The 1 Day and the 1000 Years

Again, you misunderstand my meaning. I am saying that in the Bible when a figure of speech is used, it is clearly a figure of speech. Usually, in fact, the text gives the meaning.

Christ's parables are extended metaphors. And if the meaning was not clear to His disciples, He gave clear explanations.

I completely disagree. It would be impossible for God to see a day and a 1000 years equally if He did not exist outside of the space time continuum that He created.

And if you sincerely want to discuss doctrine with me, don't start with attacking me personally in three different ways. I did not do that with you, and my intent in the OP was not to demean anyone. You are reading that into my statements. No one else on the thread has taken them that way. "Judge righteous judgment."

 

Well, unlike the others, at least you are working with the OP. I appreciate that. You've made a good effort here, but the problem with calling the day and the 1000 years similes is that they are being compared to each other. In a simile, you say, "What is like a bear? Why it's Uncle Scrooge." It's usually just one sided. And besides, in the simile game Dicken's portrayed, both Uncle Scrooge and the bear were literal creatures.

And I love A Christmas Carol. Have acted in it three times now in our church Christmas program. Read it every Christmas to our son when he was a boy.

I think it makes a huge difference if you interpret literally, with a grammatical-historical hermeneutic, or if you "spiritualize" the Scriptures. At one point on the BB I did a thread about the purposes of the 2nd Coming of Christ, and how it affects us. I came up with 13 different purposes for a literal 2nd Coming:

1. To take us to be with Him (John 12:1-3).
2. To make us like Him and cause us to live a pure life (1 John 3:2-3, Col. 3:3-4).
3. To put everything under the feet of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:28).
4. To judge the living and dead (2 Tim. 4:1).
5. To reign over the world (Rev. 12:10).
6. To deliver the kingdom of Christ to the Father (1 Cor. 15:24-25).
7. To comfort each other (1 Thess. 4:13-18).
8. For Christ to give rewards (2 Tim. 4:8).
9. For Christ to confirm us to the end (1 Cor. 1:6-8).
10. For Christ to receive His bride and have their marriage supper (Rev. 19:6-9).
11. Acts 15:16—After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
12. He will come again to strengthen faith (Luke 18:8, John 14:28-29).
13. Fellowship (1 Cor. 13:12, “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.”).

 

Is anyone other than asterisktom offended at my OP, thinking it to be demeaning? Because if it was demeaning, then I would willingly apologize. But if it was merely challenging (my goal), why should I apologize?

 

Yes, that is my son and I, the two "charity solicitors" in the play. The first time (4 years ago), we had just come home from Japan, and they asked me to be Scrooge, because I "look like him." I had a great time, and survived, but we all learned that I am not good at memorizing lines! Oh, yes, the millennium.

In the view of the almost all evangelical theologians, you must believe this or you have left orthodoxy.

But here is the problem. If you agree that the one day and the 1000 years are literal, what do you do with the 1000 years of Rev. 20? In my experience, non-literal interpreters (preterists, amils, postmils) absolutely object to treating Rev. 20 as a literal 1000 years. As soon as you interpret that passage literally, your system of eschatology must completely change.

My grandfather (historic premil) turned premil simply by reading the Scriptures literally. (I disappointed him when I turned dispensationalist. ) Another who did that was Dr. Lee Roberson, pastor of one of the largest churches in the world back in the 1970's, and the president of my college (Tennessee Temple). He wrote, "One Sunday morning a man heard me preach and said, ‘You are a premillennialist.’ I replied that I was not sure what he meant but I was simply trying to preach the plain Word of God. At that time I was not aware of the various divisions of thought, postmillennialists, a-millennialists, and premillennialists. I preached what the Bible revealed to me. I am still preaching it today. I have not a doubt in my mind regarding this great theme of the Word of God.”[1]
[1] Lee Roberson, Double-Breasted (Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord, 1977), 35.

I'll go with that.

 

Yes, you did. Sorry I left you out, and thank you.

 

My son and I had a blast, and enjoy teaching together. (Only he's the one with the Ph.D.) My wife and I came off the field of Japan 4 1/2 years ago, and the college hired my son and I together. Our offices are two doors apart--with the Dean of Men between us.

Partial preterism, okay, but full preterism, not orthodox.

You don't know the half of it. Ever heard of John R. Rice, the author and evangelist? That was Grandpa.

Lots of heat in this subject sometimes--in fact, on this very thread. The Asterisk and I have butted heads numerous times on the BB, but not lately. I thought he'd maybe gotten over me. I like the guy, but certainly not his full preterism.

 

Yes, "approaching." That was my debate point. And since you do not believe God is "bound by days and years," why in the world were you offended? The barb was not even aimed at you.

None of this relates to the OP.

Nope. You were just flat out obtuse.

Oh, but you did not just simply disagree.

Finally, you arrive at the OP. So then, if "day" and "thousand" are not literal there, what figures of speech are they?

 

I've never seen a metaphorical dog chase it's tail.

 

I knew him well, worked for him and lived with Grandpa and Grandma for awhile. I was actually named after him. Being in the family is an unearned privilege, so I try to pass the blessing on and share what it was like knowing him. He was a sinner, but gracious and loving. He often wept when he preached.

I recently got an evangelist to write down an experience when he was young and JRR parked him 3 feet away, got a pianist, and sang his song "So Little Time" to the young man, weeping all the while.

We were there as missionaries for 33 years.

I can abide partial preterism, kind of understand it. But Tom's full preterism is a mystery to me. There is so much Scripture about a physical coming of Christ in the future, and premil, amil, and postmil folk all agree on this.

 

Oh, give me a break. Using a thesaurus to determine my meaning? Really? You have got to be kidding me.

I did not mean any of those so-called synonyms. Try a dictionary, like this meaning: "difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression" (Definition of OBTUSE).

It wasn't an insult, for crying out loud. I was saying your post was hard to figure out. And then you take me to a thesaurus????

Yep, that's fine. Do what you feel you have to. But don't lie and say I insulted you with the word "obtuse," because I did not.

 

But what about the fur? Is it allegorical fur?