You are asserting that we "force" our interpretations on Rev 20:1-3 by claiming that Satan's binding is not total.
If you are to "prove" rather than merely assert that we are "forcing" our interpretation on this passage, then you must show us that Satan's binding is necessarily total/complete.
If you cannot show us that Satan's binding is total/complete, then you cannot say that we are "forcing" our interpretation on that passage.
Either Satan's binding is complete/total or it is not. If our interpretation that Satan's binding is not complete/total is "forced", then you must show us why. You must show us that Satan's binding is necessarily to be understood as complete/total.
You can't. So your accusation that our interpretation is "forced" is merely an assertion. The way you are using this assertion (as your argument) is the logical fallacy of "Begging the Question".
If you cannot prove that the only and necessary understanding of Rev 20:1-3 is of a complete/total binding, then our interpretation is ~NOT~ "forced".
Likewise with the "1000 years". You are asserting that our symbolic understanding of "1000" years is forced. In order to prove your case, you simply must show us that the "1000 years" must ~necessarily~ be understood as only a literal "1000 years".
If you cannot show us why the "1000 years" is necessarily to be understood as only a literal "1000 years", then you cannot show we our "forcing" our interpretation onto that text.
For example, many of the premil's here continue to assert that the Greek "zao" in Rev 20:4 is to be understood as "lived again". I, as well as others, have charged that this is forcing something into the text that is not there.
When I make this assertion, I back it up with a reason why this is so.
I go on to make the case that "zao" does ~not~ mean "lived again". I go on to show that "zao" in every other instance of it's use in Scripture is properly understood simply as "life"/"lived". I, with the assistance of gdebrae, have shown that every single instance that "zao" is translated as "lived again" in the NT, that it can be accurately translated as simply "lived" and the passage would make perfect sense.
In other words, when I make the assertion that "again" is forced into Rev 20:4, I back it up as to why this cannot be the case.
You are simply making an assertion. That is not an argument.
In order for you to demonstrate how it is that we are "forcing" our interpretation on the text in question, you ~NEED~ to show us why our interpretation is forced.
Now, you have asserted that we "force" our understanding of Satan's binding on the Rev 20:1-3. In order for you to have a case, you must show just why it is necessary to understand that Satan's binding can only be understood as complete/total.
If you cannot show why Satan's binding must be necessarily understood as complete/total, then we are not forcing our interpretation on that passage.
If it is not necessary to understand Satan's binding as complete/total, then it is not forcing it to understand Satan's binding as partail (as to what the text specifically declares his binding to be).
Likewise with your assertion that we are "forcing" our interpretation of a "1000 years" as symbolic on to Rev 20:4-6.
In order for you to have a case, you must show just why it is necessary to understand that "1000 years" can only be understood as a literal "1000 years".
If you cannot show why this must be so, then we are not forcing our interpration on the passage in question. If it is not necessary to understand the "1000 years" as a literal "1000 years", then it is not "forcing" it to understand the "1000 years" as symbolic.
"Your forced interpretation claimed they never died, nor were resurrected, but lived with Christ a thousand years. So, if John 11 is not meant to be understood as their physical bodies never dying, how does your answer explain:
"How do their non-resurrected physical bodies have a life span of a thousand years?"
Intersting. You put in quotes an assertion by you and want me to explain it. I never said, inferred or implied that "non-resurrected physical bodies have a life span of a thousand years".
Since this is your assertion and not mine, I need not explain it. You seem to be attributing this quote to me as if it is a position of which I hold. I do not. Therefore, since this is not a position which I hold, I need not explain it.
"How do their physical bodies never die throughout the thousand years?"
I'm assuming this was also intended to be in quotes as your quotation mark was only at the beginning of "How do their non-resurrected physical bodies...".
Again, we have here an assertion by yourself which the casual reader might infer that I had claimed or I had posted. "If their physical bodies never die and John 11 obviously doesn't address physical bodies never dying, then you explain your forced interpretation as to how they never die physically."
Here we have a question based on the quotations above which you have implied as either my quotes or representative of my position. They are not. Therefore, since your question above is based on a false premise, I need not answer it.
"You've not explained why the thousand years must be symbolic and why there must two different symbolic thousand years periods."
Again, if you cannot show that it is necessary to understand the "1000 years" as literal, then it is most reasonable to understand the "1000 years" as symbolic.
"You've not explained how the dead given up by the sea weren't physically dead at the white throne."
Here you go again. I never declared that the "dead given up by the see weren't physically dead at white throne".
Since this is not representative of my position, I need not explain it.
"You've not explained how any one not resurrected, who did not live again, has physically lived for a thousand years, or for two thousand-year periods."
Here you go again. I have never asserted that anyone who was "not resurrected, who did not live again, has physically lived for a thousand years, or for two thousand-year periods."
Since that is not representative of anything I have said, implied or inferred, it is not representative of my position. Therefore, I do not need to explain it.
"You've not explained what is Christ who is our spiritual head, teaching us in this metaphor of believers in Christ testifying to Him, rejecting Satan, and yet losing their metaphorical heads to an already bound Satan?"
Yes, I said that these "souls that were beheaded" were physically dead. It seems to me a strictly literal interpretation of this phrase would be inclusive of only "beheaded" martyrs and not representative of any other martyr. Many premil's understand this "beheaded" group to be representative of people martyred in other ways.
That the amil understanding is that these "beheaded" souls represent all who have physically died in the Lord is no more "forced" than many premil's who understand the "beheaded" group represents martyrs in general.
"You've not explained how Satan is bound now."
The "how" is irrelevant as to the "why" or "when". It is not important that I know the actual measn God has used to bind Satan. It is important that I know he has claimed to already have done so: Matthew 12, Mark 3, 2 Peter 2, Jude 6.
"You've not explained how his binding is only partial, why simultaneously stating Scripture has already told us that Satan is bound: Matthew 12, Mark 3, 2 Peter 2 and Jude 6."
Yes, I have. You must have missed it.
In Rev 20:4 Satan is said to be bound only such that he cannot deceive the gentiles. This does not ~necessarily~ mean that his binding is total/complete. That is just conjecture on your part.
"Now you explain your interpretations."
Again, the issue is not the correctness or incorrectness of anyone's particular view or interpretation. The issue at hand is whether a particular interpretation is "forced". Therefore, we need not explain our interpretations, many of which you falsely attributed to us as "straw man" arguments. We only need to see whether or not they are "forced". That is the issue at hand.
I suggest you make a better attempt to stay on topic. You have already attempted to divert attention from the topic of a previous discussion by arguing on Greek punctuation.
That discussion was regarding the "souls" and those "which had not worshipped the beast". You failed miserably in your attempt to attribute those "which had not worshipped the beast" to a group of the "souls". So you, wisely, dropped that issue. But then took up the cause of the topic of the Greek punctation.
The problem was that the issue was whether or not the "souls" included those "which had not worshipped the beast" and ~not~ about the Greek punctuation. When you lost that argument you attempted to shift the focus without dealing with what really was the issue.
I see you are attempting to do that here, as well.
Furthermore, please refrain from the "straw man" tactics. If you want us to explain certain views, then don't "make them up" and attribute them to us.
That's simply does not make for good discussion.
Jean
But you did so infer and imply. It is a position you hold and you do need to explain it. You asked for passages on which you force your interpreatation with an explanation of how it was forced. If this is not your position, than simply explain how those who (in your unforced interpretation) have never physically died, never been resurrected, then continue to live for a thousand years with Christ. Here again are your interpretations (forced) that living people alive in the body, who never died lived with Christ a thousand years:
Jean Chauvin #112 "It is not reasonable to conclude that people who are alive in the body are 'resurrected from the ~dead~."
Jean Chauvin #136 I'm asking how living people who have never ever died are supposedly resurrected from the ~DEAD~?
Jean Chauvin #1404 You are forgetting those John sees in vs 4 who are currently alive in their bodies:
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. [Jean Chauvin's bold emphasis]
Jean Chauvin #1927: You are correct that [John] doesn't use ["alive in their bodies"], but you should also note that neither does John actually "identify" any of these people as "physically dead". On the other hand, there is good reason to conclude that those who did not worship the beast are alive in their bodies.
Jean Chauvin #2004: Precisely what Rev 20:4 says about both the people who have died in Christ as well as those John sees who are alive in their bodies. This is why it is improper to read the “again” into live. It isn’t there for a reason. And, according to John 11 and 1 Thess 5, it is completely improper to insist that “live” must be understood necessarily as “lived again” –especially in Rev 20:5.
Here you go again. I never declared that the "dead given up by the see weren't physically dead at white throne".
Here you go again Jean; your own statements asserting in Rev 20 "you never even find explicit words declaring something has risen from the dead". The text (Rev 20:13) explains the dead were in the sea, and the sea gave the dead. If however you believe no one has risen from the dead, then your forced interpretation is the "dead given up by the see weren't physically dead at white throne":
Jean Chauvin #2091 I can look all day long in Rev 20 for the “literal” words “the first resurrection is bodily” and I will never find it. In fact, you never even find explicit words declaring something has risen from the dead.
Yes, I said that these "souls that were beheaded" were physically dead. It seems to me a strictly literal interpretation of this phrase would be inclusive of only "beheaded" martyrs and not representative of any other martyr.
Ok, but you still haven't explained what is Christ who is our spiritual head, teaching us in this metaphor of "beheaded" martyrs for Christ testifying to Him, and yet losing their metaphorical heads to an already bound Satan?" And if you now agree the beheaded souls were physically dead, then how do you force the interpretation that they lived with Christ a thousand years, but were not resurrected to live "again"?
Again, the issue is not the correctness or incorrectness of anyone's particular view or interpretation. The issue at hand is whether a particular interpretation is "forced". Therefore, we need not explain our interpretations, many of which you falsely attributed to us as "straw man" arguments. We only need to see whether or not they are "forced". That is the issue at hand.
More precisely, The issue at hand is whether a your particular interpretation is "forced". That is what you invited discussion on. Your interpretations. We only need to see whether or not they are "forced". Exactly. So show us how your interpretations are not forced. That was your opportunity you offered us.
Jean you offered, in post #2564, the opportunity to show us which passages we "force" an interpretation on. Go through the passage and explain to us why our interpretation is "forced".
So I quoted the passages, explained how I throught it was forced, and followed that explanation with your statements and highlighted your specific phrases which force your interpretations
In order for you to demonstrate how it is that we are "forcing" our interpretation on the text in question, you ~NEED~ to show us why our interpretation is forced.
Been there, done that twice and explained above that I have provided what you have asked. Here is the history of all your forced interpretations, again:
Now, I admit that the premil's have been on the defensive almost entirely. I'd like to give you this opportunity to show us which passages we "force" an interpretation on. Go through the passage and explain to us why our interpretation is "forced".
Capital idea! I've been feeling a bit on the defensive myself, and thought maybe I'd just suggest a few forced interpretations for you to explain their obvious natural hermeneutic basis. Here they are.
Rev 20:1-3 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.
The Amillennialist position forces the interpretation on Rev 20:1-3 that even though Satan is bound with a great chain, shut, sealed, and locked in an abyss (depthless, i.e. (specially) (infernal) "abyss":--deep, (bottomless) pit.) so he could not deceive the nations any longer, that crafty old dragon outwitted God's angel and can still be "on the playing field" but deceiving only gentiles, but even so his binding is not necessarily total.
Jean Chauvin #566 Therefore, it is just as reasonable to limit this binding of Satan to the stated "effect" which is already present in the text. We don't need to go any further than what is stated in the text. The text does not lead us to a necessary conclusion that Satan "has been removed from the playing field". Since we know that the binding is effective to keep Satan from deceiving the gentiles, we can understand that the descriptive words such as "chained" and "cast" are to communicate the absoluteness of Satan's new found inability to deceive the gentiles.
Jean Chauvin #690 Now, I have presented a Biblical argument [in post #593] as to the fact that since we can understand that the binding of demons spoken of in 2 Peter 2 is ~not~ total and complete, then we can also conclude that the binding of Satan (which is described using extremely similar language) is not ~necessarily~ to be understood as being complete/total.
Rev 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
The Amillennialist position forces the interpretation on Rev 20:4 that the "beheaded souls" are not "physically dead" but rather they must be the "alive in the body" type of souls, who though slain for their testimony in Rev 6:9 and refused to worship the beast or take his mark they were still victorious (and alive in the body) souls in heaven in Rev 15:1-2 and were not killed physically. And so because they were never physically dead, they did not live again, they just continued their existing physical life spans for a thousand years with Christ, but came to life spiritually instead because (I guess) their testimony and rejecting the beast just wasn't good enough.
Jean Chauvin #112 "It is not reasonable to conclude that people who are alive in the body are 'resurrected from the ~dead~."
Jean Chauvin #136 I'm asking how living people who have never ever died are supposedly resurrected from the ~DEAD~?
Jean Chauvin #1404 You are forgetting those John sees in vs 4 who are currently alive in their bodies:
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. [Jean Chauvin's bold emphasis]
Jean Chauvin #1927: You are correct that [John] doesn't use ["alive in their bodies"], but you should also note that neither does John actually "identify" any of these people as "physically dead". On the other hand, there is good reason to conclude that those who did not worship the beast are alive in their bodies.
Jean Chauvin #2004: Precisely what Rev 20:4 says about both the people who have died in Christ as well as those John sees who are alive in their bodies. This is why it is improper to read the “again” into live. It isn’t there for a reason. And, according to John 11 and 1 Thess 5, it is completely improper to insist that “live” must be understood necessarily as “lived again” –especially in Rev 20:5.
Rev 20: 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.
Rev 20:12-13 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.The Amillennialist position forces the interpretation on Rev 20:5 and 12-13 that 'the rest of the dead' are the gentile nations (see first forced interpretation) deceived by Satan whose limited binding now has no effect over the gentiles, which 'stand' at the white throne (alive in their bodies), but were never physically dead, just spiritually dead (because it's biblical, and I guess because they also have incredibly long life spans so they never physically die because they were not resurrected), but they are punished to remain spiritually dead forever. In fact, no physically dead people are mentioned anywhere in Rev 20 (not even the dead given up by the sea).
gdebrae #352 You posted an article about interpreting scripture which emphasized paying attention to the context. The context of the entire book of Revelation is the church. The subject matter in Rev. 20 is clearly the deceived gentile nations, not the state of Israel. The dead of verse 5 are gentiles nations. The great white throne is the judgment of gentile nations. The deceived armies satan gathers against the church (Hebrews 12:22-24) are gentile nations. All the previous references in the book of Revelation to the object of satan's hostility and war are to the church, the seed of the woman and not to Israel.
gdebrae #936 My paraphrase of vs 5 would be something like "The rest of the dead (those still deceived by satan) have no spiritual life during the accomplishment of the 1000 years." They are physically alive but spiritually dead. And when we get to vss 11-15 these physically alive but spiritually dead persons are still spirituall dead and are stand before the great white throne physically alive but spiritual dead and are judged physically alive but spiritually dead forever.
Jean Chauvin #1958 Unless you can prove that the reference to the “rest of the dead” is a reference to “physically dead” people, I would suggest that this is another of your presumptions. The notion of being “spiritually dead” is biblical. Furthermore, it notes that Rev 20:11 literally tells us that “the dead” are “standing” in front of the “Great White Throne Judgment” for judgement. Notice, also, there literally is no explicit statement declaring that the "dead are resurrected in vs 11-15. Furthermore, since we know that there will be unbelievers (spiritually dead) who are “alive in their bodies” at the Great White Throne Judgment, wouldn’t it be correct to conclude that the “dead” who are “standing” in front of the Great White Throne are actually only “spiritually dead” and not necessarily ~all~ physically dead?
Jean Chauvin #2004: Precisely what Rev 20:4 says about both the people who have died in Christ as well as those John sees who are alive in their bodies. This is why it is improper to read the “again” into live. It isn’t there for a reason. And, according to John 11 and 1 Thess 5, it is completely improper to insist that “live” must be understood necessarily as “lived again” –especially in Rev 20:5.
Jean Chauvin #2091 I can look all day long in Rev 20 for the “literal” words “the first resurrection is bodily” and I will never find it. In fact, you never even find explicit words declaring something has risen from the dead.
gdebrae #2291 Matter of fact - Rev. 20:4-6 define what the binding is about. There is a causal relationship between vs 3 and 4. Vs 1-3 see all the nations as spiritually dead as deceived by satan. His binding prevents him from deceiving the nations. The result is that some of the spiritually dead are seen sitting on thrones, living and reigning with Christ, the first and foremost resurrection. The rest of the dead (vs5) remain under satan's deception and have no spiritual life and are finally cast into the lake of fire to experience the second death. Those participating in the First Resurrection live and reign with Christ forever. This is God's final judgment about those who believe in Christ.
Rev 20:2 And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;
Rev 20:3b until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.
Rev 20:4b and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
Rev 20:5a The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.
Rev 20: 6b and will reign with Him for a thousand years.
Rev 20:7 When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison,
The Amillennialist position forces the interpretation on all six identical "thousand years" that they are not an actual real 1000 years, but rather a metaphor of an era or 'vast' time, and scripture must be diligently searched to find other scriptural definitions of "thousand years" because the usage in Rev 20 can only be symbolic. Gosh, even more symbolism is found in the thousand years of Rev 20:5a being a different thousand years than that of Rev 20:6b (yes! metaphors within metaphors!) because the tense of the verbs in the sentences change.
Jean Chauvin #1404 argues the first resurrection is 'a thousand years' that is separate and prior to reigning with Christ for 'a future thousand years':
Clearly one must have already be apart of the First Resurrection (living and reigning for a thousand years) in order to be "priests" and "reign with Christ a thousand years" (future application).
No, the grammar tells us that one must be apart of the First Resurrection in order to be apart of the future 1000 year reign in vs 6. "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the First Resurrection (past tense)" The folks who have already been privy to the "First Resurrection" are the ones who shall (future tense) be preists of God and of Christ and shall reign with him a thousand years.
gdebrae #1104 there is a precedent set for the number 1000 being used to indicate a vastness. You are definitely on the right track. Ps 90:4 "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." The thousand years is used here as reference to God's eternity compared to our finiteness and understanding of time.
Jean Chauvin #1131 gdebrae is correct, we are looking at the phrase "thousand years" and looking at other Scriptural uses of the phrase "thousand years" to see if we can find precedent for how Scripture uses this term.
Ya know what Jean? I'm beginning to see how xzins gets so confused. I'm perplexed myself.
But I'm sure you'll clear this up in no time and perhaps we can move on to the_doc's forced interpretation in post 848 and post 875 and post 894 and post 898 and post 965 and post 971 and post 1084 and post 1347and post 2090:
The beheading idea in Revelation 20:4 is not necessarily limiting us to physically dead Christians anyway. It definitely includes those who have died physically, certainly including literal martyrs, but the verse may very well be just borrowing a martyrdom scenario for beautiful metaphorical purposes in the vision--including metaphorical purposes involving Christians who are still physically alive!
So, what are those metaphorical purposes and what is Christ who is our spiritual head, teaching us in this metaphor of believers in Christ testifying to Him, rejecting Satan, and yet losing their metaphorical heads to an already bound Satan?
from post #2594
Furthermore, Scripture has already told us that Satan is bound: Matthew 12, Mark 3, 2 Peter 2 and Jude 6. [...snip...] So, in summary, you must show us that: The chains and abyss are necessarily to be understood literally in a book filled with much symbolism. Satan's binding is necessarily total/complete. The text does not say this, so you must show us why this ~MUST~ be the necessary understanding
No I don't. You invited examples of your forced interpretation. You explain your interpretation. If you think Satan is already bound, and the beheaded didn't really loose their heads, then you explain the metaphor that Christ is teaching us in this revelation to John. What is Christ who is our spiritual head, teaching us in this metaphor of believers in Christ testifying to Him, rejecting Satan, and yet losing their metaphorical heads to an already bound Satan? Explain that.
we make a distinction between "souls that were beheaded" and those "which had not worshipped the beast". It is the people John sees who did not worship the beast or take his mark that are physically alive.
So how do the people John sees who did not worship the beast or take his mark that are physically alive go on to live with Christ a thousand years? How do their non-resurrected physical bodies have a life span of a thousand years?
Rev 20:12 ~ACTUALLLY~ doesn't tell us they were "alive in their bodies". Rev 20:12 ~ACTUALLLY~ tells us (quite literally) that the "~DEAD~" were standing before God and the Great White Throne. It appears that it is ~YOU~ that is attempting to force the idea that these folks are "alive in their body".
It is the Amillennialist statements forcing the interpretation that the 'dead' of Rev 20:12 are alive in their bodies, their statements, not Rev 20:12. The Amillennialist statements force the interpretation. Not I, nor Rev 20: Here is your personal post from #1958:
Furthermore, since we know that there will be unbelievers (spiritually dead) who are “alive in their bodies” at the Great White Throne Judgment, wouldn’t it be correct to conclude that the “dead” who are “standing” in front of the Great White Throne are actually only “spiritually dead” and not necessarily ~all~ physically dead?
First of all, you will have to show us that the "1000" years must necessarily be understood as a literal time frame
No I don't. Rev 20 by default states exactly a thousand years in plain simple literal words. You insist on the symbolism. Why is it we must understand that because "thousand years" is mentioned 6 times they must be symbolic? Why must it be symbolic? Why can't a thousand years be a thousand years, as Rev 20 literally states it?. You invited examples of where Amil views forced an interpretation. You explain your interpretation. Rev 20 no where states the thousand years are symbolic. Your forced interpretation does. Your forced interpretation stated that the thousand years is symbolic, a metaphor, and further a metaphor of two different thousand years in Rev 20:5a and 6b. This is your forced interpretation. Here are your statements again from your post #1404:
Clearly one must have already be apart of the First Resurrection (living and reigning for a thousand years) in order to be "priests" and "reign with Christ a thousand years" (future application).
No, the grammar tells us that one must be apart of the First Resurrection in order to be apart of the future 1000 year reign in vs 6. "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the First Resurrection (past tense)" The folks who have already been privy to the "First Resurrection" are the ones who shall (future tense) be preists of God and of Christ and shall reign with him a thousand years.
And you never did explain how if no one is ever physically dead, no one ever physically died, then how did all these 'not resurrected again' 'physically alive' people live for a thousand years? How did they live through two different thousand years?
And you never did explain how the dead given up by sea, were physically alive. How does that happen?
and from post #2608
If you are charging us with "forcing" our interpretation on the passage, then you most certainly ~must~ show us why your interpretation is the ~NECESSARY~ one!
No I don't. This isn't about my interpretations. This is about you explaining yours. You invited examples of your forced interpretations. You've been given them (in post #2564 and a subset again in post #2594). You must show how your interpretations are not forced. I provided your (and other amil's) statements showing your forced interpretations. You explain how those interpretations are not forced. You have avoided explaining each one of your interpretations to date. Now please do explain, as per your invitation.
"How do their non-resurrected physical bodies have a life span of a thousand years?" Another "straw man" argument! We never claimed that their "physical bodies" have a "life span" of a "thousand years". We simply say, as John 11:25,26 tells us, "they NEVER die"! Obviously, John 11 is not meant to be understood as their physical bodies never dying!
Your forced interpretation claimed they never died, nor were resurrected, but lived with Christ a thousand years. So, if John 11 is not meant to be understood as their physical bodies never dying, how does your answer explain "How do their non-resurrected physical bodies have a life span of a thousand years? How do their physical bodies never die throughout the thousand years? If their physical bodies never die and John 11 obviously doesn't address physical bodies never dying, then you explain your forced interpretation as to how they never die physically.
You've not explained why the thousand years must be symbolic and why there must two different symbolic thousand years periods.
You've not explained how the dead given up by the sea weren't physically dead at the white throne.
You've not explained how any one not resurrected, who did not live again, has physically lived for a thousand years, or for two thousand-year periods.
You've not explained what is Christ who is our spiritual head, teaching us in this metaphor of believers in Christ testifying to Him, rejecting Satan, and yet losing their metaphorical heads to an already bound Satan?
You've not explained how Satan is bound now.
You've not explained how his binding is only partial, why simultaneously stating Scripture has already told us that Satan is bound: Matthew 12, Mark 3, 2 Peter 2 and Jude 6.
Now you explain your interpretations.