Editor, you keep on believing that the scripture will be fulfilled. The highlighted portion above caught my eye relative to this discussion. "That the scripture may be fulfilled." is what it says. That's so clear and so focused a demand.
These other scriptures will also be fulfilled. Completely, totally, unequivocally, undeniably, literally.....just as they always have been.
Doc, your insistence on saying "read it...read it again..." about John 5 shows you believe what you're saying. It's just that your way is not the only way to look at it. And the other way is better.
You can't even begin to prove that your literalistic way of reading Revelation 20 is correct.
You merely assert that the literalistic reading is the "natural" way of reading Revelation 20. Well, if you will pardon a little teasing, I happen to prefer the amills' supernatural way of reading it.
In other words, I don't give a fig for your "natural reading" argument. The problem is, your so-called "natural reading" of Revelation 20 forces you to adopt a wickedly UNNATURAL reading of John 5:25-29.
And your premillennial reading of 2 Peter 3 is even more ridiculous. You just won't admit that you are incompetent in eschatology.
Again, there are two and only two resurrections in John 5:25-29. And the first of these is in v.25. It is not at all "natural" to read it any other way.
Besides, the amills "supernatural" reading (ha!) of Revelation 20 is not at all un-natural for that chapter. Why? Because the Book of Revelations is a mighty strange book containing LOTS of things even premills don't interpret literally. And Lord doesn't intend for everyone to understand Him. He even tells us this in more than one place in the Bible. He is not trying to be clear to everyone (Proverbs 25:2).
So, when we use all three passages to compare the premill and amill readings, we discover that
1) the premills' "natural" reading of Revelation 20 forces the premills into UNNATURAL readings for John 5:25-29 and 2 Peter 3; and
2) the amills' "supernatural" (Calvinism-oriented!) reading of Revelation 20 permits completely NATURAL readings for John 5:25-29 and 2 Peter 3.
So, this means that the premills' literalistic hermeneutic is just a wildly mistaken presupposition. That means that the God-ordained joke is on you. You need to be more respectful God's Word. Manifestly, you are a kind of Pharisee. (But I already knew that, didn't I? [ha!])
Furthermore, your claim that later revelatory material "surely interprets" earlier materials is hermeneutically idiotic.
The Book of Revelations is for "those who have wisdom."