John sees an angel coming down from heaven with a key and a chain and lays hold of a dragon and binds him for 1,000 years. Now, the literalists have themselves quite a conundrum. Satan is not a dragon, and he was also referred to as a red dragon in Revelation 12. So, if the Satan is not a literal dragon, then we have an allegorical picture here. The key the angel has is not a literal key, but meaning he has authority. Just like Jesus said in Revelation 1 He has the keys to death and hell. He has authority over those things.
So, we have a key that is not a key, but is symbolic of authority, which means this is to be taken figuratively. Satan is bound, but he's not a literal dragon, so then this is also to be taken figuratively as well. But when we get to the 1,000 years, well, that means 1,000 literal years. Huh? That makes as much sense as a football bat.
Now, we see the angel with a chain, key and dragon. Now, the key is symbolic of authority, meaning he has authority over Satan. The dragon is symbolic of Satan, seeing he's not a literal dragon, as he was also referred to as in Revelation 12. The chain is not a literal chain, either. So, we have a symbolic key, dragon and chain, so we need to look at this symbolically and not literally. Then we're expected to take the 1,000 years and apply it literally?
In the context of the vision, a key is a key, a dragon is a dragon, a chain is a chain, and 1000 years is 1000 years. If and when something is 'figurative' or 'symbolic' - it is not because of the wording itself, but rather, the context of the idea being expressed by the wording. From the perspective of the wording itself, a thousand is [ exactly ] a thousand, whether it is hills or years. Any non-literal meaning comes from understanding the particular use of the words in the context of language.
The non-literal meaning of "the cattle upon a thousand hills" in Psalms 50:10 is not tied to the
word 'thousand' at all; rather, it comes from the fact that there is no precise indication of how many cattle there are - or may be - upon a thousand hills. In the context of the verse, the words "a thousand" mean
exactly a thousand ( i.e. - 1000 ). In the context of the verse, "the cattle upon a thousand hills" literally means "the cattle upon 1000 hills" - however many there are or may be.
It is the number of cattle that is unknown - not the number of hills. And, that is where the non-literal meaning comes from - the 'abstract' nature of the 'unkown'. It is "understood" from the context of the language - and, is not based on the definitions of the actual words themselves. The words of the language are only used to define the context, scope, and detail of the idea which is intended for us to obtain from reading the words.
Is this making sense?
To obtain a proper interpretation from John's vision, you have to interpret the
vision. You have to obtain meaning from the components of the vision - what John saw - not the actual
words in the sentences of the passage that are used to describe the vision.
You have to "see what John saw" and interpret from the context of what he saw -
and what he says. And, just because a passage contains some non-literal meaning - does not mean that there are no literal components within it as well. You can't simply declare a whole passage to be "all literal" or "all non-literal" - it does not work that way. There my be literal and non-literal components in the same passage.
What is and is not literal is determined by context - based on the 'grammar of the language'...