AssemblyBoard

I have a question regarding something I read in the Bible. Perhaps some of the "scholars" out
there can help me. It is of no earth-shaking importance---I would just like to know the answer.

Perhaps this thread could be used by anyone else that has a Bible question. I have an answer for
my own question and will share it---but there is nothing concrete in my answer to prove it's true.

My question is from Genesis chapter 7 ( I am reading Genesis at present in the evening):

1And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

 2Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean  by two, the male and his female.

 3Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.  
 4For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

 5And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.
 
Question:
The Law had not been given yet. How would Noah know which beasts are considered "clean" and which would be "unclean"? Also, interestingly, God says to take seven of the birds--is he stating "all" birds are considered clean? He doesn't say to take two of unclean birds, and seven of the clean--he just says to take seven of every bird.  But why command Noah to do something he doesn't even know, as the Law hasn't been given yet?

One answer could be that the Law wasn't something God "gave" to Moses on Sinai--the Law was already in existence in God's eyes--God already had determined what was "clean" and what was "unclean"--though the Law hadn't been given yet, because God exists, the Law exists. (to be later fulfilled by Jesus Christ as he is the only one who could perfectly live the Law).  Since it would be impossible for Noah to go and collect all of these animals, God brought them to him---and as he commanded Noah, he then himself brought the animals to Noah, who would "learn" what animals God considered "clean" or "unclean"(by observing if they came in twos or sevens). After the flood man was allowed to eat meat per God's command, so God wanted Noah to know what was acceptable to eat or not eat even if the Law had not yet been given. This could be one plausible answer, but would like to hear if anyone has a scholarly explanation.

I know----strange question--but I find it intriguing.

OK, I'll show forth my ignorance with the utmost confidence, but here goes.

Presumably, the five books of Moses (Pentatude) was written by Moses.  However, others had to have their hand in it because the books record Moses' death so perhaps someone like Joshua or someone else was the final compiler/editor.

Nevertheless, it was written after all these things had happened, presumably getting down stories that until that time were passed along through oral tradition or were recorded in incomplete form in writing.

(Again, I'm not a Bible scholar, I'm just making these assumptions).

So, at the time of the writing of Genesis, both the writer and the readers understood what clean and unclean animals were.  The compiler of Genesis just had to make the short hand "clean animals"/"unclean animals" because everyone knew what he was talking about while God could have indeed explained things to Noah his instructions in much more detail than was finally recorded in the book.

In analogy:  You may spend ten minutes explaining to a new citizen how to get to the courthouse and how to apply for a passport and what he would have to do to pick it up, etc.  To your friend who is familiar with the process you say, "I told Jose to get a passport."

Now Tom, who has actually studied this stuff, can come along and blow away my theory.

Dave----

Thanks---good explanation.

--Joe

Joe,

Dave's explanation is quite plausible.  There are a number of places where place names from later centuries are given for places that originally had different names.

One example is Genesis 15:7, where it speaks of "Ur of the Chaldees".  Actually, Abraham was from Ur when it was ruled by the Sumerians three or four centuries before Moses.

Another example is Genesis 28:19.  We are told that the town usually called Bethel in the Bible was once called Luz.

Another explanation of the clean/unclean distinction is that it is not at all difficult to infer that there was a widespread understanding of how to approach Yahweh for centuries before the law was given.  We see Cain and Able offering sacrifices, people building altars, Jacob pouring out an offering on a rock and so on.  It never says in scripture that everything in the law was completely new.

Blessings,
Tom M.

Here's another question for you Bible scholars out there---I'm sure there is an explanation for this---I came across this as I was reading a week or so back and wondered what the explanation was:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

 6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

 9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

 10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

 11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

 12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 13And the evening and the morning were the third day.  

 14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

 18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

 19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

 Question:

In verse 11 God creates the grass and herb yielding seeds and plants, sees that "it is good" and the evening and the morning are the Third day.

Yet, in verse 14 God begins creating the sun and the moon, and "the stars also". Verse 19 says "And the evening and the morning were the fourth day".

How could there be plants and grass and herbs, etc. if the sun has not been created yet?  The sun was not created until the fourth day. How could plants grow without the sunlight? Just so you know--I am not bringing this up to try to question the Bible---I am bringing up questions that genuinely
puzzle me--knowing that there most likely is a plausible explanation. Most "supposed" contradicitons and "problems" of the Bible do have valid explanations.  I have a few more after this too  ;D

--Joe

Another question is how can we have a day as we know it when there was not yet a sun and moon?

But, I’ll go out a little further on the ledge.  I believe Genesis 1 is ultimately teaching Creational Monotheism.  This basically means:

1.   God is one and Universal (unlike territorial Gods, pluralism, etc.)
2.   God is separate and distinct from His Creation (He is not in the wind, fire, earthquake.  This is unlike Pantheism who believes in one god but is the same as creation).
3.   Implies:  God is actively involved in His Creation (unlike the Deists who believe He is so far away it doesn’t really matter).

Having said that, we have been taught in the Evangelical world that Genesis 1 is as scientific as it is theological.  The most conservative of this view is “Young Earth” which insists on seven literal days.  Those who acknowledge this view has serious and real conflicts with science move to an “Old Earth” model.

But here is my question:  Is Genesis 1 really a historical narrative?  Is it really a scientific account?  The sing-songy cadence of the passage makes me think more of poetry – an attempt to communicate an orderly, intelligent Being, but necessarily his lab notes.  It feels to me more like a myth (in the scholarly use of the word, a story that points to a specific truth about origin and pre-history but not with the attention to actual details contained in historical narrative) than “A Brief History of Time”. 

Don’t get me wrong.  I do indeed believe in historical narrative.  I believe there really was a guy named Abraham who did the things the Bible says he did.  I think Jesus really walked on water, not ice cubes or dolphins.  But there are clues to Genesis 1 that make me wonder if it was ever intended to be taken as a historical narrative and scientific account of the process God used to create things.  To me, the style of literature suggests otherwise.

Thoughts?

Ex 20:8-11 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

The six days of creation from this scripture refer to the same six days that that man lives in. We work six days and take the seventh day off the same as God worked six days in creation and rested the seventh.

After doing a bit more investigating I found another plausible explanation, but one must accept the theory that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 something destructive happened. "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth (1:1), "And the earth was without form and void" (1:2).

There is an interesting passage which seems to show that the earth had been fruitful, but it was laid waste and made "without form and void" :

Jeremiah 4:23-29:

I looked on the earth, and

beheld it formless (laid waste) and void;

and to the heavens, and they had no light.

I looked on the mountains,

and, behold, they quaked.

And all the hills were shaken.

I beheld and lo, there was no man;

and all the cover of the skies had fled.

I looked, and, behold, the fruitful place

was a wilderness; and all its cities

were broken down before the face of Jehovah,

before his glowing anger. For so Jehovah has said.

The whole land shall be a desolation;

yet I will not make a full end.


Of course, this is conjecture, but if true, could explain how grass was "created" before the sun was. The Spirit of God hovers over the waters on an earth that is already in existence. He then says "Let there be light". If, somehow, the earth had been devastated and plunged into a deep darkness, it's possible that the sun was shining already, but could not reach the earth. When God said "Let there be light" the beams of the sun were then able to break through to the earth, separating the darkness from the light. The Bible says that God "created to make" when referring to creation. If the seeds were already in the ground from before the disaster, the light reaching the earth would cause them to sprout. It may have still been a deep cloud cover, but enough light to generate plant life. Then on the fourth day the sun and the moon were again fully exposed as God "recreated" the original creation.  According to Genesis 1:1 the sun had already been created, but something caused the planet to be laid waste and plunged into total darkness in Genesis 1:2.

When the Spirit of God came upon the face of the waters upon an earth that was already there, the sun itself was already there too. God wasn't creating the sun on the fourth day--he was re-creating what the world had been before the disaster. He was lifting away the darkness and the covering upon the earth which had caused it to be "without form and void". He was taking existing matter and "re-creating" it into a paradise. This again, pure conjecture, could be a reason how grass could grow before a sun was "created". The reason being that the sun was not "created" on the fourth day--it was "unveiled" once again. If you were on earth the sun would appear to have been "created" if you had never seen it before, but in reality had already existed and was being "unveiled" after thousands of years.

I do not know Hebrew, but have read that the verb for "create" when referring to much of the six days is "to take from existing substances--to make".  It is interesting that God does not command the animals or Adam to "fill the earth", but to "replenish" the earth. From the Cambridge Dictionary:

Definition
replenish   Show phonetics
verb [T] FORMAL
to fill something up again:
Food stocks were replenished by/with imports from the USA.
Does your glass need replenishing?

If the earth was brand new there would be no need to "replenish" it.  Something had happened to it, and God was restoring creation to what it was before, or re-making it into something new.

To me, this seems like a very good explanation for why the sun would "appear" to have been "created"  on the fourth day, after grass and plants were already created on the third day (and somehow could miraculously grow without any light).

I believe it may have been Hugh Ross who said that the "Creation" story is from a view from the surface of the earth  looking towards heaven, or how man might have seen the creation happen had he been there. If not,  I did read this before from another scientist who believes in creation. From that view an "unveiling" could appear as a brand new creation, even though the sun and moon had been there for a long time---you would see the sun and the moon first, most likely, if a great cloudy cover was being removed, and then finally the stars.  "He created the stars also"--the writer says this after the sun and moon are "created"--as though the writer is seeing them last (though we know the stars were created millions of years before the sun and the moon scientifically).

Again, all conjecture---but fascinating.

Marty,

I understand your interpretation.  The exact, engineering way of looking at Genesis 1 as a literal, historical, scientific treatise upon which we base our week in the exact, literal, historical way is very inviting.  It is clean, sharp, and exact.  Of course, in taking that interpretation, you lock yourself into a young Earth and you have to live with the consequences.  You will have to conclude that much observable science such as quantum physics is outright wrong.  When scientific models come forth that imply an older earth, you have to conclude that either the science is completely wrong (scientists are deceived) or that God built into the system an “appearance of age” (God is a deceiver).  Or, you will have to (as one scientist) leave it as a paradox.  As he says “the Bible says the earth was created in seven days but the Earth looks old.  I don’t know why.”

This is why groups like Creation Science Institute make no traction in Universities because they really don’t have anything scientifically plausible to say.  Instead they have to go direct to churches and elementary schools where there is more freedom to indoctrinate into their view and are not constrained by such details as the scientific method or peer review.

This is why I have grown uncomfortable with the literal, engineering interpretation of Genesis 1 and am considering other interpretations (though I can’t say I’ve totally bought into any).

Nothing in Exodus 20 prohibits the Creation Myth interpretation.  Going from the conceptual to the literal is not out of line.  The fact that God spreads His wings to protect His people does not imply that God is a literal chicken.  So just as in the Creation story God created things in seven days so the Israelites were called to order their lives in seven, literal blocks of time.

Again, a Creation Myth is not simply fiction.  It means that it points to important theological truths without necessarily giving literal details.  Genesis 1 teaches us 1) God is One  2) God created all things 3) God is separate from His creation.  4) God created things instantly out of nothing 5) God ordered His creation into categories that are not intermingled 6) God was pleased with the result 7) Man was the high point of His creation.  It just may not show the exact history or science of how he did it.  I think it is a contemporary idea that Genesis 1 is really God’s “lab notes” or “historical diary”.

Again, that is a view or interpretation just like yours is a view or interpretation.  One has to chase down the implications of a view to decide which one seems to fit best.

Lord bless,

-Dave

Last Saturday I had lunch with a current member of the Assembly. He mentioned that George taught that man was created on the 7th day. Although my wife didn't say anything she thought to herself, "Big deal!"  Later, I didn't have an answer for her, So what's the big deal?

Dave S.---

I appreciate your explanation. But I do believe that Genesis 1 is more than a allegory or a myth. I do believe also, as you have mentioned, that Genesis allows for millions or billions of years to have passed during this "creation", or, also, from the time earth was first created until God "returned" to restore his work after some cataclysm took place.(Just conjecture--but there is a fairly strong case for this).

One thing I thought of last night was the link there seems to be between "Genesis" and "Revelation". One is the beginning of all things, and the other is the end of all things (but really the beginning of far better things).

It is interesting that in Revelation, God uses John to "tell the story" by what he is seeing. He literally places John on the earth 2000 or so years in the future (or far more, who really knows?) and has John interpret what he is seeing from a first century A.D. mindset.

John mentions scorpions coming out of the ground with stingers on their tails that cause harm, etc., and these very well could be tanks with their turrets turned towards the back, firing. Helicopters may also be described with their sound being as "many waters".  In any case, these are John's descriptions of things he has never seen before---it is an earthly perspective.  God doesn't explain what's going on---he has John explain it in his first century description of a far future event.

Is it possible that Genesis 1 is also "described" this way? Is God describing how he created the earth? Or is Moses describing an event he is seeing as he is placed on the earth back at the beginning of time? (either through actually being there, or through a vision)?

If Moses is describing the creation from an earthly view, knowing very little about astronomy or science in general, he would "report" what he was seeing in his Old Testament mindset. Standing on a canopied earth, completely in darkness he hears God say "let there be light" and suddenly there is light---he cannot see the sun yet, but the darkness and the light have been divided. He begins to see vegetation grow on the "third day" and reports it. On the fourth day the canopy or veil around the earth is completely lifted and he sees the sun. To him it has just been "created". He reports (not knowing how big the sun is compared to the moon) that God has created "two lights", the greater to rule the day, and the smaller to rule the night.  This is the fourth day.  He begins to see the stars and says "He made the stars also".

It is man's view of  past events from an earthly perspective, just as much of Revelation is man's view from an earthly perspective of future events.  Were plants and grass "created" (on the third day) before the sun was (on the fourth day)? From a man's perspective viewing the events it could very well be possible.   

Hi David!

I can understand why your wife would think GG's creative interpretations of scripture are not a "big deal", but you should be able to figure out why it is a big deal for members------ especially for a "current Assembly member."

The Assembly was founded on GG teaching that allegedly was straight from "the kitchen of heaven"!  We fearfully submitted to GG's control over our lives on the basis of the above authority he claimed.

The discovery that this authority is totally false removes that control---- giving us freedom to throw off the shackles of false guilt, etc.

The questions I would have asked the "present member" you had lunch with:

1.) Do you believe that the bible teaches that man was created on the 7th day?  if he says "yes", then it is a simple matter to turn to Genesis and show him that this is false ("God rested from his works on the 7th day")

 2.) Why are you still involved with a group that was founded by a man who was a false teacher and who used that teaching to abusively control it's members?  

  3.) Have you educated yourself as to what you were really involved with and what the teachings of GG have done in the lives of those under it's power?

            Depending on how the conversation went from there I might have some more questions, but all-in-all, it would provide a good opportunity to see a soul recovered from ship wrecked faith and thus become a very big deal indeed!

                                                                    God Bless,  Mark C.

Mark, I guess I wasn't clear. Sorry, the current member is someone who has recently shunned George and his teachings. His mentioning was in the context that he no longer agrees with George because he teaches false doctrines. (like the one mentioned.) I should also mention that this person was very polite and gracious to me and I respect him for that. Out of respect my wife and I didn't question his beliefs. My wife's question is "How does believing man was created on the 7th day make a difference in the life of a believer?" (I know it's impossible to understand what George ment by it but, maybe you could explain why it is such a big deal.)

P.S I spent the last month interviewing a Quaker who doesn't believe in "Water baptism" or the "Traditional Communion" I don't think you would say, "She isn't saved!"   "She isn't a christian!" Would you?

David M.---

You're wife is right--it doesn't really matter. The only thing about about man being created on the 7th day is that it has no Biblical basis whatsoever. But believing man was created on the 6th or 7th day isn't going to effect anyone's salvation.

It is interesting how the Bible can clear certain "doctrinal" issues up with verses that one could pass up quite
easily though. Not too long ago I read the following passage from Corinthians(the Apostle Paul speaking):

I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;


 1Cr 1:15  Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.


 1Cr 1:16  And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

When you mention the Quakers and baptism it made me remember it. Some groups say one cannot be saved unless one is baptized(Church of Christ), while others go another direction and argue about baptism modes, etc.  I would just point out that if Baptism is "essential" to salvation and one could be lost without it, why would Paul say "And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.  He mentions baptizing two people, and another household, but "can't remember" if he baptized anyone else.  If baptism was "essential to salvation" would Paul forget if he had baptized anyone else besides these people? It's not like he baptized hundreds and can't recall--he is talking about a few people, and says he's "not sure" if he baptized anyone else besides them. Surely, if Paul regarded baptism as tied in with someone's eternal salvation, he would remember those whom he personally baptized.

So, saying someone "isn't saved" because they don't believe in baptism or tradional communion isn't a doctrine found in the Bible. "By Grace are you saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, and not of works, lest any man should boast".

By the way--good to see you posting again David--hadn't heard from you for a while!

--Joe

Hi David,

  The teaching in and of itself isn't crucial to salvation, or is likely to make a difference in a believer's life, but as I said in the previous post it is important for a former member to know that GG did not represent God.

  You see, there are some former members who believe that GG had good teaching and his Assemblies were representative of proper Christian relationships.  They will go on to say something like, "GG had good teaching, but fell due to some unrelated moral problems."

  Once a former member understands that GG's "moral problems" were completely entwined with his teaching/practices in the group---- and that his deep inner depravity was played out in his control of members via the system he developed--- only then can there start to be a good healthy separation from the past involvement.

  I noticed over on the Reflections site that the Pasadena and Riverside assemblies have suddenly come to the conclusion that GG is "no longer welcome."  I would love to ask these folks how they finally came to that conclusion.
 
  I mean, they have gone out of there way to excuse his behavior, allow him to visit their meetings, invite him to weddings, etc.----- but now they are resisting his moves to "take control"?! ???  

  GG still lives and breathes through the leadership of these groups via their acceptance of his teaching and their own lust to be in control!

  I'll make an analogy that I think fits pretty well.  Most of us know the story of "The Lord Of The Rings," and the evil power that the Dark Lord's ring gave to the one who wore it.  You could kill Sauron, but if the ring still existed it would continue to control, warp, and eventually make the owner into the new Dark Lord of Mordor.

   GG was like Sauron in the story, and Pasadena, Riverside, etc. are those in the story that have the desire to have that same power that Sauron wielded in the assumed position as owners of the place of power.

 "Mark, how can you say that?  You are being judgmental and suggesting that you know their hearts!"  I can say that, without knowing their hearts, because their behavior reveals it!  If they really cared about honestly doing the right thing they would have from the very start stood strongly with the excommunication of GG---- vs. the ridiculous defense they tried to make for him and then providing a place of escape preventing his facing the music.  Had they been righteous in this they might even have helped GG to repentance (that is, after all, the reason for church discipline).

   This tells me they don't care about what God really wants, GG's recovery, former members hurt in the group, or anything else other than a place of power in these groups that GG started.  The Assembly system that makes Pharisaical religious phonies, who attempt to use their place for their own egos, remains intact in these places and until I see the true fruits of repentance from them I would interpret their finally showing GG the door as simply a power struggle.


  I know little of the above directly pertains to the question Dave, and pardon me for using the occasion  of this post to make this point, but it has been something that has been bothering me.  Also understand, I'm not saying all the members of these former groups are as culpable as the leaders, but they most certainly become supporters of the wrong via their loyalty to their leaders.

                                                                  God Bless,  Mark C.  

What a let down! :P   I thought I was going to get a great theological argument,  Couldn't you juxtapose "On the 7th day he rested" with "It is finished." ???? I'm sure there's someone out there who can give me a better answer!

David----

There really is no argument concerning man being created on the seventh day. It is not found in scripture. Man was created on the sixth "day", and that is clearly stated in Genesis. I don't think you'll
find any commentary on Genesis that teaches man was created on the seventh day. Well, maybe the
"Seventh Day Inventist Chruch" might teach it, but no one else. :D

As for comparing the seventh day as "God's day of rest" with Jesus' cry "IT IS FINISHED!!" from the cross, the Book of Hebrews does make a comparison saying there is a "rest" to be entered into by the people of God. As God rested, so God's people also have a "rest" to enter---provided by God himself.

But having a theological argument concerning whether man was created on the seventh day or not, would be like having an argument over what color the "Easter Bunny" is. You'd be arguing about something that doesn't really exist.

By the way, the Easter Bunny is a tan-like color with a white belly, and he carries a big pink basket with a Big Red Heart adorning the side.  :)

5 points for Joe ;D

Joe,

The word for "earth" in Jeremiah 4:23 and 4:28 is 'eretz.  It can mean the earth, a country, a field, ground, land, a wilderness and more.  It is translated as "land" in vs 5, 7, 20, and 27.

The subject of the passage in its greater context is God's judgement on unfaithful Judah. (notice vs3, 4, 5, 11, 14, and 16.) 

So, the passage is actually a lament over what is about to happen to the promised land, not a history of the earth.

For an interesting article that talks about the Hebrew words for earth, land, etc., here is a link.

http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/2002/PSCF9-02Hill.pdf

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Tom---

I appreciate the input, and you may very well be right. However, God does often use a prophecy to
speak to the time he is "judging" but may also be speaking of a completely different event at the same
time. As when he speaks to the prince of Tyre and the King of Tyre--referring to the present Prince, and also of Satan himself in the far distant past.

So, it is very possible that God is speaking of "judgment" on Judah, but also hastening back to the distant past. Using the term "without form and void" and "there was no man" seems to infer he speaking
of another time---but again, you could be absolutely correct in your assertion.
--Joe

Marty,

You state that "The six days of creation from this scripture refer to the same six days that that man lives in."

This is true.  The six days of creation do "refer" to the days of the 7 day work/sabbath cycle.  However, they could just as well be referring to an analogous relationship.  This is certainly the case where the 7 year planting years/fallow years cycle for land use is mentioned.  The ratio of 6 years of work to one of rest is directly analogous to the 6/1 work/rest cycle of man.

The Hebrew scholar Gleason L. Archer commented on the passage you mention.  He said, "By no means does this demonstrate that 24-hour intervals were involved in the first six 'days' any more than the eight-day, celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles proves that the wilderness wanderings under Moses occupied only eight days."

Thomas Maddux

Joe,

What you are speculating about is actually a version of the "gap" theory.  Here is a section of a review of John Sailhammer's "Genesis Unbound" that addresses the theory.

..........................

"The meaning of "formless and void"

The second reason to believe that 1:2ff is the account of God preparing the land is from the meaning of the Hebrew phrase tohu wabohu in verse two, which is translated in most versions as "formless and void." Sailhamer points out that the early English translators of the Bible were influenced to a great extent by the prevailing Greek view of creation in their day and therefore thought this phrase meant that "God did not originally create the world in the condition in which we now see it. Instead, He created the universe as a shapeless mass of material, only later forming the world we now know....In this way, the biblical account of creation could be shown to be 'true' because it conformed to the generally accepted Greek cosmologies" (62). Therefore, they translated tohu wabu as "formless and void."

Many Jewish-Greek translations of the middle ages disagreed with this translation. Likewise, Jewish interpreters around the era 300-200 B.C. rendered tohu wabohu not as "formless and void" but as "desolate without human beings or beasts and void of all cultivation of plants and trees" (64). This early view, Sailhamer argues, is essentially correct. Tohu wabohu conveys the idea of "uninhabitable wilderness" and not "formless and void chaos." Thus, Genesis 1:2, in saying that the land was "tohu wabohu," is simply stating that it was a deserted wilderness-and thus not yet fit for mankind's inhabitation. This, of course, presupposes its existence and focuses the readers attention on what God will do to make the land fit for man.

"Uninhabitable wilderness" is the meaning of tohu wabohu throughout the Scriptures. For example, it is this phrase which describes the wilderness in which Israel wandered for forty years before entering the promised land (Deuteronomy 32:10). Ironically, later on Jeremiah 4:23-26 uses tohu wabohu to describe the promised land after Israel has been exiled from it because of disobedience. Verse 23 says, "I looked on the earth, and behold, it was formless and void (tohu wabohu); and to the heavens, and they had no light (cf. Gen 1:2!)." The following verses in Jeremiah describe the land as a wilderness (v. 26-"the fruitful land was a wilderness") that is void of humans and birds (v. 25-"there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens had fled"). Thus, the land that is said to be "formless and void" is described as an uninhabited wilderness. Which means that the land is called "formless and void" because it is an uninhabited wilderness.

Consequently, "formless and void" in Jeremiah 4:23 means "uninhabited wilderness" and not "unformed mass." Just as the land in Genesis one was a wilderness before it was made fit for man, so also Israel wandered through a wilderness to get to the land God had promised them-a land which later became a wilderness as a consequence of Israel's disobedience. As we will see, this parallel points to the fact that the "land" in Genesis 1 is specifically the promised land. For it is hard to escape the conclusion that, in calling the promised land "formless and void" after the exile of Israel, Jeremiah is alluding to Genesis 1:2 to show that this judgment upon Israel returned the land to the state it was in before mankind had existed.

In summary, the correct translation of tohu wabohu is not "formless and void," as if the earth was an unformed mass that God's work of creation brought to its present form, but "deserted wilderness"-a phrase which presupposes the land's existence and sets the stage for what God will do to make the land inhabitable. Therefore, the six days of Genesis one are the account of how God transformed the land into a fruitful habitation for man, not the account of how he shaped the world from an unformed mass."

..............................

Blessings,

Tom Maddux

Tom---

Thanks for the explanation. I must admit though that I have read several "theories" (and I know they are just that--"theories") that point to a "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 that were pretty convincing also.

The reason I think that something may have happened is that if you read the Genesis account it would appear that the earth was created before the sun, the moon and the stars were created. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the record also states that grass and plant-life were "created" before the sun even came into existence (plant-life on the 3rd day, and the sun on the 4th day).

Even using the term "uninhabitable wilderness" does not remove the fact that something else may have existed before this was created, or became "uninhabitable wilderness". The fact that God uses the same phraseology to describe the world in Genesis 1:2 and judgment in Jeremiah 4:23 (whether it be "formless and void" or "unihabitable wilderness" and "with no man") I find to be extremely interesting.

I had to leave in a hurry yesterday and left a short post about God often referring to two different events in one prophecy. Often a prophecy God is pronouncing is referring to the present event He is talking about, but also is referring to another event in the far distant future. Many of the proclamations against "Babylon" are against the present kingdom he is addressing, but can also apply to "Babylon the Great" of the last days. So it is possible that as God refers to a present event, He could also be speaking of an event that happened long ago also.

When David for example, in the Psalms, refers to his "familiar friend" he is speaking about a present event in his life, yet, as we all know, this is a prophecy ALSO concerning Judas Iscariot far in the future.

Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up [his] heel against me. (Psalm 41)

We know this because the Gospel writers point to it as a fulfillment of prophecy concerning Judas. So (though it is conjecture and not written in stone), when the Lord uses the same phraseology (again, whether looking upon the world as "formless and void" or an "uninhabitable wilderness") to describe a present judgment He is referring to, it is possible he is also referring to an event that took place ages ago at the same time(as he does when speaking against the Prince of Tyre, then rocketing back to aeons past when referring to the "King of Tyre" in a reference to the fall of Satan in Ezekiel 28), or to a far future event, such as the fall of Babylon.

The "gap theory" is just that--a theory. But when we think of the dinosaurs being "wiped out" in one momentous event (scientists say a comet hit the earth--and maybe it did) one wonders if some cataclysmic judgment did fall on the earth, plunging it into darkness for a long period of time---The Lord then returning to an earth already established (Genesis says the Holy Spirit came upon "the face of the waters, and darkness was upon the face of the deep"). If this earth was already there, does this mean God created it before he created the sun, the moon and the stars? Possibly, but very doubtful, if one believes in the laws of gravity and physics (the sun being responsible for the earth's orbit around itself, producing the gravity(attraction) to keep it in orbit). The earth would not be sitting solitarily in space--there would be a sun for it to be orbiting.

Does one truly believe (if we look at Genesis as a true "chronology" of Creation events) that plant life was "created" (3rd day) before the sun , moon and stars? (4th day)? If we believe and accept the laws of science we cannot. (For we know that God has put physical and mathematical laws into place in the Universe and upon the earth).

True---God has not let us in on "how" he created the Universe, but he did give us a chronology of events for a reason. Did God really create plant life on the 3rd day (as He clearly states), and then create the sun, moon and stars on the 4th day (again, as He clearly states)? Or did He, or Moses (when transcribing these events) err when giving the chronology, forgetting that plant life cannot grow without sunlight?  I don't think so.  The choronolgy of events was given for a purpose--and if one of the "days" seems to be out of order there must be a reason for it.

God placed our planet where it is in our galaxy so that we could gaze up in wonderment, ask questions, and possibly "discover" the answers. It is apparent--if we were in other areas of the galaxy our view would be blocked by gases and debris. We are in the perfect place to "observe" the greatness of God's creation and to ask questions.  I believe God may have designed the Bible that way in some ways also. The Bible clearly teaches a "trinity"--but it never once uses that term or says God is in three persons. We "discover" this fact by observing the whole picture and seeing the trinity at Jesus' baptism, or when the seraphim say "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty".

Is it wrong to question scripture? Do I simply believe God created grass before there was a sun, or do I ask why the days are out of order? I believe God wants us to question some of these things, so that by asking the questions we see things that might not be apparent on the surface. Do we spout out "dogma" like idiots and say the world is only 6000 years old when science has proven otherwise, or do we investigate and see that the Bible indeed allows for millions, if not billions of years for creation to have taken place?  Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to try at least to explain where I am coming from  ;D.  Again--conjecture--not "proven"--but I enjoy discussing it!!

Tom---

By the way (ran out of space below) I admit the whole "gap theory" could be hogwash ;D, but
cannot escape asking questions about the beginning of things when reading the chronology of
the days of creation.

There are those who would say "if the Bible says God created grass before he created the sun, believe it, don't question it!!" I just happen to believe there is a reason that the days are out of order---and I believe God put them out of order for a purpose. There has to be a reason for it.

There is a new museum opening up in Kentucky--a "creation museum"--and there are dioramas depicting men with dinosaurs, as the creators of the museum believe the world is only 10,000 years old! They spent millions of dollars to construct it!!  I'm a Christian and I think that is incredible, because science has proven the Universe and our own earth are billions of years old.  Either there was a "gap" in Genesis or the "days" of creation consisted of huge periods of time for sure! God does want us to use our faith, but he gave us brains and reason to use also!! And the thought that the world is only 10,000 years old is simply ridiculous. And this is based on taking a "literal and unswerving" interpretation of Genesis based on calculations involving earth years and the patriarchs, and making the "days" of creation literal days.

I wouldn't be surprised if one of the dioramas is titled "The third day of creation" and is a completely darkened area with plants and trees growing in it!!

Anyway Tom---I will check out the link you put in your post. I happen to find the discussion of creation, time, and eternity to be a fascinating subject!

--Joe

Joe,

There is more to say on the Genesis 1 question than most people realize.  Most American Christians read the creation story through the assumptions of modern Western Civilization.  in reality, the true meaning of a Biblical passage is what the author intended it to mean.

The author of Genesis, Moses, probably worked with written and oral history sources that took him back to the beginnings of civilization and writing.  If so, the question of the literary forms in use in that time period becomes important.  What were they, and how did they work?  There are several possibilities:

1. First you have at least two Sumerian documents which demonstrate the existence of a literary convention of time compression.  They are entitled Enki and Ninhursag and Lugalbanda in the mountain cave.  Both show that events said to belong to one or more days actually took much longer periods of time.  This, along with the Hebrew definitions of "day" provide support for the Day Age theory promoted by Hugh Ross and others.

2. Another possibility is the Dual Register or Literary Hypothesis.  In this view, the days of creation are actually a literary form for organizing the material and do not represent a chronology at all.  There are three days in which the earth, sky, and sea are created, followed by three days in which they are populated.  There are some reasonably good arguments for this idea.  It is favored by many (semi) Reformed bible scholars who are not folks to be dismissed lightly. BTW, this one solves the plant/sun problem you mentioned.

3. Yet another possibility is the Magisterial Day hypothesis.  This makes the days of creation actual 24 hour days in which the orders were given, "let there be...".  These days are then separated by millions of years in which the processes involved worked according to the laws of physics.  This idea is promoted by astronomer/theologian Robert Newman.

4. There are others, but these, IMHO, are the most plausible.  The Gap theory is based on the definitions of Hebrew words plus a lot of speculation.  In my view, this is a pretty weak foundation upon which to build the history of the universe.

Blessings,

Tom Maddux

Tom---

Thanks for taking the time to list a few other plausible "theories" concerning the time frame
for Creation. I appreciate it! There have been several books written that are based on the
"Gap Theory", and literally, the whole book will be based on this "theory" being true (the rest
of the book must be accepted upon the premise that this first premise is true). Of course, one
cannot "prove" the veracity of this claim, or totally deny the possibility of it's being true either.

But I must admit, it makes a good read, and I always enjoy a "mystery". :D

--Joe

The "Creation Museum" mentioned below in another post opened yesterday in Petersburg, Kentucky. Below is
a short news story about the opening.

CREATION MUSEUM OPENS TO LARGE CROWD

Petersburg, Kentucky      5-28-07     Lexington Gazette

AP---- The "Creation Museum" opened today in Petersburg, Kentucky, drawing more people than originally expected. The crowd, many driving long distances, was composed mainly of  believers in "creation", but also drew a dozen or so protesters, who feel the museum is far from "realistic". The museum, which espouses a literal, 6 day creation of planet earth, houses many dioramas, depicting a very young planet. The Museum's financiers put approximately 27 million dollars into the project, which includes computerized, very realistic "dinosaurs" which move in "dynamation", and which were an immediate favorite of the mesmerized crowds.

The theme of the museum is a young earth, which it's creators believe is less than ten thousand years old-- in direct conflict with science, which puts the earth's age at billions of years.  Many protesters outside said this is extremely "unrealistic", and sends children the wrong message. "Teaching children that the world is only 6000 years old is pure hogwash!!" said Lester Persons of Walter, Minnesota, "it is in direct conflict with the known facts of science, and makes one think we are still living in Medievel times!! I am truly amazed that anyone could believe this nonsense!" he added.

One of the favorite dioramas is the one which combines dinosaurs with human beings. Though some looked on with amused wonder, others viewed the scene very seriously as the "cave men" and dinosaurs co-habitated in one locale. There were many "oohs" and "ahhs" as the cavemen pulled up in their ancient car, with rock-hewn wheels, and cloth top-covering. A waitress(car-hop) came out and tried to put a HUGE set of brontosaurus ribs on a tray-holder on the side of the car, the weight of the "ribs" causing the car to tip over. In another scene, the cave man, shown in his domicile, then went to put the sabre-toothed cat outside, and the cat ran back in, locking the man outside. The man, being a Neandrathal, mainly found in Germany, was given the proper German accent. He exclaimed "VILMA!!!" quite loudly, apparently calling for his wife, and pounding on the door to be let in. The man's pet, a smaller purple dinosaur, actually communicated in a high-pitched, rapid succession of sounds, reminiscent to the sound of a poodle's bark. The next door neighbors, apparently Cro-Magnons (their little son had blonde hair and carried a huge club,and also displayed what could be called super-human strength), were also a very interesting sight. Everything in the diorama  adhered to the strictest details--even the morning paper, with it's "news" meticulously carved into slabs of stone. Whether you are a subscriber to a young earth or not, a visit to the museum is well worth the time and money.

There is a $19.95 per ticket entrance fee ($9.95 for children--$14.95 for seniors). The museum will be open 6 days a week(10 A.M. to 6:00 P.M). For more information simply google "creation museum" or call 800-778-3390.

Thank you, Tom.  This is a huge help. 

We Evangelicals have been taught to read every passage of Scripture as if it is the daily newspaper with a special mystical spark that may happen "speak to our heart" about our job or the effectiveness of our mission outreach.  I am trying to understand how to honor the type of literature the writer is using and honor the motivation of the writer without spiritualizing everything away into meaning nothing.

Example:  When it comes to the "lake of fire" passage in Revelation, we Evangelicals are taught to ignore the symbolism of apocalyptical literature and see the damned as living, popping, screaming maggots in eternal flames while liberals are taught that at the end of the day, the passage really doesn't mean anything at all.  It seems to me that there must be a view that says the "lake of fire" is a symbol of something very real and very terrifying (God would be unjust if He did not judge) but not necessarily a giant can of sterno in the center of the earth.

Tom:  Do you know of any online articles about the Dual Register or Literary Hypothesis?  I think in some ways this is what I was trying to get to in my earlier, ignorant ramblings.

-Dave

Dave,

Another term for it, probably the most widespread, is the Framework Hypothesis.

If you go here:          http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/presenters/87

you can listen to a talk on it by Lee Irons.

Here is a link to a written article.  You have to scroll down a ways to get to the actual description of it.

http://incolor.inebraska.com/stuart/framework.htm

Tom Maddux

Tom---

I was digging through a box of old books and found a copy of Hugh Ross's book "The Genesis Question"--I had forgotten that I purchased this a few years back. I read a little and was surprised because I thought that he had espoused the "Gap Theory" in his books, but that is not the case.

He did however, make the statement that much confusion arises due to people viewing Genesis 1:1 from the vantage of space, and then keeping that vantage point for Genesis 1:2. He points out that Genesis 1:1 is indeed a view of the earth from the vantage point of space, but that 1:2 immediately begins a narrative from the surface of the earth. This really does seem to make a lot of sense. He explains that the sun and the moon were actually already in place BEFORE the third day, as the words "and God created a greater light and a lesser light to DIVIDE the light from the darkness", which is done when God says "Let there be light" on the first day. When it states that God created TWO LIGHTS it is not necessarily saying that happened on the fourth day at all.

The six day creationists, who believe in literal days, do have a problem with Hugh Ross though. You would have to believe that many plants and animals lived and died before man fell---and this does not fit into a theology that everything was perfect before man's fall and death did not exist. Therefore dinosaurs could not have lived and died before Adam was created, etc.

But I do find it to be a very interesting and enlightening book, as I have all of Mr. Ross's books. Those who oppose his books state that they lead away from faith, but I find just the opposite---they seem to abound with the wonder of God and how science is actually getting closer and closer to having to admit that there is a Creator at work in the Universe! Whether scientists will ever make that assertion is doubtful, but science, rather than disproving God, is actually making it harder and harder not to believe in Him.

--Joe

Joe,

One of the problems with the reading of Genesis 1 that seems to clearly teach 6 day creationism is that we know that the ancient near eastern cultures knew quite a bit about astronomy.  The length of the year had been calculated to a very accurate factor before 2000BC.  In addition, imagine the members of a pastoral/agriculture not knowing that you need the sun's light to grow plants. 

Another factor is that in Gen. 1:16 where our English translations say, "And God made two great lights...", the Hebrew says God had made two great lights.  This means that the Sun and Moon could have been created as far back as verse1.

Actually, the passage does not say that the creation was perfect before the fall.  Although the six day creationists labor mightily to support this claim, Hebrew has a word for perfect but it was not used by the author.  Instead, he said, "very good".  Perfect can mean something like "as good as it could possibly be".  Very good means something more like, "suited to its purpose".

In addition, the evidence that there was no death before the fall, is very weak.  The fall produced consequences in the fertility of the earth, and in childbirth.  That is all it says!  Many attempt to claim that Romans 8:18-23 speaks of the results of the fall...but the fall is not mentioned at all.  Instead, it speaks of the creation.  Many Bible scholars understand the decay mentioned in vs 20-21 as the entropic principle present in all matter.

Most advocates of no death before the fall point out that Romans 5:12 says that sin entered the world and death is the result of this.  However, it speaks specifically of death through sin, which spread to all men.  It doesn't say: a. all death is caused by sin. b. penguins die as a result of men's sin.

Sometimes folks point out Genesis 1:29-30 and then argue that all animals were vegetarians because there was no death.  When I encounter this, I just ask them "What did sharks eat?"  Then I ask, "How do you account for carniverous animals?"  What usually follows is a lengthy explanation of what sounds pretty much like evolution, but is not really evolution. This is argued on the basis of absolutely no biblical or scientific evidence at all.

If you were ever around RTB headquarters or at one of their events so that you could see the people that support the organization you would easily see just how many folks agree with you.  They constantly receive letters thanking them for helping people with science/technical educations unite their heads and their hearts.

Blessings,

Tom Maddux

Tom---

Thanks for the input. One thing I find fascinating about Hugh Ross's book is his contention that through
the millions of years that the earth was being formed, God was preparing it for the arrival of mankind. One may wonder "Why would God create dinosaurs and then allow them to all die off? What was their purpose? Was God experimenting, or maybe 'make a mistake' and change his mind about what he had created?"

But when we realize that it took millions of years to prepare the topsoil, to create natural gas and fossil fuels, to prepare the air as it is today to sustain mankind, it may be that the dinosaurs were created for the very purpose of sustaining an ecosystem at that time that would one day provide all the needs for man at a future time. Is it pure coincidence that oil is one of the major needs today, which would not even be here had there not been an ecosystem which produced those fossil fuels?

God can do anything, and He could create the world in a moment of time---but it appears that it was His will to create the world through millions of years of change, slowly preparing the earth for the time when man would come upon the scene. I still can't understand why some believers think it unbiblical to believe that God may have used millions if not billions of years to put into place this world we live upon.

And in God's eyes those billions of years may only be a start. It's exciting to think that man's appearance upon this earth may only be the beginning of a New Creation God is just starting to put into place. we measure God's creation by days. He used 6 of them and rested on the seventh. But we all know that days are parts of weeks, which are parts of months, which are parts of years, which are parts of centuries, which are parts of millenium and so on and so on. The seven days of creation may be just a start of something so fantastic and incredible we cannot fathom it!! What if God had years (in his way of looking at things) of creation days left? That's a pretty awesome thought actually.  Our Bible ends talking about eternity and the "ages of ages"---who knows what God has planned?

 :)

My ladies Bible Study Group.

Has just started studying James, last week.

Since it was written by James, to the Jewish-Christians
who were facing persecution of their faith.

Do you believe that in some time in the nearest future, CHristians in North America will face that time of persecution that the early christians face.

Would you be able to face it with joy.
I was going to say, can you face the testing of your faith with joy, then I remember the history, why this BB exists.

Lenore

TOPIC:  BOOK OF JAMES, CHAPTER ONE, VERSE 1 TO 16

SUBTOPIC:  TRIALS AND TEMPTATIONS.

QUESTION:
  'WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRIALS AND TEMPTATIONS"


Our ladies group were digging really deep, to understand the difference.  A word study will be done this week, and taken back to answer next week.

ANY IDEAS?

Lenore

According to the dictionary:

trial is affliction or trouble
temptation is an enticement or allurement.

They are two different words that mean two completely different things.  I don't think you have to dig too deep on that.

Temptations can easily become trials if they aren't dealt with quickly and effectively. (The tiniest, "harmless" of temptations can lead to the largest trials 0 just ask Odysseus!)

What's great about the book of James is that it's all about tests. The more in-depth you study it, the more you'll realize just how good of a "test-taker" you are.

If any of you have earned straight As on all the tests that James doles out, please don't tell me ... just hand over your study notes!

Vanilla Wafer

Six days do your work, but on the seventh day do not work, so that your ox and your donkey may rest and the slave born in your household, and the alien as well, may be refreshed.

Exodus 23:12

I have been trying very hard to apply this verse to my life, but find it very difficult. Most of the
verse I can accomodate, but the part about the alien being refreshed is the hardest to follow, because
I wear an aluminum foil head covering to keep aliens from getting close enough to probe me.
Have you ever been able to refresh any aliens by not working on Saturday?

I was reading Matt. 16 last night and read these verses:

 
In coming to the other side of the sea,  the disciples had forgotten to bring bread.
 
Jesus said to them, "Look out, and beware of the leaven  of the Pharisees and Sadducees."
 
 They concluded among themselves, saying, "It is because we have brought no bread."
 
When Jesus became aware of this he said, "You of little faith, why do you conclude among yourselves that it is because you have no bread?
 
Do you not yet understand, and do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many wicker baskets you took up?
 
Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you took up?
 
How do you not comprehend that I was not speaking to you about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees."
 
Then they understood  that he was not telling them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (Matt. 16: 5-12)

It's interesting to note:

5000 people---5 loaves, 2 fishes----12 baskets left over
4000 people---7 loaves, "a few fish"--7 baskets left over

Jesus then clearly asks the disciples above, after warning them about the "leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees" to consider how many loaves there were and how many baskets were taken up. This is no issue of crucial importance, but has anyone heard a good explanation for the math involved in the two miracles of feeding the multitude, and why there would be less baskets for the 4000 even though there were more loaves?  By the way--the feeding of the 5000 is the only miracle before the resurrection which is listed in all (4) Gospels.  The feeding of the 4000 is listed only in Matthew and Mark.

I'm sure there is a very real and clear meaning to these miracles and the numbers involved or Jesus would not have asked his disciples to consider it so seriously. Has anyone heard a good explanation for the variance in the two miracles?  Just curious---as always  :D

Thanks, Joe

Joe,

I have no idea about any significant meaning in the amount of leftover bread.

But since the miracles that Christ did were primarily intended to be confirming signs of his identity as the messiah, it seems to me that he is rebuking them for not understanding who he is.

The Saducees denied the supernatural and said that miracles didn't happen.  The Pharisees said that God only worked within the narrow limits of the Jewish rabbinic laws and traditions. Jesus seems to be telling them to open their eyes and see beyond the common presuppositions of their society. 

Tom Maddux

Tom----

Thanks for the response, and I believe you are right. But there seems to be more to what the Lord asks though. He doesn't just ask them to remember in a general manner the miracles with the bread---he asks more specifically:

"Do you not yet understand, and do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many wicker baskets you took up?  
Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you took up? " (Matt. 16)

As we know very well, God does not put anything in his Word by chance or for a passing reason. He is specifically asking them to remember the amount of the people involved, and the amount of baskets that were taken up afterwards.  It's almost as specific as when Peter throws his net to the other side of the boat and his net almost breaks----the Bible says there were 153 fish exactly (John 21:11). There is a reason for the 153 fish (I don't know what it is--there were 7 disciples fishing though--we are told this also in the narrative).  So, there must also be a specific reason why there were 5 loaves and 2 fishes and 12 baskets left over, and 7 loaves and "a few" fishes, and 7 baskets left over.

Being the curious person that I am, it is hard for me to read past this without wanting to know  ;D  ---I do believe there is a "general" answer to why he asks the disciples to remember the amount of baskets, but I also believe there must also be a "specific" reason he asked this of them also.

--Joe   P.S. for some interesting stuff on the number 153 (pretty fishy if you ask me  ;D) check this out: http://www.shyamsundergupta.com/c153.htm

Joe,

In reality, what you are doing here is that you are reading the Bible in reverse.  The more important question is "What is the context in which these statements are found?" 

The passage tells us Jesus's purpose.  Matt. 16:12, "Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and the Saducees."  The disciples thought he was talking about the bread.  He told them that they were wrong.

Both the Pharisees and the Sadducees had missed the point of who Jesus really was.  In Matt. Chapter 15 he disuputes with the Pharisees, then performs attesting miracles of healing and provision.  That is why we are told that he fed the 4000.

In chapter 16 he continues his dispute with the Pharisees, who have been joined by the Saducees.  Then he warns his disciples against their teachings.  They were prone to focus on the details of scripture and then render long, detailed interpretations while missing the point.

Notice that Matthew has arranged this passage to make the point "unmissable".  In verses 13-20 the identity of Jesus as the Christ, (the annointed, ie, Messiah), is openly declared.

The general rule is that the details are there to support and clarify the main point, not the other way around.

Blessings,

Tom Maddux

Tom---

Point well taken---I understand what you are saying. There is a strong general teaching of avoiding
the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. There is also a teaching (which is shown in John 6) that many of the people were following Jesus simply because he could provide bread, rather than listening to what he was saying, and taking note of what he was doing. But I also believe that there is a special teaching involved with the number of people, number of loaves, and number of baskets that were left over.  I don't believe that is there by chance.  Sure, we can read right by it and get the general, strong teaching that Jesus is conveying. But I truly believe there is more there.

For example (as mentioned before), the general context of John 21 is that the apostles went fishing, threw the net into the water on the other side of the boat at Christ's command, and caught so many fish that the net almost broke.  We learn from this that the Lord is the Lord, and if we simply obey him and do what he says, we will be fruitful---whereas if we try to "fish" by our own intelligence we will come up empty every time. Jesus ALWAYS knows where the fish are!! ;D   HOWEVER, within the same "context" we are told that "7" disciples went fishing (the Holy Spirit counts them for us at the beginning of the chapter). Then we are told that they caught "153 large fish in all".  This is in addition to the general "context" of the narrative---it is a teaching within the general teaching that begs explanation.

I do not believe that the Holy Spirit told us there were 7 fishing, and that they caught 153 fish exactly, for no reason. There is a reason for it. I'm not sure what it is  :D, but I know that the Holy Spirit did not use those numbers for us to ignore.  I believe the same applies with the feeding of the 5000 and 4000, the number of loaves and fishes used, and the number of baskets taken up afterwards.  There is a general teaching there of avoiding the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, but there is also a symbolic, or even mathematical reason for the numeric quantities---or the Holy Spirit would not have been so detailed about it.

So, I agree with you, but I also disagree   ;D    --Joe