"Resurrection of the dead" does not necessarily involve receiving a "glorified" body.
Some notable "resurrections of the dead" where a glorified body was ~not~ received:
~Necessarily~ then, being "raised from the dead" is not the same thing as receiving a "glorified body".
"Resurrection of the dead" is simply bringing to life what was dead.
However, you "now" realize that this poses a problem for the premillennial interpretation of Rev 20:4. To overcome this problem you must ~REDEFINE~ "resurrection of the dead" and claim that people who will ~never~ DIE will be "resurrected from the dead"...
...just like you:
I could go on!
All this editing done to back up a supposedly "literal" interpretation which is said to be based on the "clear" teaching of Rev 20:4! LOL!
If Rev 20 is as "clear" as you claim and if your intepretation is so "literal" as you claim, WHY THE NEED to add words to that text and change the definitions of the words in that text???
Perhaps if you'd just allow the text to speak on it's own, matters would clear up!
Ah! But that would entail a rejection of Premillennialism! And you are stubborn! You don't ~wan't~ to do that!
Jean
I would add that the premills are not merely inserting the literal thousand years into various verses (which is a crime of eisegesis), but doing this even when they clearly don't fit (which is a crime of contradiction).
The premills' interpretation of 2 Peter 3 is a great example of this. Peter's entire argument concerning the long delay of the Lord's return is based on the idea that as soon as the Lord returns, He is going to judge the world and burn it up and start over with the NHNE. To read some kind of additional thousand years into the passage is to defy the text, not interpret it.
I never saw this when I left premillennialism two decades ago. (I just saw it a couple of years ago.) But I think it's pretty important.
Notice that my amillennial argument from 2 Peter 3 agrees exactly with Luke 19:12-25.