Parsing of Revelation 20:5: What is the SENTENCE? “The rest of the dead lived not again until were finished the thousand years THIS the first resurrection.” “Oi loipoi tohn nekrohn ouk edzehsan achri telesthehi ta xilia eteh hauteh heh anastas heh prohteh (estin).” What are the CLAUSES? 1) “The rest of the dead lived not again….” “Oi loipoi tohn nekrohn ouk edzehsan….” MAIN clause. 2) “…until were finished the thousand years….” “…achri telesthehi ta xilia eteh….”— SUBORDINATE clause relating to its ‘antecedent’ the MAIN clause in 1). 3) “…THIS (is) the first resurrection.” “…hauteh heh anastasis heh prohteh (estin)”— COORDINATE clause relating to its ‘antecedent’ the subordinate clause in 2). The clauses of the Sentence, 1) gathered about the two pivotal points of syntax, the Noun and the Verb, 2) grouped according their substantival, adjectival and adverbial character, and 3) analyzed on the basis of their sense in relation to the context of the sentence (DM269), the Sentence in this instance, being Revelation 20:5. The Sentence is 1) ‘complex’— 2) the clauses in its structure are connected in ‘hypotactic’, ‘subordinate’, relation. 3) The clauses are ‘syndetic’, the subordinate clauses each being connected with the preceding one by a connective word or ‘conjunction’. (Note: “Many examples of asyndeton (lack of connective) are found in the New Testament. It occurs most frequently in John’s Gospel and First Epistle.” Ibid. …as I in this very dispute have made several references to already, while its bearing on the subject of this dispute speaks for itself.) Important: Says DM, par. 248, “A clause is simply the employment of a circumlocution by which we convey a MEANING that we cannot readily express with a single word or phrase.” Thus, as in our passage, to say, “…the thousand years THIS is the first resurrection”, is the employment of a circumlocution by which we convey the MORE CONDENSED meaning of “…the thousand years : the first resurrection.” …as I have before illustrated by means of the equation-mark, ‘=’ while the inversion of the equation will give the same value, whether it is “the thousand years : the first resurrection”, or, “the first resurrection : the thousand years”. The VERBS… The main VERB of the sentence is the Verb of the main clause (1): “The rest of the dead LIVED not AGAIN.” “Oi loipoi tohn nekrohn ouk EDZEHSAN.” The Verb of the subordinate clause (2), is “were finished— “…achri TELESTHEHI ta chilia eteh hauteh heh anastasis heh prohteh”, “…until WERE FINISHED the Thousand Years this the First Resurrection.” Note that the verb ‘is’, ‘estin’, is supplied. In all other instances of the use of the Relative Pronoun “huateh” in the NT (as I before have pointed out), the verb, ‘is’, ‘estin’, do appear at the end of the clauses. Strictly speaking therefore, we are not allowed to add the verb ‘is’, ‘estin’ when it is NOT given, but should regard the two phrases that constitute the subordinate clause as SINGLE in “MEANING” and one in concept or idea. …as shown above! So the Verb of the subordinate clause is the only verb of the WHOLE subordinate clause (2 AND 3), and is, “were finished— “…achri TELESTHEHI ta chilia eteh hauteh heh anastasis heh prohteh”, “…until WERE FINISHED the Thousand Years this the First Resurrection.” “The Thousand Years this” “were FINISHED” JUST LIKE “this the First Resurrection” was “FINISHED” ….at once and together and as one and the same event and thing. “The Thousand Years” are IDENTIFIED with “The First Resurrection”! With the Verb ‘estin’, ‘is’, supplied, the sub-clause becomes two clauses: “…until were finished the Thousand Years this…” and, “…this the First Resurrection is.” “…achri telesthehi ta chilia eteh hauteh…” and “…hauteh heh anastasis heh prohteh estin.” Nevertheless, WITHOUT even the Verb ‘estin’, ‘is’, being supplied, by the Pronoun ‘hauteh’, ”THIS” in ITSELF being ‘CLAUSAL’ (…as I have said before), it FOLLOWS WITHOUT SAYING that “…the Thousand Years FINISHED, THIS, VERILY IS, the First Resurrection, FINISHED!” To what does the PRONOUN, “auteh”, “this”, therefore refer? To the word(s) before it, its ‘antecedent’, “heh xilia eteh…”, “the Thousand Years…” Therefore: What is the Subject of the Verb “is”, “estin”? The Pronoun, “hauteh”, “THIS”. To what does the Pronoun “this” refer? To its Antecedent, “heh xilia eteh”, “the Thousand Years”. Therefore: What is the Verb of the sub, subordinate clause? Supplied or given, it is “estin”, “is”. Therefore: The subordinate clause is: “…achri telesthehi ta chilia eteh hauteh heh anastasis heh prohteh (estin)” (‘estin’, ‘is’, supplied or not), “…until were finished the Thousand Years THIS the First Resurrection (is).” OR: “…until were finished the Thousand Years THIS that is / THIS which is the First Resurrection.” The WHOLE sentence the whole of verse 5, therefore is an INDEPENDENT sentence which can --- and MUST --- be FULLY parsed without looking for any FURTHER antecedent. The antecedent of the Pronoun ‘hauteh’, “this” is found WITHIN verse 4, WITHIN the independent Sentence itself. For the purpose of full parsing, verse 4 needed not exist. As I said, I am in agreement with ‘B-Greek’, and David Koot KNOWS he is not. He even said he was “…disappointed at the very surface analysis of the passage by b-Greek so far…”; “…disappointed” because what he found with ‘B-Greek’, “so often (is) the case in the Calvinist camp”, and naturally every time would DIFFER with his own viewpoints because his is the SDA-version of premillennialism; while my ‘a-millennialist’ viewpoint is simply that of “the Calvinist camp”. Have David Koot and David J. Conklin become A-millennialists?? Hahahaha…..