8 days, the 8th day leading to a new beginning.

[Davidpt]

As we already know, Amils insist the millennium pertains to the here and now.

What I am thinking is this, though. There are 7 days in a week and that the 8th day is always a new beginning of a new week.

Sunday--day 1 of the week
Monday--day 2 of the week
Tuesday--day 3 of the week
Wednesday--day 4 of the week
Thursday--day 5 of the week
Friday--day 6 of the week
Saturday--day 7 of the week
Sunday--day 1 of a new week, thus 8 days later.

By Amils insisting that the millennium is now and that when Christ returns the new and final beginning of a new era commences, they are implying that day 7 is a new beginning not day 8. Except day 7 can't be a new beginning if it is the end of the week rather than the beginning of a new week.

Apparently, if assuming days to be involving a thousand years, we are in day 6 since the fall of man. And that it is not logical that day 6 and day 7 can parallel one another. It can't be both at the same time. Which means their view is even more absurd than I initially thought, because, when Christ returns can't even be meaning the 7th day if they are already applying the 7th day to the here and now. And it for sure can't be meaning the 8th day since everyone already knows that 7 comes after 6, not 8.

I don't know what it is about some of these interpreters at times, that they can't even comprehend simple basic math? As if any week can only consist of 6 days rather than 7 days, and that 2 of these days are meaning the same day, meaning day 6 and 7 in this case, and that day 8 comes after day 6 rather than day 7. Nowhere in the Bible that I am aware of does day 7 ever mean a new beginning. But that doesn't even matter in this case since Amils are having day 6 and 7 run in parallel rather than following one another. Their view has to be one of the most absurd views there is, right up there along with Pretrib, for example. Not that Amil and Pretrib have anything in common theologically, but that both views are absurd and make no logical sense.

 

[WPM]

As we already know, Amils insist the millennium pertains to the here and now.

What I am thinking is this, though. There are 7 days in a week and that the 8th day is always a new beginning of a new week.

Sunday--day 1 of the week
Monday--day 2 of the week
Tuesday--day 3 of the week
Wednesday--day 4 of the week
Thursday--day 5 of the week
Friday--day 6 of the week
Saturday--day 7 of the week
Sunday--day 1 of a new week, thus 8 days later.

By Amils insisting that the millennium is now and that when Christ returns the new and final beginning of a new era commences, they are implying that day 7 is a new beginning not day 8. Except day 7 can't be a new beginning if it is the end of the week rather than the beginning of a new week.

Apparently, if assuming days to be involving a thousand years, we are in day 6 since the fall of man. And that it is not logical that day 6 and day 7 can parallel one another. It can't be both at the same time. Which means their view is even more absurd than I initially thought, because, when Christ returns can't even be meaning the 7th day if they are already applying the 7th day to the here and now. And it for sure can't be meaning the 8th day since everyone already knows that 7 comes after 6, not 8.

I don't know what it is about some of these interpreters at times, that they can't even comprehend simple basic math? As if any week can only consist of 6 days rather than 7 days, and that 2 of these days are meaning the same day, meaning day 6 and 7 in this case, and that day 8 comes after day 6 rather than day 7. Nowhere in the Bible that I am aware of does day 7 ever mean a new beginning. But that doesn't even matter in this case since Amils are having day 6 and 7 run in parallel rather than following one another. Their view has to be one of the most absurd views there is, right up there along with Pretrib, for example. Not that Amil and Pretrib have anything in common theologically, but that both views are absurd and make no logical sense.

What has this to do with the Bible? Absolutely nothing. Just more bias and non-objective theological ramblings from you, with zero biblical basis!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

As we already know, Amils insist the millennium pertains to the here and now.

What I am thinking is this, though. There are 7 days in a week and that the 8th day is always a new beginning of a new week.

Sunday--day 1 of the week
Monday--day 2 of the week
Tuesday--day 3 of the week
Wednesday--day 4 of the week
Thursday--day 5 of the week
Friday--day 6 of the week
Saturday--day 7 of the week
Sunday--day 1 of a new week, thus 8 days later.

By Amils insisting that the millennium is now and that when Christ returns the new and final beginning of a new era commences, they are implying that day 7 is a new beginning not day 8. Except day 7 can't be a new beginning if it is the end of the week rather than the beginning of a new week.

Apparently, if assuming days to be involving a thousand years, we are in day 6 since the fall of man. And that it is not logical that day 6 and day 7 can parallel one another. It can't be both at the same time. Which means their view is even more absurd than I initially thought, because, when Christ returns can't even be meaning the 7th day if they are already applying the 7th day to the here and now. And it for sure can't be meaning the 8th day since everyone already knows that 7 comes after 6, not 8.

I don't know what it is about some of these interpreters at times, that they can't even comprehend simple basic math? As if any week can only consist of 6 days rather than 7 days, and that 2 of these days are meaning the same day, meaning day 6 and 7 in this case, and that day 8 comes after day 6 rather than day 7. Nowhere in the Bible that I am aware of does day 7 ever mean a new beginning. But that doesn't even matter in this case since Amils are having day 6 and 7 run in parallel rather than following one another. Their view has to be one of the most absurd views there is, right up there along with Pretrib, for example. Not that Amil and Pretrib have anything in common theologically, but that both views are absurd and make no logical sense.

This is possibly the most ridiculous post I've ever seen. It's unbelievably ironic for you to claim that Amil makes no logical sense, when nothing in your entire post makes any logical sense, at least in relation to the Amil vs. Premil debate. You have obviously run out of ways to try to disprove Amil with scripture, so you have decided to resort to this absolute nonsense instead. No scripture to be found in your post at all. Just a bunch of incoherent nonsense that has nothing to do with the Amil vs. Premil debate at all. Sad.

 

[ScottA]

As we already know, Amils insist the millennium pertains to the here and now.

What I am thinking is this, though. There are 7 days in a week and that the 8th day is always a new beginning of a new week.

Sunday--day 1 of the week
Monday--day 2 of the week
Tuesday--day 3 of the week
Wednesday--day 4 of the week
Thursday--day 5 of the week
Friday--day 6 of the week
Saturday--day 7 of the week
Sunday--day 1 of a new week, thus 8 days later.

By Amils insisting that the millennium is now and that when Christ returns the new and final beginning of a new era commences, they are implying that day 7 is a new beginning not day 8. Except day 7 can't be a new beginning if it is the end of the week rather than the beginning of a new week.

Apparently, if assuming days to be involving a thousand years, we are in day 6 since the fall of man. And that it is not logical that day 6 and day 7 can parallel one another. It can't be both at the same time. Which means their view is even more absurd than I initially thought, because, when Christ returns can't even be meaning the 7th day if they are already applying the 7th day to the here and now. And it for sure can't be meaning the 8th day since everyone already knows that 7 comes after 6, not 8.

I don't know what it is about some of these interpreters at times, that they can't even comprehend simple basic math? As if any week can only consist of 6 days rather than 7 days, and that 2 of these days are meaning the same day, meaning day 6 and 7 in this case, and that day 8 comes after day 6 rather than day 7. Nowhere in the Bible that I am aware of does day 7 ever mean a new beginning. But that doesn't even matter in this case since Amils are having day 6 and 7 run in parallel rather than following one another. Their view has to be one of the most absurd views there is, right up there along with Pretrib, for example. Not that Amil and Pretrib have anything in common theologically, but that both views are absurd and make no logical sense.

David,

There is some logic to your observations stated above, but you are speculating. All good, but not conclusive and not completely accurate.

The model to follow and consider is the seven days of creation, wherein the seventh day is a day of rest. Meaning, those who are to enter into God's rest have done so, and rest in Him...for evermore.

The eight day is provided in the scriptures to describe and show that: Even following the time of all who are to enter into God's rest have done so, there is to be a "convocation"--a reading of the books.

That's it.

There is more to be said about the seventh day...and there is (it is written), but the model is six days of labor in approaching the rest of God, the seventh day referring to eternity, and the eighth day foretelling the reading following the Judgement.

 

[Davidpt]

What has this to do with the Bible? Absolutely nothing. Just more bias and non-objective theological ramblings from you, with zero biblical basis!

As the OP plainly shows, there are 7 days involved during a week. The 7th day, the last day of the week is never the beginning of a new week, it is always the end of the present week. Currently we are approaching day 7 and that 7 days have to be fulfilled before there can be an eighth day. 8 does not come after 6, 7 does. 6 and 7 never mean the same day on any calendar, and surely you already know that.

The logic is then this unless Amils can undeniably prove that almost an entire 6k years haven't taken place since the fall of man through now. Undeniably proving that it is not based on opinion, but has to be based on numbers that can be verified and shown from the Bible itself that from the time of the fall it hasn't been almost a full 6k years, that it has been far far longer, such as 10k years, for example. Clearly, if that much time, for example, has passed since the fall of man through now, there goes all of my arguments out the window then. Except I'm not going to accept anyone's word for it unless they can undeniably prove it with numbers from the Bible itself.

Unless you're willing and able to do all of that spare us the opinions in the meantime since opinions alone tend to prove nothing.

The OP is trying to show by analogy that the 7th day of any week is never the beginning of a new week. It is always the end of the present week. And that day 6 and 7 can never mean the same day, and that day 7 follows day 6, day 6 being what we are presently in since the fall of man. Therefore, if day 8 is a new beginning it can't be meaning at the end of this age since day 7 has to precede day 8, and that day 7 on any calendar always means the end of a week, never the beginning of a new week. If you can't figure out that logic then I guess I can't help you. That would be a personal problem you need to work out yourself.

 

[Marty fox]

As we already know, Amils insist the millennium pertains to the here and now.

What I am thinking is this, though. There are 7 days in a week and that the 8th day is always a new beginning of a new week.

Sunday--day 1 of the week
Monday--day 2 of the week
Tuesday--day 3 of the week
Wednesday--day 4 of the week
Thursday--day 5 of the week
Friday--day 6 of the week
Saturday--day 7 of the week
Sunday--day 1 of a new week, thus 8 days later.

By Amils insisting that the millennium is now and that when Christ returns the new and final beginning of a new era commences, they are implying that day 7 is a new beginning not day 8. Except day 7 can't be a new beginning if it is the end of the week rather than the beginning of a new week.

Apparently, if assuming days to be involving a thousand years, we are in day 6 since the fall of man. And that it is not logical that day 6 and day 7 can parallel one another. It can't be both at the same time. Which means their view is even more absurd than I initially thought, because, when Christ returns can't even be meaning the 7th day if they are already applying the 7th day to the here and now. And it for sure can't be meaning the 8th day since everyone already knows that 7 comes after 6, not 8.

I don't know what it is about some of these interpreters at times, that they can't even comprehend simple basic math? As if any week can only consist of 6 days rather than 7 days, and that 2 of these days are meaning the same day, meaning day 6 and 7 in this case, and that day 8 comes after day 6 rather than day 7. Nowhere in the Bible that I am aware of does day 7 ever mean a new beginning. But that doesn't even matter in this case since Amils are having day 6 and 7 run in parallel rather than following one another. Their view has to be one of the most absurd views there is, right up there along with Pretrib, for example. Not that Amil and Pretrib have anything in common theologically, but that both views are absurd and make no logical sense.

I have no idea why you posted this it has nothing to do with scripture nothing like this is in the scriptures at all that’s why you have no scripture in it

Why do you assume the six day theory when there is no date to Adam and Eves beginning?

The reason why it isn,t in the bible is because it doesn’t matter the same with Christ birth and death, it doesn't matter when Jesus was born or died all that matters is that it happened

 

[Davidpt]

I have no idea why you posted this it has nothing to do with scripture nothing like this is in the scriptures at all that’s why you have no scripture in it

Yet it has everything to do with Scripture except some of you are too doctrinally biased to have noticed.

Why do you assume the six day theory when there is no date to Adam and Eves beginning?

How is that even logical that no one can determine the day of his creation when all one has to do is simply find a verifiable date then count backwards from that until we arrive at Adam? Not to mention, when Adam was created the flood happened a certain time later. We can then know from that how many years have passed from Adam to the time of the flood. We determinie all of that via info like such.

Genesis 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:

We clearly know from that, that from the time Adam was created until he died, 930 years elasped. we then know from this that 130 years elasped since Adam was created when he begat Seth. And that 235 years have elasped since the creation of Adam when Seth begat Enos.

So on and so on since I'm not going to bother going through everyone up unto the flood unless one wants me to. Otherwise I'm not going to bore everyone with the details of how much time has elasped since the creation of Adam up unto the flood, where birth and death records, such as the above, clearly help us determine how much time elasped.

And if we can determine that per birth and death records as to how much time elsped from Adam to the flood, surely we can do something similar in order to determine how much time from the flood to that of the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ back into heaven.

After that we don't need any more birth and death records, or any kind of records to determine how much time has elasped since the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ back into heaven through now. It will be obvious how much time has elasped. Then it's just a matter of adding all those together in order to determine how much time has elasped since the creation of Adam through now.

 

[Marty fox]

Yet it has everything to do with Scripture except some of you are too doctrinally biased to have noticed.




How is that even logical that no one can determine the day of his creation when all one has to do is simply find a verifiable date then count backwards from that until we arrive at Adam? Not to mention, when Adam was created the flood happened a certain time later. We can then know from that how many years have passed from Adam to the time of the flood. We determinie all of that via info like such.

Genesis 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:

We clearly know from that, that from the time Adam was created until he died, 930 years elasped. we then know from this that 130 years elasped since Adam was created when he begat Seth. And that 235 years have elasped since the creation of Adam when Seth begat Enos.

So on and so on since I'm not going to bother going through everyone up unto the flood unless one wants me to. Otherwise I'm not going to bore everyone with the details of how much time has elasped since the creation of Adam up unto the flood, where birth and death records, such as the above, clearly help us determine how much time elasped.

And if we can determine that per birth and death records as to how much time elsped from Adam to the flood, surely we can do something similar in order to determine how much time from the flood to that of the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ back into heaven.

After that we don't need any more birth and death records, or any kind of records to determine how much time has elasped since the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ back into heaven through now. It will be obvious how much time has elasped. Then it's just a matter of adding all those together in order to determine how much time has elasped since the creation of Adam through now.

You missed the point, it has nothing to do with scripture because the date is not in scripture it doesn’t matter all that matters is that time started in Genesis 1:1

Its the same with no date given for Jesus birth it’s not in scripture because it doesn’t matter what date He was born all that matters is that Jesus was born

This post doesn’t matter because a seven day theory isn’t in the scriptures it’s all just speculation

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

As the OP plainly shows, there are 7 days involved during a week. The 7th day, the last day of the week is never the beginning of a new week, it is always the end of the present week.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the Amil vs. Premil debate.

Currently we are approaching day 7

What are you talking about here? Are you talking about day 7 of this week? You couldn't be more vague if you tried. Explain what you're talking about and what exactly it has to do with the Amil vs. Premil debate.

and that 7 days have to be fulfilled before there can be an eighth day. 8 does not come after 6, 7 does. 6 and 7 never mean the same day on any calendar, and surely you already know that.

What 8th day are you talking about? You are doing nothing at all to clarify what in the world your point is here. So, please clarify what your point is. What 8th day are you referring to and what does it have to do with Amil and Premil?

The logic is then this unless Amils can undeniably prove that almost an entire 6k years haven't taken place since the fall of man through now.

LOL. Who has made that claim and what does that have to do with Amil vs. Premil?

Undeniably proving that it is not based on opinion, but has to be based on numbers that can be verified and shown from the Bible itself that from the time of the fall it hasn't been almost a full 6k years, that it has been far far longer, such as 10k years, for example.

Are you arguing Amil vs. Premil or the age of the earth? This is truly baffling as to how you think you're making some kind of argument for Premil here and against Amil.

Clearly, if that much time, for example, has passed since the fall of man through now, there goes all of my arguments out the window then. Except I'm not going to accept anyone's word for it unless they can undeniably prove it with numbers from the Bible itself.

Has someone claimed that it has been 10,000 years from the time of the fall? Why are you even talking about this and what does it have to do with the Amil vs. Premil debate?

The OP is trying to show by analogy that the 7th day of any week is never the beginning of a new week.

Did anyone say otherwise? How does this relate to the Amil vs. Premil debate exactly?

It is always the end of the present week.

Yeah. And? Is anyone saying otherwise? This has to be the strangest argument in relation to Amil vs. Premil that I've ever seen.

And that day 6 and 7 can never mean the same day, and that day 7 follows day 6, day 6 being what we are presently in since the fall of man.

Who is saying that day 6 and 7 are the same day?

Therefore, if day 8 is a new beginning it can't be meaning at the end of this age since day 7 has to precede day 8, and that day 7 on any calendar always means the end of a week, never the beginning of a new week. If you can't figure out that logic then I guess I can't help you. That would be a personal problem you need to work out yourself.

LOL. You have no idea how ridiculous your argument is coming across here. Are you just playing some kind of practical joke here? Did you finally conclude that you can't refute Amil with scripture, so you decided to come up with this incoherent argument instead that is not from scripture?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You missed the point, it has nothing to do with scripture because the date is not in scripture it doesn’t matter all that matters is that time started in Genesis 1:1

Its the same with no date given for Jesus birth it’s not in scripture because it doesn’t matter what date He was born all that matters is that Jesus was born

This post doesn’t matter because a seven day theory isn’t in the scriptures it’s all just speculation

If you have any idea of what his point is in this thread in relation to Amil vs. Premil, please fill me in. Because I can't make any sense out of anything he's saying in this thread as it relates to Amil vs. Premil. As far as I can tell, he's just looking to debate the age of the earth instead, which has nothing to do with Amil vs. Premil.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

As we already know, Amils insist the millennium pertains to the here and now.

What I am thinking is this, though. There are 7 days in a week and that the 8th day is always a new beginning of a new week.

Sunday--day 1 of the week
Monday--day 2 of the week
Tuesday--day 3 of the week
Wednesday--day 4 of the week
Thursday--day 5 of the week
Friday--day 6 of the week
Saturday--day 7 of the week
Sunday--day 1 of a new week, thus 8 days later.

By Amils insisting that the millennium is now and that when Christ returns the new and final beginning of a new era commences, they are implying that day 7 is a new beginning not day 8. Except day 7 can't be a new beginning if it is the end of the week rather than the beginning of a new week.

Apparently, if assuming days to be involving a thousand years, we are in day 6 since the fall of man. And that it is not logical that day 6 and day 7 can parallel one another. It can't be both at the same time. Which means their view is even more absurd than I initially thought, because, when Christ returns can't even be meaning the 7th day if they are already applying the 7th day to the here and now. And it for sure can't be meaning the 8th day since everyone already knows that 7 comes after 6, not 8.

I don't know what it is about some of these interpreters at times, that they can't even comprehend simple basic math? As if any week can only consist of 6 days rather than 7 days, and that 2 of these days are meaning the same day, meaning day 6 and 7 in this case, and that day 8 comes after day 6 rather than day 7. Nowhere in the Bible that I am aware of does day 7 ever mean a new beginning. But that doesn't even matter in this case since Amils are having day 6 and 7 run in parallel rather than following one another. Their view has to be one of the most absurd views there is, right up there along with Pretrib, for example. Not that Amil and Pretrib have anything in common theologically, but that both views are absurd and make no logical sense.

I'd like to make an argument that's as strong as the argument you made in this post.

1 + 1 = 2
2 + 2 = 4
4 + 4 = 8

Clearly, this proves that Premil is completely absurd and makes no logical sense. Good luck trying to refute this argument.

 

[Marty fox]

If you have any idea of what his point is in this thread in relation to Amil vs. Premil, please fill me in. Because I can't make any sense out of anything he's saying in this thread as it relates to Amil vs. Premil. As far as I can tell, he's just looking to debate the age of the earth instead, which has nothing to do with Amil vs. Premil.

I really have no idea of what he is talking about or even what it has to do with premillennialism or amil either, I was just saying that what ever his point was doesn’t matter because his so call dates aren’t important because there not in the scriptures

 

[Davidpt]

You missed the point, it has nothing to do with scripture because the date is not in scripture it doesn’t matter all that matters is that time started in Genesis 1:1

Its the same with no date given for Jesus birth it’s not in scripture because it doesn’t matter what date He was born all that matters is that Jesus was born

This post doesn’t matter because a seven day theory isn’t in the scriptures it’s all just speculation

And you miss the point as well if it has indeed been almost an entire 6k years since Adam was created and that Christ returns, say within the next 50 years, that then can't be a coincidence, therefore, there has to be something to this 7 day theory in question.

When Christ died then rose, for example, He rose on the 8th day not the 7th day. Sunday is not the 7th day of the week, it is the 1st day of the week, yet it would be the 8th day of the week in Christ's case, since He didn't rise during the same week He died, He rose at the beginning of a new week. Even early church fathers already knew these things 2000 years ago. Therefore, it's pretty sad that almost 2k years later some still don't know things that early church fathers already knew 2k years ago. Or if they do know it, some simply don't believe any of it.

 

[Marty fox]

And you miss the point as well if it has indeed been almost an entire 6k years since Adam was created and that Christ returns, say within the next 50 years, that then can't be a coincidence, therefore, there has to be something to this 7 day theory in question.

When Christ died then rose, for example, He rose on the 8th day not the 7th day. Sunday is not the 7th day of the week, it is the 1st day of the week, yet it would be the 8th day of the week in Christ's case, since He didn't rise during the same week He died, He rose at the beginning of a new week. Even early church fathers already knew these things 2000 years ago. Therefore, it's pretty sad that almost 2k years later some still don't know things that early church fathers already knew 2k years ago. Or if they do know it, some simply don't believe any of it.

What are you talking about? There is no eighth day Jesus rose on the first day of the week your inventing your own theories

 

[Davidpt]

What are you talking about? There is no eighth day Jesus rose on the first day of the week your inventing your own theories

If you don't get the logic in that, then I don't know what to tell you. I'm not saying Christ rose 8 days later. I'm saying He rose during the beginning of a new week, Where in Jewish thinking the beginning of a new week would basically be the 8th day following the ending of a previous week. After all, what is 7 plus 1 if not 8? IOW, Sunday through Saturday goes by, thus 7 days, then it's Sunday again, thus the beginning of a new week, 8 days after the conclusion of the previous week. Who could argue and be taken serious, that Sunday through Saturday is not 7 days, and that when it is Sunday again, it is not 8 days later, thus not the beginning of a new week?

 

[Davidpt]

Just today I asked Chatgpt the following.

Me: I could be wrong here but I seem to recall reading in the past that some early Amils took the thousand years in the literal sense, except they applied it to the here and now rather than after the 2nd coming. Then once a literal thousand years came and went, they then began to take the thousand years symbolically. Except this would have to be meaning way beyond the days of Augustine since it doesn't allow for a literal thousand years to come and go first. Do you know anything about any of this? Did some Amils initially take the thousand years literally until a literal thousand years came and went?
---------------------
Chatgpt:

You’re remembering something very interesting — and you’re not wrong to think there’s *some* historical truth behind that.
What you’re describing reflects a **gradual shift** in how the “thousand years” of Revelation 20 was understood **within early amillennial (or proto-amillennial) circles**, *after* Augustine’s reinterpretation had taken hold but *before* it was fully spiritualized.

Let’s unpack this carefully, because it’s a subtle but fascinating part of church-history development.

1. Augustine’s “Thousand Years” — Originally *Could* Be Literal in Length

When Augustine first articulated his amillennial reading in *City of God* (Book 20), he did **not insist** that the 1,000 years was purely symbolic.
He said things like:

> “The thousand years may be understood in various ways, either because this number is perfect and signifies the completeness of time, or perhaps even because it denotes that space of time during which the Church reigns with Christ.”
> — *City of God*, 20.9–10

So, Augustine **left the door open** for the thousand years to represent the actual *duration* of the Church age — though he also recognized it could be figurative.
He didn’t nail it down.

In other words:
- He *spiritualized* the **nature** of the reign (present, heavenly),
- But he was still somewhat non-committal about the **length** of the thousand years.

This ambiguity allowed some later interpreters to think:
> “Perhaps this Church Age really *will* last 1,000 calendar years.”


2. Early Medieval Amillennial Thought — “The Church Age = 1,000 Years”

Indeed, in the **early medieval period (5th–10th centuries)**, several writers did read the “thousand years” **literally in duration** but **present in fulfillment** — meaning:
- It started with Christ’s first coming (or His resurrection), and
- Would end after a literal thousand years — around the year 1000 AD — when the final judgment would occur.

You see this kind of speculation in several streams:

*The 6,000 + 1,000 Years of World History Pattern*
This idea comes from Jewish tradition and was used by early Christians, even before Augustine:
> The world will last 6,000 years (the six days of creation), followed by a 1,000-year Sabbath rest (the millennium).

Some post-Augustinian thinkers kept that scheme but made the “Sabbath millennium” **symbolic of the Church Age** — which they still expected to last roughly a literal thousand years.

*Chronological Speculations in the 8th–10th Centuries*
By the Carolingian era, certain Latin scholars and monks began calculating the *Anno Mundi* (years since creation) and trying to fit them into the 6,000 + 1,000 pattern.
They expected that when roughly **6,000 years from Adam** or **1,000 years since Christ** elapsed, the “millennium” would conclude with final judgment.

This expectation **culminated in the late 10th century**, when some believed the world might end around **the year 1000** — not in mass panic, but enough to show that a *literal thousand-year interpretation of Revelation 20* was still alive even among “amillennial” readers who accepted Augustine’s framework.

Examples:
- **Bede (7th–8th century)** in his *Commentary on Revelation* took the “thousand years” as the period between Christ’s First and Second Advents, yet still seemed to treat it as a definite period that could be counted.
- **Alcuin of York (8th century)** and others also toyed with the idea of the Church’s millennial rest being a literal thousand-year period.


3. What Happened *After* the Year 1000

When the year 1000 AD (or, for some chronologies, 1033 AD — the thousandth anniversary of the crucifixion/resurrection) **came and went** without Christ’s return, interpreters began to conclude that:
> The thousand years could not be literal; it must be symbolic.

So from the **11th century onward**, the amillennial tradition **solidified the symbolic reading**:
- The “thousand years” = the **complete** (but indefinite) time between Christ’s first and second comings.
- The “thousand” is a **number of perfection or completeness**, not an exact count.

You can see this clearly in later medieval commentators like:
- **Rupescissa (13th century)** and **Nicholas of Lyra (14th century)** — who explicitly interpret the number as symbolic.
- **Thomas Aquinas** doesn’t focus on the number’s duration at all; for him, it’s purely figurative.

By then, the literal-duration reading had disappeared from mainstream thought.


So yes — what you recall corresponds to a **real historical pattern**:
> ️ *Early amillennialists sometimes took the “thousand years” literally in duration (applying it to the present Church Age), but when a literal millennium elapsed without the end arriving, they increasingly allegorized it.*

 

[WPM]

Just today I asked Chatgpt the following.

Me: I could be wrong here but I seem to recall reading in the past that some early Amils took the thousand years in the literal sense, except they applied it to the here and now rather than after the 2nd coming. Then once a literal thousand years came and went, they then began to take the thousand years symbolically. Except this would have to be meaning way beyond the days of Augustine since it doesn't allow for a literal thousand years to come and go first. Do you know anything about any of this? Did some Amils initially take the thousand years literally until a literal thousand years came and went?
---------------------
Chatgpt:

So what?

 

[PinSeeker]

When Christ died then rose, for example, He rose on the 8th day not the 7th day.

Well, He rose on ~ as you said ~ the first day of the new week. That it is the eighth day after the first day of the previous week is true, but has no significance. But that it is the first day of the new week has far-reaching consequences, the first of which made the Lord's day... the Sabbath Day, as Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath... no longer Saturday but Sunday ~ yes, the first day of the new week ~ and pointed to what the final outcome will be when the New Heaven and New Earth finally comes, that God is now making ~ and then will finally have made ~ "all things new" (Revelation 21:5). Then will be the eternal Sabbath.

The eighth day... Goodness gracious. <smile>

Grace and peace to you, David.

 

[Davidpt]

Well, He rose on ~ as you said ~ the first day of the new week. That it is the eighth day after the first day of the previous week is true, but has no significance. But that it is the first day of the new week has far-reaching consequences, the first of which made the Lord's day... the Sabbath Day, as Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath... no longer Saturday but Sunday ~ yes, the first day of the new week ~ and pointed to what the final outcome will be when the New Heaven and New Earth finally comes, that God is now making ~ and then will finally have made ~ "all things new" (Revelation 21:5). Then will be the eternal Sabbath.

The eighth day... Goodness gracious. <smile>

Grace and peace to you, David.

Of course it has significance since the first of the week represents a new beginning, so to speak. Currently it has been almost an entire 6k years since Adam, and that it is absurd that the 2nd coming is not near. Of course it is. No way is the world going to continue another 500 years, another 1000 years, before Christ returns. Therefore, it can't be a coincedence that 6 1K days passed then Christ returned at the end of it. That assuming Christ returns within the next 50 years, for example.

As the OP plainly shows via analogy, there are 7 days in a full week, and that the 7th day of a week is never a new beginning, it is the end. Which means 1 more 1K day has to be fulfilled once Christ returns before there can be a new beginning, in this case meaning 1 Corinthians 15:28.

Except Amils want to be illogical about these things and have us believe there are only 6 days in a week, and that the 7th day is not the end of the week, it is the beginning of a new week. Keeping in mind that I'm basing this on 1K days since Adam through now. Thus far, unless one can undeniably prove otherwise, 6 of those 1K days have almost been fulfilled. And that 7 comes after 6, and that it is 8th day when a new beginning occurs.

Not to mention, by Amils having the millennium, day 7, paralleling the here and now, it's even more absurd that I intially thought. Not only does Amil have day 7 paralleling day 6, they also have it paralleling day 5. After all, the past 2000 years would be meaning day 5 and day 6 of these 1k days, the same 2000 years Amils are applying day 7 to. Except day 7 is not a new beginning of anything, day 8 is. Nor on any calendar nor in any universe can 5, 6 and 7 mean the exact same thing. That's not how math and numbers work. 6 follows 5, 7 follows 6, 8 follows 7. I bet even even 5th graders probably know that, that 6 follows 5, 7 follows 6, 8 follows 7.

 

[Marty fox]

Of course it has significance since the first of the week represents a new beginning, so to speak. Currently it has been almost an entire 6k years since Adam, and that it is absurd that the 2nd coming is not near. Of course it is. No way is the world going to continue another 500 years, another 1000 years, before Christ returns. Therefore, it can't be a coincedence that 6 1K days passed then Christ returned at the end of it. That assuming Christ returns within the next 50 years, for example.

As the OP plainly shows via analogy, there are 7 days in a full week, and that the 7th day of a week is never a new beginning, it is the end. Which means 1 more 1K day has to be fulfilled once Christ returns before there can be a new beginning, in this case meaning 1 Corinthians 15:28.

Except Amils want to be illogical about these things and have us believe there are only 6 days in a week, and that the 7th day is not the end of the week, it is the beginning of a new week. Keeping in mind that I'm basing this on 1K days since Adam through now. Thus far, unless one can undeniably prove otherwise, 6 of those 1K days have almost been fulfilled. And that 7 comes after 6, and that it is 8th day when a new beginning occurs.

Not to mention, by Amils having the millennium, day 7, paralleling the here and now, it's even more absurd that I intially thought. Not only does Amil have day 7 paralleling day 6, they also have it paralleling day 5. After all, the past 2000 years would be meaning day 5 and day 6 of these 1k days, the same 2000 years Amils are applying day 7 to. Except day 7 is not a new beginning of anything, day 8 is. Nor on any calendar nor in any universe can 5, 6 and 7 mean the exact same thing. That's not how math and numbers work. 6 follows 5, 7 follows 6, 8 follows 7. I bet even even 5th graders probably know that, that 6 follows 5, 7 follows 6, 8 follows 7.

This is the most ridicules post I think I have ever read. First it has no biblical bases or verses in it and you are just basing it on unbiblical theories. Nothing in the bible says anything about a 7 day theory.

You also don’t know if it’s been almost six thousand years since life began and christians a thousand years ago also thought it couldn’t go another thousand years so your just assuming the same thing Christians did since the church began so why would we be any difference?

You are also put a bigger wedge between amils and premils about nothing Biblical and saying we believe things that we don’t what do you mean “Except Amils want to be illogical about these things and have us believe there are only 6 days in a week”? Amils have never said or believe that

Amils are not the enemy we are on the same side as you as we are all the same church and now your trying to pull things out of the air that we disagree about that’s not even biblical

I’m sorry if this sounds a bit harsh but it bothers me that amils are being told that they are wrong for something thats not in the bible it’s a debate we never asked for this as we never stated our view on this in the first place. Let’s leave the debating for something that actually in the bible eh!