Replies

Is that supposed to be a refutation of the a-mil position?

Nope. Just a statement of my position.

In that case, have you read the a-mil interpretations on this verse?

If I could find one who actually interprets the verse, and does not attempt to explain it away (there is a dramatic difference) I would be interested. The ones I have thus far read spend so much time trashing the millenial folks they never actualy get around to stating a logical position on the subject.

It is not as though they are unaware of the passage you quoted.

They just don't care to believe it.

I prefer to "interpret" the Bible as it is written, rather than force it through any preconceived denominational contortions. If the Word says "a thousand years," then my interpretation is "a thousand years."

Is that supposed to be a refutation of the a-mil position? Nope. Just a statement of my position. >>>
Thanks. However, simply citing a scripture whose interpretation is in dispute is not a "position" any more than stating "he and all his family were baptized" (the philippian jailer in Acts 16)is an argument for paedo/believer baptism. The only time I have seen people claim that a passage like this "supports their position" is when they are unaware of anything but the most surface critiques of their own position. Trust me, it has happened to me more times than I care to remember.

In that case, have you read the a-mil interpretations on this verse? If I could find one who actually interprets the verse, and does not attempt to explain it away (there is a dramatic difference) I would be interested. The ones I have thus far read spend so much time trashing the millenial folks they never actualy get around to stating a logical position on the subject.>>>
Let me recommend Clouse's book again for you. It is irenic (peaceful), non confrontative, and biblically solid. It was such a good book that there was a whole series of "dialogue" books like it on a variety of subjects. As well, I would recommend "More than Conquerors," by William Hendricksen (if still in print) for an amillenial view. A historical pre mil view that is very good is by George Eldon Ladd called "The Last Things." The best postmil book I have seen is "The Puritan Hope," but there are alot of reconstructionist types around that have a more up to date review of the best post mil stuff. My dealing with "the passage itself" has to do with WHY one would say a thousand years MUST refer to 1000 365 days periods. It is extremely hypocritical to demand that the book of Revelation be interpreted "literally" as dispensationalists are fond of doing, as they don't interpret it themselves this way, except when it comes to Revelation 20. Just for one example, when referring to the restored 12 tribes of Israel, in Revelation 7, we find that there ARE NOT 12 tribes. Instead, only 11. We find from Genesis 50 the 12 tribes: Reuben
Simeon
Levi
Judah
Zebulun
Isaachar
Dan
Gad
Ascher
Naphtali
Joseph
Benjamin
However, in Revelation 7, the author seems not to know who the 12 tribes were (I doubt this), omitting the tribe of Dan altogether and mentioning Joseph correctly and then naming Joseph's son Manasseh (not a tribe at all) TWICE by naming him as a subset of Joseph. Rather, this is a literary HINT (revelation is full of such hints) to show us that we are dealing with a book which is not written in "plain english" at all, but is full of symbolism, imagery, and clues to interpretation found elsewhere. (by the way, when Chas Ryrie was questioned re: Revelation 7 and interpreting the "plain meaning of the text" he said Dan was "omitted deliberately" because of their "apostacy".... so much for the irrevocable covenants).

In short, demanding that one interpret Revelation in "plain language" is a hermeneutic which is only selectively practiced by the millinealists, but what is more important, IT IS A HERMENEUTIC WHICH IS NOT DERIVED FROM THE SCRIPTURES THEMSELVES, particularly this book.
When the scriptures themselves show you "you should be interpreting this set of passages in a manner consistent with the language of the text" (ie symbolically), it is wrong to say "but that is how LIBERALS explain away what they don't like int the Bible!" This may be true, but God's Word is too important for me to "protect" it by advocating a rule of interpretation that the author of Scripture itself doesn't validate in the text itself.
It is not defending the text to demand it be interpreted in a manner different than how it tells us it should be interpreted.

All that is not to say that there won't be a literal millenium. I am decidedly agnostic on that issue. If there is, please walk up to me and say "I told you so!" Either way, it will be a joy.

Merry Christmas