Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Welcome to Christforums the Protestant Community. You'll need to register in order to post your comments on your favorite topics and subjects. You'll also enjoy sharing media across multiple platforms. We hope you enjoy your fellowship here! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christforums

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy. God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now
Sign in to follow this  
Cornelius

How Long is the Millennium in Revelation 20?

How Long is the Millennium in Revelation 20?  

8 members have voted

  1. 1. How Long is the Millennium in Revelation 20?

    • One day (events take place “quickly” + “a thousand years is as a day”)
      0
    • 360000 days (a thousand years of “prophetic months”)
      0
    • 365242 days (a thousand solar years)
      4
    • 365 million years (“a day is as a thousand years”)
      0
    • An indefinitely long period (a symbolic book, and a number frequently used figuratively)
      3
    • I’m clueless
      1


Recommended Posts

I am really not sure, as I don't know that literal intrepretations of the bible ae all that useful. I would guess it is quite a long time though. I think that many people would think a thousand years at a minimum. However, I don't really know. Maybe some one with more knowledge will tell us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually in Revelation 20 and earlier passages in Revelation 19 , it was described here that after Jesus had defeated the Anti-Christ and Satan on which they are thrown alive in lake of burning sulfur, Satan was bound by our Lord Jesus and the period was a thousand years. Satan cannot deceived the nations of the earth anymore for that period. Christ reign on earth for a thousand years. However, we can see that different Bible scholars had explained that a thousand year reign can be figurative and at the same time literal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With some of these prophetic passages it can be hard to tell if the 1,000 years are literal one thousand years or if they are supposed to be a lot longer than that. But as the writer of the book is human and his message was to be read in the seven churches, we can make the assumption that it's literal 1,000 years otherwise there'd have been some clarification.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to say as others said before me that interpreting the Bible as other than metaphorical stories in not my really table. So can'T read the millenium as a strict number of years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to say as others said before me that interpreting the Bible as other than metaphorical stories in not my really table. So can'T read the millenium as a strict number of years.

 

If that is the case your are missing a lot of the truth that is found in the Bible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it may seem contrary to the way we think today, exact numbers are not exact in the Bible. As Sam Storms points out in his book "Kingdom Come",

 

'For example, we are told in Psalm 50: 10 that God owns “the cattle on a thousand hills.” Obviously this “does not mean that the cattle on the 1,001st hill belong to someone else. God owns all the cattle on all the hills. But He says ‘a thousand’ to indicate that there are many hills, and much cattle.” '

 

An excellent example also given is that of the 69 weeks of Daniel, after which (in the 70th week), the Messiah would be killed. Most scholars say this 70 weeks represents 490 years. But, from the time the prophecy was given until the time Jesus was crucified, significantly more than 490 years passed. But, if one considers that 7, and multiples of 7, represent the completion of a work, as a general theological concept, then it makes a bit more sense. The 70 years of Babylonian exile didn't last exactly 70 years; the 7 days of creation were not actually 7 Earth days, since it says, "And the evening and the morning were the first day." and yet the Sun was not created until the 4th "day". This begs the question, "By what means was a day measured since 'evening' and 'morning' require a Sun's presence?"

 

Likewise, 3 1/2 is not meant to be exact, but is a number designed to bring to mind a "period of affliction". Note how, in James 5:17, he refers to 3 1/2 when referring to the length of time that the drought lasted in the days of Elijah - even though nowhere in I Kings does it state exactly how long it lasted! Or, if we consider the amillennial view of the 3 1/2 years of tribulation, when Antiochus Epiphanes persecuted Israel, from 66 to 70 AD, it was not exactly 3 1/2 years, but an unprecedented time of affliction.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'For example, we are told in Psalm 50: 10 that God owns “the cattle on a thousand hills.” Obviously this “does not mean that the cattle on the 1,001st hill belong to someone else. God owns all the cattle on all the hills. But He says ‘a thousand’ to indicate that there are many hills, and much cattle.” '

The Psalms are poetry and poems often use numbers figuratively. When the Bible records history the numbers are literal.

 

An excellent example also given is that of the 69 weeks of Daniel, after which (in the 70th week), the Messiah would be killed. Most scholars say this 70 weeks represents 490 years. But, from the time the prophecy was given until the time Jesus was crucified, significantly more than 490 years passed.

The seventy weeks don't begin at the time the prophecy was made but when the order is given to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. "From the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one,"

 

the Sun was not created until the 4th "day".

On the fourth day God said, "“Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night." He placed lights in the sky but the Bible doesn't say he created the bodies that produced the lights at that time. The sun must have existed on the fourth day to produce light but the earth was covered by clouds that allowed the light to reach the earth but made it impossible to see the sun. On the fourth day God dispersed the clouds so the sun, moon, and stars could be seen.

 

Note how, in James 5:17, he refers to 3 1/2 when referring to the length of time that the drought lasted in the days of Elijah - even though nowhere in I Kings does it state exactly how long it lasted!

James wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so if he said the drought lasted 3 1/2 years that was how long it lasted.

 

if we consider the amillennial view of the 3 1/2 years of tribulation, when Antiochus Epiphanes persecuted Israel, from 66 to 70 AD, it was not exactly 3 1/2 years, but an unprecedented time of affliction.

Of course, the amillenial view requires rejecting that the numbers are literal. If you accept the premillenial view, which places the tribulation in the future, there is no reason not to believe the length is literally 3 1/2 years.

 

The Millenium will literally last one thousand years.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Psalms are poetry and poems often use numbers figuratively. When the Bible records history the numbers are literal.

 

So, you're saying that in a book of poetry, numbers can be figurative, but in the most symbol-rich book in the Bible, we're supposed to take 1000 literally. Not too logical.

 

The seventy weeks don't begin at the time the prophecy was made but when the order is given to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. "From the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one,"

 

Granted, but that order did not begin in 457 BC, which is what would be required to have the Messiah die in the 70th week. Since the decree went out from Cyrus in 538BC, you can't make the numbers work unless you're fitting the Bible to your beliefs, rather than vice versa.

 

On the fourth day God said, "“Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night." He placed lights in the sky but the Bible doesn't say he created the bodies that produced the lights at that time. The sun must have existed on the fourth day to produce light but the earth was covered by clouds that allowed the light to reach the earth but made it impossible to see the sun. On the fourth day God dispersed the clouds so the sun, moon, and stars could be seen.

 

There's zero indication of your assertion. In fact, to the contrary. First, to have light, God doesn't need the Sun or Moon for there to be light:

 

And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it

(Rev 21:23)

 

Second, it makes no sense to say that God created the Sun and Moon, but didn't turn them on or make them visible until the fourth day, since it says, regarding the first day:

 

4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night

(Ge 1:4–5)

 

If the Sun and Moon were not visible, per your assertion, until the fourth day, and light was prevented from entering the Earth's atmosphere until then, how could a difference between night and day be seen?

 

James wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so if he said the drought lasted 3 1/2 years that was how long it lasted.

 

Yes, and under inspiration, he was using a well-known time/number to represent affliction, which all of Israel would have understood.

 

Of course, the amillenial view requires rejecting that the numbers are literal.

 

Well, this is a thread under "Amillennialism", in case you didn't notice. So, presumably, this is a sub-thread for those of the amillennial view.

 

The Millenium will literally last one thousand years.

 

If that's the view you must hold in order for God to be God, in your eyes, then by all means, have at it. It's not a salvific doctrine.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the Sun and Moon were not visible, per your assertion, until the fourth day, and light was prevented from entering the Earth's atmosphere until then, how could a difference between night and day be seen?

Light from the sun could reach the earth even though the sun itself couldn't be seen. This is a phenomenon we still see on cloudy days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Light from the sun could reach the earth even though the sun itself couldn't be seen. This is a phenomenon we still see on cloudy days.

 

The trouble is, you would have to ignore Gen 1:16-19:

 

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

 

Nothing in Genesis supports your view that the Sun and Moon were made the first day, and then, on the fourth day, somehow made visible. It's literally stated He "made" them and "set" them in place on the fourth day. As a literalist, I would think you would appreciate such a clear, unambiguous statement, and not try to force their creation to the first day so that it fits a particular view.

 

So, this again brings me back to my question: if the Sun and Moon were not even made and set in place until the fourth day, by what means was "the evening and the morning" (Gen 1:5) measured, since evening is determined by sunset and the morning is determined by sunrise? Clearly, we're not talking 7 Earth days as we know them now. And, this again supports the idea that numbers, such as 7 (and multiples thereof) are designed to show completion of a work. Daniels 70 weeks, or 490 years, is again showing the ultimate completion (10 x 7 x 7) of the redemptive work that ends with the death of the Messiah, followed by his resurrection. This again supports the idea that certain numbers are designed to convey a theological concept, and not meant to be exact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Light from the sun could reach the earth even though the sun itself couldn't be seen. This is a phenomenon we still see on cloudy days.
The Hebrew text will not support such a view. The same phrase is used three times.

 

(1) Gen. 1:3 - יְהִ֣י א֑וֹר = Let there be (i.e. יְהִ֣י) light (i.e. א֑וֹר). Here God calls light into existence.

 

(2) The same phrase is used in Gen. 1:6 - יְהִ֥י רָקִ֖יעַ = Let there be (i.e. יְהִ֣י) an expanse (i.e. רָקִ֖יעַ). Here God creates an expanse between the waters where there would have been none.

 

(3) The same phrase is used again Gen. 1:14 - יְהִ֤י מְאֹרֹת֙ בִּרְקִ֣יעַ הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם= Let there be (i.e. יְהִ֣י) lights or luminaries (i.e. מְאֹרֹת֙) in the expanse (i.e. בִּרְקִ֣יעַ) of the heavens (i.e. הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם).

 

The same Hebrew construction is used in verse 3, 6, and 14. It makes no sense to claim that the Hebrew construction in verse 14 does not mean the same thing as verse 3 and 6. In verse 3 God creates light, then in verse 6 He creates an expanse in order to place the luminaries within that expanse in verse 14. There is nothing in the Hebrew text to suggest that it was only by the four day that those luminaries could be seen. In fact if that is what the author wanted to say, there is no reason why he could not have done so.

 

Moreover the text clearly states in verse 16 and 17 that God made the two great light and the stars and set them in the heavens and that was the fourth day (v. 19).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(1) Gen. 1:3 - יְהִ֣י א֑וֹר = Let there be (i.e. יְהִ֣י) light (i.e. א֑וֹר). Here God calls light into existence.

But how does he call it into existence? Could this be the time the sun was created?

 

Moreover the text clearly states in verse 16 and 17 that God made the two great light and the stars and set them in the heavens and that was the fourth day (v. 19).

If the stars were created on this day, how do you account for the fact that we can see lights from stars and other celestial objects that are millions of light years away?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But how does he call it into existence? Could this be the time the sun was created?
How? I not sure what you are asking me.

 

If the stars were created on this day, how do you account for the fact that we can see lights from stars and other celestial objects that are millions of light years away?
I don't. I take the text as it is given. And according to the text:

 

And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

 

The text is very clear. All of this takes place on the fourth day. The Hebrew construction in verses 3, 6, and 14 are the same. In verse 3 light is created when their was none. In verse 6 an expanse is created where there was none. Since the Hebrew in verses 3 and 6 both point to something that did not exist coming into existence, then the Hebrew in verse 14 must be understood in the same manner.

 

Of course there is a fundamentally difference in the way we approach Gen. 1. I do not take Gen. 1 to be a scientific account of creation nor do I think it was ever meant to be understood in that way. Given the literary genre of Gen. 1 and the other creation stories around Israel, it functions as a polemic against the gods of the other nations. The point being that everything the pagans believed about the world was wrong. The lights in the sky are not gods but luminaries place there by the God. Man was not an accident, or an after thought, or a mistake (as can been seen from other creation stories from that region) but the purpose of creation itself. Thus I have no need to reconcile Gen. 1 with modern science because it was never meant to be understood in that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×