Dave L.,

If you’re not interested then just ignore it.  As my mother used to say, “If you haven’t got something nice to say don’t say anything at all.”

Who knows?  By saying nothing you might save yourself some grief.  Sometimes I feel wearied by the things other people write here so, for my own sake, I ignore them.  Maybe, for your own sake, you should stop trying to convince the SAH people of whatever you’re trying to convince them.

Also, as Ecclesiastes 3:1 says, “To everything there is a season, A time for every purpose under heaven”.  Maybe you will, sometime in the future, come to a point where you are very interested in this literary structure stuff.  After all, that fellow Dickson(?) has some interesting things to say about the use of 7 in Genesis 1 and you appear (to me at least) to believe that Genesis 1 is more interesting for its symbolic content than for what some consider the plain meaning of the text.  Maybe your interest in Biblical symbolism and how it might be investigated via analysis of Biblical literary structures will increase in future.  Or maybe not.  We don’t all have to have the same interests.  But as long as you have no interest in symbolism outside of Genesis 1 what good does it do to criticise those who do?

Meanwhile, I know you’re interested in peak oil so have a look at the links on this page titled “Peak Oil Myth?”.  These guys are saying that the, “Oilfields are refilling from below”.

Janice,

I overdid it in my last paragraph to Michael Bull and so edited that… but you need to understand that I’ve spent hours listening to these lists in some sermon material Michael sent me on Revelation.... and so maybe some of those hours of frustration blurted out at once… sorry.  :-(

I am interested in genuine Jewish symbolism as a means of understanding the texts… however only have a certain amount of time each week for this. I’m not a minister, I’m not paid to do this… this is all ‘voluntary insanity’ (forum addiction) so I’ll just have to be patient with how I go.

Lastly, (sorry everyone else for this) that abiogenic oil theory is a desperate refuge for those troubled by the idea of a peak oil induced Greater Depression.

the vast majority[citation needed] of Western petroleum geologists consider the biogenic theory of petroleum formation scientifically proven. Though evidence exists for abiogenic creation of methane and hydrocarbon gases within the Earth[2][3], studies indicate that they are not produced in commercially significant quantities [4], so essentially all hydrocarbon gases that are extracted for use as fuel or raw materials for industrial production contain a median abiogenic hydrocarbon content of only 200 parts per million (ppm) or 0.02%. There is no direct evidence to date of abiogenic petroleum (liquid crude oil and long-chain hydrocarbon compounds) formed abiogenically within the crust because that is not the essential prediction of the abiogenic petroleum theory. Abiogenic Petroleum Theory predicts that oil is formed in the mantle at temperatures and pressures consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.

The abiogenic origin of petroleum (liquid hydrocarbon oils) has recently been reviewed in detail by Glasby, who raises a number of objections.[5]

Hi Dave

Thanks for your reply. Don’t worry - when there’s no conflict of any description around here it’s a bit like smalltalk after Sunday worship. BORING. I love the interaction and it would be great for everyone to meet for a beer one day so we can all look sheepish and ashamed for what we posted (haha). It’s good to see people passionate about nutting things out.

Regarding your comment, my point was to show that there is actually a reason for the structure of Genesis 2. It doesn’t take away from the obvious meaning of the text or the historicity of the events. Chiasms were an effective means of making text memorable. There are other structures like the A,B,A,B we see so often in the Psalms and elsewhere. These are just an A. B. C. D. C. B. A., or whatever letter you get to at the centre. From memory, the narrative of Jacob’s life gets to J then works back to A.

The point was to show that Genesis 2 is arranged very carefully for ‘liturgical’ reasons, not because it’s a fairy tale or a random collection that’s been badly edited.

I’ve just finished writing a book that takes you through the Bible, telling the story of redemption, observing the various patterns and using this to interpret Revelation, with some very practical comments at the end. A lecturer at Oak Hill College in London very generously read it in April and confirmed I am not mad. It does quote from Jordan, Leithart and Wilson a bit so I won’t do anything without their OK. But I can assure you that my thesis turned out to be correct. It is a bit hard to demonstrate in one hit, but taken gradually (as the Bible presents it) the elements become very recognisable after a while - a bit like one of those patterns you stare at and suddenly see a 3D dinosaur (which I could never do except once!) And recognising the pattern actually confirms or furthers the interpretation of the text.

Thanks for the reply.

Quoth MB

I love the interaction and it would be great for everyone to meet for a beer one day so we can all look sheepish and ashamed for what we posted (haha).

Now that is talking!

Let the people say “Amen!”

Michael, what are these ‘lists’ called? I still can’t see any rationale, rhyme or reason for them. I know there are other structures in the bible that are less than obvious at a mere surface reading but come out after considerable reading and study, but I don’t even know what these ‘lists’ are called… let alone understand how they are formed. Nothing actually seems to relate to anything else that you’ve dumped together under “Passover” or “Booth"… I don’t get it.

Hi Dave

If you boil it down, it’s basically known as the exodus pattern, and it gets repeated every time there is a ‘new creation’, a new covenant (Isaiah 51:15-16). I think you asked how Leviticus related to Day 3 - Land, Grain and Fruit. That’s Firstfruits, the “Ascension” step. Leviticus is all about the priesthood, under Aaron as High Priest, and what it took for them to be allowed to draw near to God’s throne in the Tabernacle “garden.” Israel’s Land was the altar and the tribes were 12 loaves of bread and 12 jugs of wine on the Table. This was fulfilled by the ascension of Christ as High Priest, described in Rev 5 - Christ is seen as a slain Lamb, bread and wine, the Table, dying in Israel’s place and becoming their replacement, mediating for the world.
The Bible’s symbols are multi-faceted but very consistent. It’s as amazing as a symphony, with various themes repeated in different ways. It took me a while learning the “scales” and now it’s fairly easy to spot. And then it also gets used in reverse, for example, the fall of Babylon follows the pattern BACKWARDS, and at the “Ascension” step of a greater pattern (ie. each of the seven steps has seven steps). It’s not difficult, but not something I can get across in a post. My point was, it does account for the structure of Genesis 2, the first ‘covenant’ of dominion. It is very carefully arranged, and from what I have read above this is more obvious in Hebrew.

Regards,
Mike

Hi Dave,

I am in South Korea. I have been following the topic of Revelation’s Harlot City and take Michael’s view it is Jerusalem. I ‘ve written two articles (Matthew 24 and History and Revealtion: A Tale of Two Cities.) which argue that from internal evidence the Harlot is definitively Jerusalem.  They are too long to post here but I can email them to you. (My email: morry_lee@yahoo.com.au)

The ‘holy city Jerusalem’ (Neh 11, Mtt3, Mtt 27) as the ‘holy city Babylon’ Rev 11:1 allows Revelation to be explained in context with ‘soon near quickly’ and Jesus’ own prediciton He would return ‘in this generation’ and ‘destroy the temple and end the age’.  Matt 23-24. It also allows Jesus’ promises to have the natural force of their meaning ie. the Preterist - before, opposite of futurism - hypothesis ‘saves the appearances of the data.’

Revelation 11 seems really plain from internal evidence: Jerusalem is the holy city which has the altar and temple of God, which was about to be trampled by Gentiles, which killed the prophets and in which ‘Our Lord was crucufied.’

A past view also eliminates the need for a chronological necessity of 2000 yrs, the need to divide plain 1st century verses from those apparently in our future, elinminates the need for a ‘delay’ (when the apostle said ‘He will come and not delay’ Heb 11:37) the need for many ‘comings’ (comings only occurs once in Ezek 43:11) and for non-biblical terms like : Jesus is coming ‘personally, physically and visibly’ - none of these terms occur in an exhaustive concordance of the bible.

Sure it sounds a little ‘out there’ at first, but as far as an explanation goes, it is accountable to the bible data, solves problems and eliminates special rules of futurism.  The basis of Preterism is that ‘the things written and spoken to people in the first century were fulfilled to them.’

Anyway, let me know if you would like to discuss it further.

KInd regards
Morrison Lee

Hi Morrison, maybe some other time… I’m don’t have the time at the moment to get into a huge thing on Revelation right now.

Israel’s Land was the altar and the tribes were 12 loaves of bread and 12 jugs of wine on the Table.

You know how you keep telling me to read from the bible’s own definitions of itself (re Genesis 1)… right back at ya. I’m not really up to date in my reading of the OT, but ... apart maybe from some of the judgement language… does the bible every really refer to Israel as the table of sacrifice?

I think it’s time to go back and do some Biblical Theology… these lists are not sounding very convincing. They seem more like a grid imposed on the passage to justify some other idea. In this case it seems to contradict my understanding of what the bible teaches about ‘Israel’. (Unless I’ve missed something big?)

Isn’t Israel’s land meant to be ‘the rest’ of God’s people, not the sacrifice? All that occurs in the temple. Isn’t the land and kingdom of Israel itself meant to be the salvation rest of God’s people? That’s how the NT sees it anyway, as a shadow of the reality to come.

Also, which verses indicate that Israel is the 12 loaves of bread and 12 jugs of wine?

Dannii Willis - 04 July 2008 12:42 AM

It is possible however that some of the Greek isn’t natural, is this what you mean by sloppy?

Perhaps you are right Dannii, the Greek was just written in a different way. I don’t know it well enough to know if there were grammatical errors or such. Luckily it is the message and not the way it was written that holds authority. It is God’s message and man’s style of writing. That’s the conclusion I seem to have thus far from this investigation.

Michael Bull - 05 July 2008 02:04 PM

...there is actually a reason for the structure of Genesis 2… Chiasms were an effective means of making text memorable. There are other structures like the A,B,A,B we see so often in the Psalms and elsewhere. These are just an A. B. C. D. C. B. A., or whatever letter you get to at the centre.

Thanks for your input into all of this Michael. I’m wondering specifically how the letter pattern explains the difference in sequence of events between Gen 1 and Gen 2? Shouldn’t Gen 1 and Gen 2 be using the same letter pattern and therefore come about with the same sequence of events?

Nah. Genesis 1 is the framework thing, (the first 3 days are forms, the second 3 days are the filling of the forms), and are highly symbolically written — and even have a bit to say about the Enuma Elish — and Genesis 2 is presenting a different argument altogether. So there’s no reason to tie them together in this manner at all.

And I still can’t see rhyme or reason in the endless lists Michael Bull is writing about. Perspicuity bites the dust.

Filling isn’t the right word Dave, though I’m not sure what is the right word to describe the parallelisms. Nor does having parallelisms mean that God couldn’t have made the world in a highly symbolic way as a historical reading would suggest.

Nor does having parallelisms mean that God couldn’t have made the world in a highly symbolic way as a historical reading would suggest.

What was that Monty Python quote in the argument room?
“That’s just contradiction!”
“No it isn’t”
“Yes it is!”

Dannii, if it reads symbolically… and there are so many symbolic elements in the passage… and it made strong references to rebuke the pagan symbolism… and there was even multiple 7’s all the way through it (when the Enuma Elish is written on 7 tablets)… and it’s so highly structured as a framework narrative.... why do we have to.....

(sighs and goes to bed instead.)

Because God is always acting in real historical times and ways, in a symbolic way. He brings symbolism into reality.

“Symbolical reality” Interesting point Danii.

Similar to the Passover Lamb/ Lord’s Supper/ actual death of Jesus on the cross.

Cheers

Frank

After some searching I think the most logical answer to the apparent different ordering of events between Gen 1 and Gen 2 is below. It is an excerpt from “The Creation Answers Book” by Creation Ministries International (2006), pg. 42.

Begin quote
Chapter 2 in not another creation account: there is no mention of the creation of the earth, sun, moon, stars, seas, land, sky, sea creatures, creeping things etc.

Some cite an apparent difference in order of creation between chapters one and two, claiming a problem with the plants and herbs in Genesis 2:5 and the trees in Genesis 2:9, which in some English translations seem as though they came into being after Adam, supposedly contradicting the order in Genesis 1 (plants on Day 3, people on Day 6).

But Genesis 2 focuses on issues of direct importance to Adam and Eve and the garden, not creation in general. Notice that the plants and herbs are described as ‘of the field’ in chapter 2 (compare 1:12) and they needed a man to tend them (2:5). These are clearly cultivated plants, not plants in general. Also, the trees (2:9) are only the trees planted in the garden, not trees in general. These events relate to God creating the garden, not creation in general.

The mention of the forming of the ‘beasts of the field’ and ‘birds of the air’ in Genesis 2:19, before the creation of Eve, is also supposedly a problem.

The supposed contradictions fall away when we realise that Hebrew has no specific verb form to indicate the pluperfect (’had formed’, ‘having formed’). A number of Hebrew scholars and commentators, such as Keil & Delitzsch and Leupold, have recognised that the context of Genesis Two suggests the pluperfect tense for these events-they are being recounted for the purpose of Chapter 2. For example: ‘Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field...’ (2:19, NIV). Such a translation, which is valid, removes any hint of contradiction.

There is no need to conclude that Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1 and so this is not a valid argument against taking Genesis 1 as straightforward history.

Genesis chapter 2 is not a different account of creation-it is a more detailed account of the sixth day of creation.
End quote

Some people on this forum referred to some of the points above however I guess it didn’t really click until I read that Gen 2 is a more detailed account rather than a separate account.

Dannii Willis wrote:

...there is room within the God-breathed view of scripture for any errors. Though there can and have been transmission errors…

I definitely agree that the word of God is infallible and inerrant and holds authority. Keeping in mind the Scriptures are written by man upon inspiration/instruction from God. The aim of the Scriptures is a replication of the word of God. While the original Scriptures are infallible and may have been inerrant, what we read as the Scriptures today are transmitted throughout the ages and translated through languages. There can be transmission errors and in the past this has been very minor, to the effect of missing a comma for instance, which does not impact the message put forward in the Scriptures.

So while the word of God is perfect I don’t always agree the Scriptures are perfect if they are transmitted or translated incorrectly. However I have not encountered any instance where a very minor error impacts the message.

So what I meant to say is that I believe the word of God is infallible and inerrant, while the Scriptures are infallible and not inerrant.