Hi, doc.
There is no figure in the Revelation that isn't explained as a figure in context, either immediate or biblical. We don't need to create them unless they're demonstrated to be such.
I'm not confused. It's quite clear to me. God has blessed me abundantly in Christ.
As I pointed out in #2374, your "natural reading" forces completely unnatural readings for John 5:25-29 and 2 Peter 3.
xzins, hermeneutics is a matter of interpretive reasonableness. But you are not at all reasonable. It is not reasonable to presuppose at all costs--as you certainly do!--that Revelation 20 is to be read in a literalistic way. Gosh, you won't even honestly consider the possibility that the correct reading of Revelation 20 is the non-materialistic one. Under the circumstances of what I have shown you, that's not reasonable behavior on your part. You are being maniacal and calling it wonderfully spiritual.
(Besides, you have offered completely ridiculous, dishonest arguments against the amills' explanation of the nature of the binding of Satan.)
My bottom-line point is that your approach is spiritually cavalier. You HAVE to let John 5:5:25-29 instruct you concerning Revelation 20. But you IGNORE it.
You also HAVE to heed the gospel texts which BLUNTLY teach that Satan is bound by the universal free offer of the gospel. But you mock the amills. Well, you are actually mocking Jesus Christ.
You are so proud of your literalistic hermeneutic that you even offer the lame argument that the later revelation surely interprets the earlier revelation. That is hermeneutically preposterous--i.e., completely unreasonable.
The correct rule is that the clear interprets the obscure.
And inasmuch as you can't prove that Revelation 20 is supposed to be interpreted literalistically, you can't offer the argument that Revelation 20 is the clear text and that John 5:25-29 is the obscure one.
Ah, but I can argue that John 5:25-29 is the clear text. It is completely straightforward. Furthermore, I can harmonize John 5:25-29 with Revelation 20. But you can't.
2 Peter 3 is even more emphatic. My natural interpretation of 2 Peter 3 perfectly agrees with my interpretation of Revelation 20. You can't honestly make such a claim.
Premillennialism is clearly preposterous as an interpretation of Scripture.
Amen!
Moreover, Rev.20 is not one of those chapters, but is very clear, too clear for the Amill's.