Creation in 7 days???
Forum category
I was wondering something. I know that Amillenialists and Post-millenialists believe that the 1000 years spoken of in Revelation Chp. 20 is not a literal 1000 years, but a figurative period of time; a time of spiritual kingdom that takes place between the First coming of Christ and the Second coming of Christ. I do not deny that this is a reasonable and possible interpretation of the Scriptures. The Scriptures teach us that “For the Lord a thousand years is like a day, and a day like a thousand years”.
However, I wish to play the part of Devil’s advocate for a moment. What is to keep some people from using this reasoning to say that the 6 days of the original Creation Period are not meant to be take literally, but figuratively also?
However, I wish to play the part of Devil’s advocate for a moment. What is to keep some people from using this reasoning to say that the 6 days of the original Creation Period are not meant to be take literally, but figuratively also?
Unfortunately some have tried to apply that same reasoning to the creation account. Please note however that the wording is very clear- the evening and the morning were the first day. That sounds like a literal day, not a figurative day. That phrase “the evening and the morning” was used for each of the six days of creation. The scripture definitely uses figurative language but I take the approach of reading scripture in a normal way (if the context shows it to be a figure of speech apply it as such, but if the context shows it to be literal, take it literally).
Genesis 2:2, “And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done”
Genesis is historical narrative. Nothing in the text suggests symbolism or poetry. The Apocalypse is, well, apocalyptic and naturally contains symbolism. However, there is still little merit in understanding Rev. 20 as symbolic. It is a sllippery slope even there. Usually the markers for symbolism are not that difficult to see. If we play fast and loose with these rules, we open ourself up to charges of inconsistency in our hermeneutic and answering that charge is not an easy task. This is typically what you would hear from the Amil camp in defense of their taking one as symbolism and the other as history. It is a valid defend but leaves little support on the positive side for taking the 1000 years as symbolic. On the negative side, the term 1000 years (chilia ete) is used 6 times in 7 versus. In four of those occurences the phrase is articular. This, in my mind, makes a symbolic interpretation of the 1000 year reign extremely difficult. This is not the only problem with the Amil view. They have much bigger problems than this one in my opinion.
I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4
I think that each of the major eschatologies has some difficulties- although I am completely against the Dispensational view. My biggest difficulty with the amillenial view is that Rev. 20 mentions only the people who were martyred because of the mark, that are resureccted for the millenial reign. it doesn’t mention the people who died of natural causes, or illnesses, etc. it leads to me to believe that martyrs will have as a reward, a special time where they will reign with christ for 1000 years, before he destroys the earth, and creates the new heavens and new earth. but i could be wrong.
also, i always thought that the saints that die, are sleeping, and will not be resurrected until the second coming of christ, before the final judgement of all the earth. so if the dead in christ are sleeping, how is it that they are reigning with christ 1000 years?
also, i always thought that the saints that die, are sleeping, and will not be resurrected until the second coming of christ, before the final judgement of all the earth. so if the dead in christ are sleeping, how is it that they are reigning with christ 1000 years?
Discussion