The 1 Day and the 1000 Years

[Lodic]

With this way of interpretation, it is then impossible for God to ever state an exact period of 1000 years in Scripture!

For the record, there are only two places in the NT where the word "1000" occurs: 2 Peter and Rev. 20. (The other times are all multiples.) I've been proving that Peter meant a literal 1000 years in his reference, and I have been waiting for you or anyone else to tell me what figure of speech it is if it is not literal. Here you are finally saying it is hyperbole (though you said something else previously). But you see, the "one day" cannot possibly be hyperbole. If the 1000 years of Peter are hyperbole, what figure of speech is the one day?

In every single case in the NT when the plural "years" is used, it is a literal period except for when the word "about" is used. So tell me, how many years is 1000 years if it is not 1000? You have no way of telling. That is why non-literal interpreters have so many different theories about it.

Here is what famed Baptist scholar A. T. Robertson wrote about Rev. 20 (not premil): " In this book of symbols how long is a thousand years? All sorts of theories are proposed, none of which fully satisfy one" (Word Pictures in the NT on Rev. 20:2, accessed in PowerBible software). If Rev. 20 is figurative, there is no way on earth to tell the actual meaning. If it is literal, the meaning becomes quite easy to determine.

I see your point there, but I don't really see a problem - especially since there are only two places where it is used. (Thank you - I didn't know that.)

The passages in 2 Peter 2 and Psalm 50 are very similar. The phrase itself is hyperbole. If you insist on breaking it down, we have two nouns juxtaposed against each other for comparison. Neither passage says that a thousand years actually "is" a day, but that a thousand years is "as", or "like" a day to the Lord. Both "thousand years" and "one day" are nouns that are compared to each other in the man's perspective vs the Lord's.

If the 1,000 years of Rev 20 is figurative, as I believe it is, we really don't need to know how long a period is being discussed.

 

[MartyF]

No, actually using your own argument, you are guilty of this "tainting" yourself because what you are alluding to is - God cannot think this way. i.e. "And God thought this was very good".

No, it doesn’t.

I alluded to nothing.

 

[HankD]

As I see it, it doesn't make any difference whether the millennium is literal or symbolic. The point is that it refers to a very long point of time.

Yes 1000 years is indeed a long time.

 

[HankD]

I alluded to nothing.

Sorry your thinking is so "tainted" that you can't see it.

 

[MartyF]

I haven't mentioned metaphysics and wasn't approaching the text from that direction My only point here is that Peter used a literal day and literal years to make his point, or his point made no sense.

God created time and space (the space-time continuum), so he therefore exists outside of it.

This is the actual argument Aristotle makes in Metaphysics . . .

Did you not know this?

 

[MartyF]

Sorry your thinking is so "tainted" that you can't see it.

Well, ad hominem's and refusals to explain are a common traits among Calvinists/Armenians.

 

[MartyF]

Give names and sources.

That version of Open Theism is Greg Boyd.

One co-worker in Japan was the niece of Clarke Pinnock, and said he was really weird.

This says more about you than it does about Pinnock.

 

[Lodic]

Yes 1000 years is indeed a long time.

Well, I certainly can't argue against that .

 

[HankD]

Well, ad hominem's and refusals to explain are a common traits among Calvinists/Armenians.

Ditto.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 9:50 PM Pacific.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The "thousand hills" and "thousand generations" figures of speech are clearly hyperbole.

Well the 'thousand hills" rather clearly isn't hyperbole since there are more than a thousand hills in the world. It would be a 'loperbole' if there was such a thing.

Peter's usage of the term "1000 years" is clearly not hyperbole. Furthermore, if the 1000 years is figurative language, his term "one day" must also be figurative language. So, what particular figures of speech is Peter using with "one day" and "1000 years"?

I rather suspect that it may be a synecdoche, but that really isn't the point. You have conceded that the 1,000 years need not be literal -- a hundred or a million years would have had the same meaning, except that when you look at other passages where 1,000 appears, it seems to stand for 'all that there are.' Peter could also have used 'one hour' or 'one week' instead of 'one day' and the statement would still have had the same meaning: God is not subject to time.

But in the real world (contra the world of allegorical interpretation) it is linguistic nonsense to say something is figurative language without specifying what figure of speech it is. You have not done that about Peter's statement. Therefore, you are practicing pure allegorical interpretation unless you can specify what figures of speech Peter used.

I think it will be helpful if you look up the meaning of 'allegory' and see how it differs from symbolism and figurative language. There is allegory in the Bible, but that is not the issue here.

There are various sound exegetical reasons for not believing in a literal millennium, but they will lead us astray from 2 Peter 3, so I won't bring them out unless invited.

 

[John of Japan]

This is the actual argument Aristotle makes in Metaphysics . . .

Did you not know this?

Nope, did not know this, and you did not say it was from a book (book titles are usually in italics) but it makes not the slightest difference to me. I come from systematic theology.

 

[John of Japan]

Well the 'thousand hills" rather clearly isn't hyperbole since there are more than a thousand hills in the world. It would be a 'loperbole' if there was such a thing.

Har har!

I rather suspect that it may be a synecdoche, but that really isn't the point. You have conceded that the 1,000 years need not be literal -- a hundred or a million years would have had the same meaning, except that when you look at other passages where 1,000 appears, it seems to stand for 'all that there are.' Peter could also have used 'one hour' or 'one week' instead of 'one day' and the statement would still have had the same meaning: God is not subject to time.

You suspect? Figures of speech are usually pretty clear, so you don't have to "suspect."

Well, yeah, it did not have to be 1000, but it was.

Concerning the argument about "other passages," there are only two NT passages with the exact number 1000. I make the argument that they are both literal. I don't see the need to interact with the OT passages that say "1000."

I think it will be helpful if you look up the meaning of 'allegory' and see how it differs from symbolism and figurative language. There is allegory in the Bible, but that is not the issue here.

I have not said a thing about allegory per se. I have been talking about allegorical interpretation, a legitimate term used by many authors to refer to non-literal interpretation. Check out Protestant Biblical Interpretation by non-chiliast Bernard Ramm, p. 24, one of many examples I could give.

There are various sound exegetical reasons for not believing in a literal millennium, but they will lead us astray from 2 Peter 3, so I won't bring them out unless invited.

Those "sound exegetical reasons" end up with many different opinions about what the 1000 years really is (cf my Robertson quote above). Seems like if the

 

[John of Japan]

That version of Open Theism is Greg Boyd.

This says more about you than it does about Pinnock.

Me? I wasn't the one who said it. His niece did!

 

[John of Japan]

I see your point there, but I don't really see a problem - especially since there are only two places where it is used. (Thank you - I didn't know that.)

The passages in 2 Peter 2 and Psalm 50 are very similar. The phrase itself is hyperbole. If you insist on breaking it down, we have two nouns juxtaposed against each other for comparison. Neither passage says that a thousand years actually "is" a day, but that a thousand years is "as", or "like" a day to the Lord. Both "thousand years" and "one day" are nouns that are compared to each other in the man's perspective vs the Lord's.

You've lost me. I just read Psalm 50 and don't know what you mean.

If the 1,000 years of Rev 20 is figurative, as I believe it is, we really don't need to know how long a period is being discussed.

Again, if the 1000 years in Rev. 20 is figurative, what figure of speech is it?

 

[John of Japan]

I have to go, and can't post anymore, but thanks to everyone for a great thread, without rancor and with folks making good points. I feel badly about asterisktom, who decided I was insulting him by looking at a thesaurus instead of a dictionary. I suppose I'm on his ignore list now, but that's how the cookie bounces.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 9:50 PM Pacific.