Comments on: Metal Man

By: Mike Bull

Mike Bull — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 12:09:10 +0000

Excellent!

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 19:51:19 +0000

Thanks for the book, Mike – just got it now. I look forward to reading it.

By: Mike Bull

Mike Bull — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:28:32 +0000

Here’s a start: http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2011/10/04/the-zoo-lounge/

By: Mike Bull

Mike Bull — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 01:17:51 +0000

After a quick look, I reckon Daniel 7 follows the structure – will do as a blog post and we’ll see what falls out.

By: Mike Bull

Mike Bull — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 01:13:06 +0000

Dave – no probs. If Joel doesn’t want it, it’s yours.

Good point. It seems to me that Daniel 7 covers the same event in two parts, two witnesses, the prophecy and the confirming interpretation.

In the first part, head and body are spoken of in Adamic symbols (the NKJV puts the “One” in parentheses). In the second part, the angelic interpretation, they are spoken of in Evian symbols, as the mystery is opened. According to Jordan, “Most High” is the name of God used by Gentile believers, like Melchizedek which adds another layer onto this “opening” of the mystery to Daniel.

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 00:57:35 +0000

If Joel doesn’t want that copy I’ll take it (kidding).

I’m a little confused. I thought “one like the son of man” was supposed to be the bride, and “the son of man” was Jesus (I think I may have asked you about this on a previous post somewhere), from Ezekiel (son of man) and Daniel (one like the son of man). Please let me know where I went wrong in this…thnx

By: Mike Bull

Mike Bull — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 22:50:00 +0000

Hi Joel
Plenty of other people can see it. If a free copy of the next book would help, let me know.

By: Joel Ico

Joel Ico — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:01:57 +0000

I’m not asking for it to be an exact science, Mike. I actually wish your ‘fractal’ theory were true! But sorry: the alleged chiastic breakdowns I’ve read seem too contrived to be convincing to me. Interesting anyway, though. Good brain food.

By: Mike Bull

Mike Bull — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 11:12:35 +0000

Hi Joel

I don’t believe I get it right all the time, but in many cases it has been like ticking the boxes. Recently I’ve been working through Joel, which is a fairly complicated application of the structure. From where I was up to, the next step to be expected was Trumpets. Lo and behold, the first verse of the next chapter was a command to sound a trumpet.

It’s not an exact science. It’s an analysis of poetry. But I’ve gone through the entire Revelation looking for this structure and it works like clockwork. I tend to think that if it was present to the level of “obvious” that you require, the Bible would actually be the same text over and over again. But it isn’t. It is literary allusions, and I believe that the authors are making subtle points by where they put them in their prose and poetry. The key words in bold are most often at these exact points in the structure.

An example of allusion from the passage above would be the reference to the two-edged sword coming out of Jesus’ mouth. According to Jordan, this is an inversion of the Covenant oath, which we find at around the same point when this passage is viewed according to the Covenant structure. So the reference means Jesus has actually done what He promised, kept the Covenant, unlike ancient Israel at Sinai. And now He is going to apply the curses to unfaithful Israel, which is what the rest of the book (or most of it) is about.

If it’s not for you, fine. But I’ve seen enough of this to make a firm case for it.

Thanks for the comment.

By: Joel Ico

Joel Ico — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 09:14:56 +0000

I dunno. Most of the chiastic patterns outlined in your ‘Matrix’ book seem extremely strained to me, and this one almost takes the cake! I’d like to give a text like this to, say, a dozen people who understand your chiasm concept, and ask them to identify the seven parts of the chiasm in the text. I doubt even two of their breakdowns would match.