Tuesday , 2 September 2014

About Doug Hamp

  • http://www.randyrobison.com/ Randy Robison

    If a thousand is always literal, does God only have cattle on exactly one thousand hills? (Ps. 50:10) And does God only show his love to exactly one thousand generations and then something else? (Deuteronomy 5:10, 7:9; Exodus 20:6) I would think it obvious that it is not literal here. Why must it be literal in a book that arguably contains more symbolism than any other book?

  • DeWayne

    You will find that math theorem’s of the Hebrew period and the Greek period for quantitative (number), are no where near the same, nor do they have related basis of translation.
    Along with this there where various calendar’s in use, becoming more accurate as time passed. Equating the Hebrew in this issue of the popular Revelation-20 Latin ‘Millennium’, or the correct Greek “Chilioi”, would introduce error from the very beginning.
    Take for instance the Greek numeric “Chilioi” agreed by accredited scholar and theologian as being found in the earliest Greek manuscripts, this numeric is derived from the Greek math theorem base-10 (10x3rd power) as root “Chili”, as such stem-numeric “Chilia and Chilioi” would describe “Thousands”, and the Greek Chilioi etee then translates correctly as (plural) “Thousands Years.”
    Whether a word should be taken literally or figuratively has merit, however as in the case of Rev-20:1-7 and the Greek numeric “Chilioi” as used, this is a different matter. Here literal events (2) are being described, and both described as a (similar) duration. Quite evidently both are of “thousands” yet to be determined of ending, but said will end at Satan’s release. Unlike the Hebrew appearing always to involve precise ‘thousands’, that are more figurative than accurate, in the Greek period a very sophisticated method of describing sums and quantity had been developed.
    My advise to those studying the Word of God, check your English translation against original language, after much prayer… and try not to be surprised.

  • DeWayne

    Doug… There is one serious flaw with the English translation of the Greek numeric Chilioi/Chilias as ‘one thousand years’.
    The alpha-numeric ‘Chilioi’ is derived from a very sophisticated math theorem, base-10 as 10x3rd power, that represents the (unit) of plural thousands. Bible scripture validates this, where Chilioi/Chilias is found, additional numeric will also be found to express the sum within this unit of thousands. Also, scholar and theologian agree, it is Chilioi and not Chilias found in earliest manuscripts of 2 Peter 3:8, and Rev 20:1-7.
    The only exception, is when Chilioi is found used singularly without additional numeric for sum, this happening only eight times in the entire New Testament, 6-times in Rev 2-:1-7, and 2-times in 2 Peter 3:8.
    Please read my study/research into this Latin ‘Millennium’, misused and used primarily instead of the accurate Greek ‘Chilioi’ as found in this misleading (teaching) of a ‘Millennium:
    http://rtpricetag.home.comcast.net/~rtpricetag/Millennium.html
    We are in a time of considerable mis-teaching or false teaching, if you can find any significant error in my study/research, please advise with scripture correction. Lord guide…
    DeWayne Benson
    rtpricetag@comcast.net

  • DeWayne

    Whether reading the Greek ‘Chilai’ or ‘Chilioi’, neither is based upon language, instead upon the very sophisticted Greek math theorem of that period. These instead are alpha character representing base of ten theorem progressing to the numeric unit of ‘thousands’, unlike the later use by French who produced a modification with chacters ‘kilo’ to designate a singular ‘thousand’, similar to the (382AD) more famous translation into the Latin ‘Mile’.
    The Greek ‘Chilioi’ is instead admitted found in earliest manuscripts within Rev 20:1-7 and 2Peter 3:8, at some later time substituted with the Greek ‘Chilia’, in error believing it designated a single thousand. This confusion found in verse where ‘Chiliadea’ is translated as ‘thousands’, and in another verse this very same character group is translated as a single ‘thousand’.
    Literal and figurative understanding of the two events being called a Latin ‘millennium’ within Rev 20:1-7, it is clearly obvious these two event’s begin at two different periods of time (within this earth age), also both lasting two different time durations. The prophet Isaiah tells of Satan cast directly into the grave/Sheol, and pit/abyss, Chtrist tells of having seen Satan fall as lightening from heaven, and Apostle Paul telling of Satan ‘held back until revealed at the proper time’. Of the saints reigning with Christ, ask any saint if they believe they have a part within this first resurrection, and will not see the second death?
    Nreither Christ or the Apostles mention this Latin millennium, it in fac ist from origin of Jewish mystism in contradiction of Tanakh (Old Testament) and the New Testament, more in line with Reconstructionist, Dominionist, and others, looking forward to a short period when they will rule over a lesser people.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/DeWayne-Benson/100001902340083 DeWayne Benson

    What I believe permeates this Millennium (fixed thousand year reign of saints), is made possible by denying this present earth will be destroyed, and much of their imagination comes then from future promise of (Isa 65:17-19) a new (creations) of heaven, earth, and Jerusalem.
    The bible from Old to New Testaments declare this earth is to end in catastrophe (likened to the time of creation before man saw), about this the destruction the Apostle declares, ‘ Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be?’ Also regarding present Jerusalem, saying ‘For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come.’
    There is no where in the bible does it say (yet in this earth age) Christ will rule from Jerusalem. This is foretold and promised will happen in the New Jerusalem that comes down (or is revealed) from heaven, and is not for a thousand years but for eternity. About the end of last days with wars until the end, Christ and the heavenly army will conquer Satan, after released from the abyss that also lasted a math theorem described in Greek language of that time as ‘Chilioi/Thousands of Years’.

  • DeWayne

    Most bible scholar and theologian agree the original word in Rev 20:1-7 was Chilioi (adjective of plural article) and not Chilias (noun of plural article), and in none of these six mentioned is found a one preceeding as you state “(one is included in the word thousand in Greek).”
    Example of Xi/lias-Chilias (plural article) used properly is Rev 5:11 for “thousands and thousands of angels.” Were Chilias as a singular word in this case having letters added, it would not alter the original context of being a single rendering.
    That scribes translating the Greek word ‘Chilioi’ based upon the Math Theorem of that period rendered as “Thousands”, into an English word condenced as ‘thousand’, gives no more validity than the Latin translation into a Mille (fixed thousand).
    No where in the bible is taught a short thousand reign within this earthage, except the false messiah ‘gathering up’ his people for a 50th Week prophetic period… with exception of old Jewish mystics wanting to rule over others.

    • http://www.facebook.com/VindicateHisName Marcos C. Thaler

      Quit arguing DeWayne! The translators knew more than you on this matter. Don’t keep arguing!

      • Me

        Marcos

        Please do not impinge my faith in the Word (calling it arguing), that instead commands that I verify every spirit and word against Gods’ word.

        Marcos, if indeed you have found fault, please be specific. If I may ask, show me the error (against that in the bible), in what I have written as found to be true.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brian-Willis/1512961773 Brian Willis

    i do believe the thousand years are literal. god will make healing waters as it says and this will cure all those who drink it of adamic death (aging) and people wont die from old age. Judgement day is a thousand years. so many will have to go thru judgement day to be tested to see if they will accept rule under Jesus. After this thousand years has passed the devil will be let loose and mislead people again….the test is do you accept gods right to rule or do you love satans system of things…as the bible says the people who choose satans side are as numerous as the sands of the sea..

    • DeWayne

      The Greek pronounced the numeric “Chilioi” as (plural) Thousands, but you want to continue pronouncing with English inflection as a (singular) “Thousand”. Now at the writing of Rev-20, who was correct, you or John and the Greek’s?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lonni-Norton/886145315 Lonni Norton

    The “a” in “a thousand years” indicates “one” making it “a” literal thousand years. In another place where it says a hundred year old will die as a child(Isaiah 65:20), lending credance to a literal thousand year period of time for that to occur.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/DeWayne-Benson/100001902340083 DeWayne Benson

      The Old Testament is in Hebrew language, the NT in Greek, to interpret the New Testament use the Greek language and math theorem of that age.
      Language does not change a math theorem, this Greek ‘Xi/lia’ (Chilia) if a single thousand in math theorem, no matter how altered with additional letters would remain ‘singular thousand’, yet in Rev 5:11 describes correctly ‘thousands and thousands of angels’. The original Greek word found in Rev 20:1-7 was ‘Chilioi’, at a later date substituted with ‘Chilia’, you will note Strongs Greek-dictionary takes this Chilia but lists NT5507 ‘Chilioi’ as word used in Rev 20:1-7.
      Having an ‘a’ or ‘the’ before ‘thousands years’, leaves this thousands (undefined) number of thousands, regardless indicating more than one thousands.

      • Me

        The Greek ‘Chilioi’ is not a quantitative, it is simply a math theorem (Base-10, 10×3 power) that means (plural) ‘Thousands’. The quantitative of ‘events’ described in Rev-20 are found described in other places within the bible, and both are duration that exceeds one (1) thousand years… also not that “one thousand” is mentioned nowhere within Rev-20.

    • Me

      The character ‘a’ found in our English bible is an English translation concerning the Greek ‘Chilioi’, and not found in the original Greek, it was added to be grammatically understandable within the English language.
      The Hebrew and Greek languages must be understood as concerning the language and era in which they are found. It would unwise as the old saying in this respect, as to be comparing apples with oranges.
      Any mathematician familiar with Greek New Testament era math theorem of Base-10, concerning Chilioi as (10x3rd power), will identify this as meaning numeric (unit) of ‘Thousands’ (plural article), not our present day (Kilo) as a single ‘Thousand’.

    • DeWayne

      Did you even read Isaiah 65:20, telling about old men living at least to 100 years (before dying). You have listened to false teaching so long, you don’t even follow the admonition of the bible, to validate every spirit and word against God’s word the bible.

    • DeWayne

      Lonni Norton…
      You are quoting from an English translation of the Greek language, there is no “a” or “one” found in these verses that tell about the Greek “Chilioi etee”, or (plural) ‘Thousands Years.” There is much error transposed from the Latin Vulgate into English, and where “the” is found, they equate this as a sum, this is a scribe bias error (NT3588 ‘ta’), for it means no more in verse-8 describing when Satan is released, he will lead all (the/one) nations astray… that is foolishness and an obvious error.
      You will also find these scribes morphed the Greek “etee” (plural) “years” in Rev-20 to “ayears”, this corruption of verse changes nothing, the Greek “Chilioi” (10x3rd power) is pronounced (plural) “Thousands.”

  • Ludke

    This article doesn’t do justice to the overall debate.
    First, an appeal to Justin Martyr’s eschatology does not establish the
    existence of early Christian consensus on eschatology (let alone Revelation 20
    eschatology). Men then, just as now, were capable of interpreting the Bible
    incorrectly. And Justin Martyr did just that on a number of levels. Second,
    your appeal to the Septuagint stems from a presupposition in the field of
    linguistics (prescriptive linguistics to be more exact) in which precise,
    lexical (or etymological) analysis is assumed to establish the truth of
    something. Thus if John wrote in Greek, it’s to be the pure definitions of the
    Greek wordd that he used that will establish the truth of what he meant. This is
    why you turn to the Septuagint (of all translations) in search of your answer. The
    Septuagint’s many problems aside; this overlooks the reality that John’s Greek
    has strong Hebraic overtones (he essentially Hebraizes his Greek) in which he
    draws from rich Hebrew word pictures in the Old Testament and spreads it all
    throughout the Apocalypse. Since the Apocalypse of John is clearly Hebraic in
    tone then the 1000 years of Revelation 20 simply cannot be analyzed through the
    lens of the Septuagint’s use of the word. It must be analyzed through the rhetorical
    usage of this word in the Hebrew Old Testament. The “1000 years” is drawing
    from the hyperbolic expressions found in verses like Psalm 50:10: God owns the
    cattle on 1000 hills. Deuteronomy 1:11 … Israel multiplied by 1000. Deuteronomy
    7:9 … God loves to 1000 generations. Psalm 84:10 … a day in God’s courts is
    better than 1000 elsewhere. Are these uses of “1000″ literal or hyperbole? Does
    God not love past the 1001st generation, etc.? Since the Hebraic rhetoric
    here is clearly hyperbole, expressing a large number which appeals to immensity
    (like we use “thousands upon thousands” or “millions” in English) then why must
    it be assumed that the 1000 years of Revelation 20 is literal? It is the only
    place in the Bible in which the “millennium” is mentioned and yet it’s
    mentioned in the most highly symbolic book of Scripture written by a man who thinks,
    breathes, and dreams in Hebrew and yet writes in awkward Greek … and yet we
    stake our entire eschatologies on one small thread! Amillennialists and postmillennialists
    are not without warrant in interpreting this difficult passage in a non-literal
    sense. That doesn’t mean they’re automatically right, but they have very strong arguments in favor. Unfortunately for dispensational theology, if this verse isn’t literal than their entire system of prophetic futurism falls apart.

    • douglashamp

      Hmm, I studied Hebrew at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for three years. I think I might understand the Hebraic understanding just a bit. Furthermore, the rabbis talked about the seven thousand years of human history – it seems to me that John is confirming the Hebrew interpretation when he shared with us that it would be 1000 years. There is no reason to accept the figurative meaning and I demonstrate that in the article from both the New Testament and the Hebrew Scriptures, (I double checked the Hebrew, by the way).

      • Ludke

        No need to flash your credentials, I never questioned your understanding of Hebrew. But I do question your appeal to the Septuagint and your presuppositional focus on lexical precision as what establishes truth. Checking the Hebrew and Greek definitions of “a thousand” does nothing to further the understanding of the rhetorical, hyperbolic nature of the Scriptures I listed (which I believe John was drawing from). There are plenty of reasons to accept the figurative meaning, namely those verses and the overall thematic flow of the Apocalypse. I also have sincere doubts that John was appealing to Rabbinical tradition when writing that passage.

        • douglashamp

          Haha! You had me wondering – I wasn’t trying to flash…just so you know where I am coming from. I don’t think the Septuagint is better than the Hebrew – by no means. However, I sometimes refer to it for transparency.
          I was also not suggesting that John was following the Rabbis – just that they agree on the 1000 years being literal. Blessings!

          • Ludke

            Blessings on you as well. I enjoy your site and teachings,
            though not the dispensational aspects of your teachings (I sincerely believe in
            the postmillennial hope); and I admire and respect your solid education. I am a
            linguist and Bible translator myself and have a huge heart for good, Biblical
            exegesis. This is why I am passionate about addressing the subject of
            linguistic analysis of Biblical languages with regards to exegesis. Forgive me
            if I’ve come across rudely, I mean well. English orthography just doesn’t convey
            the nuances of our tones and feelings.

            Now imagine, if you will, an historical twist for the sake
            of analogy. It’s not long after the ascension of Christ and the lingua franca
            of the Mediterranean region is English while the predominant language in the
            Land of Israel is Hebrew. You’re Luke, a highly educated native English speaker
            who appreciates good colloquialisms, and you’re penning your soon to be
            renowned gospel. The Apostles have just finished telling you the story about
            the time when Jesus nearly made their boats sink with a huge number of fish
            (Luke 5). Their story was quite lively and animated, especially when they
            emphasized the vast number of fish that they had netted. You speak excellent Hebrew,
            so you understand the nuances of the hyperbole they’re conveying. So you write
            Luke 5:6 for the English-speaking world, “And when they had let down their
            nets, they caught a ton of fish, so much so that their nets were breaking.” You
            think to yourself how well “a ton” conveys, in English, the Apostles’ hyperbole
            (Luke actually used “πληθος πολυ” (“a large plethora”) in the Greek).

            Now let’s fast forward 2,000 years. The native English you
            spoke has now become a dead, academic language. People study it in
            universities, scholars write doctoral dissertations on it, and linguists analyze
            it to the nth degree. A scholar decides to write a detailed exegesis on Luke 5.
            When she reaches Luke 5:6, she does a thorough word study in the original
            English. She reads the word “ton” and deduces that you were trying to convey a
            precise measurement of fish. So she researches the units of measure that were used
            in your time. She finds that “a ton” could mean either 1,016 kg or 907 kg
            depending on the region in which you lived. She deduces that you lived in the
            region in which 1,016 kg was the standard. Thus, because “a ton” lexically means
            1,016 kg, she exegetes that the apostles had caught approximately, if not
            precisely, 1,016 kg of fish.

            What happened? She’s lexically right, but totally off the
            mark. Somehow the idiomatic nuances of “a ton” in English were lost in time. If
            she had researched other texts of that time and found that “a ton” was colloquially
            used as hyperbole to express vastness, then she could have correctly exegeted
            your passage. You see, you could have even used the English colloquialism “a
            lot” and she likely would have gone down the rabbit trail of defining “lot” as
            a precise measurement of land or parcels. Or we could take this a step further;
            perhaps I wasn’t a native English speaker when I penned that verse. Perhaps I
            was thinking in Hebrew and trying to translate it into awkward English. Thus,
            what I intended as hyperbole I translated too literally into a language in
            which I only had cursory understanding. How would that confuse things?

            The point of this analogy is this: Language use, at any time
            in history, is full of rich, idiomatic nuance. If you’re a scholar analyzing
            thousands-of-years-old, dead languages (with exhaustive lexicons and
            morphologies) you must overcome the tendency to imagine that the writer of
            every text you come across in that language was completely fluent, extremely
            literal, and/or never used idiomatic colloquialisms… as though they had a
            dictionary in their hand every time they wrote a word. That ancient language
            was once the heart language and even the second/third language of lively,
            fallible people and not the precise, mechanical reconstructions found in
            textbooks. Thus, to correctly exegete the phrases we encounter in the Bible, we
            must look deeply into the colloquial usages of those phrases and especially at
            the linguistic upbringing and ability of that writer. At this point in time, to
            make any step forward in Biblical scholarship, we must move away from
            prescriptive linguistics (analysis of correct language) to descriptive
            linguistics (analysis of language use) when exegeting Biblical languages. The Bible
            simply was not written in a vacuum.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6INBV6YTSVRNMTKNMQBZG3UDBY Steven

            Yawn, it says a thousand years, done. I’m gonna go mow the lawn now… You could be studying something more important, but instead here you are trying to say the basketball isn’t a sphere because it has flat spots. Give me a break, you want something to ponder, to analyze pointlessly endlessly, go try your hand at just what the heck brahman is, hindus would love a guy like you. Seriously read this for 2 hours then thank God he made the Bible simple unlike this nonsense:
            http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv01001.htm

          • http://www.facebook.com/patrick.tolbert.1968 Patrick Tolbert

            @Steven: Wow…where is the “Like” button on here so I can hit it a “thousand” times!!! ;-)

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/DeWayne-Benson/100001902340083 DeWayne Benson

            Considering textual errors within original languages of the bible, of little import next to the vast teaching (interpretation) errors of same, what does my heart exceedingly good, is that it is the HS within that enables spiritually discerning the word… and I agree in own opinion of course, God made the word simple to understand if the HS within.

          • DeWayne

            Steven, re- ‘it says a thousand years’…
            In fact the Greek ‘alpha-numeric’ agreed by scholar and theologian being found in earliest manuscripts, was ‘Chilioi’ that does (not) translate as one (singular) ‘thousand’.
            The Greek of that era pronounced Chilioi as (plural) Thousands, the proper translation of the two separate Revelation 20:1-7 ‘Chilioi’ is “Thousands (plural) Years (plural)”, or Thousands (of) years.
            The Greek ‘Chilioi as also Chilias’ are the product of Greek math theorem Base-10 (10x3rd-power), representing the numeric (unit) of ‘thousands’, requiring additional numeric to designate the sum within this thousands… check out your New Testament for validity. 2 Peter 3:8 and Revelation 20:1-7 are the (only) places where Chilioi is found alone, by itself, without added numeric sum describing what sum is involved in these (two) Chilioi ‘Thousands… again check the NT and original Greek to verify that I am telling you the truth.

          • http://www.facebook.com/patrick.tolbert.1968 Patrick Tolbert

            Your argument dies on the fact that Revelation was written by God, not John. John was just the utensil God used. All of this forcing some symbolic meaning over the top of the plain text is simply a way to undermine God as being smart enough to tell us what He means. I can’t wait for the day when all the self-proclaimed “smart people” of the world finally come face to face with how wrong we all were about most of what we thought! The only true knowledge that any of us have is that revealed to us by God. Everything else is simply a guess. Therefore, when God says “a thousand years,” I’m going to take it as face value. If you truly believe as one of the little ones (so that you may enter the Kingdom of Heaven), you will read what God says and take it on faith that He actually might know what He’s talking about…

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6INBV6YTSVRNMTKNMQBZG3UDBY Steven

            I’m wondering if you’ve seen this, but I’ve noticed the liberal mindset likes to disprove entire concepts using like, benign discrepancies. For instance, we might say marriage is created around procreation, but they will point out instances where people are together in a relationship yet unable to reproduce as their way of taking apart the whole marriage concept. But as Alan Keyes stated in a debate with Obama (on YT), just because there’s a worm in the apple does not mean it is no longer an apple…

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/DeWayne-Benson/100001902340083 DeWayne Benson

            If God told me ‘write this down’, I would no doubt be like John and David, at some confusion to describe in few words what people of the time would understand… without the HS within.

          • DeWayne

            God inspired… man wrote… and others altered text. Thankfully it requires the HS making possible spiritual discernment of God’s (truth), despite works of Satans servants.

            It is not God’s text that is inerrant, it is God’s Word.

          • DeWayne

            Patrick Tolbert….

            Thank God…
            1 Cor 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

          • DeWayne

            Consider this, the Latin Millennium translation of the Greek (numeric) Chilioi, was pronounced by the Greek and others using the Greek numeric system, pronounced as (plural) “Thousands”. Want to read my study and research proving John was identifying a undefined “Thousands” (of) years, read my webpage in above post.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/DeWayne-Benson/100001902340083 DeWayne Benson

            In the time of John as I understand, the title of rabbi was honorific, there being no ordination or method of establishing a religious ‘rabbi’ at that time.

          • DeWayne

            douglashamp….
            A group called “Hasten The Light Ministry” have done an excellent work from historical documents from scholar and theologian. In this document they show quite concise data that among those that rejected what is called ‘Millennium’ theology’ of today, were among those rejecting this teaching (concerning 1st century man called Cerinthus), John the Apostle was one rejecting this old Hebrew story from mysticism. A few mystics taught that a ‘man’ would come, magically kill all their enemies, and make them ruler over all remaining humanity… the very opposite of the teaching’s of Christ.

        • DeWayne

          At the time of John writing the book of Revelation, the term rabi was simply a honorific title, later the scribes turned Pharasee began ordaining a religious ‘Rabi’.

          Christ was once called a rabi (honorific), but was clear in purpose perhaps prophetic commanding we ‘call no one rabi, as we have but one Master’.
          This above term much like the confusing English word ‘Jew or Jewish’, found in no manuscript or Bible before the 18th century, the people of the land during Christ’s ministry were the House of Judah (primarily tribes of Judah and Benjamin), and Christ speaking then of Judah, Judean, Judaean.

        • DeWayne

          John as from the House of Judah (2-tribes), were those that had returned to the land after decades of learning from the Greek Empire. In that period they had become quite sophisticated. This era around the period that much developed that is still in use today.
          Hebrew writings must be gone into quite differently than the Greek of the New Covenant. Hebrew numeric are quite different from that of more modern Greek math theorem, so the Old Testament needs be read for that period and people, the New Testament needs be read for that period and people. In Christ’s time of ministry, after those speaking in tongues to the people used many languages, however within Jerusalem and close proximity, it is doubtful they had all re-adopted the Hebrew language.
          One error of Christians, is accepting the teachings of the Old Testament, much taken out of context, and ignoring the much different use by Christ in the New Testament.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/DeWayne-Benson/100001902340083 DeWayne Benson

        It is not the understanding of Hebrew concerning this New Testament book/chapter/verse of Revelation 20:1-7, it is the Greek language and math theorem of that time that is important.
        Just as important is the origin and peoples of this time and after concerning (todays) Latin Millennium.
        For documentation and research of the original Greek word ‘Chilioi’ found in original manuscript, the following group in their webpage do an excellent presentation, check out:
        http://www.scionofzion.com/ehmt.htm

      • DeWayne

        John did not ‘share a thousand years’ in his writng of Rev 20:1-7, the Greek ‘Chilioi’ used by John according to Greek math theorem (also said an adjective of plural artical, or this article being plural), clearly speaks of a plural numeric, being ‘Thousands’.

        The later substitution of the Greek Chilioi replaced with the Greek ‘Chilia’, exemplifies the confusion begun when Pope Domasis in 382AD commissioned St Jerome to translate Biblial Greek into a Latin language, and Jerome selecting a Latin (fixed) ‘Mile’. Certainly Hebrew mystics taugh a similar ‘ruling over lesser people when a mysterious messiah (man) killed off all their enemies’, and the result of this contradiction of Tanakh historially evident as found in the entire Bible.

        A more accurate English translation of the (two) Rev 20::1-7 events, would be that during this earth age two different events beginning at two different time periods and lastimg two different time durations, translates as eqach lasting “Thousands of Year’.

      • DeWayne

        The New Testament book of Revelations 20:1-7 were not written in Hebrew, but Greek, and the mistranslated Greek numeric ‘Chilioi’ is agreed among accredited scholar and theologian was found, not Chilia or Millennium.

        The Greek in this era pronounced Chilioi as ‘Thousands’, being a base-10 (10x3rd power) multiple standing for the unit of Thousands.

        If you want in depth study proving Rev 20:1-7 speak of two (on) events as a single period (thousands of years), read my full study and research at:

        http(colon and double slash)rtpricetag(dot)home(dot)Comcast(dot)net(slash)~rtpricetag(slash)Millennium(dot)html

      • DeWayne

        douglashamp…
        Besides many rabbi (my master) teachings, it would be good to study further what Christ said of ‘my master’, also some of historic of Pharisee “editing’ the Old Tanakh or Testament.
        Those with a HEX-star on a Jewish prayer shawl, seem to vary from what those priests of the Menorah taught (of God), one predominant was to live in peace’

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lonni-Norton/886145315 Lonni Norton

      In all cases where “the” thousand years, “a” thousand years, “a day”, “to” both in Greek, Hebrew and even the Greek translation of the Hebrew Text, Septuagint(which means a literal Seventy)indicates “one” for the thousand years. If it were not so then thousands can easily be used as it is done elsewhere. Striving to symbolizes a literal is simply an attempt to dilute the absolutes of Gods Word.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/DeWayne-Benson/100001902340083 DeWayne Benson

        The Greek math theorem of the time you are describing was base of ten, having units of ten’s, hundred’s, thousand’s, and so on. Because in English we express this ‘Thousands’ as a simple thousand, does not change the literal (numeric) and symbolic (mythology) of that time.
        Did you know that the Greek ‘mega’ that comes from megas having besides a literal numeric value
        also means “great.” The Greek ‘giga’ having a literal numeric value comes from
        gigas and also means “giant.” The Greek ‘tera’ comes from teras having a literal
        numeric value and also means “monster.” These words then have both literal
        numeric value, yet also have symbolic value or meaning.
        The English language would have better followed the bible (NT) interpretation, had not some scribe or person deciding to replace the original ‘Chilioi’ of verses you’ve mentioned, with the Greek Chilia (plural noun) thinking it meant a single thousand.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/DeWayne-Benson/100001902340083 DeWayne Benson

        Many claim within the two events (Millennium) of Rev 20:1-7, are found stated “a”, or “one”, before this Greek numeric ‘Chilioi’, but validating this with Lexicon and original Greek, this claim is found not to exist. This ‘Chilioi’ in Greek expressed as a (plural) Thousands is not found with “a’, there is a “the’, preceding, however in no way quantifies “thousand(s) years”, leaving this undefined Greek ‘thousands; to be any number of thousands… read Isaiah 14:12-15, you will find Satan thousands of years ago was cast into the grave (Sheol) and pit (Abyss), Rev 12:10 will tell you that Satan cast from heaven (once only) began salvation… and authority of Christ

    • DeWayne

      Ludke….
      I would add, Revelation chapter-20 describes two (2) separate events, that in context of the entire bible, involve two different beginnings, and both lasting two different durations, however an (open ended) ‘Chilioi’ describe both different events. It is more than evident they occur somewhat different times, and last definitely different durations, however both ending at the exact time. Is it the reign of saints with Christ that ends, definitely not, what ends is the times of these two events, and as I’ve pointed out according the Greek math theorem (Chilioi being from root 10x3rd power), tells only of (plural) “thousands years.” Remembering those (born again) resurrected (dead in spirit), they will reign with Christ forever… Satan’s fate described as “Death & Hades” (Satan and his lost souls) is otherwise.

  • Richard

    Good article Doug. It did bring up a related matter in my mind. John referred to three and a half years in the book of Revelations as “time, times and half a time”. Why not just plainly say: “three and a half years”? Is there some special significance to this phrase?

    • Peter

      Hi Richard,
      John also referred to the same period as 1260 days and 42 months. I think that he is just using three different ways to emphasize the same time period so that we know that it is a literal 3.5 years. This is my opinion.

      • Richard

        Thanks for the input Peter. I’m kind of shocked to have only one up vote vs. three down votes for asking a simple question though. LOL!

        • Jay Yeakley–Woodland Park, CO

          Richard, I’ve learned not to be shocked, but I often still am disgusted at people who search the Scriptures for something–I’m not sure what–but clearly have no faith in the Grace of God. Your question seems so obviously sincere and simply put. Thank you for asking it and thank you Peter for a gracious reply.

      • DeWayne

        The 1260 days or 3 1/2 years is connected to further verse such as measuring the temple, also the(other) souls John was asked to identify, upon which Jouh being unaware the angel sayting ‘these are they coming out of the Great Tribulation’.

        Siince these yet living needed remain faithful unto the 1335 days (just past the 1260-days or 3 1/2 years) before being caught up from the earth, it is evident the ‘Great Tribulations’ is the first 3 1/2 years, continued afterwards with desolations of Wrath ending in final judgment.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers: