[xzins]

The claim that Revelation 20:1 "takes us back once again to the beginning of the New Testament era,"20 does not seem warranted from the text. There certainly are no indicators within the text that the events of Revelation 20:1 take the reader back to the beginning of the present age. Nor are there textual indicators that the events of Revelation 20 should be separated chronologically from the events of Revelation 19:11-21. In fact, the opposite is the case. The events of Revelation 20 seem to follow naturally the events described in Revelation 19:11-21. If one did not have a theological presupposition that the millennium must be fulfilled in the present age, what indicators within the text would indicate that 20:1 takes the reader back to the beginning of the church era? A normal reading indicates that Christ appears from heaven (19:11-19), He destroys his enemies including the beast and the false prophet (19:20-21) and then He deals with Satan by binding him and casting him into the abyss (20:1-3). As Ladd says, "There is absolutely no hint of any recapitulation in chapter 20."21

It's all a package. (1) The interpretive methodology is highly suspect (see quote above.) (2) Any argument that Satan running around wreaking havoc on the earth is what God intends as "kingdom on earth" is simply suspect.

It makes it absolutely reasonable for reasonable bible readers to reject the amillennial as too difficult to buy.

[irishtenor]

Isn't that where everyone starts? With a presupposition? Your interpetation comes from your presupposition, as does mine. I believe that the Amil postition best represents what I believe. You believe otherwise. So be it. We will all find out when Jesus comes again.