That 1000 years is the “Day” of the Lord, as Peter so well exposed.
Compare and contrast.
Furthermore, never are years used in a symbolic way in this book. If they are symbolic, the symbolism is nowhere explained. The mention of 1,260 days, 42 months, and 3½ years are all literal and not symbolic.Hence, there is no need to take the one thousand years as anything but literal years. --Quix
Gotta love that "literal" hermeneutic.
On a future earthly paradisaical chiliad as "Day of the Lord":
Woe to you who desire the day of the LORD! Why would you have the day of the LORD? It is darkness, and not light, as if a man fled from a lion, and a bear met him, or went into the house and leaned his hand against the wall, and a serpent bit him. Is not the day of the LORD darkness, and not light, and gloom with no brightness in it? --Amos 5
Significant chunks of
what passes for y’all’s eschatology will most likely crash and burn within a year or less, imho.
Times are a changin’ big time.
And it appears that the Preterist, A-Mil, Post-mill and REPLACEMENTARIAN perspective have not a shred of a clue to offer their adherents.
If you see a contradiction in 1000 literal years constituting “the day (or era) of the Lord” then you need to have your “eyes” checked.