Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ A Future Millennium

[titus213]

Justaned . . .

Yes, certainly a given verse can be interpreted either more literally or less so. I would insist that the grammar (at least in the case of Revelation 20) does not factor into which way one decides to go. Either interpretation is going to be based on other considerations. In the case of those of us who interpret the 1000 years literally, there are other passages of Scripture which come into play and support the idea of the Millennium (as I mentioned previously somewhere or other here, I did not return to a premil view due to Rev. 20 but due to my study of the Old Testament prophecies, especially those having to do with a restored Israel on earth).

Can we say with absolute certainty which group is right?

Well, naturally, I think my group is right or I wouldn't continue to be part of it. And I think it's right after reviewing the facts presented in the Word of God, weighing those facts, and deciding which have the ring of truth to them. Much like the puzzle pieces I mentioned the other day; I may not have all the pieces in place, but I have enough to see which of the alternatives gives me the most complete picture (ie. the most scriptural teachings fitting consistently with each other).

This is where, in my opinion, the Dake Bible really shines. Not only on this topic, but on others as well, he aids the Bible student by listing numerous places, persons, and facts by which we can cross-check biblical passages to see what the entire scope of the Bible teaches. It greatly assists in the process of reviewing facts and weighing them in order to arrive at a conclusion.

PS - I still have not found where "the original sentence structure was changed" in Rev. 20.4 - can you tell me what you are looking at which leads you to think it has been. I have checked all the "critical" texts of the New Testament and cannot find a difference here. And the difference you have mentioned (chilia rather than chilioi) is only a difference of word endings, as I mentioned yesterday -- something like us using the words "deacon" and "deaconess" to refer to male or female folks who "deac".

[Justaned]

Justaned . . .

Yes, certainly a given verse can be interpreted either more literally or less so. I would insist that the grammar (at least in the case of Revelation 20) does not factor into which way one decides to go. Either interpretation is going to be based on other considerations. In the case of those of us who interpret the 1000 years literally, there are other passages of Scripture which come into play and support the idea of the Millennium (as I mentioned previously somewhere or other here, I did not return to a premil view due to Rev. 20 but due to my study of the Old Testament prophecies, especially those having to do with a restored Israel on earth).

Can we say with absolute certainty which group is right?

Well, naturally, I think my group is right or I wouldn't continue to be part of it. And I think it's right after reviewing the facts presented in the Word of God, weighing those facts, and deciding which have the ring of truth to them. Much like the puzzle pieces I mentioned the other day; I may not have all the pieces in place, but I have enough to see which of the alternatives gives me the most complete picture (ie. the most scriptural teachings fitting consistently with each other).

This is where, in my opinion, the Dake Bible really shines. Not only on this topic, but on others as well, he aids the Bible student by listing numerous places, persons, and facts by which we can cross-check biblical passages to see what the entire scope of the Bible teaches. It greatly assists in the process of reviewing facts and weighing them in order to arrive at a conclusion.

PS - I still have not found where "the original sentence structure was changed" in Rev. 20.4 - can you tell me what you are looking at which leads you to think it has been. I have checked all the "critical" texts of the New Testament and cannot find a difference here. And the difference you have mentioned (chilia rather than chilioi) is only a difference of word endings, as I mentioned yesterday -- something like us using the words "deacon" and "deaconess" to refer to male or female folks who "deac".

Fatherfisher
It seems you have dogmatic beliefs but what they are supportted with isn't so dogmatic and in fact by your own admission are the interpretation of a picture puzzle with missing pieces that had been brought or one might say forced together.

Do any of the Old Testament verses you mentioned attest, to you the reader, of a millennium of a finite length of time?

Can you with absolute certainty say that restored Israel that you see to support your view of a millennium can't be talking of a Israel comprised of the church grafted into the tree of Abraham or does it have to be talking of the ungrafted portion?

As for the PS you gave I think if the original had used Chilia Ete instead of Chilioi Etos or as the received text has it Xilia eth there would be less differences in the interpretation. I know you say there is no difference and I have no reason not to believe you except many people, (though few claim the expertise you claim), point to this as a point of contention,

[titus213]

It seems you have dogmatic beliefs but what they are supported with isn't so dogmatic and in fact by your own admission are the interpretation of a picture puzzle with missing pieces that had been brought or one might say forced together.

I wouldn’t say forced together; I would say as revealed in Scripture. I don’t interpret the picture, I can see the picture as God has given it in the Bible. You don’t interpret a sunset when you’re looking at it, you just see it. Same here.

As for being dogmatic, which means basing things on assumptions rather than facts, I disagree. I think it’s unwise to dogmatize about the meaning of any Scripture. Where the meaning of the Bible is self-evident, there’s no need to be dogmatic, because the need for making assumptions and jumping to unfounded conclusions is removed. Where the meaning is not self-evident, we shouldn’t be dogmatic. Certainly there are places in the Bible where the best anyone can do is give a personal judgment as to the meaning . . . but the Millennium doesn’t happen to be one of them.

Do any of the Old Testament verses you mentioned attest, to you the reader, of a millennium of a finite length of time?

Yes. It’s pretty hard to miss the earthward orientation of Old Testament teaching regarding the end times – the fact of an earthly Messianic kingdom, of limited extent, prior to the final resurrection and judgment, and so forth.

Can you with absolute certainty say that restored Israel that you see to support your view of a millennium can't be talking of an Israel comprised of the church . . .

Yes.

[Justaned]

It seems you have dogmatic beliefs but what they are supported with isn't so dogmatic and in fact by your own admission are the interpretation of a picture puzzle with missing pieces that had been brought or one might say forced together.

I wouldn’t say forced together; I would say as revealed in Scripture. I don’t interpret the picture, I can see the picture as God has given it in the Bible. You don’t interpret a sunset when you’re looking at it, you just see it. Same here.

As for being dogmatic, which means basing things on assumptions rather than facts, I disagree. I think it’s unwise to dogmatize about the meaning of any Scripture. Where the meaning of the Bible is self-evident, there’s no need to be dogmatic, because the need for making assumptions and jumping to unfounded conclusions is removed. Where the meaning is not self-evident, we shouldn’t be dogmatic. Certainly there are places in the Bible where the best anyone can do is give a personal judgment as to the meaning . . . but the Millennium doesn’t happen to be one of them.

Do any of the Old Testament verses you mentioned attest, to you the reader, of a millennium of a finite length of time?

Yes. It’s pretty hard to miss the earthward orientation of Old Testament teaching regarding the end times – the fact of an earthly Messianic kingdom, of limited extent, prior to the final resurrection and judgment, and so forth.

Can you with absolute certainty say that restored Israel that you see to support your view of a millennium can't be talking of an Israel comprised of the church . . .

Yes.

Fatherfisher
You approached our intial discussion from a scholarily approach and now you seem to be dancing.

First you redefine dogma or at least the definition I hold. To me is dogma means to champion a doctrine as fact. Some may add in an arrogant way but I haven't seen that aspect in my discussion with you.
Obviously fact is fact but as you say some times the interpretation of scripture is not self evident and then with these we can't be dogmatic.
Yet you tend to insist either they are self evident which history refutes or that your position is the only correct position.

Second while I agree it does appear that there is a period of time where Jesus rules or controls the earth the question was have you found that the length of that time is defined anywhere in the Old Testament?

When you say it has to be talking of the Jews and can't be talking of the all those in the tree of Abraham natural or grafted, on what do you base this?

If you have a picture that has missing pieces and you find some pieces that are unidentified as being part of the picture yet they seem to fit how do you declare they aren't forced. Again you make assumations and treat them as dogma (defined as above)

I have many picture puzzles that until the last pieces, no more than a small handful, no one can accurately tell you what the picture is. A midnight sky reflected in a perfectly still lake. In fact many famous paintings done by famous artist are hung upside down by mistake. So for you to make the declaration you did you are not allowing for anything but your dogma (as defined by me).

The theologians, scholar, serious students that hold to the various non Millennium (as in exactly 1000 years) positions are not idiots, liars or easily duped people. Many have invested far more time and resources into the study of this subject than anyone on this forum. The debate is not recent but has transpired from the early church. Nor is the debate provable by either side, hence it can't be dogmatically stated, or it would have ceased long ago.

[titus213]

First you redefine dogma or at least the definition I hold. To me is dogma means to champion a doctrine as fact. Some may add in an arrogant way but I haven't seen that aspect in my discussion with you.

To some people a person who is dogmatic fits the dictionary definition I gave; but if what you mean is “to champion a doctrine as a fact”, then yes I am dogmatic about the millennium being taught in the Bible as fact.

Obviously fact is fact but as you say some times the interpretation of scripture is not self evident and then with these we can't be dogmatic.

Right.

Yet you tend to insist either they are self evident which history refutes or that your position is the only correct position.

I don’t think history does refute that they are self-evident. It shows that some have tried to alter or deny the evidence in various ways, but that’s not the same thing. And yes, I do think the belief in a literal millennium is the only correct position. If something is true, that which denies it must be false. If it’s not true, then why would I subscribe to it?

Second while I agree it does appear that there is a period of time where Jesus rules or controls the earth the question was have you found that the length of that time is defined anywhere in the Old Testament?

No, that wasn’t the question. The question you posed was “Do any of the Old Testament verses you mentioned attest, to you the reader, of a millennium of a finite length of time?” and my answer is yes, the OT does indicate a millennium of a finite length. However, it remains for the progress of God’s revelation in the New Testament to define what that finite length of time is (1000 years).

When you say it has to be talking of the Jews and can't be talking of the all those in the tree of Abraham natural or grafted, on what do you base this?

The many, many predictions that Christ will reign on earth over actual nations in real time, literally present among them as their King, fulfilling the Davidic promises for the people of Israel and the benefit of all nations. The New Testament confirms these predictions and adds details to them which are completely consistent with a literal fulfillment for national Israel, with non-Israelites (those wild olives shoots grafted in) sharing with them in the blessings.

If you have a picture that has missing pieces and you find some pieces that are unidentified as being part of the picture yet they seem to fit how do you declare they aren't forced. Again you make assumations and treat them as dogma (defined as above)

I don’t try to fit them in; never said I did. I recognize that some pieces are missing, and the full picture has (apparently) not been revealed in all the detail we will one day understand.

I have many picture puzzles that until the last pieces, no more than a small handful, no one can accurately tell you what the picture is. A midnight sky reflected in a perfectly still lake. In fact many famous paintings done by famous artist are hung upside down by mistake. So for you to make the declaration you did you are not allowing for anything but your dogma (as defined by me).

Nonsense. I am talking about what our God has revealed. You are talking about someone who has intentionally not revealed, or even worse, deliberately hidden the truth. The hope of Israel and the hope of the Church are not treated so clumsily in the Bible.

The theologians, scholar, serious students that hold to the various non Millennium (as in exactly 1000 years) positions are not idiots, liars or easily duped people. Many have invested far more time and resources into the study of this subject than anyone on this forum. The debate is not recent but has transpired from the early church. Nor is the debate provable by either side, hence it can't be dogmatically stated, or it would have ceased long ago.

Wow, you are being very dogmatic about that.

If you really think the whole question is all that unprovable, then why are you and others working so hard at trying to prove your point of view?
I think the debate is provable, has been proven, and that those who want to continue it just refuse to accept the proof others can readily see. Now, if you wonder why that would be . . . no, I don’t think it’s because they are idiots, liars, or duped. I think it’s because (as one of them admits in his theology book) “the root of the differences lies in the method of biblical interpretation” (Oswald Allis – presbyterian scholar and theologian).

[Justaned]

[Yet you tend to insist either they are self evident which history refutes or that your position is the only correct position.

I don’t think history does refute that they are self-evident. It shows that some have tried to alter or deny the evidence in various ways, but that’s not the same thing. And yes, I do think the belief in a literal millennium is the only correct position. If something is true, that which denies it must be false. If it’s not true, then why would I subscribe to it?

I would define self evident as be unmistakable, so if your position in this debate is self evident then anyone that opposes it is willfully ignoring the self evident or more precisely the facts. That would make them idiots, liars or
easily duped would it not?

Second while I agree it does appear that there is a period of time where Jesus rules or controls the earth the question was have you found that the length of that time is defined anywhere in the Old Testament?

No,

Okay we agree and I will admit if we take the thousand years in mentioned in the New Testament as literal thousand then yes it is defined. However that is very essence of what we are talking about only a passage in NT that has been argued over for centuries spells out the exact lenght of time. Do you agree?

When you say it has to be talking of the Jews and can't be talking of the all those in the tree of Abraham natural or grafted, on what do you base this?

The many, many predictions that Christ will reign on earth over actual nations in real time, literally present among them as their King, fulfilling the Davidic promises for the people of Israel and the benefit of all nations. The New Testament confirms these predictions and adds details to them which are completely consistent with a literal fulfillment for national Israel, with non-Israelites (those wild olives shoots grafted in) sharing with them in the blessings.

Isn't that what I said these passages could be talking of exclusively Jews or Jews and grafted in wild olive?

I have many picture puzzles that until the last pieces, no more than a small handful, no one can accurately tell you what the picture is. A midnight sky reflected in a perfectly still lake. In fact many famous paintings done by famous artist are hung upside down by mistake. So for you to make the declaration you did you are not allowing for anything but your dogma (as defined by me).

Nonsense. I am talking about what our God has revealed. You are talking about someone who has intentionally not revealed, or even worse, deliberately hidden the truth. The hope of Israel and the hope of the Church are not treated so clumsily in the Bible.

I'm not necessarily talking of intentional or deliberate deception. I talking of someone that interprets an artist's work differently than it was intended.
I never meant to suggest the Bible handled the question clumsily but rather 2000 years of change effects the dynamics of the language which makes an answer less than obvious. We see this in our own language as idioms change generationally.

The theologians, scholar, serious students that hold to the various non Millennium (as in exactly 1000 years) positions are not idiots, liars or easily duped people. Many have invested far more time and resources into the study of this subject than anyone on this forum. The debate is not recent but has transpired from the early church. Nor is the debate provable by either side, hence it can't be dogmatically stated, or it would have ceased long ago.

Wow, you are being very dogmatic about that.

If you really think the whole question is all that unprovable, then why are you and others working so hard at trying to prove your point of view?
I think the debate is provable, has been proven, and that those who want to continue it just refuse to accept the proof others can readily see. Now, if you wonder why that would be . . . no, I don’t think it’s because they are idiots, liars, or duped. I think it’s because (as one of them admits in his theology book) “the root of the differences lies in the method of biblical interpretation” (Oswald Allis – presbyterian scholar and theologian).

Can't and this be said about you by those that oppose your position? I think that is their exact view of your position.

[titus213]

I would define self evident as be unmistakable, so if your position in this debate is self evident then anyone that opposes it is wilfully ignoring the self evident or more precisely the facts. That would make them idiots, liars or easily duped would it not?

No, it would make them wilfully ignorant.

Okay we agree and I will admit if we take the thousand years in mentioned in the New Testament as literal thousand then yes it is defined. However that is very essence of what we are talking about only a passage in NT that has been argued over for centuries spells out the exact length of time. Do you agree?

No. The very essence of what we’re talking about (based on the initial posts and title of this thread when I jumped on board) is whether there even is a future millennium during which Satan is bound. The issue of whether the 1000 years are a literal time factor is only 1 of something like 40 distinct predictions pertaining to the millennium.

Isn't that what I said these passages could be talking of exclusively Jews or Jews and grafted in wild olive?

I didn’t think that is what you said. As long as you allow for a literal fulfilment for national Israel and do not morph the promises made to national Israel into a “spiritual” Israel (calling it the Church), and acknowledge that the Kingdom of God has two advents, two ages, two resurrections, and two end points, then we agree.

I'm not necessarily talking of intentional or deliberate deception. I talking of someone that interprets an artist's work differently than it was intended.I never meant to suggest the Bible handled the question clumsily but rather 2000 years of change effects the dynamics of the language which makes an answer less than obvious. We see this in our own language as idioms change generationally.

I think God was smart enough and the Holy Spirit safeguarded the process of inspiration well enough that They took into account any “years of change” and accordingly chose to communicate in language that could be readily understood by any generation. As amil Dr. Oswald Allis (whom I quoted) and most amil folks acknowledge, the issue is not with the language; the issue is in one’s approach to the language.
The anti-millennial people flip a switch when they come to predictions of an earthly kingdom ruled by King Jesus in the future. Until they get to those portions of the Bible, they understand the words of the Bible in their usual, normal, literal sense. But when they hit these sections which predict an earthly Messianic kingdom, they get all “spiritual” and start talking about these predictions being fulfilled now, not for an actual national Israel but only for them by way of the Church, and much of the time only in a “spiritual” sense.

Can't this be said about you by those that oppose your position? I think that is their exact view of your position.

Yes, I’m sure it can. And it’s true – I do refuse to accept a viewpoint which does the “switcheroo” I mentioned above. Once the switch is flipped, and the normal, literal meaning of the words God used to give His predictions is allegorized or “spiritualized”, the value of prophecy is destroyed. The value of the message is no longer to be found in the words of the original prophecy, but in the new “spiritual” meaning which others from a different era have placed on those words.

[Justaned]

I would define self evident as be unmistakable, so if your position in this debate is self evident then anyone that opposes it is wilfully ignoring the self evident or more precisely the facts. That would make them idiots, liars or easily duped would it not?

No, it would make them wilfully ignorant.

Okay we agree and I will admit if we take the thousand years in mentioned in the New Testament as literal thousand then yes it is defined. However that is very essence of what we are talking about only a passage in NT that has been argued over for centuries spells out the exact length of time. Do you agree?

No. The very essence of what we’re talking about (based on the initial posts and title of this thread when I jumped on board) is whether there even is a future millennium during which Satan is bound. The issue of whether the 1000 years are a literal time factor is only 1 of something like 40 distinct predictions pertaining to the millennium.

Isn't that what I said these passages could be talking of exclusively Jews or Jews and grafted in wild olive?

I didn’t think that is what you said. As long as you allow for a literal fulfilment for national Israel and do not morph the promises made to national Israel into a “spiritual” Israel (calling it the Church), and acknowledge that the Kingdom of God has two advents, two ages, two resurrections, and two end points, then we agree.

I'm not necessarily talking of intentional or deliberate deception. I talking of someone that interprets an artist's work differently than it was intended.I never meant to suggest the Bible handled the question clumsily but rather 2000 years of change effects the dynamics of the language which makes an answer less than obvious. We see this in our own language as idioms change generationally.

I think God was smart enough and the Holy Spirit safeguarded the process of inspiration well enough that They took into account any “years of change” and accordingly chose to communicate in language that could be readily understood by any generation. As amil Dr. Oswald Allis (whom I quoted) and most amil folks acknowledge, the issue is not with the language; the issue is in one’s approach to the language.
The anti-millennial people flip a switch when they come to predictions of an earthly kingdom ruled by King Jesus in the future. Until they get to those portions of the Bible, they understand the words of the Bible in their usual, normal, literal sense. But when they hit these sections which predict an earthly Messianic kingdom, they get all “spiritual” and start talking about these predictions being fulfilled now, not for an actual national Israel but only for them by way of the Church, and much of the time only in a “spiritual” sense.

Can't this be said about you by those that oppose your position? I think that is their exact view of your position.

Yes, I’m sure it can. And it’s true – I do refuse to accept a viewpoint which does the “switcheroo” I mentioned above. Once the switch is flipped, and the normal, literal meaning of the words God used to give His predictions is allegorized or “spiritualized”, the value of prophecy is destroyed. The value of the message is no longer to be found in the words of the original prophecy, but in the new “spiritual” meaning which others from a different era have placed on those words.

Fatherfisher

First why bring implications of intentional misconduct using terms like switcheroo and such. Can't a person have an honest differing interpretation than yours?

Apparently not as I think what you are saying or at least what I'm reading is that it is your belief that scripture is not open to personal interpretation. A concept in opposition to one of the main tenets of the Reformation.

I further believe you are even going a step beyond and saying your interpretation is the correct one and all those the hold a differing view are wrong. You seem to do this with no apparent consideration that your interpretation is conditioned by proven external factors that effected the way you process information, the way you conceptualize you opinions, and even your personal understanding of terms, concepts and ideas.

Doesn't leave much room for discussion now does it? And it certainly leaves no room for learning or investigation.

And we wonder why there are 3000+ denominations.

[titus213]

First why bring implications of intentional misconduct using terms like switcheroo and such. Can't a person have an honest differing interpretation than yours?

As amil intepreters acknowledge, they DO intentionally switch to a figurative method when confronting these Scriptures. It is, in fact, a switch from their normal MO. They admit that themselves. I don't think it's misconduct, but it is intentional on their part.

Apparently not as I think what you are saying or at least what I'm reading is that it is your belief that scripture is not open to personal interpretation. A concept in opposition to one of the main tenets of the Reformation.

A person can have whatever interpretation they want. But you misapply the verse in Peter, which is not speaking about OUR interpretation but the origin of prophecy not being the prophet's own spin of things. I don't require people to agree with me. But I do expect people to face the facts and be straightforward about why they disagree, and face the consequences of their own viewpoint.

I further believe you are even going a step beyond and saying your interpretation is the correct one and all those the hold a differing view are wrong.

Of course I say that. If I thought there was no millennium and all the hundreds of verses that speak of it with over 40 specific distinct predictions about it were to be interpreted other than literally, then I'd be a fool for believing in it. Why would I want to hang on to something which is incorrect? On the other hand, if it is correct, then the anti-millennial view is wrong.

You seem to do this with no apparent consideration that your interpretation is conditioned by proven external factors that effected the way you process information, the way you conceptualize you opinions, and even your personal understanding of terms, concepts and ideas.

Baloney. My understanding is based on the accepted (by all, even amil) normal understanding of the words God gave us in Scripture. Again, as they readily acknowledge, the amil folks take an out-of-the-ordinary approach to the same words, resulting in the interpretations they have come up with.

Doesn't leave much room for discussion now does it? And it certainly leaves no room for learning or investigation.

No, because a closed mind will never be interested in learning or investigating. I have taken the time, explored the options, and arrived at the correct view. Years ago. I have given you some avenues to look into, but if your mind is made up that premil cannot possibly be right, then you're on your own.

[Justaned]

First why bring implications of intentional misconduct using terms like switcheroo and such. Can't a person have an honest differing interpretation than yours?

As amil intepreters acknowledge, they DO intentionally switch to a figurative method when confronting these Scriptures. It is, in fact, a switch from their normal MO. They admit that themselves. I don't think it's misconduct, but it is intentional on their part.

Apparently not as I think what you are saying or at least what I'm reading is that it is your belief that scripture is not open to personal interpretation. A concept in opposition to one of the main tenets of the Reformation.

A person can have whatever interpretation they want. But you misapply the verse in Peter, which is not speaking about OUR interpretation but the origin of prophecy not being the prophet's own spin of things. I don't require people to agree with me. But I do expect people to face the facts and be straightforward about why they disagree, and face the consequences of their own viewpoint.

I further believe you are even going a step beyond and saying your interpretation is the correct one and all those the hold a differing view are wrong.

Of course I say that. If I thought there was no millennium and all the hundreds of verses that speak of it with over 40 specific distinct predictions about it were to be interpreted other than literally, then I'd be a fool for believing in it. Why would I want to hang on to something which is incorrect? On the other hand, if it is correct, then the anti-millennial view is wrong.

You seem to do this with no apparent consideration that your interpretation is conditioned by proven external factors that effected the way you process information, the way you conceptualize you opinions, and even your personal understanding of terms, concepts and ideas.

Baloney. My understanding is based on the accepted (by all, even amil) normal understanding of the words God gave us in Scripture. Again, as they readily acknowledge, the amil folks take an out-of-the-ordinary approach to the same words, resulting in the interpretations they have come up with.

Doesn't leave much room for discussion now does it? And it certainly leaves no room for learning or investigation.

No, because a closed mind will never be interested in learning or investigating. I have taken the time, explored the options, and arrived at the correct view. Years ago. I have given you some avenues to look into, but if your mind is made up that premil cannot possibly be right, then you're on your own.

First you misstate my position entirely. Which tells me I wasted a whole lot of time.

I do not believe that premil can not be possible.

What I thought I have been discussing with you is my view that the period of time know as the Millennium could be longer than exactly 1000 years. Nothing less and nothing more.

The question of whether of a premillennium rapture was not discussed and if it was it was lost to me in the discussion.

Apparently not as I think what you are saying or at least what I'm reading is that it is your belief that scripture is not open to personal interpretation. A concept in opposition to one of the main tenets of the Reformation.

A person can have whatever interpretation they want. But you misapply the verse in Peter, which is not speaking about OUR interpretation but the origin of prophecy not being the prophet's own spin of things. I don't require people to agree with me. But I do expect people to face the facts and be straightforward about why they disagree, and face the consequences of their own viewpoint.

I do not misapply the verse in Peter. The concept was developed not by me but by the Reformers to prevent having to follow Rome's interpretation of scripture. It was remarked about by Luther something to the effect that person that can't saddle a donkey now feels he can interpret scripture himself disregarding trained theologians. So the concept of every man can interpret scripture is not mine. In fact I resist it but have been repeatedly told I'm wrong by the majority of the forum participants. I thought you were of the persuasion and that is why I mentioned it.

No, because a closed mind will never be interested in learning or investigating. I have taken the time, explored the options, and arrived at the correct view. Years ago. I have given you some avenues to look into, but if your mind is made up that premil cannot possibly be right, then you're on your own.

Again you lose me I thought we were discussing whether or not 1000 years was literal thousand years or whether it was a long period of time. As far as I know Pre, mid or post never entered into the discussion.

I hold to the position that the 1000 years is a large number of time much like the Psalm that says God ownes the cattle on a thousand hills doesn't mean a literal thousand hills.

I based my view on what I have been told about the words used in Rev 20:4 and you have shown me where much that I have been told should be questioned. And that is exactly what I intend to do. However I can see no disservice to scripture by holding the period of time is a large period of time and that it could be a literal 1000 years or it could be less or more.

That is the only subject I have been discussing or so I thought.

As to pre, trib, and post I don't think we even discussed it. And you have shown me nothing in scripture that convinces me that there has to be rapture, and that it has to occur 7 years before Jesus' actual return. If that scripture exists you have failed to show it to me. So let us not suggest you made a cut and dried case of something and I just refuse to see it.