UPDATED BY VCG ON 9/3/2026 @ 20:20 EST#

Abstract#

Revelation 20 contains one of the most debated passages in Christian eschatology.

It describes Satan being bound for:

“a thousand years,”

released afterward for

“a little season,”

going forth again

“to deceive the nations,”

gathering Gog and Magog to battle against the saints, and finally being cast into the lake of fire.

The short paper How to Recognize Satan’s Little Season proposes a method for identifying this final release in history.

Its central argument is that Satan’s binding should correspond to a period of greatly reduced large-scale deception, while his release should produce a sudden worldwide increase in deception.

Modern mass communication—particularly:

• radio
• television
• news media
• the internet
• artificial intelligence

—is then presented as the mechanism by which such unprecedented deception has become possible.

The paper further associates increased lying, violence, and warfare with Satan’s character in John 8:44, and adds a chronological argument based upon John the Baptist, Elijah, an approximate date of AD 26,

and the statement in 2 Peter 3:8 that:

“one day is with the Lord as a thousand years.”

There are real observations underneath this argument.

Modern communications technology has radically increased the speed and reach of information.

Empirical research confirms that false information can spread unusually rapidly online, that repetition can increase perceived truth, and that generative artificial intelligence can create convincing misinformation.

The question, however, is not merely whether modern deception exists.

The question is whether Scripture identifies these developments as the prophetic diagnostic by which the release of Satan in Revelation 20 can be recognized.

This examination finds that the source paper correctly identifies several explicit features of Revelation 20: Satan is bound; the binding concerns his deception of the nations; the restraint eventually ends; Satan again deceives the nations; his final activity culminates in an international gathering against the saints; and God permanently destroys his power afterward.

The difficulties arise when those textual statements are expanded into claims Revelation itself does not make:

that Satanic deception of every kind completely ceases during the thousand years, that human deception can be distinguished from Satanic deception primarily by scale, that radio or other mass-media technologies constitute the prophetic marker of Satan’s release, and that 2 Peter 3:8 provides a chronological formula by which two thousand years can be counted from John the Baptist to the present era.

The purpose of this paper is therefore not to dismiss concern about deception, nor to declare that the “little season” cannot be near.

It is to distinguish carefully between what Scripture says, what Scripture may imply, what history can demonstrate, what psychology can explain, and what remains theological speculation.

That distinction is necessary if we wish to

“prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

1. What Is Being Claimed?#

The source document is unusually helpful in one respect:

its thesis is not hidden.

It explains that its ideas “center particularly around mass communication technologies as a sign” of Satan’s little season.

Revelation 20:3 is interpreted to mean that Satan’s binding limits global deception, while Revelation 20:7–8 is interpreted to mean that his release produces worldwide deception, allegedly visible in

“the rise of radio, television, and mass media.”

The paper then presents essentially the same reasoning in three different versions.

The argument can be reduced to the following chain:

Satan is bound for a thousand years.

During that binding he cannot deceive the nations.

Human beings can still lie, but their deception should remain comparatively small.

When Satan is released, deception should become worldwide and dramatically more powerful.

Modern communications technology has made worldwide deception possible on an unprecedented scale.

Modern society therefore resembles what we should expect during Satan’s little season.

John 8:44 is added as supporting evidence because Jesus calls the devil a murderer and the father of lies.

Thus, according to the paper, increases in:

• lying
• murder
• violence
• warfare

give additional evidence of Satan’s released influence.

The paper further characterizes contemporary deception as having almost

“delusional or hypnotic”

qualities, because people may continue believing falsehoods even after contradictory evidence is presented.

Finally, the addendum proposes a secondary chronological indicator.

It reasons that if a

“First Day of the Lord”

began around the time John the Baptist fulfilled the Elijah prophecy, approximately AD 26, and if a prophetic day represents approximately one thousand years on the basis of 2 Peter 3:8, then a second thousand-year “Day” would bring us near the present era.

The author explicitly says that this is not absolute proof, but argues that the allotted time is now being exhausted.

There are therefore really two arguments to test:

The diagnostic argument:

modern global deception reveals Satan’s release.

The chronological argument:

approximately two thousand years from John the Baptist places the present generation near the end of an allotted prophetic period.

The two arguments should be evaluated separately.

If one fails, that does not automatically disprove the other.

2. A Method Before a Verdict#

Eschatological discussions become confused quickly when biblical text, theological interpretation, historical reconstruction, and contemporary observation are treated as though they carry the same evidentiary weight.

They do not.

For this examination, four levels will be kept distinct.

Scripture means something the biblical text actually states.

Interpretation means an attempt to explain how those statements fit together.

An interpretation can be reasonable without being explicit in the text.

Historical or scientific evidence concerns claims that can be investigated through:

• documents
• chronology
• datasets
• experiments

or other ordinary methods of inquiry.

Speculation means a proposed connection that may be possible but has not been demonstrated either by Scripture or independent evidence.

This distinction is particularly important because a statement may be perfectly compatible with Scripture without being taught by Scripture.

For example:

Modern artificial intelligence can be used to deceive.

That statement is empirically defensible.

But:

Modern artificial intelligence is a prophetic sign that Satan has been released from Revelation 20.

That is a separate theological claim requiring separate evidence.

The first statement cannot simply be substituted for the second.

3. Start Where the Argument Starts: Revelation 20#

Before discussing:

• television
• radio
• algorithms
• world wars

or artificial intelligence, the controlling passage must be allowed to define its own terms.

The King James text reads:

Revelation 20:2–3

“And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled:

and after that he must be loosed a little season.”

Then:

Revelation 20:7–10

“And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle:

the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city:

and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone...”

Several points are not controversial because they are directly in the passage.

Satan is bound.

The text repeatedly calls the period

“a thousand years.”

The stated purpose of the binding is

“that he should deceive the nations no more.”

The restraint ends.

After the release Satan again

“deceive[s] the nations.”

Those nations are described as extending to

“the four quarters of the earth.”

The deception produces a specific result: they are gathered “to battle.”

They surround

“the camp of the saints”

and

“the beloved city.”

God destroys the gathering.

Satan is then permanently cast into the lake of fire.

Immediately afterward John sees the great white throne and the final judgment.

Whatever interpretation one adopts, those are the textual anchors.

And one feature deserves particular attention:

Revelation does not leave the released deception completely undefined.

Verse 8 tells us what it accomplishes.

Satan deceives the nations:

“to gather them together to battle.”

That clause becomes extremely important when evaluating the proposed mass-media criterion.

4. “Deceive the Nations” Is More Specific Than “There Will Be Lies”#

The source paper regularly moves from Revelation’s phrase

“deceive the nations”

to a broader category called

“mass deception.”

That sounds natural, but it is not necessarily identical.

Revelation 20:3 does not say:

Satan shall be incapable of telling or inspiring any lie anywhere.

It says:

“that he should deceive the nations no more.”

The grammatical object matters.

The same object reappears after the release:

“shall go out to deceive the nations...”

And Revelation immediately associates that renewed deception with the gathering of those nations against God’s people.

This does not prove that Satan performs no other deception during the episode.

It does mean that the passage itself emphasizes something more specific than the total number of false statements circulating in human society.

One reasonable reading is therefore:

During the millennium Satan is restrained from accomplishing a particular form of international deception; after his release he again succeeds in deceiving the nations into a climactic anti-God coalition.

That interpretation is especially common within amillennial readings, where Satan’s binding is understood as preventing him from holding the Gentile nations universally in darkness and from stopping the Gospel’s worldwide advance.

Other interpreters disagree and understand the binding as a much more comprehensive future incapacitation.

Brian Tabb’s Revelation commentary summarizes precisely this disagreement:

premillennial interpreters generally place the binding after Christ’s return and treat it as a severe or complete incapacitation, whereas amillennial interpreters connect the binding with Christ’s first coming while allowing continued Satanic activity in other respects.

The important point at this stage is not which position is correct.

It is that the source paper adopts one particular definition of the binding—virtually complete cessation of Satanic deception—and then reasons from that definition as though Revelation itself had already settled the question.

It has not.

5. Does Satan’s Binding Mean All Satanic Deception Stops?#

The source paper repeatedly strengthens its claim as it proceeds.

In one formulation the millennium is a period of

“reduced mass deception.”

Elsewhere Satan’s power to deceive is said to be

“entirely restrained.”

Version 3 says his ability to deceive is

“completely halted,”

leaving only ordinary human deception.

Those are not all the same proposition.

If Revelation meant the absolute elimination of every form of Satanic deception, several New Testament passages would require explanation under any interpretation that places the millennium within the present age.

The apostles still warn Christians about Satan.

Paul writes:

“Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.”—Ephesians 6:11

Peter warns:

“your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.”—1 Peter 5:8

Revelation 12 itself calls Satan the one:

“which deceiveth the whole world,”

while also describing him as cast down and operating under a limited time.

These passages do not settle the chronology of Revelation 20.

Different eschatological systems arrange these texts differently.

They do, however, show why the phrase

“completely halted”

should not be asserted without argument.

A more textually controlled statement would be:

Revelation 20 teaches that Satan is decisively restrained with respect to deceiving the nations in the manner described by the passage.

Anything stronger should be clearly labeled interpretation rather than direct quotation of Scripture.

6. Human Deception and Satanic Deception#

The source paper deserves credit for recognizing a real theological problem.

If Satan is bound while human beings remain sinners, human deception can continue.

That distinction is biblical.

Jesus teaches:

Mark 7:20–23

“That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.

For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit...”

James likewise says:

“But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.”—James 1:14

Jeremiah famously describes the human heart itself as deceitful.

In other words, Scripture does not allow us to blame Satan for every lie a human being tells.

Here the source paper asks exactly the right question:

How can human deception be distinguished from Satanic deception?

The difficulty is that its proposed answer does not come from a biblical text.

The argument gradually becomes:

small-scale deception → ordinary human beings;

worldwide deception → Satan.

But where does Scripture establish that scale as the diagnostic?

A single person can lie.

A government can lie.

An empire can lie.

A religious movement can lie.

A commercial institution can lie.

A civilization can perpetuate myths for generations.

Human beings can organize enormous structures of violence and deception without ceasing to be morally responsible human beings.

Scripture also allows human and spiritual causation to overlap.

A wicked person may act from his own heart while also participating in a broader spiritual rebellion.

Therefore, the observation that a deception is extraordinarily large does not by itself tell us which causal level produced it.

This is the first major methodological gap in the proposed test.

7. John 8:44: A Character Description Is Not Automatically a Calendar#

The paper repeatedly appeals to Jesus’ words in John 8:44.

Jesus says of the devil:

“He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him... for he is a liar, and the father of it.”

There can be no serious dispute that Scripture associates Satan with both murder and falsehood.

The difficulty is chronological.

John 8:44 tells us what Satan is like.

It does not say:

whenever the statistical rate of lying, murder, or warfare rises beyond a certain threshold, Christians may know Satan has just been released from Revelation 20.

Indeed, Jesus calls him a murderer:

“from the beginning.”

That wording shows that murder is not something Satan first begins doing during the little season.

Similarly, lying is not peculiar to the final release.

So, John 8:44 is excellent evidence concerning Satan’s character.

It is weak evidence for dating Revelation 20.

A description of a person’s characteristics does not automatically tell us when a particular event in that person’s history occurred.

8. The Central Modern Claim: Radio, Television, News Media and AI#

Here we reach the heart of the paper.

The source argues that modern communication technology permits deception to spread across nations and cultures with a speed and scale unavailable during earlier centuries.

• Radio
• television
• news media
• AI

are therefore treated as possible indicators of Satan’s release.

There is a legitimate observation here.

The modern information environment really is technologically different from that of antiquity.

In the nineteenth century the electric telegraph dramatically compressed communication time.

The U.S. State Department’s historical account notes that before telegraphy, information moved at roughly the speed of ships and horses; by the mid-nineteenth century messages could move by electrical impulse, and the successful transatlantic cable of 1866 made rapid communication between Europe and North America routine.

Radio accelerated the process further. Commercial broadcasting expanded rapidly in the 1920s and created national audiences capable of hearing political, religious, commercial, and entertainment content simultaneously.

Smithsonian materials appropriately describe radio as helping create a modern mass-media culture.

Television added image.

Satellites added global reach.

The internet added interactivity.

Social media reduced distribution costs to nearly zero for ordinary users.

Generative AI now reduces the cost of producing plausible text, audio, imagery and video.

These developments are historically real.

But the next step still has to be demonstrated:

Why should an increase in the capacity for global communication be identified specifically with the release of Satan in Revelation 20?

The Revelation passage never mentions a communications device.

It does not mention:

• machines
• radio waves
• artificial images
• broadcasting
• computers

or information networks.

That does not mean such technologies could not be involved in some future deception.

It means the identification is extra-textual.

Possible?

Yes.

Demonstrated from Revelation 20?

No.

9. The Moving-Threshold Problem#

There is another historical difficulty.

If worldwide communications capability is the key prophetic sign, where should the threshold be placed?

At the printing press?

The international newspaper?

The telegraph?

The transatlantic cable?

The telephone?

Cinema?

Radio?

Television?

Communication satellites?

The World Wide Web?

Social media?

Generative AI?

The telegraph already allowed international governments and newspapers to transmit information in hours instead of weeks.

Radio created simultaneous national audiences in the 1920s.

Television added unprecedented visual persuasion.

Social platforms enabled billions of users to participate in real-time information networks.

AI produces synthetic information cheaply and at scale.

Each generation could plausibly look at its newest technology and say:

Now deception has finally become global enough.

But without a scriptural criterion telling us which technological threshold matters, the anchor can continually move.

That makes the theory difficult to test.

10. The Same Technology Can Distribute Truth#

There is also an important control condition.

Communication technologies do not merely distribute deception.

Printing has distributed Bibles.

Radio has broadcast Gospel preaching.

Television has documented crimes that authorities preferred to hide.

The internet gives readers immediate access to:

historical archives

• manuscript images
• language tools
• sermons
• academic journals
• government records
• competing interpretations

Digital networks permit fact-checking as well as lying.

Artificial intelligence can generate falsehood, but it can also help locate contradictions, translate ancient sources, compare documents, and expose fabricated claims.

A 2025 scoping review of 24 empirical studies found precisely this double character:

generative AI can create highly convincing misinformation, yet some systems can also aid detection, correction and resistance to misinformation.

This does not make the technologies morally neutral in every application.

It does show that communication scale by itself does not discriminate between truth and deception.

The same infrastructure supports both.

Therefore:

global communications capacity ≠ global deception.

More evidence is needed.

11. Modern Misinformation Is Real#

Correcting the prophetic inference should not push us into the opposite mistake.

Modern misinformation is not imaginary.

One of the most influential empirical studies was published in Science in 2018 by Soroush Vosoughi, Deb Roy and Sinan Aral.

The researchers examined approximately 126,000 verified stories distributed on Twitter by roughly three million people more than 4.5 million times between 2006 and 2017.

False information spread farther, faster, deeper, and more broadly than true information across the categories they studied.

The researchers also found that false information tended to be more novel and evoked stronger reactions of surprise, fear and disgust.

Importantly, removing bots did not eliminate the difference: human sharing behavior played a major role.

This is significant.

It confirms an intuition behind the source paper:

technology can amplify human susceptibility to falsehood.

But it also corrects another intuition.

The dramatic diffusion was not simply machines hypnotizing humanity.

Human beings themselves preferred and shared novel false information.

That brings us back to the Bible’s insistence on human moral agency.

12. Psychology: Why Repeated Falsehood Can Feel True#

The paper uses words such as “delusional” and “hypnotic” to describe people who seem unable to perceive truth even when evidence is shown to them.

Those words should be handled carefully.

“Delusion” has technical meanings in psychology and psychiatry.

“Hypnosis” likewise describes a specific family of phenomena.

Neither term should be applied loosely to entire populations without evidence.

But the underlying observation—that people can become surprisingly resistant to correction—is well supported.

One important mechanism is the illusory truth effect.

Repeated information often feels more familiar and becomes easier to process.

That familiarity can then be misinterpreted as evidence of truth.

A 2024 review in Current Opinion in Psychology summarizes a substantial literature showing that repetition increases belief not only in trivia statements but also in misinformation, false headlines and conspiracy claims.

The effect can occur even when statements conflict with prior knowledge.

A 2023 experiment in Cognition found something even more relevant to social media:

repetition increased participants’ willingness to share statements, and that effect was mediated by increased perceived accuracy.

A large 2026 meta-analysis covering 182 studies and more than 31,000 participants likewise found a measurable illusory-truth effect, while also emphasizing substantial variation depending on context and study design.

So, there is a psychologically responsible way to express part of the source paper’s concern:

repeated exposure to information can increase familiarity, perceived truth, confidence, and willingness to share—even when the information is false.

That is a strong empirical claim.

It does not require the language of mass hypnosis.

13. There Is Also Evidence Against Exaggerating the Problem#

A careful investigation has to include evidence that complicates our own narrative.

A 2024 Nature perspective by Ceren Budak, Brendan Nyhan, David Rothschild, Emily Thorson and Duncan Watts cautions that public discussions often overstate the average population’s exposure to false online content. Their review found that consumption of false and inflammatory material is often concentrated among a relatively small subset of highly engaged users rather than being evenly distributed across the population.

That is an important check against describing all modern society as psychologically overwhelmed by deception.

Misinformation can be dangerous without being universal.

A smaller group can exert outsized influence.

Some individuals are more vulnerable in particular contexts.

Some false claims spread extremely far.

Other false claims disappear immediately.

And people can simultaneously believe some false propositions and accurately reject many others.

The reality is more complicated than

“everyone is hypnotized.”

That complexity matters when attempting to identify an event described as Satan deceiving

“the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth.”

14. AI Changes the Information Environment—but Does Not Interpret Revelation for Us#

Artificial intelligence deserves special treatment because the source paper explicitly identifies

“computer-generated AI”

as part of the modern explosion of deception.

The concern is legitimate.

A 2025 scoping review published in AI & Society surveyed empirical research on generative AI and misinformation. It found evidence that large language models can create persuasive misinformation, including material tailored to particular audiences. At the same time, the literature also found AI useful in some forms of verification and correction. Results depended heavily on the model, language, domain and prompting conditions.

Deepfakes present another problem.

A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized 56 studies involving more than 86,000 participants. Overall human performance in detecting high-quality deepfakes was weak; pooled detection accuracy was only modestly above chance under some measures, while sensitivity measures were not reliably above chance.

There is therefore good reason to say:

modern AI makes some forms of deception cheaper, faster and more convincing.

But one still cannot infer:

therefore Satan has been released from Revelation 20.

The empirical research does not test that proposition.

Psychology cannot detect whether Satan is the supernatural cause behind a particular information environment.

That theological identification must come from theology and Scripture, not from an experiment.

15. The Logical Problem: Affirming the Consequent#

The core diagnostic argument can be put into formal terms.

Premise: If Satan is released, worldwide deception will occur.

Observation: Worldwide deception appears to be occurring.

Conclusion: Therefore, Satan has been released.

This form of reasoning is called affirming the consequent.

If:

A → B

and:

B

it does not automatically follow that:

A.

Why?

Because B may have more than one possible cause.

Suppose we say:

If there is a major fire, smoke will appear.

We see smoke.

We cannot yet conclude that a major structural fire exists.

The smoke could come from a fireplace, a controlled burn, industrial equipment, or another source.

Likewise, global misinformation may be compatible with Satan’s release while also being explainable at other levels by:

human sin,

political incentives,

economic incentives,

ideological conflict,

new technologies,

social psychology,

institutional failures,

war,

rumor,

or combinations of all of them.

To establish the prophetic conclusion, the argument needs independent evidence identifying this particular deception with Revelation 20.

That evidence is what remains missing.

16. The Falsifiability Problem#

Another methodological problem appears in the language about people being unable to recognize truth even after it is presented.

That can certainly happen.

But the idea becomes dangerous to reasoning if disagreement with the theory is itself treated as proof of the theory.

Consider the loop:

If you agree that we are in Satan’s little season, you see the truth.

If you disagree, your inability to recognize it demonstrates how powerful the little-season deception has become.

Now imagine someone produces contrary historical evidence.

That evidence can simply be called another deception.

Imagine an exegetical objection.

That too can be classified as deception.

Imagine a chronological problem.

The objector can be said to be blinded.

Eventually there is no observation capable of counting against the theory.

That is called a self-sealing belief system.

It is especially hazardous in theological discussions because spiritual language can make ordinary correction appear spiritually suspicious.

Yet Scripture repeatedly encourages examination.

The Bereans were praised because they:

“searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”—Acts 17:11

Paul tells believers:

“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”—1 Thessalonians 5:21

A strong interpretation should therefore be willing to answer:

What evidence would show that this interpretation is mistaken?

If the answer is

“no possible evidence,”

we are no longer testing the interpretation.

We are protecting it.

17. What Does Revelation Itself Give as the Observable Outcome?#

This is perhaps the strongest internal correction.

The source paper looks primarily for a medium:

radio,

television,

mass media,

AI.

Revelation emphasizes an outcome.

Satan goes out:

“to deceive the nations... to gather them together to battle.”

Then:

“they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city.”

The deception therefore produces a climactic international mobilization against the people of God.

Then fire comes from heaven.

Then the devil is cast permanently into the lake of fire.

Then John sees the great white throne.

If someone asks,

“What signs does Revelation 20 itself attach most clearly to Satan’s release?”

the safest answer is therefore not:

a new communication technology appears.

It is:

Satan resumes deceiving the nations, the nations are gathered in Gog-and-Magog rebellion against God’s people, the attack is divinely destroyed, and Satan’s career ends forever.

That is the prophetic complex actually supplied by the chapter.

Separating “deception” from those accompanying events and then defining deception by an external technological standard creates much more interpretive uncertainty.

18. Lies, Violence and War: Does History Show the Required Pattern?#

The source paper predicts that Satan’s release should produce a dramatic increase in:

• lies
• murder
• violence
• war

Lies cannot be measured reliably across two thousand years.

We do not possess comparable datasets of every false statement made in AD 500, AD 1000, AD 1500 and AD 2026.

This creates a serious historical problem.

Modern lies are searchable.

Recorded.

Archived.

Digitized.

Replayable.

Indexed.

A medieval rumor may survive in one manuscript—or disappear completely.

Modern visibility can therefore be mistaken for modern uniqueness.

War is more measurable, but the picture is still complicated.

Our World in Data’s synthesis of conflict research shows that the two world wars dominate the modern historical record of battle deaths.

World War II alone killed more than twenty million combatants according to the dataset used in that overview, and the world wars account for an enormous share of combat deaths since 1800.

Recent decades have generally remained below those twentieth-century peaks, although serious increases have occurred in Europe, Africa and the Middle East.

Uppsala Conflict Data Program figures likewise reveal complexity.

The number of state-based conflicts reached historically high levels in the 2020s within UCDP’s post-1946 dataset, yet yearly fatalities fluctuate sharply.

In 2024 UCDP recorded 61 active state-based armed conflicts, but state-based fatalities remained far below the death tolls of the world-war era.

So, two statements can simultaneously be true:

There are currently many serious armed conflicts.

It is not historically defensible to describe warfare as simply increasing in a straight line toward the present.

That makes war a poor standalone clock for Revelation 20.

19. The Three Major Millennial Frameworks Matter#

A paper claiming to identify Satan’s post-millennial release cannot avoid the larger interpretation of Revelation 20.

Christian interpreters have disagreed over this passage for centuries.

Brian Tabb summarizes six major interpretive questions surrounding Revelation 20, including the relation between chapters 19 and 20, the nature of Satan’s binding, whether the thousand years is literal or symbolic, who reigns with Christ, where those thrones are, and whether the battles of Revelation 19 and Revelation 20 are one battle viewed twice or two different events.

These disputes produce three broad families of interpretation.

Premillennialism#

Premillennialists understand Christ’s visible return as preceding the millennium.

Under this reading, Revelation 19’s return and victory come first.

Satan is then bound. Christ and his saints reign.

Only after that millennium does Satan receive the little season.

If that order is correct, then present-day:

• radio
• television
• social media
• AI

cannot demonstrate the post-millennial release unless the preceding return of Christ and millennium have already occurred.

So, a conventional premillennial reading places a major obstacle in front of the source paper’s proposed identification.

Amillennialism#

Amillennialists generally interpret the thousand years symbolically as the present inter-advent age.

Within that framework Satan is bound in a particular respect through Christ’s victory:

he cannot prevent the Gospel from going to the nations or organize the final worldwide assault until the appointed end.

Satan can nevertheless remain active in temptation, persecution and lesser forms of deception.

At the end comes the final release and international rebellion.

Under this interpretation a future or present “little season” is entirely possible, but mass communication technology is not itself the scripturally defined marker.

Postmillennialism#

Postmillennial systems generally expect extensive success of the Gospel within history before Christ’s return, followed by a final rebellion.

There is substantial variation among postmillennial interpreters concerning whether the thousand years should be understood literally or symbolically and how the period relates to the broader church age.

Again, one cannot identify the little season solely from modern media.

One must first demonstrate that the preceding millennial conditions required by the particular interpretation have already been fulfilled.

The point is not to settle the millennium here.

It is to show that:

“radio and AI indicate Satan’s release”

is not a conclusion that simply falls out of Revelation 20.

It depends on a much larger eschatological framework.

20. Gog and Magog#

The source paper says the Gog-and-Magog battle is

“widely regarded by scholars as a still-future event.”

That wording is too simple.

There is broad agreement that Revelation 20:7–10 depicts a climactic rebellion connected with final judgment.

But interpreters disagree strongly about its relationship to other Revelation battle scenes.

Some read Revelation 19 and Revelation 20 consecutively.

Others read Revelation 20 as a recapitulation: the same final conflict viewed from a different symbolic angle.

A peer-reviewed Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society article by Dave Mathewson describes exactly this long-running debate between progression and recapitulation.

Tabb likewise notes that both Revelation 19 and Revelation 20 draw heavily on Ezekiel’s Gog imagery and argues that this may support seeing the same final conflict presented with different emphases.

Therefore, a safer statement would be:

Revelation 20 presents Gog and Magog as the climactic international rebellion associated with Satan’s final release, while interpreters disagree over how that rebellion relates chronologically to the other final-battle scenes in Revelation.

That preserves what is clear without pretending the disputed parts are settled.

21. Now the Chronological Addendum#

The source paper wisely begins the addendum with a qualification:

Scripture does not provide a calendar date for Satan’s release.

That is an important admission.

The question is whether the method that follows nevertheless creates a reliable calendar indirectly.

The argument contains several steps:

John the Baptist fulfills the Elijah prophecy.

This event occurred around AD 26.

His ministry begins the

“First Day of the Lord.”

2 Peter 3:8 means a prophetic “day” lasts approximately one thousand years.

A second prophetic day therefore brings history to approximately AD 2026.

This makes Satan’s release increasingly likely in the present era.

Every one of those transitions needs to be examined.

22. John the Baptist and Elijah#

The biblical connection itself is strong.

The angel says John will go before the Lord:

“in the spirit and power of Elias.”—Luke 1:17

Jesus says:

“And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.”—Matthew 11:14

After the Transfiguration Jesus tells the disciples that Elijah had already come, and Matthew explains:

“Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.”—Matthew 17:13

John himself nevertheless denies being Elijah literally:

“Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not.”—John 1:21

The texts fit naturally when John is understood as fulfilling Elijah’s prophetic forerunner role

“in the spirit and power of Elias,”

rather than being Elijah reincarnated or physically returned.

So far, so good.

But another proposition is required:

John’s fulfillment of the Elijah role starts the first thousand-year

“Day of the Lord.”

Where does Scripture say that?

The cited passages do not.

Malachi presents Elijah as one who comes before the great and dreadful day of the LORD.

A forerunner appearing before an event does not automatically establish the mathematical starting point of the event.

This is therefore an interpretive bridge, not an explicit biblical statement.

23. The AD 26 Problem#

The chronology becomes even less secure when AD 26 is used as the starting date.

Luke dates John’s ministry to:

“the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar.”—Luke 3:1

Some chronologies have counted Tiberius’s reign from a period of shared authority with Augustus and therefore reached dates around AD 26 or AD 27.

But that reconstruction is disputed.

Andrew Steinmann published a detailed study in Tyndale Bulletin in 2022 examining first- and second-century literary sources together with numismatic and inscriptional evidence.

His conclusion was that the surviving evidence gives no substantial support for reckoning Tiberius’s fifteenth year from the earlier co-regency and that Luke’s readers were highly unlikely to understand the fifteenth year as earlier than AD 29.

The chronological table in that study places plausible reckonings of Tiberius’s fifteenth year principally between late AD 28 and AD 29.

This matters because the proposed prophetic clock is extraordinarily sensitive to a difference of only a few years.

If we begin in AD 26:

AD 26 + 2,000 = AD 2026.

If we begin in AD 29:

AD 29 + 2,000 = AD 2029.

Ordinarily a three-year uncertainty in ancient chronology would be small.

But when a theory claims that the allotted time is reaching exhaustion right now, those three years become central.

That is a sign that the chronological model is fragile.

24. Does 2 Peter 3:8 Mean One Prophetic Day Equals 1,000 Years?#

This is the most important chronological question.

The KJV reads:

2 Peter 3:8–10

“But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward...”

There are several reasons not to treat this as a universal prophecy-conversion formula.

First, Peter says “as.”

He does not say:

one day equals one thousand years.

Second, the expression is reciprocal.

A day is as a thousand years.

And a thousand years are as a day.

If the first clause establishes a mathematical conversion:

1 day = 1,000 years,

then the second would equally establish:

1,000 years = 1 day.

That makes excellent sense as a comparison concerning God and time.

It makes poor sense as a chronological calculator.

Third, the context tells us why Peter brings it up.

Scoffers ask:

“Where is the promise of his coming?”

They treat the passage of time as evidence that God will not act.

Peter answers that the Lord is not “slack” and that what appears to human beings as delay must be understood in light of divine longsuffering.

Then Peter immediately says:

“The Lord is not slack concerning his promise... but is longsuffering.”

The subject is the apparent delay of judgment and the patience of God.

25. Psalm 90 Is the Background#

Peter’s language strongly echoes Psalm 90.

Moses writes:

Psalm 90:2–4

“Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

Thou turnest man to destruction...

For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.”

The contrast is between God’s eternity and human mortality.

Human life passes like grass.

A millennium is to God like yesterday.

The Psalmist is not giving Israel a conversion table by which every occurrence of “yesterday” equals one thousand years.

The point is theological.

A 2022 article in the scholarly journal Biblica traces the history of interpretation of Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8.

Terrance Callan notes that these passages have indeed sometimes been used historically to construct thousand-year “days” of world history, but argues that this was not their original meaning.

That historical qualification is worth preserving.

The thousand-year-day idea is not new.

Ancient Christian writers sometimes developed similar chronological schemes.

But the existence of an old interpretation does not make it the intended meaning of 2 Peter 3:8.

26. The Word “Prophetic” Has Been Added#

Notice another subtle move.

The source paper speaks of:

each prophetic day spanning approximately one thousand years.

But 2 Peter 3:8 never says “prophetic day.”

The adjective is supplied by the interpretation.

Peter says:

“one day is with the Lord as a thousand years...”

He does not say:

Whenever a prophetic passage uses the word day, substitute one thousand calendar years.

That hermeneutical rule would need to be established independently.

Without such a rule, 2 Peter 3:8 cannot function as the arithmetic engine required by the addendum.

27. The Missing Second Thousand Years#

Even if we temporarily granted the thousand-year-day formula, another problem remains.

Suppose we grant all of the following for the sake of argument:

John’s Elijah fulfillment starts a prophetic day.

That day begins in AD 26.

One prophetic day equals one thousand years.

Then the first day would end around:

AD 1026.

But Revelation 20 itself gives one period called:

“a thousand years.”

Why does the source argument proceed to two thousand-year days and end around AD 2026?

Where is the verse assigning exactly two prophetic days between John the Baptist and Satan’s release?

That second thousand years is not supplied by Revelation 20.

It is not supplied by 2 Peter 3.

It is not supplied by the Elijah passages.

A new premise has entered the argument.

This is a particularly important structural weakness because the modern-date conclusion depends entirely upon that extra millennium.

28. “Exhaustion of the Allotted Time”#

The addendum ends by saying the little season may now be expected:

“not by speculation, but by the exhaustion of the allotted time.”

That phrase is stronger than the evidence allows.

For time to be “allotted,” Scripture must first allot it.

Revelation allots—or at minimum names—a thousand-year period associated with Satan’s binding.

2 Peter compares one day and one thousand years in the context of divine patience.

The Elijah passages identify John’s role.

But no cited passage says:

exactly two thousand years are allotted from John the Baptist until Satan’s release.

Therefore, the paper’s own earlier caution is the safer one:

this does not establish a precise date.

Indeed, once the unsupported two-day chronology is removed, the argument no longer establishes a rough date either.

29. 2 Thessalonians 2 Gives Us a Useful Comparison#

The New Testament really does describe extraordinary end-time deception elsewhere.

Paul writes of a figure:

“whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness...”—2 Thessalonians 2:9–10

He then speaks of “strong delusion” and people believing “a lie.”

Interpreters disagree over precisely how 2 Thessalonians 2 relates to Revelation 20.

But notice something methodological.

Paul does not merely tell Christians:

look for a general increase in false information.

He gives a surrounding prophetic context involving the man of sin, apostasy, opposition to God, lying signs, deception, judgment, and the coming of Christ.

That is instructive.

When Scripture means to describe intensified eschatological deception, it embeds the deception inside a larger prophetic pattern.

Revelation 20 does the same.

This suggests caution before isolating one generic phenomenon—

“there are many lies”

—and using it alone as a prophetic clock.

30. Why the Modern Interpretation Feels So Persuasive#

It is worth asking not only whether the argument works but why it feels powerful.

That question should not be used to insult the author or dismiss believers who find the theory compelling.

Human beings naturally look for patterns.

And sometimes patterns are real.

But several normal psychological tendencies make contemporary eschatological identification especially persuasive.

Availability#

We encounter modern deception constantly because modern information is constantly available.

False claims appear on phones.

News archives preserve them.

Videos replay them.

Search engines retrieve them instantly.

By contrast, most lies told in the tenth century vanished without leaving usable historical records.

The result is an uneven comparison:

we see an enormous sample of present-day deception,

but only the tiny surviving sample of ancient deception.

The present therefore feels uniquely deceptive even before an equivalent historical measurement has been made.

Recency#

Events close to our own lives feel more significant.

Every generation experiences its own wars, scandals, moral changes and technologies directly.

Older crises become paragraphs in books.

This can make the present generation feel uniquely apocalyptic.

Ecclesiastes itself warns against romanticizing the past:

“Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this.”—Ecclesiastes 7:10

Confirmation#

Once someone suspects mass media is the mechanism of the little season, examples of:

• propaganda
• censorship
• deepfakes
• institutional lying
• AI hallucination

become highly salient.

But examples of the same technology exposing fraud, distributing Scripture or correcting falsehood may receive less attention.

This does not mean the original concern is false.

It means the hypothesis must deliberately search for evidence against itself.

Repetition#

The illusory-truth literature is especially relevant here.

Repeated claims become familiar.

Familiar claims feel easier to process.

That ease can become mistaken for truth.

Ironically, this principle applies not only to mainstream narratives.

It applies equally to:

• alternative narratives
• conspiracy narratives
• political narratives
• theological narratives

—and our own interpretations.

No community is psychologically exempt.

That is why evidence must remain external to group identity.

31. “Everyone Else Is Deceived” Is Not a Safe Method#

There is also a spiritual danger worth naming carefully.

A person studying deception can gradually become convinced that nearly everyone outside his own interpretive circle is deceived.

At that point, skepticism can feel like discernment simply because it is skeptical.

But the Bible never teaches:

distrust everything.

Biblical discernment is not generalized suspicion.

It distinguishes true from false.

Paul says:

“Prove all things.”

But he immediately adds:

“hold fast that which is good.”

Christian discernment therefore has two responsibilities.

Expose what is false.

Recognize what is true.

A worldview that can identify lies but can no longer recognize trustworthy evidence is not becoming more discerning.

It is becoming harder to correct.

Modern research offers an interesting parallel. Experiments published in Nature Human Behavior in 2024 found that some misinformation interventions successfully reduce belief in false claims but can also create spillover skepticism toward accurate information.

That is a useful warning.

The antidote to deception is not universal distrust.

It is better calibration.

32. What the Source Paper Gets Right#

A fair examination should preserve what survives scrutiny.

The source paper is right that Revelation 20 presents Satan as an active deceiver.

It is right that Satan’s ability is under divine authority rather than autonomous.

It is right that Revelation gives a period of restraint and a later release.

It is right that the post-release deception has worldwide scope.

It is right that Satan’s final period ends in permanent judgment.

It is right that human beings remain capable of deception and cannot simply blame Satan for their own lies.

It is right that modern communications technology magnifies the reach of information.

It is right that false information can exploit human cognition.

It is right that AI introduces powerful new tools for synthetic deception.

It is right that Christians should take deception seriously.

It is right that Revelation 20 deserves careful consideration as the world changes.

And the author is commendably cautious at one point in saying that the chronological addendum is not “absolute proof.”

These points should not be discarded merely because the larger prophetic identification is underdetermined.

33. Where the Argument Overreaches#

The problems begin when reasonable observations are treated as demonstrated prophetic identifications.

Revelation says Satan is prevented from

“deceiv[ing] the nations.”

The paper expands this into virtually complete cessation of Satanic deception.

Scripture says human hearts can produce deceit.

The paper suggests human deception should remain comparatively small while worldwide deception indicates Satanic activity.

No text supplies that scale-based diagnostic.

Modern media spreads falsehood.

The paper treats modern media as evidence of Revelation 20’s release.

Revelation does not identify a communication technology.

John 8:44 calls Satan a liar and murderer.

The paper turns those characteristics into a statistical clock based on rising lies and violence.

The verse itself contains no such chronology.

2 Peter says one day is with the Lord “as” a thousand years.

The paper uses the verse as the basis for thousand-year prophetic days.

Peter’s immediate context concerns divine patience and apparent delay.

John fulfills Elijah’s forerunner role.

The paper makes his appearance the beginning of a thousand-year Day of the Lord.

The Elijah passages do not make that chronological statement.

A date around AD 26 is chosen.

The best current ancient evidence may favor approximately AD 29 for Tiberius’s fifteenth year.

And finally, two thousand years are described as allotted.

No cited Scripture provides that two-thousand-year allotment.

Each move is understandable.

Together, however, they create more certainty than the texts support.

34. A Better Way to State the Case#

The strongest version of the underlying concern would sound something like this:

Revelation 20 teaches that Satan is restrained for the thousand-year period so that he cannot deceive the nations in the manner described by the prophecy.

After the thousand years he is released for a little season and again deceives nations throughout the earth, gathering them in final rebellion against God’s people before being permanently judged.

Christians disagree over whether the thousand years is a literal future millennium, a symbolic description of the present church age, or part of another millennial framework.

That disagreement affects when Satan’s binding and release should be expected.

Modern communication technologies—including broadcasting, digital networks and generative AI—have unquestionably increased the speed and potential scale of misinformation.

Psychological evidence demonstrates that repetition, novelty, social reinforcement and familiar processing can make false information more persuasive.

AI can create synthetic media that human beings sometimes struggle to detect.

These developments make biblical warnings about deception highly relevant.

They do not, however, establish by themselves that Revelation 20:7 has already occurred.

The strongest biblical evidence for the release must come from the entire prophetic pattern Revelation describes, not merely from technological capacity.

Likewise, 2 Peter 3:8 should not be treated as a universal chronological equation unless independent exegetical evidence establishes that usage.

Scripture does not explicitly assign two thousand years from John the Baptist to Satan’s release.

Therefore, Christians may reasonably watch current events with seriousness while remaining cautious about declaring a specific prophetic fulfillment.

That thesis retains the concern.

It simply removes the unnecessary certainty.

35. A Compact Claim Audit#

36. Conclusion#

The question

“How do we recognize Satan’s little season?”

is a legitimate biblical question.

Revelation itself tells us that such a season exists.

It also tells us something about its character.

Satan is released.

He again deceives the nations.

The deception reaches the four quarters of the earth.

The nations are gathered in Gog-and-Magog rebellion.

They surround the people of God.

God destroys the assault.

Satan is finally cast into the lake of fire.

Those statements deserve to be taken with full seriousness.

But seriousness about prophecy does not require certainty where Scripture has not supplied it.

Modern communications technology presents genuine challenges that earlier generations did not possess in the same form.

Radio created mass audiences.

Television added visual persuasion.

The internet created interactive global information networks.

Social media increased speed and reach.

Generative AI allows convincing synthetic information to be produced at extraordinary scale.

Psychology confirms that human beings are vulnerable to repetition, familiarity, novelty, emotional content and social reinforcement.

Those facts should make Christians vigilant.

But vigilance is not the same thing as prophetic identification.

The central question remains:

Does Revelation itself tell us that the invention of global communication is how Christians should recognize Satan’s release?

The answer, on the evidence examined here, is no.

The text tells us that Satan will deceive the nations.

It does not tell us that radio waves, television, the internet or artificial intelligence are the prophetic sign by which that release is dated.

Likewise, 2 Peter 3:8 offers a profound answer to human impatience over the apparent delay of God’s promise:

“one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”

Its context is God’s perspective, patience and promised judgment.

Turning that comparison into a universal one-day-equals-one-thousand-years prophecy formula requires a hermeneutical step Peter never states.

John the Baptist certainly came in the

“spirit and power of Elias.”

But Scripture never says his appearance began a two-thousand-year countdown to Satan’s release.

And the chronology itself is uncertain enough that AD 26 should not function as an unquestioned anchor.

The result is therefore neither:

“The little season definitely began in the modern era,”

nor:

“The little season definitely cannot be near.”

The evidence supports something more restrained:

Revelation 20 gives Christians strong reason to expect a final, divinely permitted resurgence of Satanic deception among the nations before Satan’s permanent destruction.

Modern technologies have created historically powerful instruments by which human beings can communicate both truth and falsehood at worldwide scale, and modern psychology helps explain why misinformation can be remarkably persuasive.

These facts make the biblical warnings concerning deception intensely relevant, but they do not independently establish that the little season has begun.

Any claim that we are presently inside Revelation 20:7–10 should therefore be argued from the entire biblical prophetic pattern rather than inferred principally from the existence of mass media, AI, or an unproven two-thousand-year chronological formula.

That conclusion is less dramatic than a date calculation.

But it is stronger because each part can be shown.

And if the purpose is truth rather than merely confirmation, that distinction matters.

Scripture itself gives the proper posture:

“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”—1 Thessalonians 5:21

And the same chapter that warns us of Satan’s final deception ends not with uncertainty about Satan’s fate, but with certainty:

“And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone...”—Revelation 20:10

Whatever uncertainty remains about the chronology, Revelation leaves no uncertainty about the final outcome.

References and Research Sources#

Primary source under examination

Matthews, Steve (“teethofthelamb”). How to Recognize Satan’s Little Season. Excerpted discussion paper concerning Revelation 20, mass communication, deception and an additional chronological indicator.

Biblical text

The Holy Bible, Authorized King James Version, Pure Cambridge Edition. Revelation 20; Psalm 90; 2 Peter 3; Matthew 11; Matthew 17; Luke 1; John 1; John 8; Mark 7; James 1; 1 Thessalonians 5; 2 Thessalonians 2 and related passages.

Biblical interpretation and chronology

Callan, Terrance. “One Day Like a Thousand Years (2 Pet 3,8).” Biblica 103, no. 2 (2022): 269–286. DOI: 10.2143/BIB.103.2.3290915.

Mathewson, Dave. “A Re-Examination of the Millennium in Rev 20:1–6: Consummation and Recapitulation.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44, no. 2 (2001): 237–251.

Steinmann, Andrew E. “Reckoning Tiberius’s Reign and Jesus’s Baptism: First- and Second-Century Evidence Concerning Tiberius’s Fifteenth Year (Luke 3:1).” Tyndale Bulletin 73 (2022): 91–118. DOI: 10.53751/001c.37789.

Tabb, Brian J. “Revelation.” The Gospel Coalition Bible Commentary. Discussion of Revelation 20, the millennium, Satan’s binding, Gog and Magog, premillennialism, postmillennialism and amillennialism.

Misinformation and psychology

Dechêne, Alice, et al. “The Truth About the Truth: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Truth Effect.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 14 (2010). DOI: 10.1177/1088868309352251.

Edelson, Sarah M., Valerie F. Reyna, Aadya Singh, and Jordan E. Roue. “The Psychology of Misinformation Across the Lifespan.” Annual Review of Developmental Psychology 6 (2024): 425–454. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-devpsych-010923-093547.

Henderson, Emma L., et al. “A Reproducible Systematic Map of Research on the Illusory Truth Effect.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 29 (2022): 1065–1088. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-021-01995-w.

Udry, Jessica, and Sarah J. Barber. “The Illusory Truth Effect: A Review of How Repetition Increases Belief in Misinformation.” Current Opinion in Psychology 56 (2024): 101736. DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101736.

Vellani, Valentina, Sarah Zheng, Dilay Ercelik, and Tali Sharot. “The Illusory Truth Effect Leads to the Spread of Misinformation.” Cognition 236 (2023): 105421. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105421.

Vosoughi, Soroush, Deb Roy, and Sinan Aral. “The Spread of True and False News Online.” Science 359, no. 6380 (2018): 1146–1151. DOI: 10.1126/science.aap9559.

Artificial intelligence and synthetic misinformation

Park, Seyeon, and Xiaoli Nan. “Generative AI and Misinformation: A Scoping Review of the Role of Generative AI in the Generation, Detection, Mitigation, and Impact of Misinformation.” AI & Society 41 (2026): 1501–1515; published online 2025.

“Human Performance in Detecting Deepfakes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 56 Papers.” Computers in Human Behavior Reports 16 (2024): 100538. DOI: 10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100538.

Groh, Matthew, et al. “Human Detection of Political Speech Deepfakes Across Transcripts, Audio, and Video.” Nature Communications 15 (2024): 7629.

Historical communication and conflict

Smithsonian Institution. Historical materials concerning the expansion of commercial radio and its role in the formation of American mass media during the 1920s.

United States Department of State, Office of the Historian. “U.S. Diplomacy and the Telegraph, 1866.” Historical overview of the electric telegraph and transatlantic cable.

Davies, Shawn, Therése Pettersson, Margareta Sollenberg, and Magnus Öberg. “Organized Violence 1989–2024, and the Challenges of Identifying Civilian Victims.” Journal of Peace Research 62, no. 4 (2025).

Herre, Bastian, Lucas Rodés-Guirao, and Max Roser. “War and Peace.” Our World in Data. Historical synthesis using major conflict datasets including UCDP and PRIO.

VCG NOTES: How to Recognize Satan’s Little Season? A Biblical, Historical, Logical & Psychological Examination of Revelation 20

4CHAN THREAD & POST BREAKDOWNS – Library of Rickandria

VCG PAPER PROJECTS – Library of Rickandria

How to Recognize Satan’s Little Season? A Biblical, Historical, Logical & Psychological Examination of Revelation 20

How to Recognize Satan’s Little Season? A Biblical, Historical, Logical & Psychological Examination of Revelation 20 – Library of Rickandria