no doubt debated among many sincere people. However, we all know that sincerity means nothing in the realm of truth. I know people who sincerely believe that the Florida Gators are a good football team. They are totally wrong though. Okay, all joking aside, I would like to engage a discussion on the time references. There are different schools of interpretation on this matter. I will try to list the ones that I know of. I might leave one off. If so, please include it. The following list will be divided up into two groups: view of time references and the view of prophecy (i.e., literal/figurative). 1. Literal / Figurative This view accepts time references as being literal in that the prophecies by Christ and the apostles would be fulfilled within the current generation (i.e., destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70). The interpretation of most of the prophetic passages would be interpreted as being figurative/spiritual (i.e., 1,000 year reign). This view would be embraced by preterists (of all sorts), amills, historicists, and postmills. 2. Figurative / Figurative This view understands time references to be figurative that depend on other matters for fulfillment. This view also believes that prophetic passages are to be understood figuratively (i.e., 144,000 saints; 1,000 years). This view would be embraced by some amills and postmills. 3. Figurative / Literal This view says that time references are figurative. Time references are to be understood in light of prophetic passages. This view also says that Christ will literally reign for 1,000 years because that is the plain meaning of the Revelation 20 passage. This would be embraced by many premillenialists. 4. Literal / Literal This view says that the time references are to be taken literally. The interpretation of the time reference is what is different from the 1st view. For example: in Revelation 1, Christ's return will be done quickly. To the preterist, this means within a very short chronological time frame. Thus, they say he "returned" in AD 70 in judgment. Others say that the nature of his return is what is quick. In other words, it isn't chronological, it is a reference to the "kind" or "quality" of his return. So when he does come back, it is something that is accomplished in a relatively quick manner. Also, this view understands passages to be taken in the most plain manner possible (1,000 years really means 1,000 years and not just a time frame). ___ My personal view is no. 4. I have never encountered a passage that presents a problem for such a view. By all means though, jump in, the water is fine and I don't serve Kool-Aid.