Sorry, you're not very convincing to me. In this context you appear to be saying that the 1000 years is not any period of time, it being symbolic, even though you said before it was a "period of time." I guess it being a symbolic period of time means that it is no period of time in your view? If all that passage you mentioned is symbolic only, and has no chronological significance, then what is the reason for the exercise? Why mention any period of time at all, since it seems like a confusion? And confusion it obviously is, since the churches are pretty much split over whether to interpret this passage as literal or figurative. I've got to have a lot more than this to convince me. If it's a burden you can't bear, then perhaps you can point me to your teachers that may give me clearer explanations? I must be honest in saying I'm not taking anyone's word for how to interpret a passage of scripture, since I need the whole process of the hermeneutics used so I can see the proof myself. If it makes no sense to me, I'm not accepting it, regardless of the claim.
TD