NASB ("I foresaw" is substituted for "I saw" since this is was a predictive vision, Rev 1:1 & Rev 4:1)
A) Rev 20:2 Foresaw how Satan was to be bound, cast and sealed into the abyss (bottomless pit) for A thousand years.
B) Rev 20:4 Foresaw how the souls of Christ’s martyrs who rejected the Beast (Nero) came to life and reigned with Christ for A thousand years.
And notice how:
F) Rev 20:7 Foresaw that Satan was to be released from his prision, (the abyss of Rev 20:3), upon completion of the thousand years just referred to in Rev 20:6 (and in Rev 20:3) : therefore, Rev 20:7’s “THE thousand years” = “A thousand years” of Rev 20:6 (and of Rev 20:3). F=C .
Additional observation: Rev 20:7 = Rev 20:3 Both verses foresee Satan being released at the end of the thousand years from the imprisoning abyss into which he had been bound & cast at the beginning of the thousand years: F=D . And since, as shown previously, F=C and D=A, therefore F=D=A=C .
Bi-Millennial Preterism correctly admits that:
“THE thousand years” in Rev 20:3 = “THE thousand years” in Rev 20:5 = “THE thousand years” in Rev 20:7
But, as shown above, it is equally obvious from the Bible Text that:
E=B Rev 20:5’s “THE thousand years” = “A thousand years” of Rev 20:4
F=C Rev 20:7’s “THE thousand years” = “A thousand years” of Rev 20:6 (and of Rev 20:3)
THEREFORE: A=B=C = D=E=F
Every appearance of the term “thousand years” in the Rev 20:1-10 passage is referring to one and the same, exact period of time, recent innovation notwithstanding.
There is no more two Millenniums in Rev 20:1-7
than there are two Tribulations in Mat 24.
1) Every passage must first be reconciled with its immediately surrounding passages,
2) Then those passages are to be reconciled with their immediately surrounding chapters,
3) Then they are to be reconciled with the entirety of the book in which they are found,
4) Then they are to be reconciled with the remainder of the New Testament, Apostolic Teaching,
5) And finally, they are to be reconciled with the more distant passages within the corpus of Holy Writ, the Bible.
A measure of credibility is forfeited when this context principle is ignored.
1) says that the 1000 years ended at 70AD and then
2) says that Jesus Returned at 70AD has just taught that
3) Satan was released when Jesus came back.
(review Rev 20:3, 7)
Honestly, does the Bible really teach that Satan was bound, cast & sealed into the Deep (Abyss) while Christians ruled with God & Christ throughout the bulk of the 30-70AD period? (Actually, wasn't such blessings what they were expecting to arrive with Christ's soon Return?)
Thank you for visiting the site and considering my article. I know this is a subject dear to you and that my view is a challenge to yours. And I congratulate you on your successful refutation of Sam Frost in your recent, written debate. And I have considered your invitation of a written debate between you & I. No matter how many times I go back to consider your generous offer, I always come back to the same initial conviction: I am content with the written debate we are already having. And the forum of such debates are an ongoing matter in the mind of every reader. And they alone are the quiet judges. Those arguments that truly wield credibility are quietly adopted within the hearts of the studious. And those arguments that are exposed as faulty are quietly abandoned. Your website is your podium and this website is mine, and wherever else our words on the subjects are found. I am pacing myself for a matter of 30 years or more regarding the presentation of eschatology; greater haste deemed unnecessary.
I hope to find a considerate way to say this, but that I find it equally unnecessary the application of much more attention concerning the matter of Bi-Millennialism, since it is such an unheard of and easily dismissed novelty. "Over the course of two thousand years, the best minds and most able scholars – men of house-hold name like Eusebuis, Jerome, and Augustine, Erasmus, and Calvin, among countless lesser known others, have searched the scriptures to" not even once hint at a Bi-Millennium. I respectfully invite you to reconsider your own advice and see if what you write in the second paragraph of your article does not aptly apply to "Bi-Millennialism," as well. As it has all along, the burden remains upon you to convince anyone to adopt a model of a Bi-Millennium, even as the burden remains upon me to promote the model of a 70-1070AD Millennium, the Last Day. In short, what has been presented here against Bi-Millennialism is already what lawyers call "a slam dunk" and I am not convinced that the Lord Jesus would have me distracted away from what I am presently doing.
Please forgive my short tone. I don't wish it to be so. I just want to put it out plainly and firmly and promptly. I hope we can always have a friendly rapport, though, we disagree here.
May God persuade the readers of just those words that form wholesome doctrine through Christ our Teacher, yours & mine, and guide them towards the bountiful production of the fruit of the Spirit from their lives of obedience to Him,
Sincere thanks for your visit here, Kurt, and the respect to even consider a debate with me.