I'm not going to force some allegorical interpretation on the Word of God, particularly Rev. 20.
You are not going to know anything the Bible teaches about The End of Time, and you don't want to know, because you pretend like copying what you've heard from someone who is also repeating the null and void excuse for dismissing Amil, since it is being treated as an Allegory. Null and Void. It makes you look like you would like Illiteracy to win over being literate.
Figurative speech is Literal Literate Liturature and should simply be seen for such to the readser, as there is a comparison with other Scriptures for Confirmation.
The bright idea that there is an underlying Literal Letterism wording that is valid for an Interpretation, first, and that Amils come along to say they don't believe it, and then start making up random dreams and fantasies about what they think the End Times need to look like in their mind, in radom fabricated Allegories using their carnal reasoning is dead wrong, Null and Void.
If anything, that is what happens when our opponents employ a Non-Hermeneutic for their Hermeneutic, when they say the Bible should be taken Literally unless the context calls for it. So, they bounce around, back and forth, within each of their individual Hermeneutical Laboratories, MENTALLY deciding exactly which verses THEY THINK SHOULD BE TAKEN LITERALLY AND THOSE THAT SHOULD BE INTERPRETED FIGURATIVELY.
That all results in making a mess of what was 180 degrees off to start with.
So, which one of you is the one who says what verse is to be Interpreted Literally and which as Literal Literary figurative Literature, TO BE SURE AND BE LITERATE IN THEIR DISCERNING OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?
By the way, since it has been removed from most Biblical Publications and has apparently escaped your attention, God Reveals to Mankind in the first verse of Revelation that the Revelation He Sent by His Angel to John was
"Signified", as we know it would be, as Revelation's Genre is Apocalyptic.
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God Gave unto Him, to Shew unto His servants things which must shortly Come to Pass; and He Sent and Signified it by His Angel unto His servant John:" Revelation 1:1.
So, are we Instructed by God there that our first impulse should be to Interpret the Book of Revelation as if it is all Presented as and Proposed to be 'Literal', or "Signified" the very way God just Revealed in Revelation 1:1?
That would need to be known first before finding an actual non-self-contradictory, false 'Hermeneutic' and learning how the Bible teaches us that it wants and needs and has to be read.
There is no certainty in your Amil position because it is not a literal interpretation, taking the NT for exactly what it says.
Jesus is a lamb? Really? A little woolly animal you find on farms?
All sorts of theories are proposed, none of which fully satisfy one" (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the NT).
A.T. Robinson's
Word Pictures in the NT has benefited and contributed to my ministry by about .0027%. There are a lot of words in it, but along with any other work out there along these lines, it comes off shallow and thoroughly tautological, compared with a myriad of other writers on the subjects he covered.
The notion and concept of his book draws to mind the fact that the Bible is full of its use of figures of speech, or 'Word Pictures' as he said. Bullinger lists 219 different names for the variety of figures of speech in the Bible.
I've read many authors on prophecy, and not a one, not a single scholar of eschatology, takes your position that that 1000 years happens in Heaven.
So, they are all just attempting to make an argument from silence, where the word 'Earth' is not part of the narrative, nor can Revelation 20:4 be remotely associated with anything on Earth? Except where God's children on Earth are the recipients of Christ's Prayers, as He Rules from His Throne to which He Ascended in Revelation 4*, with whom He says He is also Ruling WITH, with no one He is Ruling from His Throne with being on Earth?
And you call that a Literal Literary Interpretation of Literature?
*"At once I was in the Spirit, and I saw a Throne standing in Heaven, with Someone Seated on it." Revelation 4:2.
Again, I gave you plenty of evidence. You did not take my position fairly enough to refute each of my points. And it is insulting to call my position "wild, fleshly stretch."
Is evidence for Jesus' Thousand-Year Reign to be found in the Bible that would make any allusion to it taking place anytime on Earth?
It is the position of almost all churches in the first 3 centuries
All of the Old Testament passages regarding the End Times are in perfect sync with every Tenet of Ahmil. So we know the Prophets knew the Mind of God, as those verses have been seen the play out in The New Testament During the First Century, as well as those that remain to be Fulfilled at the Return of Jesus.
And speaking of the Mind of God, Jesus Knows His Bible. Of course, Jesus and all of the writers in the New Testament were Amil according to everything they said about it, which are actually taught in these 66 verses from the New Testament, (not including Revelation); at
THE SECOND COMING of JESUS CHRIST IS THE END of TIME, FOREVER.
Then, continuing from John in the New Testament, we reach Polycarp. The first two centuries of the church held both premillennial and amillennial opinions. What is now called "amillennialism" was widely pervasive in early Christianity. Polycarp, who was born in 69 AD, was an associate of the Apostle John (who wrote Revelation) and was one of the early church fathers, held the "amillennial" view.
Other church fathers of the second century who held this view were Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Cyprian.
Justin Martyr (died 165), who had
chiliastic tendencies in his theology, mentions differing views in his
Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, chapter 80: "I and many others are of this opinion [premillennialism], and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise." Etc., to this day, until Jesus Returns.
and even today the position of the vast majority of evangelicals.
So is 'works for Salvation' and 'infant baptism'.
These statements are incendiary. Why do you have to be so dismissive and insulting?
Because your position depends entirely on empty space.
That's the empty space in the Bible where nothing is taught.
You put 'Earth' + 'one thousand years', together, on your own.
There is no reason to combine them into any thought process that Comes from the Mind of God Revealed in the Bible.
I've got the same Bible you have.
Throw out vain imaginations.
Stop insulting the God Who's Mind has Thoughts Higher than your thoughts, because we can all see what He Wrote, or not.
Folks, when you are insulting and dismissive on the Internet (and I've done that too), you are not adorning the doctrine you are advocating, so people may dismiss you out of hand without even considering your arguments.
Cute philosophy. Unless you are perfectly adorning the whatever, you die. Ooops, you run from every provocation to Goods works. Go on. Put me on 'Ignore', goody, good man.
"Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things" (Titus 2:10).
Ye serpent,
ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the Eternal Reality of Ahmillennialism?
) I think I have already "gained the understanding" of the book, but I have doubts about you. 
(That was an offensive statement. Just saying, you know. It is impolite to assume ignorance in a debate opponent.)
)