Many interpreters claim that the references in the book of Revelation in Chapter 20 to the one thousand year millennium is figurative because (1) other references to numbers in the book of Revelation are figurative, and (2) the book of Revelation is full of figurative language.
I would disagree with (1) because there are good reasons to take the numbers in the book of Revelation as literal. But this is not my point here.
I would like to point out a logical flaw in using (2) as a premise. Many (not all) interpreters who think the thousand year references in Revelation is symbolic also believe the references to numbers in the book of Daniel such as the seventy-weeks (490 years), one week (7 years), time, times, a half time (3 1/2 years), 1,290 days, and 1,335 days are literal references. And yet, Daniel is of the same genre as Revelation containing similar figurative language.
In other words, they cannot argue that the thousand year references in Rev 20 are not literal for the reason that Revelation is full of figurative language, while claiming at the same time that numbers in the book of Daniel are literal. Why? Because Daniel is also full of figurative language.
If someone wants to argue that the thousand year references in Rev 20 are not literal, then they must do it on different grounds. It is naive to collapse (i.e. construe) a referent in the book of Revelation as non-literal simply because other elements in the book of Revelation are described figuratively. They should be analyzed on their own terms, context, function, otherwise the interpreter is cherry-picking to fill his or her prejudicial basket.
