22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[Marty fox]

Taking the mark means you've made your choice. And everyone will be forced to finally choose.

Much love!

So in you view you can’t repent from taking the mark but Paul could repent from persecuting the church?

Does that sound fair?

 

[Marty fox]

Aren't there other places in the Bible where people's opportunity to be saved was ended? Like Romans 1? Or 2 Thessalonians 2? And doesn't death itself end the opportunity for all unsaved?

Much love!

Which verses in those chapters?

 

[marks]

So in you view you can’t repent from taking the mark but Paul could repent from persecuting the church?

Does that sound fair?

Truth is not our personal opinions.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Witch verses in those chapters?

Romans 1:26-28 KJV
26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 KJV
10) And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11) And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12) That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Much love!

 

[Marty fox]

Romans 1:26-28 KJV
26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 KJV
10) And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11) And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12) That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Much love!

This isn’t saying that they can’t repent it’s like when God hardened Pharos heart. What God did is let them have their wish God stopped persuing them.

 

[marks]

So in you view you can’t repent from taking the mark but Paul could repent from persecuting the church?

Does that sound fair?

It sounds final. Final answer time.

Much love!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

2. HIGHLY DEBATED: Only by Amillennialists because they are opposing plain Scripture. They hate the idea of a literal Millennial reign of Christ (which Satan also hates).

It is actually premillennialists like you who oppose plain scripture. I will give just a few examples where they do this even though I could give many.

Example 1:

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. 11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

Peter relates the events that will occur on the day of the Lord here as being "in keeping with his promise", which is a reference to His promise to come again (see 2 Peter 3:4). So, when looking at the context of 2 Peter 3, overall, it's very clear that the day of the Lord is a reference to the day Christ returns. And Peter plainly indicated that on that day the heavens and the earth will be burned up. And Peter said that this will be in fulfillment of the Lord keeping His promise to come again. So, this plainly indicates that everything will be burned up on the day He returns which would obviously make it impossible for any mortals to populate the earth after this event occurs. Other scripture like Matthew 24:35-39, 2 Thess 1:7-10 and Rev 19:17-18 confirm that all unbelievers will be destroyed on the day Christ returns. We know from other scripture like 1 Cor 15:50-54 that believers will all be changed and have immortal bodies at that point.

Example 2:

John 5:28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.

In this passage Jesus plainly stated that a singular time or event is coming during which all of the dead will be resurrected. Premillennialism contradicts this by claiming two (or more) times or events are coming when the dead will be resurrected. How can you even think to criticize Amillennialists for supposedly opposing plain scripture when Premills blatantly contradict plain scripture like this? Paul also referenced one resurrection event rather than two in Acts 24:15 and he indicated that it involves both the just and the unjust. Daniel 12:2 also indicates that the saved and unsaved will be resurrected at generally the same time (not necessarily the same exact moment, but certainly not 1000+ years apart as Premils falsely believe).

Example 3:

Acts 17:30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

Paul indicated that God has set a singular day in the future at which point when that day arrives He will judge "the world". And the context of "the world" can be seen in this passage to be referring to "all people everywhere"/"everyone". This lines up with passages like Matthew 13:40-43, Matthew 13:47-50 and Matthew 25:31-46 which portray all people being judged at the same time rather than the saved being judged 1000+ years before the unsaved, as Premils falsely believe.

Example 4:

2 Thessalonians 1:6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

This passage indicates that on the day Jesus returns He will take vengeance on and punish "those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus". That is obviously a description of unsaved people. And no unsaved person doesn't fit that description. So, this means Paul was saying that Christ will be destroying all of the unsaved on the day He returns. Meanwhile, we know that the saved will have immortal bodies at that point. So, Paul, like Peter, plainly taught that there will be no mortal survivors of Christ's return.

3. MOST FIGURATIVE: How in the world can "one thousand years" (Gk chilia ete) be seen as anything other than 1,000 years (which is called a "Millennium" from the Latin "milli" for 1,000).

Do you think the following is referring to a literal one thousand generations?

Deuteronomy 7:9 Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments.

Do you think the following is referring to a literal one thousand hills?

Psalm 50:9 I have no need of a bull from your stall or of goats from your pens, 10 for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills.

It's common knowledge that the term "a thousand" is often used figuratively. Not only in scripture, but in every day life. Such as when people say things like "If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times...." or "a picture is worth a thousand words". How in the world can you not be aware of this?

4. OBSCURE BOOK: If indeed it was an obscure book it could not possibly have this blessing: Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. (Rev 1:3)

So you really do not have a leg to stand on. And hopefully no one will be swayed by your nonsense.

Why don't you stop wasting time with your rhetoric and actually take one or two of the points made in the original post and try to refute them? As of now, it appears that you are just all talk and no substance.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I strong disagree, scripture teaches the mark of the beast and image worship will be "Literal", and will be received by the world through the "False Prophets" deception in false miracles

Revelation 19:20KJV
20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Can we please talk about this topic in a separate thread and keep this thread about why Premil doctrine is false?

 

[marks]

invent an unscriptural

I've tried to read your OP's half a dozen times. I find the profusion of loaded language so detrimental to communication, well, life is too short to read "point" after "point" of straw men and loaded language. 22 points, but it seems you are making the same "point" over and over.

Much love!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I've tried to read your OP's half a dozen times. I find the profusion of loaded language so detrimental to communication, well, life is too short to read "point" after "point" of straw men and loaded language.

Just take one point at a time then. It's not that hard and I see no straw men arguments being made there. Just give me even one example of that, if you can.

22 points, but it seems you are making the same "point" over and over.

It isn't the same point over and over. Again, just take one at a time if reading about all 22 points is overwhelming for you.

 

[marks]

Just take one point at a time then. It's not that hard and I see no straw men arguments being made there. Just give me even one example of that, if you can.

(1) Premil is totally preoccupied with, and dependent upon, one chapter in the Bible – Revelation 20. It interprets the rest of Scripture in the light of its opinion of one lone highly-debated chapter located in the most figurative and obscure book in the Bible. All end-time Scripture is viewed through the lens of Revelation 20. This is not a very wise way to establish any truth or doctrine. Take this passage out of the equation and Premillennialism has nothing in the inspired pages to support their main tenets. Amils have a problem with, and very much disagree with this form of hermeneutics and exegesis of many Scriptures.

This is a straw man.

Those who hold pre-mil views do not universally interpret all the Bible "through the lens of" a single verse or chapter.

"totally occupied", "dependant upon", "one lone highly debated", "figurative and obscure", that's some of the "loaded language", if you wanted an example of that also.

Much love!

 

[marks]

all 22 points is overwhelming for you.

Underwhelming is more the word for it.

But I realize you are using your own loaded language.

Much love!

 

[WPM]

Hogwash -- all of it!
Within a year you will retract all your words and flush them.
We are likely IN the Great Tribulation Period. The pestilence, wars and famine soon to overtake billions of people will have you scratching your empty heads.
This is where the rubber meets the road ... the death toll.
If you read Rev. 6, describing the Riders of the FOUR HORSES, the accumulative death from these alone account for about 2 billion people. Nothing in history has ever caused 25% loss of life in a few years time. The Black Plague came close to killing 20% of the planet in the 14th century (estimates are uncertain). Even all the wars in the 20th century account for maybe
2 % death.
That is the GT just getting started. Then you have the events in the rest of the Seals, the Seven Trumpets and the the wrath of God in the Seven Bowls before it is complete. The world will experience a worldwide earthquake, 1/3 of the planet literally on fire (likely the Middle East), super-volcanic eruptions causing massives tsunamis, nuclear war, etc. So after all that you can add another couple billion deaths.
60 million people die on average on earth annually. So when you see billions die - then you will know that this is not normal. Capisce?
Then if that is not enough to convince you, when "every eye sees Him" coming in the clouds, you will be ashamed of yourself for not only being in denial of His Second Coming, but that you spent years trying to lead others down the wrong path.

You totally missed my point. You need to address it.

P.S. No need for the nasty language.

 

[WPM]

This is a straw man.

Those who hold pre-mil views do not universally interpret all the Bible "through the lens of" a single verse or chapter.

"totally occupied", "dependant upon", "one lone highly debated", "figurative and obscure", that's some of the "loaded language", if you wanted an example of that also.

Much love!

So, what other NT text supposedly teaches a thousand years after the second coming?

 

[marks]

So, what other NT text teaches a thousand years after the second coming?

There's a lot more than just the duration, you realize.

Personally, I think it's better to begin here:

Jeremiah 31:31-37 KJV
31) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
35) Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
36) If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
37) Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

God is not done with Jacob's children.

Much love.

 

[WPM]

Underwhelming is more the word for it.

But I realize you are using your own loaded language.

Much love!

How about actually addressing it a point at a time. So far, no Premil has had a rebuttal.

 

[WPM]

There's a lot more than just the duration, you realize.

Personally, I think it's better to begin here:

Jeremiah 31:31-37 KJV
31) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
35) Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
36) If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
37) Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

God is not done with Jacob's children.

Much love.

What has this to do with some supposed age to come full of sin and sinners, crying and dying, Satan and his demons? God can save Israelites in this age, as it is the day of salvation. The second coming brings a close to the day of salvation. Repeated Scripture shows that now is the only day of salvation. After showing us the destruction of this earth, the works that are in it, the heavens, the elements when Jesus comes, and after describing the longsuffering of God in the days of Noah before the destruction of all the wicked, Peter responds to the mockers scoffing at the apparent delay in Christ's return: “the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation” (2 Peter 3:15). See also Romans 2:4. He was reaffirming that salvation is limited to this side of the second coming. A sign of the end is that the Gospel must “be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (Matthew 24:14). The second coming brings the curtain down on the great commission. Once the ark door closes it is too late (Matthew 25:10-13, 28:19-20 and Act 3:19-21).

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

You totally missed my point. You need to address it.

P.S. No need for the nasty language.

You are arguing against the Pre-Millennial View, which offers several views of Christ's Second Coming. Whether it's a Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib or Post-Trib rapture on either end or in the middle of a 3 1/2 year or 7 Year period Great Tribulation frame of events, outlined in Rev. 6-18, followed by 1000 year literal reign of Christ_ on earth.
Am I missing something?
I didn't know "hogwash" was nasty language. It is just trough of water that pigs drink out of.

 

[WPM]

You are arguing against the Pre-Millennial View, which offers several views of Christ's Second Coming. Whether it's a Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib or Post-Trib rapture on either end or in the middle of a 3 1/2 year or 7 Year period Great Tribulation frame of events, outlined in Rev. 6-18, followed by 1000 year literal reign of Christ_ on earth.
Am I missing something?
I didn't know "hogwash" was nasty language. It is just trough of water that pigs drink out of.

Maybe that is just the way you engage with fellow believers, so it is normal to you. I understand. Notwithstanding, you failed to challenge one single point in the Op. Obviously you have nothing.

 

[Davy]

Since abandoning Premillennialism I have engaged in many debates/discussions on the matter of the second coming, end-times and the here-after. These are some of the major weaknesses I find in the Premillennialism doctrine, and are strong reasons why I believe the dogma should be rejected.

It does not matter what Scripture one looks at, or what topic under discussion, Premils have no plausible explanation for what they believe and no clear corroboration for their opinions. Their doctrine is bereft of any reasonable, logical, theological, or textual acceptance.

Not one bit of Scripture evidence presented above for such an idea.

You are simply pushing your own philosophy 'outside' of Bible Scripture. I believe in a pre-millennial return of Jesus Christ, which as written is on the last day of this present world, after the tribulation (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21; Revelation 6; Revelation 16:15-17; Revelation 11:15-19, and many more Scripture evidences.)

I want to list some of the issues that forced me to eventually abandon Premillennialism and embrace Amillennialism. My main reason for abandoning Premil was the severe lack of corroboration. I had a major issue with that!

Corroboration with what? To corroborate something merely means to 'confirm' something. So what SOURCE and EVIDENCE did you use? If NOT God's Word as written as the confirming source, then your corroboration idea means squat. So far, you have not given ANY corroborating evidence for your assumptions!

What is more: I had multiple problem-texts as a Premil that showed the Coming of Christ to be climactic and all-consummating. I have presented a lot of these questions in discussions over the years (since 2000) on boards like this and have failed to get any satisfactory corroboration for these questions.

I can already tell what you really mean to say, is that you never got the answers you WANTED, so you just assumed no one knew. Here's a clue to you, IF you expect answers outside... of God's written Word, then it means the basis of your whole premise is UNSATISFACTORY.

What I normally get is either blatant avoidance of the issues or "Revelation 20 says." This is so frustrating because Revelation 20 does not corroborate Revelation 20. Amils on the other hand tend to use the biblical premise "what saith the Scripture." The only conclusion I could arrive at is that the Premil interpretation of Revelation 20 is in error, it conflicts with numerous Scripture, and enjoys NO other serious scriptural support.

Just more hot air without really saying anything.

(1) Premil is totally preoccupied with, and dependent upon, one chapter in the Bible – Revelation 20.

Balderdash! The Revelation 20 chapter simply gives the amount of time for Christ's future Millennial reign that the Old Testament prophets declared and described! Afterall, Christ's Book of Revelation was given last because it was... to be a 'revealing'. The Zechariah 14 chapter reveals about many events that are to occur immediately AFTER Christ's future return which align with Revelation 20 through 22. Sounds like you never even read it. And... it even shows the 'wicked' will still be here after Christ's future return! Same thing is shown in Revelation 20, so whadda ya know, The Bible actually AGREES WITH ITSELF. But your belief on man's theory of Amillennialism certainly does not agree with God's written Word.

It interprets the rest of Scripture in the light of its opinion of one lone highly-debated chapter located in the most figurative and obscure book in the Bible. All end-time Scripture is viewed through the lens of Revelation 20. This is not a very wise way to establish any truth or doctrine. Take this passage out of the equation and Premillennialism has nothing in the inspired pages to support their main tenets. Amils have a problem with, and very much disagree with this form of hermeneutics and exegesis of many Scriptures.

(2) Premil hangs its doctrine on a very precarious frayed thread: that of Revelation 20 following Revelation 19 chronologically in time. To hold this, it has to dismiss the different recaps (or different camera views pertaining to the intra-Advent period) that exist throughout the book of Revelation, divorce it from repeated Scripture on this matter and also explain away the clear and explicit climactic detail that pertains to Revelation 19. Premil is dependent upon the dubious premise that Revelation 20 is chronological to Revelation 19. That is it! Disprove that and Premil falls apart.

Just more hot air, not really showing any Scripture evidence that disproves the future "thousand years" reign by Christ Jesus and His elect per Revelation 20, AND many other Scriptures besides Rev.20, like Zechariah 14 after Christ's future return about those of the nations that refuse to come up to Jerusalem and worship The KING; you didn't see that?

(3) The detail Premil attributes to Revelation 20 compared to what the actual text explicitly says is day and night.

FUNNY statement. Not one bit of Biblical proof to back that up. You are just MOUTHING against God's written Word, and show you have NO intention at all to actually keep what His Word says as written.

 

[marks]

How about actually addressing it a point at a time. So far, no Premil has had a rebuttal.

It's difficult to pick out an actual argument.

(1) Premil is totally preoccupied with, and dependent upon, one chapter in the Bible – Revelation 20. It interprets the rest of Scripture in the light of its opinion of one lone highly-debated chapter located in the most figurative and obscure book in the Bible. All end-time Scripture is viewed through the lens of Revelation 20. This is not a very wise way to establish any truth or doctrine.

Your argument here is that Pre-mils interpret the Bible through the lens of one chapter. That's a false claim. And it's non-specific, just a generalized statement.

What is the response to be? As general and non-specific as the assertion?

"Pre-Mil" takes in all the chapters of the Bible."

But who it is who denies the truth of Scripture stated only once? Even so, this kingdom is prophesied in many places, and if someone has studied the topic, they must know that.

(2) Premil hangs its doctrine on a very precarious frayed thread: that of Revelation 20 following Revelation 19 chronologically in time. To hold this, it has to dismiss the different recaps (or different camera views pertaining to the intra-Advent period) that exist throughout the book of Revelation, divorce it from repeated Scripture on this matter and also explain away the clear and explicit climactic detail that pertains to Revelation 19.

No, we don't.

There is much in the Bible about the kingdom when Jesus returns. And besides, if Scripture gives something sequentially, with wording to that effect, why should we overthrow that?

Revelation 19:19-21 KJV

19) And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

20) And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

21) And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

Revelation 20:1-3 KJV

1) And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

2) And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

3) And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

I'm not understanding why you think this does not follow this.

And why the following doesn't, well, follow,

Revelation 20:4-6 KJV
4) And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5) But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6) Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Revelation 20:7-10 KJV
7) And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8) And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9) And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
10) And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Prophetic Narrative. You can believe it or not. Many don't. Many seem to put all this as allegory, and then puzzle out the meanings to it all.

(3) The detail Premil attributes to Revelation 20 compared to what the actual text explicitly says is day and night. Revelation 20 does not remotely say what Premil attribute to it. Many extravagant characteristics, events and ideas are inserted into Revelation 20 that do not exist in the said chapter.

I've quoted the relevant portions above, where is something being added?

(4) Premillennialists interpretation of Revelation 20 contradicts numerous explicit climactic Scriptures. Premillennialists have to insert “a thousand years” in passage after passage where it does not exist.

Revelation 20:1-8 KJV
1) And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2) And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3) And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
4) And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5) But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6) Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
7) And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8) And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

It seems to me that "a thousand years" is specified rather plainly here, and that this is an actual 1000 years, attested in that it has a distinct conclusion, "when the 1000 years are expired".

(5) Premil is always explaining away the clear and explicit New Testament Scripture (the fuller revelation) by the shadow, type and vaguer Old Testament. It uses indistinct or misunderstood Old Testament Scripture to negate and reject clear and explicit New Testament Scripture that teaches otherwise. We Christians have the benefit of the New Testament to explain what is difficult or obscure in the Old Testament. Christ has superseded the old covenant arrangement and now fulfils the new covenant arrangement as predicted. The New Testament is the greater revelation.

No it doesn't. Again, general, non-specific, what is to dispute? You're just saying, You aren't interpreting right. And just anyone can make that claim of just anyone.

(6) Many testify that they are Premillennial because they take the Word of God literal, yet, when you put their theology to the test an opposite picture unfolds. Premillennialism spiritualizes the literal passages and literalizes the spiritual passages. Their hyper-literalistic approach to highly-figurative Revelation is a case-in-point.

Non specific, overly generalized, what here is there to dispute? Then general assertion only, No, we take it literally.

"Hyper-literalistic" . . . sure thing. There's nothing of substance here. I'm not going through all the rest.

Much love!