Becky
The only interpretative principle which I didn't see is an important one: Take into account the genre of the book.
For example, it is highly reasonable to assume that in writing a letter, or a summary of current events (i.e. a Gospel) or a history, one intends the simple declarative meaning of one's sentences. However, the same cannot be said of one relating his dreams in allegorical language. The fact that a writer continuously represents his actors as seven-headed beasts, etc is a clue to most any open-minded reader that he does NOT intend the simple declarative meaning of his sentence, but something hugely allegorical.
So, an important principle (which would save the author from his 'literal millenium' error) would be: Accept the literal, simple declarative meaning of a writing unless there are clues from the author (in the context or genre of the the writing) that he did not intend to convey such a literal recitation.
That is why I, like some others here, do not generally enter into the 'millenium' discussions: the 'dispensationalist' theories are based on the two most clearly allegorical books of the Bible (i.e. Daniel and the second half of Revelation). As such the hugely allegorical presentations are almost useless to us. The secret decoder ring for the allegoties has long since been lost (although I think that old John was probably providing a dream-like (politically safe) explanation of what was happening right then).
But the important point is that there is no question that the authors intended that a decoder ring was required. Once we take note of that fact, then treating them as simple declarative sentences capable of literal application is an abuse of the author's work.
The Lord will come again. When, I don't know. What He will do after He comes, I don't know. Call me stupid, but extracting anymore than that from dream-sequence allegories is merest speculation -- no matter what your preferred outcome.