word 'hemera' does not mean a literal 24 hour day. It MAY mean that, if it is used in a context that requres it. But it has the same wide meanings as our English word does (a day of infamy; the day of the horse and buggy; etc). For example, see Romans 2.5 "the day (hemera) of God's wrath", or 2 Tim 3.1 and how it uses the word "hemera" when speaking of the "last days". There are numerous examples of a non-24 hr. day use of the Greek word in the New Testament!

I do agree that wherever a literal 24-hr day is mentioned in the New Testament the Greek word hemera is used.

But in the Gospel of John, we have evidence that he sometimes uses the terms "hour" and "day" in the sense of a long period. The "hour" of John 5.25 has already lasted nearly 2000 years; Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day (John 8.56).

Brother Fisher,
you mention above:
#1)"I do agree that wherever a literal 24-hr day is mentioned in the New Testament the Greek word "hemera" is used."

Then you say:
#2) "The Greek word 'hemera' does not mean a literal 24 hour day. It MAY mean that, if it is used in a context that requres it."

These statements "to me" seem to contradict each other . Statement #2 above even in one statement. Please, Excuse my ignorance.

[Justaned]

In no way shape or form were the early church fathers dispensationalist millennialist, they were historic millennialist (which is very different from dispensationalism) and amillennialist.

That's right.
I didn't say they were dispensationalist (as I mentioned previously somewhere along the way, I am not dispensational myself). But the early fathers did emphasize the literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, especially the ones that spoke of a literal millennnium. It wasn't until Origen, and then later the dominant influence of Augustine's City of God in the 5th century that the total allegorizing / spiritualizing of these prophecies took over.

The Vulgate does have it as a 1000 years and you said the problem was perpetuated by the Catholic church. Yet the Catholic church is the one that translated the Vulgate. Doesn't your reasoning impeach itself?

Umm, no -- because the problem is not one of translation; that is the point I have been trying to make with all this discussion about the Greek terminology. The problem is one of interpretation; the issue is hermeneutics, not grammar. The method of interpretation being applied to these prophecies is where the difference lies. The major move in this regard came with Augustine (who thought that the premil position up to that time opened the door to a revival of Judaism when Jesus returned, and he just couldn't see how that could be). So yes indeed, the problem of interpretation was perpetuated and kept alive by the Catholic church and the official position it took in favor of Augustine's exclusively figurative method.

By the way, I do recognize that there are sincere, Bible-believing Christians who approach these matters from the amil (and even postmil) perspective. On the other hand, I also recognize that one's decision regarding this issue of interpretation will have a major impact on other doctrines, as well. It does make a difference.

Fatherfisher
I think we are dancing around and the problem may be my terminology versus your more precise language expert terminology.

Isn't the way modern day grammarians handle translating Koine Greek to another language a interpretation based on past experience rather than a more precise translation since Koine Greek is a dead language and no original manuscripts detailing definitions of Koine Greek words exist?
I think you said as much in these two quotes.

However, as with any dead language, by virtue of no longer being, used modern day grammarians had to deduce the rules based on a study of the language.

... The INTERPRETATION of the Greek certainly is impacted by religious bias . . . but the DEFINITION of the Greek has not been part of the debate. I have many amil friends. None of them has ever suggested that "a thousand years" should be translated as "a long period of uncertain duration". They understand (fortunately) that the Greek means "a thousand years". What they will argue about is whether the thousand years should be taken as a figure of speech. But they don't deny that it says "a thousand years".

So if one group interprets Rev 20:4 to be a literal 1000 years and another group interprets Rev20:4 to be a long period of time can we say with absolute certainty which group is right?

Psalm 50:10 (NKJV)
10 For every beast of the forest is Mine, And the cattle on a thousand hills.

Now I understand this Psalm is in Hebrew but the same condition exists here. Does God through the Psalmist mean just a literal 1000 hills or all the hills which is a undefined large number.

If the original sentence structure was changed slightly then we could know for certain which way it is to be understood.

Does that not hold true with Rev 20:4 also?

That has been my point all along. How the verse is interpretated can be done in two different ways however had it been written a little differently.