When Will Christ Return?

[eclipsenow]

That was post 892 of this thread, the points of which were answered in the latter half of post 915.

Except it was irrelevant rubbish.

Regarding "the genre of Revelation", Revelation itself can be almost entirely literal because, as scripture, it's not bound by any man-made ideas regarding any made-made categories for writings in general.

Scripture contains poetry, history, historical narrative, biographical narrative, songs, psalms, and apocalyptic symbolism. Ever notice that these are also all inspired and all in the bible? Just because Revelation was written by John and inspired tells us nothing about whether we are to read it as poetry, history, biography, or symbolically. Let me break it down into smaller sentences for you. Nothing you've said makes sense. Inspiration does not tell us genre. Unless you are going to deny Song of Solomon's is a love ballad, unless you are going to deny that Genesis has metaphorical literature in its early parts, unless you are going to deny that the gospels are biographies, unless you are going to deny that the Psalms have songs and poems, unless you are going to deny much of the literature in the bible is inspired because it is most certainly NOT LITERAL, you simply don't get to claim that inspired = literal! Get it?

Also, can you give an example of where you have actually addressed each point in the "Revelation is almost entirely literal" paragraph, and proven from the scriptures themselves that each point is in error, instead of simply dismissing the whole thing as "rubbish", or something like that?

Sure, I'll do that when you learn to reply:-

• on topic (without rubbish)
• justifying your hermeneutic (instead of brushing this whole discipline aside because 'Revelation is unsealed')
• quoting Bible Scholars that actually read Revelation as literal (which even the futurists I know of don't).

Until then, I'm afraid referring to your 'unsealed' copy and paste earns this copy and paste in response.


You really don't comprehend genre, do you? You claim 'unsealed' means literal, but it simply means that the mysteries have been revealed. It does not say how. Mysteries can be revealed in boring, literal writing, creating poetic prose, historical narrative, biography, or symbolism. Communication can happen in all of these writing genres as the bible is made up of all of these different genres. 'Unsealed' just means explained: it doesn't tell us whether it was explained by radio, television, or digital one's and zero's travelling down the internet onto your computer screen!

Regarding "misapplies the 'unsealed' description to mean 'literal'", are you saying that "unsealed" means "symbolic"? If so, how? For wouldn't it make more sense for something unsealed to consist almost entirely of literal statements, rather than mysterious symbols?

I'm saying 'unsealed' simply does not mean what you claim it to mean. You're misusing the verse, and trying to justify throwing aside the whole discipline of hermeneutics based on the fact that the prophetic scroll of Daniel is unsealed in Revelation. Paul elsewhere explains that the gospel is the mystery of God's love in the gospel that would expand out of Israel to include the Gentiles. That's the mystery unsealed. The gospel itself! That is also what John is unpacking: the gospel to Christians in a period of suffering we call the Last Days.

There is no need to, for sufficient reasons why Revelation should be read almost entirely literally have already been given.

Only in your own imagination. You pay no attention to the historical details of how early readers would have received the apocalyptic symbolism in Revelation. Hermeneutics is this discipline. You attempt to justify brushing this whole discipline aside with trite references to verses that have little to do with answering the questions of hermeneutics.

But how have you shown that even one scholar has proven, based on the scriptures themselves (compare Isaiah 8:20b) and not on any man-made ideas (compare 1 Corinthians 1:20), that Revelation should not be read almost entirely literally?

Hermeneutics is a branch of knowledge that God has given human beings to know how to read what we read. Brushing this aside as 'man made' is like brushing aside the air we breathe as unnecessary, or the need to learn how to read English words if we're going to read an English bible. It's that silly. Until you can explain to us the hermeneutic you're using, it's premature to condemn those who *do* use hermeneutics correctly as using 'man made ideas'.
God brought animals to Adam in the garden to see what Adam would name them. The gift of language is God-given. Stop condemning it!

How have the reasons given for reading it almost entirely literally been proven to be not credible?

Because you never explain your hermeneutics.

It has not been said that Revelation is almost entirely literal simply because it promises the return of Jesus.

But you have repeatedly said that *because* there are so many *details* in Revelation, these must be detailed 'prescriptive prophecies' telling us exactly what is going to happen (from Rev 6 to Rev 20) before the Lord returns. Then, *because* you have decided to read John's symbolic sermon to suffering Christians instead as 'prescriptive prophecies', you try to argue that most of the book is *literal*. Then because it is literal, you sometimes try to use *that* to then argue that Revelation is a book of prescriptive prophecies. Your whole argument becomes one big circular claim based on your unproven presupposition that chapters 6 to 20 describe in detail events just before the Lord's return, and are not indeed practical, useful (but symbolic) sermon material *to* and *about* and *for* all Christians in all ages! All of this comes from your presuppositions about how to read the 'details' in Revelation, and so your own assumptions on how to approach the book are like big wonky showground rose-coloured glasses, totally distorting how you read the book right from the beginning.

 

[Bible2]

eclipsenow said in post 981:

Except it was irrelevant rubbish.

How has the latter half of post 915 been shown to be irrelevant or rubbish?

eclipsenow said in post 981:

Scripture contains poetry, history, historical narrative, biographical narrative, songs, psalms, and apocalyptic symbolism.

But Revelation is not bound by symbolism, for not all of it is symbolic, just as Revelation is not bound by literalism, for not all of it is literal. For example, only parts of Revelation 5:6 are symbolic (Jesus being a lamb, his having seven horns, his having seven eyes), while other parts of Revelation 5:6 are literal (God's throne in heaven, the four beasts, the twenty-four elders, Jesus having been slain, the seven Spirits of God, the earth).

eclipsenow said in post 981:

. . . unless you are going to deny that Genesis has metaphorical literature in its early parts,

What requires that Genesis is not literal?

eclipsenow said in post 981:

. . . you simply don't get to claim that inspired = literal!

It has not been said that inspired = literal, but that inspired = not bound by any man-made ideas regarding any made-made categories for writings in general.

eclipsenow said in post 981:

You claim 'unsealed' means literal, but it simply means that the mysteries have been revealed.

How have they been revealed if they consist entirely of mysterious symbols?

eclipsenow said in post 981:

'Unsealed' just means explained . . .

How have you shown that every, what you would call symbolic, detail in Revelation has been explained? For example, how do you feel that every, what you would call symbolic, detail in Revelation 9 has been explained?

eclipsenow said in post 981:

That's the mystery unsealed. The gospel itself!

How do you consider, for example, Revelation 9 to be the gospel itself?

eclipsenow said in post 981:

You pay no attention to the historical details of how early readers would have received the apocalyptic symbolism in Revelation.

What historical details require that the early readers of Revelation chapters 6 to 22 could not have read them as almost entirely literal, and chronological?

eclipsenow said in post 981:

Hermeneutics is this discipline. You attempt to justify brushing this whole discipline aside with trite references to verses that have little to do with answering the questions of hermeneutics.

How has it been shown that hermeneutics has been brushed aside, or that its questions have not been answered?

eclipsenow said in post 981:

Until you can explain to us the hermeneutic you're using, it's premature to condemn those who *do* use hermeneutics correctly as using 'man made ideas'.

How have you shown that hermeneutics has not been used correctly?

Also, the hermeneutics that futurism uses is the correct one: that in scripture, such as Revelation, some verses can be literal while others are symbolic, depending on their immediate context, on any subsequent explanations (for example, Revelation 1:20, Revelation 17:9-12), and on comparing the verses with other, related verses elsewhere in the Bible (Isaiah 28:9-10; 1 Corinthians 2:13); for example, comparing Revelation 13:2 and Daniel 7:4-7,17.

eclipsenow said in post 981:

The gift of language is God-given. Stop condemning it!

How has language been condemned? And how has it been shown that the God-given language of Revelation must be entirely symbolic?

eclipsenow said in post 981:

But you have repeatedly said that *because* there are so many *details* in Revelation, these must be detailed 'prescriptive prophecies' telling us exactly what is going to happen (from Rev 6 to Rev 20) before the Lord returns.

It has not been said that Revelation chapters 6 to 22 are future simply because they are detailed. What has been said is that Revelation chapters 6 to 22 are future because they are about "things which must be hereafter" (Revelation 4:1b). And just as Jesus' second coming in Revelation 19:7 to 20:3 has never been fulfilled, for nowhere in history books do we find its fulfillment, so the highly-detailed events of the preceding tribulation in Revelation chapters 6 to 18 have never been fulfilled, for nowhere in history books do we find their fulfillment.

eclipsenow said in post 981:

Then, *because* you have decided to read John's symbolic sermon to suffering Christians instead as 'prescriptive prophecies', you try to argue that most of the book is *literal*.

It has not been said that Revelation is literal simply because it is future. What has been said is that Revelation is almost entirely literal, for it is unsealed (Revelation 22:10), meaning that it should not be difficult for saved people of any time to understand it if they simply read it as it is written: chronologically and almost-entirely literally. The few parts of it that are symbolic are almost always explained afterward (for example, Revelation 1:20, Revelation 17:9-12). And Revelation's few symbols not explained afterward (for example, Revelation 13:2) are usually explained elsewhere in the Bible (for example, Daniel 7:4-7,17). Just as Jesus' second coming in Revelation 19:7 to 20:3 will be fulfilled almost entirely literally, so the events of the preceding tribulation in Revelation chapters 6 to 18 will be fulfilled almost entirely literally. Also, the millennium in Revelation 20 will be literal, and will begin after Jesus' second coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6, Zechariah 14:3-21), when he will reign on the earth with the bodily resurrected church for a thousand years (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29, Psalms 66:3-4, Psalms 72:8-11). After that, the events of Revelation 20:7 to 22:5 will occur literally.

eclipsenow said in post 981:

Then because it is literal, you sometimes try to use *that* to then argue that Revelation is a book of prescriptive prophecies.

It has not been said that Revelation chapters 6 to 22 are future simply because they are almost entirely literal.

eclipsenow said in post 981:

Your whole argument becomes one big circular claim based on your unproven presupposition that chapters 6 to 20 describe in detail events just before the Lord's return, and are not indeed practical, useful (but symbolic) sermon material *to* and *about* and *for* all Christians in all ages!

It is not a presupposition, but an obvious fact that Revelation chapters 6 to 22 describe events in detail. For those chapters contain such a huge number of details, which are so varied, so specific, so chronological, and so long, that to reduce all of them to merely a generic description of life in any age would render them utterly useless. For what Christian who has ever lived needs a generic description of life in any age? It would be like throwing Revelation chapters 6 to 22 in the trash, just to be done with them.

 

[eclipsenow]

But Revelation is not bound by symbolism, for not all of it is symbolic, just as Revelation is not bound by literalism, for not all of it is literal. For example, only parts of Revelation 5:6 are symbolic (Jesus being a lamb, his having seven horns, his having seven eyes), while other parts of Revelation 5:6 are literal (God's throne in heaven, the four beasts, the twenty-four elders, Jesus having been slain, the seven Spirits of God, the earth).

The problem is you appear to have no hermeneutic to establish why we read Jesus 7 horns and 7 eyes as symbolic but other horns and groups of eyes as not symbolic. The writing style is symbolic all the way through. You don't even seem to know what the word literal means.

What requires that Genesis is not literal?

Parts of Genesis are 'literal' in the sense of telling a historical narrative, but the earlier chapters are not. Get this: what the chapters contain in them, with their symbolism and numbers and repeated use of number structures in the Hebrew all tell us it isn't literal but a highly structured poem. You may as well ask "Why isn't Shakespeare literal?"

That's like asking why isn't Juliet an actual star full of hydrogen gas. That's how ridiculous it is! When you read a symbol... it's a symbol!

It has not been said that inspired = literal, but that inspired = not bound by any man-made ideas regarding any made-made categories for writings in general.

My answer is plom plombdee plomb plomb. You see? Your argument lies in tatters because wobbity droppity bobbity. So much for not being bound by man-made ideas regarding any made-made categories for writings in general. Have you ever thought that meaning in language requires structure? Have you got any evidence from the bible that God tries to communicate to us through nonsense?

How have they been revealed if they consist entirely of mysterious symbols?

The symbols are not mysterious, but gain their meaning from context of usage in John's book also cross-referenced according to the hermeneutic of understanding the way the symbols are used in other parts of the bible. You would understand this if you bought the books I recommended.

How have you shown that every, what you would call symbolic, detail in Revelation has been explained? For example, how do you feel that every, what you would call symbolic, detail in Revelation 9 has been explained?

I just don't have time to explain all the details of the chapters you require. But here is Revelation 12 as an example. It seems there is a gospel tract right in the middle of this book! This is from the books I recommend, and is a rough insight into how they read John as a symbolic sermon to all ages of Christians: it's an example of how Revelation really truly is 'unsealed' for all generations!

******


Revelation 12 is a gospel recap, like "the story so far" in a TV series recap.

///1 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. 4 Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.” And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6 The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days. ///

WHO IS THE WOMAN?
She has the sun, the moon, and the stars. Check out Genesis 37:9, Joseph's dream.
///Then he had another dream, and he told it to his brothers. “Listen,” he said, “I had another dream, and this time the sun and moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me.”///

She is a sign for Israel (or as the New Testament understands it) God's people generally. Then there's the *pregnancy* which was promised to Eve (a serpent crusher would be born!).

In short, this woman is THE mother of the promised deliverer. The serpent crusher is being born! Rejoice! This is a great and important pregnancy that Satan himself detests! This is THE great pregnancy that the whole Old Testament has been longing for. Feel the pain of earnest longing for this child in Isaiah 26:17-18, which is ultimately disappointed.

///17 As a pregnant woman about to give birth
writhes and cries out in her pain,
so were we in your presence, LORD.
18 We were with child, we writhed in labor,
but we gave birth to wind.
We have not brought salvation to the earth,
and the people of the world have not come to life.///

WHO IS THE CHILD?
Easy! It's Jesus!
Rev 12:5
///She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron sceptre.”///

Psalm 2 helps us here.
///7 I will proclaim the LORD’s decree:
He said to me, “You are my son;
today I have become your father.
8 Ask me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.
9 You will break them with a rod of iron;
you will dash them to pieces like pottery.” ///
Notice the iron rod & sceptre?

WHY DOES SATAN WANT TO DESTROY JESUS?
Because Jesus is the seed promised to Eve that will destroy the serpent.
(Genesis 3:15). This baby is *special*.

CHILD SNATCHED UP
"And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne." After his death and resurrection Jesus ascends to heaven from where he rules God's kingdom, the church.

BUT IF JESUS IS IN HEAVEN, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE CHURCH LEFT DOWN HERE TO SUFFER? WHAT IS THE WILDERNESS ALL ABOUT?
///6 The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.///
Just as God nourished Elijah in the wilderness (1 Kings 17) God now takes care of his church 'in the wilderness'. The wilderness also reminds us of the Israelites exodus through the wilderness to the Promised Land. We are in a similar journey, but God promises that his church will not be extinguished from this earth. Just as Elijah survived, and Israel even survived the wilderness judgement of 40 years, Jesus survived the wilderness for 40 days, and we will survive the Last Days.


1260 DAYS
But how long are these Last Days which started in Acts 2? What is the 1260 days all about? For starters it is three-and-a-half years if you divide it by the 360 days of the year of the ancient world. (Irrelevant factoid: this is also why we have 360 degrees in a compass).

Daniel 9:24 states that God has promised to END sin, atone for wickedness, bring in everlasting righteousness, seal up vision and anointed the Most Holy Place. This is all fulfilled within Seventy Sevens (or 490 years). But there is a problem. Half way through the last 'Seven' years, God lets the sacrificial system come to a complete end. Huh? How does a Jew understand the end of their sacrificial system to be a good thing? How does the end of the very *means* of their righteousness before God, the blood of lambs and animals, guarantee their righteousness? The only answer is that it is talking about Jesus. Jesus perfect sacrifice so fulfils the sacrificial system that we no longer need it. Jesus is 'cut off' in Daniel 9:26 and 9:27 explains the result. The end of the sacrificial system. When did this all occur? Three-and-a-half years into the last Seven. Or 3.5 years in. Meaning, that all the time in human history *after* Jesus death is caught up and compressed into the 2nd 3.5 years. At the end of the 70 weeks, we will be in the New Heavens and New Earth. Jesus will return. We will have everlasting righteousness! We will be completely saved!

The three-and-a-half years also works for the Two Witnesses of Rev 11:2,3, which symbolise church's preaching ministry for the whole period of the Last Days from Acts 2 to Judgement Day when the Lord returns. The message there is the same. The Two Witnesses passage also guarantees the church's victory, even if some Christians are eventually slain! There will always be a church; it will always be secure; but it will always be suffering.

HOW DO WE REALLY KNOW REV 12 IS ALL ABOUT JESUS AND THE GOSPEL AND THE CHURCH SURVIVING THESE LAST DAYS, AND BEING SECURE, EVEN IF WE SHED OUR BLOOD?

Because of the gospel summary in 12:10-12.

///10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:

“Now have come the salvation and the power
and the kingdom of our God,
and the authority of his Messiah.
For the accuser of our brothers and sisters,
who accuses them before our God day and night,
has been hurled down.
11 They triumphed over him
by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony;
they did not love their lives so much
as to shrink from death.
12 Therefore rejoice, you heavens
and you who dwell in them!
But woe to the earth and the sea,
because the devil has gone down to you!
He is filled with fury,
because he knows that his time is short.”///

Verse 10 is startling. Jesus Kingdom will only FULLY be installed in the New Heavens and New Earth. But verse 10 implies that the church is a reflection of Christ's reign in the lives of believers, and that we are the kingdom now. We are declared righteous, declared to be seated in heaven itself (Ephesians 2)! Or, as 1 Peter 2:9 says, ///But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.///

In other words, while certain wonderful things are *declared true* about us, we are not there yet. We still have this rather terrible ordeal to go through, this wilderness journey to survive. But take heart! Because the church *will* not be erased from this earth, we shall prevail. So we endure. Just as Abraham saw the promised land as ultimately in heaven (Hebrews 11) so we too are to strive to enter the security of that heavenly rest in the 'land' of heaven (Hebrews 4). The Lord will protect his gospel as we strive to advance it across the earth. As God's holy people, we now enjoy being heir's of Abraham's promise that the WHOLE WORLD would be his! (Romans 4:13). So as we advance the gospel and expand across our own holy land, this entire planet (!), we are to remember that this is also not really our home. We are just passing through. The New Heavens and New Earth will be ours, the other side of Judgement Day!

 

[Bible2]

eclipsenow said in post 983:

The problem is you appear to have no hermeneutic to establish why we read Jesus 7 horns and 7 eyes as symbolic but other horns and groups of eyes as not symbolic.

What other horns and groups of eyes are you referring to, and when was it said that they were not symbolic?

We know what is a metaphor and what is literal by comparing each part of a verse with other verses (Isaiah 28:9-10; 1 Corinthians 2:13). For example, we know that Jesus isn't literally a lamb with seven horns and seven eyes (Revelation 5:6) because other verses show that he is literally a human (Luke 24:39; 1 Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 7:24-26, Hebrews 2:17).

But in Revelation 5:6, while the horns and eyes are symbolic, they can represent literal things, so that the number seven can refer literally to seven things. The seven horns of the Jesus lamb in Revelation 5:6 could represent Jesus holding literally seven positions of power at the same time (compare Jesus wearing many crowns at the same time in Revelation 19:12). These seven positions of power could be, for example, Jesus' power as the Son of God (Revelation 2:18), his power as the Word of God (Revelation 19:13), his power as the King of kings (Revelation 19:16), his power as the Lord of lords (Revelation 19:16), his power as High Priest (Hebrews 3:1), his power as the King of Israel (John 12:13), and his power as the Lamb of God (John 1:29).

And Revelation 5:6 tells us what the seven eyes of the Jesus lamb represent: "the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth". These can literally be seven Spirits of God, which could be: the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of wisdom, the Spirit of understanding, the Spirit of counsel, the Spirit of might, the Spirit of knowledge, and the Spirit of the fear of the Lord (Isaiah 11:2).

eclipsenow said in post 983:

The writing style is symbolic all the way through.

Nothing requires that. For example, while parts of Revelation 5:6 are symbolic (Jesus being a lamb, his having seven horns, his having seven eyes), other parts of Revelation 5:6 are literal (God's throne in heaven, the four beasts, the twenty-four elders, Jesus having been slain, the seven Spirits of God, the earth).

eclipsenow said in post 983:

You don't even seem to know what the word literal means.

How has that been shown?

eclipsenow said in post 983:

Parts of Genesis are 'literal' in the sense of telling a historical narrative, but the earlier chapters are not.

Even the early chapters of Genesis are literal and historical. Nothing requires that they are not.

eclipsenow said in post 983:

Get this: what the chapters contain in them, with their symbolism and numbers and repeated use of number structures in the Hebrew all tell us it isn't literal but a highly structured poem.

Someone can write a highly structured poem that gives a literal, historical account.

eclipsenow said in post 983:

You may as well ask "Why isn't Shakespeare literal?"

Shakespeare's historical plays refer to literal, historical people and events.

eclipsenow said in post 983:

That's like asking why isn't Juliet an actual star full of hydrogen gas.

It has never been said that everything in Shakespeare or the Bible has to be literal.

eclipsenow said in post 983:

Have you ever thought that meaning in language requires structure?

Nothing about the structure of Revelation requires that it is entirely symbolic, instead of being almost entirely literal.

eclipsenow said in post 983:

Have you got any evidence from the bible that God tries to communicate to us through nonsense?

It has not been said that Revelation is nonsense. Nor has it been shown that it would make nonsense of Revelation to read it almost entirely literally.

eclipsenow said in post 983:

The symbols are not mysterious, but gain their meaning from context of usage in John's book also cross-referenced according to the hermeneutic of understanding the way the symbols are used in other parts of the bible.

Then, in your view, what do the context and any cross-references show to be the meaning of each detail in, for example, Revelation 9?

eclipsenow said in post 983:

I just don't have time to explain all the details of the chapters you require.

Okay, then how about just the details in Revelation 9:2-10?

eclipsenow said in post 983:

WHO IS THE WOMAN?

In Revelation 12, the "woman" represents the church (which is Israel: Romans 11:1,17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29, Revelation 21:9,12; 1 Peter 2:9-10). She is clothed with the sun (Revelation 12:1) of righteousness (Malachi 4:2) through her faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 3:22), just as later we see the church clothed with righteousness (Revelation 19:8). The moon under her feet (Revelation 12:1) represents Satan under her feet (Romans 16:20) as she overcomes him spiritually by her faith in Jesus Christ (Revelation 12:11). The crown of twelve stars on her head (Revelation 12:1) represents the twelve apostles (Matthew 10:2-4, Acts 1:16-26) who have been placed over the church (1 Corinthians 12:28). Her giving birth to the "man child" and his being caught up to the throne of God (Revelation 12:5) immediately before she flees into the wilderness for a literal 3.5 years (Revelation 12:6) represents the future, mid-tribulation catching up of the 144,000 male-virgins part of the church in their mortal bodies to the throne of God in heaven (Rev. 14:1,4-5, Textus Receptus) (like Enoch and Elijah were caught up in their mortal bodies to heaven: Hebrews 11:5; 2 Kings 2:11).

Her fleeing into and remaining in a protected wilderness place for a literal 3.5 years (Revelation 12:6,14) represents those in the church who will flee into and remain in divinely-protected wilderness places during the Antichrist's future, literal 3.5-year worldwide reign (Revelation 13:5-18), which will be in the latter half of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18/Matthew 24. The remnant of her seed (Revelation 12:17) represents those in the church during that time who won't flee into wilderness places, but will remain in the cities, and will be persecuted in every nation, imprisoned, and beheaded by the Antichrist (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6, Matthew 24:9-13).

 

[Bible2]

eclipsenow said in post 983:

She has the sun, the moon, and the stars. Check out Genesis 37:9, Joseph's dream.

Genesis 37:9-10 is not being referred to in Revelation 12:1, for in Revelation 12:1, the church/Israel is not clothed with the man Jacob (Genesis 37:9-10), but with the sun of righteousness (Malachi 4:2), through her faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 3:22), just as later we see the church/Israel clothed with righteousness (Revelation 19:8, compare also Revelation 21:2,9,12). Also, the church/Israel does not have the woman Rachel under her feet (Genesis 37:9-10), but Satan (Romans 16:20), as the church/Israel overcomes him spiritually by her faith in Jesus (Revelation 12:11). Also, the church/Israel does not have Jacob's twelve sons placed over her (Genesis 37:9-10), but the twelve apostles (1 Corinthians 12:28, Matthew 10:2, Acts 1:26), each one of whom will rule over one of her twelve tribes (Matthew 19:28, Luke 22:30).

eclipsenow said in post 983:

In short, this woman is THE mother of the promised deliverer.

In Revelation 12:5, the woman is not Mary the mother of Jesus, just as the "man child" is not Jesus, for Revelation 12:5 is not about past things, but is part of the "things which must be hereafter" (Revelation 4:1b). Revelation chapters 11-14 show from four different angles what will happen right before the start and during the same future, literal 3.5 years of the Antichrist's worldwide reign (Revelation 11:2b-3, Revelation 12:6,14, Revelation 13:5-8, Revelation 14:9-13), which will be in the latter half of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18/Matthew 24.

Regarding Revelation 12:5 saying "who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron", along with Jesus (Revelation 19:15, Psalms 2:9), the whole obedient church will rule the nations with a rod of iron (Revelation 2:26-29) on the earth (Revelation 5:10) during the future millennium (Revelation 20:4-6). Before the millennium, during the tribulation, at its midpoint, the 144,000 male-virgins part of the church will be caught up bodily to the throne of God in heaven (Revelation 14:1,4-5, Textus Receptus) as the "man child" (Revelation 12:5-6), and as the firstfruits of the church (Revelation 14:4) in the sense of its best part (compare Numbers 18:12).

eclipsenow said in post 983:

WHAT IS THE WILDERNESS ALL ABOUT?

Just as the woman in Rev. 12:6 represents many different people in the church around the world, so the protected wilderness place she flees to represents many different protected wilderness places around the world. When those in the church living in Judaea (southern Israel) see the abomination of desolation set up, they should flee into places in the wilderness east of Judaea, the mountains (Mt. 24:16) of Jordan. And those in the church who will be living in places in the world other than Judaea should flee into other wilderness places, mountainous places (Ezek. 7:16), in the regions of the world where they live.

And they should have prepared beforehand hideouts in these wilderness/mountain places, hideouts already fully stocked with all the emergency supplies of food, water, warm clothing, etc., that they and their families and fellow Christians will need to survive (1 Tim. 5:8, Mt. 24:45-46, cf. Gen. 41:48,36, 45:7) until Jesus returns, possibly on the 1,335th day after the abomination of desolation is set up (Dan. 12:11-12, Rev. 16:15). For they shouldn't carry any supplies with them when they flee (Mt. 24:17-18). They should flee as unhindered and quickly as possible, knowing that when the abomination of desolation is set up, that could signal the beginning of the Antichrist's future, literal 3.5-year Luciferian (Satanic) worldwide reign of terror (Rev. 13:4-18, 12:9), when he will be given power to make war against all those in the church that he can get his hands on, and to physically overcome them and kill them (by beheading) in every nation (Rev. 13:7-10, 14:12-13, 20:4-6, Mt. 24:9-13).

eclipsenow said in post 983:

What is the 1260 days all about?

The still-unfulfilled 1,260-day time period in the prophecies of Revelation 12:6,14, Revelation 11:3,2, Revelation 13:5, Daniel 7:25, and Daniel 12:7 will be 1,260 literal days, just as, for example, the three days in the fulfilled prophecies of Luke 9:22 and Luke 18:33 were three literal days.

eclipsenow said in post 983:

Jesus is 'cut off' in Daniel 9:26 and 9:27 explains the result.

Dan. 9:26's original Hebrew word (karath, H3772) translated as "cut off" can refer to when a peace treaty/covenant is "made" (Gen. 21:27). The 1st century AD fulfillment of Dan. 9:26a was at the Crucifixion, when the true Messiah (Jesus) made the New Covenant (Mt. 26:28, Heb. 9:15-17). The future fulfillment of Dan. 9:26a will be when the Antichrist makes a peace treaty, which will be the fulfillment of the covenant in Dan. 9:27 & the league in Dan. 11:23, with a future ultra-Orthodox Jewish (false) Messiah in Jerusalem, after he & his followers are defeated by the Antichrist (Dan. 11:22-23). So the future fulfillment of Dan. 9:26a can refer to this false Messiah being "cut off" in the sense of being "covenanted", i.e. peace-treatied.

This treaty will allow this false Messiah & his followers to keep a 3rd Jewish temple which they will have built on Jerusalem's Temple Mount (after destroying the Muslim structures there), & to continue to perform the daily Mosaic animal sacrifices in front of the temple for at least 7 years (Dan. 9:27a), so long as they give up the outer court of the temple (Rev. 11:2a) to the Muslims so the Muslims can rebuild the (by that time destroyed) Al Aqsa Mosque on the southern end of the Temple Mount & resume worship there. After "cutting" this treaty (Dan. 9:26a), the Antichrist could appear before the "many" (Dan. 9:27) nations gathered at the U.N. General Assembly, & "confirm" (Dan. 9:27) that for at least 7 years he'll keep this treaty with the ultra-Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem, using this as purported proof to the world that he is (in his words) "a man of peace, and no Hitler".

Dan. 9:27's "he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease" refers to when, only some 3.5 years after making the peace treaty of Dan. 9:26a,27a/11:23a, the Antichrist will break the treaty, attack the 3rd temple, stop the daily Mosaic animal sacrifices, place the abomination of desolation (possibly a standing, android image of the Antichrist) in the holy place of the temple (Dan. 11:31, Mt. 24:15), & then sit himself in the temple & proclaim himself God (2 Thes. 2:4, Dan. 11:36). Thus could begin the Antichrist's future, literal 3.5-year Luciferian (Satanic) worldwide reign of terror (Rev. 13:4-18, 12:9, 2 Thes. 2:9).

eclipsenow said in post 983:

At the end of the 70 weeks, we will be in the New Heavens and New Earth. Jesus will return.

Are you saying that we will be in the new heaven and new earth as soon as Jesus returns? If so, what scripture requires that? Are you thinking of 2 Peter 3:10-13? If so, in the day of the Lord will occur the destruction of heaven (the first heaven: the sky, the atmosphere) and the earth (the surface of the earth) at the great white throne judgment (Revelation 20:11, Revelation 21:1). And this will be followed by the creation of a new atmosphere and surface for the earth (2 Peter 3:13, Revelation 21:1) onto which New Jerusalem, the Father's house (John 14:2, Revelation 21:2-3), will descend from the third heaven (Revelation 21:2-3). But the day of the Lord will not immediately bring the destruction of earth's atmosphere and surface, for the day of the Lord will begin at Jesus' second coming (1 Corinthians 1:7-8) as a thief (2 Peter 3:10a, Revelation 16:15). And after his second coming, he will establish his kingdom physically on the earth with the bodily resurrected church for a thousand years (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29, Psalms 66:3-4, Psalms 72:8-11, Zechariah 14:3-21).

And after the thousand years, the Gog/Magog rebellion will occur (Revelation 20:7-10, Ezekiel chapters 38-39). And after its defeat at least seven more years will occur (Ezekiel 39:9b) before the earth's atmosphere and surface are destroyed at the great white throne judgment (Revelation 20:11). All these events, from Jesus' second coming to the great white throne judgment, will be part of the day of the Lord, for it is not a 24-hour day, but to God is like a thousand-year "day" (2 Peter 3:8).

eclipsenow said in post 983:

The three-and-a-half years also works for the Two Witnesses of Rev 11:2,3, which symbolise church's preaching ministry for the whole period of the Last Days from Acts 2 to Judgement Day when the Lord returns.

How do you get each of the details regarding the two witnesses (Revelation 11:3-12) to symbolize the church's preaching ministry? They may not even be "witnesses" in the sense of evangelizing the world (Acts 1:8), for the original Greek word (martus, G3144) translated as "witnesses" (Revelation 11:3) can also refer to those who witness against people and bring punishment against them (Acts 7:58). The reason that there will be two witnesses (Revelation 11:3) who will bring plagues to torment the unrepentant world (Revelation 11:6,10b) would be because two witnesses are required to bring judgment against people (1 Timothy 5:19). At the same time, the two "witnesses" could be called that because both of them will be martyred (Revelation 11:7-9). For the same Greek word translated as "witnesses" (Revelation 11:3) can refer to "martyrs" (Revelation 17:6).

The two witnesses could be two, literal, individual men: Moses and Elijah. For the two men seen "standing before the God of the earth" (Revelation 11:4) at the transfiguration were Moses and Elijah (Matthew 17:3). And in Revelation 11:4. the "two olive trees" refer back to the two men who were already standing by the Lord by the time of the prophet Zechariah (Zechariah 4:11,14), which was subsequent to the times of Moses and Elijah.

Moses and Elijah could come down from heaven in their mortal bodies at the midpoint of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18/Matthew 24, just as they came down at the transfiguration. Also, the plagues that the two witnesses will cause (Revelation 11:6,5) will match plagues that Moses and Elijah caused in Old Testament times (James 5:17, Exodus 7:20; 2 Kings 1:10-14). Elijah never died, but was taken bodily into heaven (2 Kings 2:11b). And Michael retrieved Moses' dead body from Satan (Jude 1:9). Michael could have then taken Moses' body into heaven, where it could have been resuscitated back to mortal life, like, for example, Lazarus' dead body was resuscitated back to mortal life (John 12:1). This would explain how both Moses and Elijah could appear alive and well at the transfiguration (Matthew 17:3).

The two witnesses will prophesy and bring plagues on the world during the future, literal 3.5 years (Revelation 11:2b,3,6) of the Antichrist's worldwide reign (Revelation 13:5,7, Revelation 12:6,14), which will be in the latter half of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18/Matthew 24. That's why the Antichrist's reign will legally end (Revelation 11:15) right after the time of the two witnesses on the earth will end (Revelation 11:12-15). The plagues that they will bring (Revelation 11:6) will be part of the tribulation's second woe/sixth trumpet (Revelation 11:14, Revelation 9:12-13). They will be taken up to heaven before the tribulation's seventh trumpet sounds (Revelation 11:12,15).

 

[eclipsenow]

We know what is a metaphor and what is literal by comparing each part of a verse with other verses (Isaiah 28:9-10; 1 Corinthians 2:13). For example, we know that Jesus isn't literally a lamb with seven horns and seven eyes (Revelation 5:6) because other verses show that he is literally a human (Luke 24:39; 1 Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 7:24-26, Hebrews 2:17).

Do you think Bible Scholars should learn ancient Hebrew and Greek to try and understand how to interpret the bible? If so, do you think Bible Scholars might also investigate other ancient texts to understand the use of biblical symbols? EG: I have an excellent paper by my friend Dr John Dickson who explains that Genesis chapter 1 is profoundly theological, profoundly true, profoundly important but not literal, especially when we understand Jewish number symbolism in the passage and especially when we understand the symbols used in the pagan Enuma Elish.

But in Revelation 5:6, while the horns and eyes are symbolic, they can represent literal things, so that the number seven can refer literally to seven things. The seven horns of the Jesus lamb in Revelation 5:6 could represent Jesus holding literally seven positions of power at the same time (compare Jesus wearing many crowns at the same time in Revelation 19:12). These seven positions of power could be, for example, Jesus' power as the Son of God (Revelation 2:18), his power as the Word of God (Revelation 19:13), his power as the King of kings (Revelation 19:16), his power as the Lord of lords (Revelation 19:16), his power as High Priest (Hebrews 3:1), his power as the King of Israel (John 12:13), and his power as the Lamb of God (John 1:29).

Not at all: these are just titles, and I'd wonder why you only chose those and not a hundred other titles? You really appear to just make this stuff up as you go along. It's like playing pin the tail on the donkey with you. You just think, "Oh, must be titles, so I'll just look up a few and see if I can make 7." If there were ONLY seven titles for Jesus in the bible you might have a case, but I'm sure there are many more. So where does that leave us? Not Jewish number symbolism again! (YES!) Not Revelation being full of Jewish number and colour symbolism! (YES!) Not seven being the perfection of God, and 6 being short of that perfection, man's number, the day of the 'week' we were created on and the six days we work? (YES!)

And Revelation 5:6 tells us what the seven eyes of the Jesus lamb represent: "the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth". These can literally be seven Spirits of God, which could be: the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of wisdom, the Spirit of understanding, the Spirit of counsel, the Spirit of might, the Spirit of knowledge, and the Spirit of the fear of the Lord (Isaiah 11:2).

Seven spirits of God is heresy.

 

[Achilles6129]

From the viewpoint of men, part of what Revelation chapters 2-3 foretold could have begun unfolding "shortly" (Revelation 1:1,3) after John saw his Revelation vision. For the letters to the seven literal, first century AD local church congregations (Revelation chapters 2-3) in seven cities in the Roman province of "Asia" (Revelation 1:11b) could have foretold a first century AD persecution (Revelation 2:10, Revelation 3:10) under the Roman Emperor Domitian which happened shortly after John saw his vision around 95 AD, near the end of Domitian's reign (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3c).

Right, I understand that. However, this does conflict with the rather reasonable notion that the 7 churches are describing both historical churches and the 'church universal.' I believe there is good evidence for this, but will not post it now.

But even all the (to us) still-future events of the tribulation and subsequent second coming of Revelation chapters 6 to 19 will unfold "shortly" (Revelation 1:1,3) or "quickly" (Revelation 22:20) after John saw his vision. For from the viewpoint of God, even the passing of some two thousand years is like the passing of only two days (2 Peter 3:8). Christians should look at the future fulfillment of Revelation chapters 6 to 19 from the viewpoint of God, not men, for whom the passing of some two thousand years seems like a long delay for its fulfillment (2 Peter 3:9).

Ok, that is a reasonable explanation then. Clocks run differently based relativity - for example, a clock at the top of a building runs slightly differently than a clock at the bottom. So time is relative. What you're saying, then, is that time in heaven is not the same as time on earth. It would have to run much faster in order for Christ's statements to be true.

The imminence and urgency in Revelation would not be there if the the same book was outlining a future timetable of 2000 years later! No!

I think that Bible2's solution of the relativity of time is reasonable. Do you agree?

Revelation is demonstrating the urgency and desperation and danger in the times in which we live, these Last Days (since Acts2) in which the Lord really could return any day, because everything that is required was fulfilled on the cross.

I agree that the Lord could return at any time, which is why Christ warned us over and over and over again about the unexpected nature of his coming. There is no other feasible explanation (in my opinion) for such warnings.

My big question was why it is taking so "long" - at least from human standards. If we consider, it's been over 1900 years since the book of Revelation was written (AD 95). That has been the longest time God has ever gone without supernaturally intervening into human history. For example, from Adam to the Flood was only about 1656 years. From Noah to Abraham was a matter of hundreds of years. Same thing with Abraham to Moses. Then we had the prophets, and from the last prophet (Zechariah or Malachi) to Christ was only hundreds of years.

So this is the longest we've ever been without some sort of divine intervention. My question is - why?

This is what futurists would take away from us all!

Not at all

------------------------

OK, so in the second part of my post I would like to address an important topic - namely, the nature of the book of Revelation - should certain passages be taken literally, symbolically, or as a mixed metaphor? It is difficult, but I'd like to quote something I wrote from another post:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7736554/

Finally, I think that if we look at the words of Jesus Christ then we will see that many of the events in the book of Revelation are literal. We will look at Luke 21 (after the 70 AD portion) so people cannot claim these events are referring directly to 70 AD:

"24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
26Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory." Luke 21:24-27

Note that verse 24 describes the 70 AD destruction, so everything Christ is talking about from verse 25 onward refers to the time of the end. It is worth studying this verse carefully with a concordance and with other Bible versions because I believe it points toward a literal interpretation of many of the events in the book of Revelation. First, a quick Greek word study:

Here is Vine's entry on "perplexity": akin to A, No. 1, is translated "perplexity" in Luk 21:25 (lit., "at a loss for a way," a, negative, poros, "a way, resource"), of the distress of nations, finding no solution to their embarrassments; papyri illustrations are in the sense of being at one's wit's end, at a loss how to proceed, without resources.

So the nations are 'at a loss for a way' because of the events transpiring on the planet. Men's hearts fail them for fear; they are 'looking after' those things which are coming on the earth. Christ also mentions the sea and waves roaring, pointing to literal events. Here are several other versions:

"25 “There will be [p]signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, 26 men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the [q]world; for the powers of [r]the heavens will be shaken." Lu. 21:25-26 (NASB)

"25 “There will be signs in the sun, the moon, and the stars, and on the earth distress among nations confused by the roaring of the sea and the waves. 26 People will faint from fear and foreboding of what is coming upon the world, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken." (NRSV)

The point here is that based on Christ's words (in a passage that is indisputably referring to events after AD 70) it seems that many of the horrific plagues in the book of Revelation are literal. I did not say I believe them all to be literal. I take the book of Revelation as a mixed metaphor, where discernment must be used to see what's literal and what's figurative.

However, there is one confusing passage in the book of Revelation:

"18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll." Rev. 22:18-19 (NIV)

This passage constitutes a problem: If a person who lived in say, AD 400, were to add to the words of the book of Revelation, how exactly would God add the plagues to him, since the plagues would not occur for many years later? This seems to me to be a formidable objection (one raised by G.K. Beale in his commentary on Revelation).

This interpretation, then, would argue that the plagues are symbolic in nature and have been happening throughout the church age. That is, unless we take "plagues" as a reference to punishment after death or some form of punishment during life, but "plagues" in the book of Revelation seems to refer specifically to the judgments of God described in the book. E.G.:

"And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:" Rev. 9:20

"These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will." Rev. 11:6

"And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God." Rev. 15:1

"And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles." Rev. 15:6

"And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power; and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled." Rev. 15:8

"And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory." Rev. 16:9

"And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great." Rev. 16:21

"And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." Rev. 18:4

"Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her." Rev. 18:8

"And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife." Rev. 21:9

Those are all the other uses of 'plague' or 'plagues' in the book of Revelation. As we can see, they appear to be describing end-time judgments from God (unless we take the reference to Babylon's plagues as generic, meaning 'death, mourning, and famine' are the plagues referred to in Rev. 22:18).

So Rev. 22:18 is a confusing passage and may be evidence against a completely futurist perspective of the plagues written in the book.

 

[eclipsenow]

Right, I understand that. However, this does conflict with the rather reasonable notion that the 7 churches are describing both historical churches and the 'church universal.' I believe there is good evidence for this, but will not post it now.

Exactly! There were more than 7 churches in the Asia Minor district, so the fact that John refers to the biblical number of seven means that, while specific, this was also addressed to the universal church as a warning. (Seven is a special Jewish number refering to God's number, or God's completion, or God's complete control, and no matter how many times you point this out to Bible2 he rejects the obvious symbolism in Revelation).

Ok, that is a reasonable explanation then. Clocks run differently based relativity - for example, a clock at the top of a building runs slightly differently than a clock at the bottom. So time is relative. What you're saying, then, is that time in heaven is not the same as time on earth. It would have to run much faster in order for Christ's statements to be true.

I think that Bible2's solution of the relativity of time is reasonable. Do you agree?

Yeah, what a weird and wonderful universe we live in, hey? It's just like how relativity has to be taken into account in GPS systems because otherwise they'll grow 100's of meters out every day.

But that's not what these verses are about. The bible's concerns here are, as always, theological, not scientific. Other parts of the New Testament make it clear that the Lord is not 'slow' but patient, not wanting anyone to perish. Or, on the urgent side of the equation, repent TODAY, while it is still TODAY, for TODAY is the day of salvation! It depends which angle you're asking about. It's not drawing up an equation, but pointing out the theological truth that God is OUTSIDE of time. That is, he can zoom in and listen to your prayer with such infinite attention it is as if you are the only person who ever existed and He is in the room, listening to his dear child, giving you His full focus as you pray. On the other hand, He simultaneously sees the beginning and the end. He is the Alpha and the Omega as well. Which means God is fundamentally HAPPY, as He sees the big picture. He knows it will all work out! He sees you already enjoying heaven for all eternity.

That's what I think these verses are trying to illustrate: not some actual scientific equation for how time operates in heaven.

 

[Bible2]

eclipsenow said in post 986:

Do you think Bible Scholars should learn ancient Hebrew and Greek to try and understand how to interpret the bible?

Yes, for the Old Testament scriptures were originally written (almost entirely) in Hebrew, and all of the New Testament scriptures were originally written in Greek. And only this original Hebrew and Greek is necessarily God-inspired and infallible (2 Timothy 3:16), as opposed to any of its man-made translations. So if there is ever any question regarding what something in God's Word the Bible means, we must go to its original Hebrew and Greek to make sure that we are understanding it correctly. We must not reject the sound meaning of any of the Bible's original Hebrew and Greek in order to follow any man-made ideas, for that would be a recipe for disaster (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

eclipsenow said in post 986:

If so, do you think Bible Scholars might also investigate other ancient texts to understand the use of biblical symbols?

What other ancient texts? And what symbols do they contain that are the same as in the Bible? And what requires that any Biblical symbol must mean the same thing as a symbol in any other ancient but non-scriptural text?

eclipsenow said in post 986:

EG: I have an excellent paper by my friend Dr John Dickson who explains that Genesis chapter 1 is profoundly theological, profoundly true, profoundly important but not literal, especially when we understand Jewish number symbolism in the passage and especially when we understand the symbols used in the pagan Enuma Elish.

How can any pagan text possibly restrict the interpretation of God's own Word the Bible? Also, nothing in Genesis 1 requires that it is not literal, or that any of its numbers are not literal.

eclipsenow said in post 986:

Not at all: these are just titles, and I'd wonder why you only chose those and not a hundred other titles?

They are titles which indicate positions of power, and they can be seen as the seven major positions of power held by Jesus.

eclipsenow said in post 986:

Not Revelation being full of Jewish number and colour symbolism!

Nothing requires that any number or color in Revelation is not literal.

eclipsenow said in post 986:

Not seven being the perfection of God . . .

It does not have to be either/or, but can be both/and. That is, seven can refer literally to seven different things while at the same time symbolically pointing to the perfection of God, just as, for example, in Matthew 21:19, the fig tree was literal and at the same time its being without fruit symbolically pictured unbelieving, Old Covenant Israel being without fruit (Matthew 21:43).

eclipsenow said in post 986:

Seven spirits of God is heresy.

How has that been shown? It is the Bible itself that refers to "the seven Spirits of God" (Revelation 5:6, Revelation 4:5, Revelation 3:1). And just as the three Persons of God are the one God, so the seven Spirits of God could be the one Holy Spirit. Just as the Father is the one God (Ephesians 4:6), and the Son is the one God (Hebrews 1:8), and the Holy Spirit is the one God (Acts 5:3-4), so the Spirit of the Lord (Isaiah 11:2) would be the one Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17), and the Spirit of wisdom (Isaiah 11:2) would be the one Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:8), and the Spirit of understanding (Isaiah 11:2) would be the one Holy Spirit (Exodus 31:3), and the Spirit of counsel (Isaiah 11:2) would be the one Holy Spirit (Isaiah 30:1), and the Spirit of might (Isaiah 11:2) would be the one Holy Spirit (Ephesians 3:16), and the Spirit of knowledge (Isaiah 11:2) would be the one Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:8), and the Spirit of the fear of the Lord (Isaiah 11:2) would be the one Holy Spirit (Acts 9:31).


*******

eclipsenow said in post 988:

There were more than 7 churches in the Asia Minor district . . .

How many more? And in what cities were they located?

The seven churches can be literally seven because they can be the only churches in literal Roman "Asia" (what is today Western Turkey) who sent messengers to John on the island of Patmos, which was just off the coast of Roman "Asia".

For the "angels" of the seven literal, first century AD local church congregations in seven cities in the Roman province of "Asia" (Revelation 1:20, Revelation 1:11) could have been seven human messengers sent by those churches to John on Patmos (Revelation 1:9). For in Revelation 1:20, the original Greek word (aggelos, G0032) translated as "angels" can refer to human "messengers" (Luke 7:24).

eclipsenow said in post 988:

On the other hand, He simultaneously sees the beginning and the end.

That brings to mind the scientific idea of the "block universe", meaning that time, from the viewpoint of physics in itself (that is, outside of how humans happen to experience time) there is no arrow of time: The past, present, & future of all space in the universe exist as one block of a four-dimensional space-time. So the past still exists, & the future already exists. This is similar to how all the frames of a movie, all its moments of time, exist at the same time in one reel of film, yet we humans happen to experience a movie only one frame at a time, and in one direction. Also, with regard to the "block universe", quantum-level experiments have shown that the future determines the past as much as the past determines the future. So from a Christian viewpoint, this means that we can pray for God's will to be done in the past, just as we pray for it to be done in the future. For example, if we remember a close call in our past where we just barely escaped a car accident, we can presently pray that God would keep us from having that accident, and this could help us to avoid it. That is, we could have avoided it because years later we prayed to avoid it.

 

[Bible2]

Achilles6129 said in post 987:

However, this does conflict with the rather reasonable notion that the 7 churches are describing both historical churches and the 'church universal.'

Why does there have to be a conflict? Why does it have to be either/or instead of both/and? Also, how has it ever been proven that the seven churches in "Asia" (Revelation 1:11) must be "the church universal", instead of only seven literal, first century, local church congregations in seven cities in the Roman province of "Asia" (what is now Western Turkey)?

Achilles6129 said in post 987:

What you're saying, then, is that time in heaven is not the same as time on earth.

No, that hasn't been said, for they could be the same. What has been said is that from the viewpoint of the eternal God himself, the passing of some two thousand years is like the passing of only two days (2 Peter 3:8).

Achilles6129 said in post 987:

I agree that the Lord could return at any time, which is why Christ warned us over and over and over again about the unexpected nature of his
coming.

The Lord cannot return at any time, for he cannot return and gather together (rapture) the church until immediately after the future tribulation of Rev. chs. 6-18/Mt. 24 (Mt. 24:29-31, 2 Thes. 2:1-8). That's why the marriage of the church doesn't happen until Rev. 19:7, in connection with Jesus' 2nd coming and the bodily resurrection of the church at that time (Rev. 19:7-20:6, 1 Cor. 15:21-23,51-53, 1 Thes. 4:15-16). Mt. 24:30-31 refers to the same 2nd coming of Jesus and gathering together (rapture) of the church as 2 Thes. 2:1, which refers to the same 2nd coming of Jesus and catching up together (rapture) of the church as 1 Thes. 4:15-17.

The Lord cannot return and gather together (rapture) the church until sometime after there's a falling away (an apostasy) in the church, and the Antichrist sits in a 3rd Jewish temple in Jerusalem and proclaims himself God (2 Thes. 2:1-4, Dan. 11:31,36, Rev. 11:1-2, 13:4-8), and the abomination of desolation (possibly a standing, android image of the Antichrist) is set up in the holy place of the 3rd Jewish temple (Mt. 24:15-31, Dan. 11:31). For when Jesus returns to gather together (and marry) the church he will destroy the Antichrist (2 Thes. 2:1,8, Rev. 19:7,20). Before Jesus returns, the church will have to go through the future, literal 3.5 years of the Antichrist's worldwide reign (Rev. 13:5-10, 14:12-13, 20:4-6, Mt. 24:9-31). At Jesus' 2nd coming (1 Thes. 4:15, 2 Thes. 2:1, Mt. 24:30), the church will be resurrected and caught up together/gathered together (raptured) (1 Thes. 4:16-17, 2 Thes. 2:1, Mt. 24:31), not to remove the church from the earth (Prov. 10:30, Jn. 17:15,20), but to take the church only as high as the clouds of the sky to hold a meeting in the air with the returned Jesus (1 Thes. 4:17).

Achilles6129 said in post 987:

I agree that the Lord could return at any time, which is why Christ warned us over and over and over again about the unexpected nature of his
coming.

Regarding "the unexpected nature of his coming", Mt. 24:36,42,44 refers to Jesus' 2nd coming (Mt. 24:37,42,44), which Jesus had just finished saying won't happen until immediately after the tribulation (Mt. 24:29-31). So in Mt. 24:42,44, Jesus could mean that only if believers don't watch (stay awake, spiritually) during the tribulation, the 2nd coming will happen at an hour they don't know/think not (cf. the if principle of Rev. 3:3b). In the context of Mt. 24:36,42,44, Jesus suggests it's possible for believers to know when the 2nd coming will occur and to watch for it (Mt. 24:43-44a, 1 Thes. 5:4). Also, Jesus says "of that day and hour knoweth no man" (Mt. 24:36), he doesn't say "of that day and hour no man will know". So it's possible at some point in the future some believers will come to know the date (as in the year, month, and day) of the 2nd coming before it happens. Also, if we mistakenly think Jesus can come today or tomorrow (as is sometimes claimed by the pre-trib and symbolicist views), then how can we also claim he will come when nobody thinks he will (Mt 24:44)?

Also, compare the following: "of that day and hour knoweth no man" (Mt. 24:36), "the things of God knoweth no man" (1 Cor. 2:11). If we claim the first verse means no man will ever know the date of the 2nd coming until it happens, then to be consistent we would have to also claim the 2nd verse means no man, not even believers, can know the things of God until the 2nd coming. But who would say that? For the Holy Spirit can currently reveal to believers the things of God (1 Cor. 2:12-13), he can currently guide them into all truth and show them what will happen in the future (Jn. 16:13), including the date of the 2nd coming. For, again, Jesus suggests it's possible for believers to know when the 2nd coming will occur and to watch for it (Mt. 24:43-44a, 1 Thes. 5:4). Also, what Amos 3:7 says would include the 2nd coming: Surely God the Father won't send Jesus back without having first revealed to some believers the secret of the date of the 2nd coming. It could occur on the 1,335th day after the abomination of desolation (possibly a standing, android image of the Antichrist) is set up in a 3rd Jewish temple (Dan. 12:11-12, Rev. 16:15, Dan. 11:31,36, Mt. 24:15).

Achilles6129 said in post 987:

My big question was why it is taking so "long" - at least from human standards.

Because of what 2 Peter 3:9 says.

Achilles6129 said in post 987:

So this is the longest we've ever been without some sort of divine intervention.

Who says that there has not been divine intervention, in the lives of some individuals, every day since Jesus came the first time? Indeed, whenever anyone becomes a Christian, that requires divine intervention. For everyone on his own is wholly corrupt (Rom. 3:9-12), & so it's impossible for people on their own to ever believe in Jesus & the gospel & be initially saved (1 Cor. 15:1-4, Jn. 20:31, 1 Jn. 5:13) through their own will (Rom. 9:16, Jn. 1:13, 6:65) or their own intellect (1 Cor. 1:18-2:16). Unsaved people can't understand the gospel (1 Cor. 2:14, 1:18) because only initially saved people, who've received the miraculous gift of some measure of God's own Spirit, can understand it (1 Cor. 2:11-16).

The nonelect can't ever believe in Jesus & the gospel & be initially saved, even when they're shown the truth (Jn. 8:42-47, 10:26, Mt. 13:38-42), because the ability to believe in Jesus & the gospel comes only to the elect (Acts 13:48b) wholly by God's grace as a miraculous gift from God (Ephesians 2:8, John 6:65; 1 Corinthians 3:5b, Romans 12:3b, Hebrews 12:2) as the elect read (or hear) God's Word the Bible (Romans 10:17, Acts 13:48, Acts 26:22-23), just as the ability to repent comes only as a miraculous gift from God (2 Tim. 2:25, Acts 11:18). Satan blinds the minds of unbelievers so that on their own they can't repent & acknowledge the truth of God's Word (2 Cor. 4:4, 2 Tim. 2:25-26).

Achilles6129 said in post 987:

If a person who lived in say, AD 400, were to add to the words of the book of Revelation, how exactly would God add the plagues to him, since the plagues would not occur for many years later?

God could bring the same plagues on such an individual personally after that person's resurrection.

Achilles6129 said in post 987:

This interpretation, then, would argue that the plagues are symbolic in nature and have been happening throughout the church age.

Nothing require that they are symbolic, and there is no such thing as the church age. For the church will continue on the earth throughout all ages (Eph. 3:21). The church will continue on the earth throughout the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18/Matthew 24 (Mt. 24:9-13, Rev. 13:7-10, Rev. 14:12-13, Rev. 20:4), and then throughout the subsequent millennium (Rev. 20:4-6, Rev. 5:10, Rev. 2:26-29), and then forever on the new earth (Rev. 21:1 to 22:5).

 

[eclipsenow]

What other ancient texts? And what symbols do they contain that are the same as in the Bible? And what requires that any Biblical symbol must mean the same thing as a symbol in any other ancient but non-scriptural text?

That's where Dr Paul Barnett can help you, because you obviously have no idea about these matters.

How can any pagan text possibly restrict the interpretation of God's own Word the Bible? Also, nothing in Genesis 1 requires that it is not literal, or that any of its numbers are not literal.

It does not 'restrict' God's word at all, but it can be very illuminating to see which ancient text's and ideas God's word is sometimes rebuking.

Creationists have let their fear of Darwin distort their every encounter with Genesis. The sad irony of their attempt to 'prove' Genesis scientifically true is that they have robbed it of its original meaning and theological beauty. Instead of reading this as a startling *theological* revolution, they've turned Genesis into a dry engineering manual. To them it's an arbitrary list of what God made when. God made this on one day, and that on another, and then had a tea break on the last day. It's all so arbitrary and boring. Is that it? A dry engineering manual that God wants us to memorise? Really?

I don't think so. Historian and theologian, Dr John Dickson (Phd in History) forces us to take a fresh look at Genesis from the world-view of the Ancient Middle East. Let's chuck today's Darwin verses Creationism; lets even chuck Philo's 2000 old proposition that Genesis had to be an allegory because God was so powerful he could have made it all in a split second. Let's chuck all these endless 'modern' speculations and dive back 4000 years into the heart of the big theological questions of the day.

Now, what was the question of the day? If I start singing "Oh, say! can you see by the dawn's early light", it starts to ring some bells. Now imagine I swapped some of the lyrics around to mess with the meaning to some political purpose. Most Americans would immediately get what I was up to.

The Ancient World had another national anthem they all knew. It was written on (wait for it!) 7 stone tablets, and had roughly 7 stages in creation. (Once we remove all the boring court gossip between the 'gods' in the heavenly court). It was written several hundred years before Genesis, and it was recited on a big national day of celebration each year. In Babylon, the traditional enemy of the Israelites! It's called the Enuma Elish, and the author of Genesis was most definitely having a go at subverting the Enuma Elish and other ancient myths.

It's almost an exercise of 'compare and contrast'. In the Enuma Elish, there are 7 stages of creation which involve a war between the gods, and one of the god's bodies ends up 'separated' to create land and sea. In Genesis, our Lord just says it, and it is so. The world itself comes from the breath of his word, not from bits of god's bodies.

In Babylon, the stars are gods to be served, and in Egypt, the sun is a god to be served. In Genesis, the stars and sun serve us, and act to mark out our days and seasons! They're our calendars, nothing more! The stars are not gods: and this written 4000 years ago when so many ancient people's believed the stars were gods.

There is so much more, but to really understand it read this article by theologian and Phd in History, my friend, Dr John Dickson.

http://www.iscast.org/journal/articles/Dickson_J_2008-03_Genesis_Of_Everything.pdf

Not only that, but it is a highly structured poem in its own right, with the first 3 days creating the form, the 2nd 3 days filling the forms, and the final day being the 7th day, the purpose of it all: rest in God's good creation.

 

[Bible2]

eclipsenow said in post 991:

Creationists have let their fear of Darwin distort their every encounter with Genesis.

Regarding "Creationists" per se, every Christian must be a creationist per se, for the Bible makes clear that God is the Creator of all things (Colossians 1:16). Regarding Darwin, did he deny that God is the Creator, or did he just see evolution per se (random mutation and survival of the fittest) as a process created by God to help new, adaptive species arise naturally over time?

eclipsenow said in post 991:

The sad irony of their attempt to 'prove' Genesis scientifically true is that they have robbed it of its original meaning and theological beauty.

Genesis can be read literally without robbing it of its original meaning and theological beauty, which is that God is the Creator. Similarly, Genesis can be read literally without having to contradict the scientific ideas of an old earth and evolution. For creationism includes what could be called the double-gap theory, meaning that there could have been two different gaps of time in Genesis chapters 1-2, the first gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, and the second gap between Genesis 2:4 and Genesis 2:5. Genesis 1:1 could have occurred some 4.5 billion years ago, when God first created the planet earth and its atmosphere (the first heaven, in which the birds fly: Genesis 1:20b). Between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, some 4.5 billion years could have occurred, in which God could have allowed his own created process of evolution to serve as a mechanism by which new species arose on the earth. During those same 4.5 billion years, God could have also gone outside of evolution and created new species miraculously, instantaneously, whenever he wanted to (compare punctuated equilibria).

Genesis 1:2 could refer to the condition of the earth only about twelve thousand years ago (at the end of the Paleolithic period), after some cataclysm, such as a comet strike, had killed off all life on the planet (both evolved and miraculously created), and had submerged all land areas in water (comets contain huge amounts of water), and had ruined the atmosphere. The impact of the comet could have also knocked the earth out of its orbit around its original star, so that the earth was sent hurtling into the darkness of interstellar space as a "rogue planet" (astronomers estimate that rogue planets in our galaxy could outnumber the stars in our galaxy). Genesis 1:3 to 2:4 could then refer to God, over a period of six, literal, twenty-four-hour days (some twelve thousand years ago, at the start of the Neolithic period), miraculously restoring to the earth light, a good atmosphere, dry land, and life, including a race of male and female homo sapiens sapiens after God had miraculously restored land plants (Genesis 1:11-13) and land animals (Genesis 1:24-25) to the earth.

Then, only about six thousand years ago, God miraculously created on the earth an individual male homo sapiens sapiens named Adam in an uninhabited desert land (Genesis 2:5-7; there, the original Hebrew word translated as "earth" can simply refer to a certain "land": for example, Genesis 2:11). After that, God planted the plants of the local, Garden of Eden in that desert land (Genesis 2:8-9) and God placed Adam in that garden (Genesis 2:15). Then God miraculously created the animals of the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:19). Then God miraculously created in the Garden of Eden an individual female homo sapiens sapiens (Genesis 2:22) whom Adam named Eve (Genesis 3:20).

Because Adam was created only about six thousand years ago (based on Biblical chronology), yet there are homo sapiens sapiens fossils said to be as old as about two hundred thousand years, God could have first created homo sapiens sapiens (or it could have evolved by God's created process of evolution) as far back as about two hundred thousand years. Also, all the different hominid forms the fossils of which long predate or are as old as the earliest fossils of homo sapiens sapiens, and which preceding or coexisting hominid forms we do not consider to have been fully human like us (such as homo sapiens neanderthalensis), could have all been created by God (or could have evolved by God's created process of evolution) over millions of years prior to the first appearance of homo sapiens sapiens on the earth.

And this does not even get into the possibly trillion other inhabited planets in the universe on which homo sapiens sapiens (or similar or far more advanced life-forms) could have been created by God (or could have evolved by God's created process of evolution) billions of years prior to the first appearance of homo sapiens sapiens on the earth. For the universe could be about fourteen billion years old, and there are something like a hundred billion different galaxies, each containing something like a hundred billion different stars. So even if only one star out of every ten billion stars has an inhabited planet, there would still be a trillion inhabited planets. And on most of these, God could have begun his miraculous work (and the work of his created process of evolution) billions of years before beginning his miraculous work (and the work of his created process of evolution) on the earth.

 

[eclipsenow]

Regarding "Creationists" per se, every Christian must be a creationist per se, for the Bible makes clear that God is the Creator of all things (Colossians 1:16). Regarding Darwin, did he deny that God is the Creator, or did he just see evolution per se (random mutation and survival of the fittest) as a process created by God to help new, adaptive species arise naturally over time?

I agree with this paragraph.

Genesis can be read literally without robbing it of its original meaning and theological beauty, which is that God is the Creator. Similarly, Genesis can be read literally without having to contradict the scientific ideas of an old earth and evolution. For creationism includes what could be called the double-gap theory, meaning that there could have been two different gaps of time in Genesis chapters 1-2, the first gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, and the second gap between Genesis 2:4 and Genesis 2:5. Genesis 1:1 could have occurred some 4.5 billion years ago, when God first created the planet earth and its atmosphere (the first heaven, in which the birds fly: Genesis 1:20b). Between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, some 4.5 billion years could have occurred, in which God could have allowed his own created process of evolution to serve as a mechanism by which new species arose on the earth. During those same 4.5 billion years, God could have also gone outside of evolution and created new species miraculously, instantaneously, whenever he wanted to (compare punctuated equilibria).

This is ridiculous. You're ignoring the structural problems: God creates forms on the first 3 days, then fills those forms on the next 3 days, and then rests which is the purpose of it all = us enjoying God for all eternity. Trying to have it 'literal' and 'scientific' is just silly when God creates the form 'light' and then the means of the form, the sun, days later! It's also ridiculous when one realises that the first creation story in Genesis doesn't literally work with the second. Did God create vegetation first then mankind as in Chapter 1, or mankind first then vegetation as in Chapter 2? All of these problems vanish when we realise it is a creative narrative teaching us theological truths but is just not meant to be literal.

 

[Bible2]

eclipsenow said in post 993:

Trying to have it 'literal' and 'scientific' is just silly when God creates the form 'light' and then the means of the form, the sun, days later!

No reference is made in Genesis to "forms" or "means" of forms. Genesis 1:3-5 could simply mean that God had some light source in space temporarily light up half the earth as bright as day, three literal days before he created the sun (Genesis 1:14-19).

eclipsenow said in post 993:

It's also ridiculous when one realises that the first creation story in Genesis doesn't literally work with the second.

Regarding "the first creation story in Genesis doesn't literally work with the second", that is right; it does not, if one mistakenly assumes that they are referring to the same time period.

But post 992 addressed this in detail, showing how Genesis chapters 1-2 can be read chronologically, as well as literally.

eclipsenow said in post 993:

Did God create vegetation first then mankind as in Chapter 1, or mankind first then vegetation as in Chapter 2?

Both, if by the second "mankind" you mean only Adam, and if by the second "vegetation" you mean only that in the local, Garden of Eden. (See post 992)

eclipsenow said in post 993:

All of these problems vanish when we realise it is a creative narrative teaching us theological truths but is just not meant to be literal.

It is both: It teaches us the theological truth that YHWH God is the Creator, and it is literal. (Also, it is chronological.)

 

[eclipsenow]

No reference is made in Genesis to "forms" or "means" of forms. Genesis 1:3-5 could simply mean that God had some light source in space temporarily light up half the earth as bright as day, three literal days before he created the sun (Genesis 1:14-19).

Are you reading chapter 1 at all? What are the forms? Light, air, water, land. What are the filling of the forms? Night and day, sun and moon, etc. It's TOTALLY poetic because God creates light and then there's an 'evening' and a 'morning'. Sorry pal, but this stuff is complete metaphor.

Regarding "the first creation story in Genesis doesn't literally work with the second", that is right; it does not, if one mistakenly assumes that they are referring to the same time period.

Both cover the creation of the first human... so go figure.

But post 992 addressed this in detail, showing how Genesis chapters 1-2 can be read chronologically, as well as literally.

Nah. Didn't. Not at all. Because, as usual, it amazes me how much you have to ADD to the bible to try and read it 'literally'. But then, that kind of inconsistency is what I'm used to from you.

Both, if by the second "mankind" you mean only Adam, and if by the second "vegetation" you mean only that in the local, Garden of Eden. (See post 992)

That's a silly semantic game. When you can answer like an adult, I might bother with a better reply than...

The truth is if you read it literally, then in one creation account God makes vegetation then mankind, and in the next creation account it's completely the other way around.

It is both: It teaches us the theological truth that YHWH God is the Creator, and it is literal. (Also, it is chronological.)

Not literal, not meant to be literal, and wouldn't have been read by the original audience as literal. Sorry, but you're wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

[BlackSepulcher]

This world has seen enough, it's time for Jesus to be our Savior once again.

 

[Achilles6129]

No reference is made in Genesis to "forms" or "means" of forms. Genesis 1:3-5 could simply mean that God had some light source in space temporarily light up half the earth as bright as day, three literal days before he created the sun (Genesis 1:14-19).

The light source may have been from inside of God's temple in heaven.

But post 992 addressed this in detail, showing how Genesis chapters 1-2 can be read chronologically, as well as literally.

I agree with you on this.

This world has seen enough, it's time for Jesus to be our Savior once again.

And when do you believe that this will occur?

 

[Interplanner]

LIteralism about Gen 1 fails in another way: while being very literal about the successive days, they don't seem to factor in how 1:2 reads: that at the beginning of creation the earth was already 'tohu wa-bohu' "formless and empty" which means the "beginning" is not the beginning, to be literal.

ALso, in spite of probably 10 easy examples of section headings, 1:1 is not read as a section heading, if you are literal. I guess literal means non-literary--that you deliberately ignore the type of literature you are reading, and just use a mental spectrometer to see what is there.

--INter

 

[Achilles6129]

LIteralism about Gen 1 fails in another way: while being very literal about the successive days, they don't seem to factor in how 1:2 reads: that at the beginning of creation the earth was already 'tohu wa-bohu' "formless and empty" which means the "beginning" is not the beginning, to be literal.

ALso, in spite of probably 10 easy examples of section headings, 1:1 is not read as a section heading, if you are literal. I guess literal means non-literary--that you deliberately ignore the type of literature you are reading, and just use a mental spectrometer to see what is there.

--INter

Literalism in Genesis is by far the best way to read it. A literal creation in six days and a literal Noah's flood.

Nonetheless, this thread is really not about the Genesis creation. It is supposed to be about Christ's return. So if there are those who want to discuss the Genesis creation, I suggest we take it to another thread.

 

[Bible2]

eclipsenow said in post 995:

Are you reading chapter 1 at all?

Yes.

eclipsenow said in post 995:

What are the forms? Light, air, water, land.

Why do you call them "forms"? What do you mean by that, instead of simply calling them, for example, created things?

eclipsenow said in post 995:

What are the filling of the forms?

What do you mean by "filling" the forms? How, for example, is light "filled"? It already is what it is.

eclipsenow said in post 995:

It's TOTALLY poetic because God creates light and then there's an 'evening' and a 'morning'.

How does that make it non-literal, when Genesis 1:3-5 can simply mean that God had some literal light source in space temporarily light up half the earth as bright as day, three literal days before he created the sun (Genesis 1:14-19)?

eclipsenow said in post 995:

Sorry pal, but this stuff is complete metaphor.

What requires that anything in Genesis 1 is a metaphor at all, instead of everything being completely literal?

eclipsenow said in post 995:

Both cover the creation of the first human... so go figure.

Actually, nothing requires that Adam was the first human ever to exist on the earth.

eclipsenow said in post 995:

Nah. Didn't. Not at all. Because, as usual, it amazes me how much you have to ADD to the bible to try and read it 'literally'. But then, that kind of inconsistency is what I'm used to from you.

How has what has been suggested been shown to be inconsistent with what Genesis chapters 1-2 say?

eclipsenow said in post 995:

That's a silly semantic game. When you can answer like an adult, I might bother with a better reply than...

How has what was said been shown to be silly or childish?

eclipsenow said in post 995:

The truth is if you read it literally, then in one creation account God makes vegetation then mankind, and in the next creation account it's completely the other way around.

Because they are not the same time period, but two, different, chronological accounts. That is, the second account is about what happened in only one local area of land, thousands of years after the end of the first account, as was shown in post 992.

eclipsenow said in post 995:

Not literal, not meant to be literal, and wouldn't have been read by the original audience as literal. Sorry, but you're wrong, wrong, wrong.

How has any of that been proven?