No., it isn't. Must I define symbolism, or perhaps personification? Let's not forget that my standing makes sense of the Creation story. Your idea would have one imply that the universe is one big bubbling ball of water.
And why shouldn't it be? After all, that's good enough for many creationists. Some believe in canopy theory, and others (notably Russell Humphreys) believe that there is a shell of ice at the edge of the observable universe.
It's better than twisting the text to say what it doesn't say, like turning "waters" into "stars".
Good!
Now we're talking facts and evidence.
But alas, the second link offers no support for your interpretation - even though it refers to "the sea" (which is not in doubt here), it makes no mention of the idea that the sea is a sea of nations.
And the first link simply states baldly:
Both Daniel and John also saw political systems and leaders that they described using the term "Beast". John sees this beast coming up "out of the sea." This beast is a gentile leader of a gentile system. John didn't call it a beast because it was a Gentile. He called it a beast because It comes up out of the sea of "nations".
In Daniel Chapter 7, the prophet records a dream that he had in which he saw the rise and fall of four gentile world empires. Each was characterized as a beast coming from the sea of nations. So the beast from the sea is the political part of the Antichrist's system. Satan is a counterfeiter. So he has an "unholy trinity" that consists of himself (Satan), the Antichrist (the political, religious beast), and the false prophet, (the religious, political beast).
Again, there is no analysis or exegesis given to support this notion, and certainly nothing which answers the points I have made in my previous post.
So my objection to your interpretation still stands.
Clairvoyance, or simply intuition and depth?
The difference lies in that you are clearly an advocate for TE. Am I right or am I right? The way you attack Genesis at absolutely any idea supporting it concludes it.
Eh? I am not attacking Genesis. I am not attacking an idea supporting it. If anything, I am trying to get you to see that reading "waters" as "stars" is a most non-literal reading that does extreme violence to the text. (Which makes me wonder: why is it always the TEs trying to uphold proper exegesis around here?) And then I am trying to correct your interpretation of Revelation 13.
But there is a term for what you are trying to do in this argument:
personal attack. I am quite capable of agreeing with creationists when they say what is right, and disagreeing with evolutionists when they say what is wrong, and I will do so based simply on what they are saying rather on what their personal position is. My being a TE has nothing to do with it: I was once a creationist who was perfectly willing again to criticize creationists where I disagreed with them and accept evolutionist arguments where I agreed with them, and that is precisely how I have gotten to where I am today.
Indeed, a person grows intellectually precisely by the measure to which he is able to objectively engage people who disagree with him. The more wrong I am, the more likely it is that someone who disagrees with me is right and therefore worth listening to: and the better I am at listening to people who disagree with me, the faster I will learn new things.
So, despite your addiction to unsustainable intellectual novelty, your intolerant castigation of people who disagree with you, your obstinate projection of stereotypes on those whom you claim to be dialoguing with, and your inability or unwillingness to deal with even the most basic of surface meanings of the Scriptural text, I will persist in dialogue, simply because if I am wrong, I stand to learn the most from those who are most opposed to my views.
Not that your bumbling replies have given me any confidence so far that my investment of time will pay off.
Left Behind series.,
were novels with little comprehension on much of anything besides what appeals to the average Joe.
There is nothing standard about a book of symbols. You might as well tell all non-denominational Christians to pull out a pen and take notes on the real Mccoy.
Hey, knowing what appeals to the average Joe is a really important skill. It's precisely what makes advertisers so powerful and rich in today's world.
But "there is nothing standard about a book of symbols"? Really? Fine then, in which case,
your interpretation is no standard either, and you have no grounds on which to say I am wrong.
The Bible requires that you look really close at the contexts in which it is describing things. That is, if you actually want deeper understanding.
Symmetry- as in I took the accounts of the days of Creation and the accounts of Adam & Eve- and unified them in a way that they do not contradict.
Yes, the Bible rewards deep study, but not at the expense of clear meanings of the text. After all, if "waters" are actually stars, and "day six" is actually "day two" (since you conclude that that was the day on which Adam was created, completely ignoring Genesis 1:26-31), then maybe three is one (divide through by two - hey, it works), and all the Trinitarians don't have a leg to stand on, and we should all be pious Muslims instead.
It's a bit slapstick but do you get the point?
The more your interpretation emends the surface meaning of the text, the better your justification had better be. When the writer of Hebrews was making a point about the obsolescence of the Levitical priesthood, he (/she?) didn't just say "Oh, by the way, Jesus is Melchizedek, hallelujah!" and leave it at that - he made a detailed argument with reference to multiple Scripture passages that
on their surface pointed to a deep significance in the Melchizedek figure. Again, when heused the Sabbath day as an image of our eschatological rest in Jesus' salvation, he could refer to other texts which
on their surface made creative use of "day" to refer to an extended period of time. (And this is directly relevant to interpreting Genesis 1 in a TE fashion.)
Again, my reference to the sea as an image of spiritual powers directly opposed to God (rather than a reference to a multitude of peoples, which may well be the resonances elsewhere) came backed up with texts which
on their surface made connections between the sea and primeval chaos / evil, in the figures of Rahab and Leviathan (I omitted these references for brevity). You, on the other hand, have shown no Scriptural texts to back up your strange assertions that:
- There was no water on Earth during the first and second day, in contradiction to Genesis 1:2 and 6, because
- the "waters" of the first half of Genesis 1 actually refer to stars.
- The creative activity on the second day actually refers to the creation of Adam ...
- ... and the creation of man and woman on the sixth day is [fill in the blank], not the creation of Adam.
- The singular "sea" in Exodus 20:11 is significant, but not the plural "heavens"
- and just what "heavens" would you have anyway, since the rest of the universe falls under "sea"?
Your "theology" (really just a cosmogony - you have said nothing important or new about
God) is innovative and creative, for sure, but it really has almost nothing to do with Genesis 1 and 2.
And you are humble? Please. I see you had just jumped the gun on everything that was being discussed and went straight for what you thought was going to instantly hurt my standing. Not working out too well though, you can bet that.
And that's a
tu quoque fallacy. (Go learn what that is yourself, I can't be doing all the homework around here.)