Jump to content

Welcome to Christian Writers!

We are a friendly community built around Christian writing, publishing, reading and fellowship. Register or sign in today to join in the fun!

BobJ

Member
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

41 profile views
  1. As i recall, there are many Hebrew words used only in SoS. Their meaning can only be ascertained by the formation of the words. This is why it has been low on my study priority. With so few usages, it it difficult to verify them. However, any doctrine derived through the formations would still require validation through other scripture. I am sure you have noticed that the Shulamite woman is a 'solomon' woman. Both names mean peace, and 'Shulamite' is a decorated form of 'Solomon'. From this we observe what is taught elsewhere. the peace with God is a two-way peace. "Returning the hearts of the fathers to the children, and of the children to the fathers." Not only were we at war with God, but he was at war with us. So 1:2 ¶ Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love [is] better than wine. Kiss - burn as a metaphor for total devotion as in the burnt offering. Mouth also means 'commandment'. David said he delighted in the law of the Lord. The word of God teaches grace and law. The grace is hidden in the shadow of the law (Heb 10:1). For this bride-at-peace, there is nothing but love experienced. Wine represents grace. Grace is the covering of sin. Love doesn't even see the sin. It has absorbed the sin, even as Christ said, "Forgive them, they know not what they do". He refused to take offense at our sin. Love is better than grace; we have been made holy. Aaron was the mouthpiece of Moses, as Jesus was the Mouthpiece of God. Moses was as a god to Pharaoh. When Aaron kissed Moses in the wilderness, it was an allusion to the burnt offering and Christ in the wilderness. Israel (the son) wished to go to the wilderness to burn sacrifice; an allusion to the burnt offering, and Christ in the wilderness. Jesus went to the wilderness and met Satan... Whoops!.. until we realize that obedience is better than sacrifice. Connections complete.
  2. mnwriter: When we say 'Waterloo', we may be speaking of a place, or as a reminder of a person, his lack of preparation, or his opponent's good fortune, as in Wellington's Waterloo. They are all descendant mataphor for the original idea which incorporates them all. By using different words, and looking at different angles, it appears that addtional meaning is being imposed. But the original idea does not change. It is merely restated in a different way. We enter the idea by one of the expressed portals and can exit by expressing it differently. I haven't studied Song of Songs/Solomon in detail, but let's take a quick look: So 1:1 ¶ The song of songs, which [is] Solomon’s. The yod י is the creator or his creation. The shin ש is the the word returning with an increase, or the Word returning with his bride, the marriage of the Word and his bride, the Spirit which gives life to the bride enabling the marriage, and since marriage is doctrine; The Spirit which leads you in all truth (teaching), and enables the return to God in holiness. (fire). The rosh ר is revelation, also described as water by John. שר - song, singing, the marriage, the increase ש revealed ר. שיר shiyr -song ש(י)ר - The creator י or creation י surrounded in song שר. אשר - happy, blessed; the creator, and his creation [[א]]'s song [[שר]] The song starts off by singing three times: ShiR e-ShiRim aShR שיר השירים אשר Solomon - peace. Since 3 represents the Trinity, The book is about the joy of God, in his marriage/teaching of his bride/church which brings peace. You already knew that instinctively, because God's Spirit guides you. Your instinct is not free-for-all allegory as some would say, as they deny that the book has anything to do with Christ. They would say it is merely a love song. We have exegeted, in detail, what you know to be true. The only thing required to make your instinct NOT free-for-allegory is the observation of the thrice singing hidden in the words. We did not put meaning into it; we observed what was there. Now you guys have made me self-conscious about using commas,;,;;; <big breath almost a sigh> and semi-colons.
  3. Yes. We are not speaking of the literal meaning using dictionaries. We are speaking of how to interpret the riddles (dark sayings) and the hidden pictures of Christ, the mystery hidden from the beginning, in the Hebrew. The OT is like a "where's Waldo" book with Christ everywhere. The rules for interpreting riddle apply.
  4. SpecFictionGuy: I'm sorry. I am not quick to dismiss either. I have every hermeneutics book used in the major seminaries. I was teaching hermeneutics in the mid 80's. I have corresponded with many of the authors. I have been an evangelist/pastor since the early 80's and have taught evangelism across the denominational spectrum. I have over 20000 hours of research, and have studied with some of the most recognizable Rabbis in order to think like a Hebrew rather than like a Greek. Nor am I down on seminaries. When they debated the existence of sensus plenior in the 1980s and 90s , they did not invite anyone who could actually read it. They agreed that IF it exists, that we are not allowed to pursue it. While they were denying it, I was learning to read it. But I do not judge them. They are a product of the Greek church; which did not wish to be Jewish and threw out everything that looked Hebrew by 400 AD. Jerome had to go to disbelieving Jews to learn to read Hebrew. They lied to him. There are not 22 letters, there are 28 formations. They said there are are vowels, but talk among themselves about the vowels. . Each consonant is formed by interrupting breath. They each have a vowel. The formal vowels are used to change the phonetics of the consonants. They told Jerome about 3-letter roots, But not of 2-letter gates, not the meaning of the letters. Aren't you capable of seeing that there is no aleph in the referenced verse? How is this easily dismissing it? It is as simple as looking to see if there is an aleph. A child can do it. No, many people are way too quick to dismiss this without giving it a hearing. All you have here is a teaser, not a complete presentation. You would exaggerate pointing out an error as a complete dismissal of the work? To what end? The same with Strong. I use both tools. But they are not scripture. Scripture is the authority. You obviously have not read my material. No Eliezer is not a higher authority than Jesus and the NT authors. He codified a hermeneutic of the time. I filter his rules and only use the parts that can be demonstrated by NT authors. His rules provide a convenient taxonomy. I'd be happy to use a Christion taxonomy of riddle if you have one. Yes, they did puns. Yes they did notarikon. You accuse me of isogesis without reading the rules which eliminate free-for-all allegory and produce a verifiable, and reproducible outcome. Some how you miss that all 'shadows' have to be the same everywhere they are, locking in the meaning like a crossword puzzle. I have not easily dismissed anything. Jesus said that all the scriptures speak of him. So yes. I unashamedly. look for him in all of them. I eliminate free-for-all allegory with strict rules discerned from scripture. And the metaphors are exegeted from the formation of the words. Not invented as these men do: http://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/85594 I don't cite my 'creds' to make people accept my studies. They stand on their own. I have been teaching Hebrew for 5 years. I teach pastors and children. The word stands on its own. The observations stand on their own. Even children can verify them. They can even correct me, by following the hermeneutical rules they learn. When an 11 year old comes to me and says she saw Christ in Genesis 1 eight times. Many 'seminarians' would call that dangerous. I believe it gives God joy. A 12 year old says that the real horror of the cross was not the physical pain being preached by every seminarian who watched Mel Gibson, but that the Father and Son were separated on the cross. The indivisible;e God was torn She discerned it on her own from the two tablets of the law, the parted water, the divided nation, and the torn veil; and that fact that Jesus was not torn on the cross; not a bone was broken. I believe she gave God great joy. You are not the first or last to reject it with a knee slap. But I wish you well.
  5. Thanks for asking. 1. "The only way it means “to be taken in marriage” is if the verb is in the middle passive which comes with the addition of an aleph after the lamed. " DBHL is wrong. See Ge 19:14, לקחי has no aleph. One must be careful in using 'tools'. Dr. Strong missed the point that in Hebrew 'Agape' means 'the combatants'; it is the love we give our enemies. Tools aren't scripture. 2. We are now speaking in childish riddle. The Sefer Yetzirah (Book of Formations) is thought to be a religious text for Kabbalah. However, if it is read as a phonetics book, it tells how words get their meaning from the combined meaning of the letters. Rabbi Eliezer be Jose H'G'lili codified a hermeneutic around 200 AD which recognizes this phenomenon. He called it Notarikon; a word can be divided into it's parts to derive the underlying idea that the symbols or words and letters express. This is the essence of puns, like finding felines in catastrophes; except in Hebrew, this is not eisogesis, since the words are actually formed that way. Adam came from the ground (adamah). "How can you make a direct correlation between two different verb forms?" Eliezer's rule 7, Gezerah shawah, describes argument from analogy. Biblical passages containing synonyms or homonyms (including puns) are subject, however much they differ in other respects, to identical definitions and applications. Verb forms are puns. 3. The essence of the underlying idea is carried in the two-letter 'gate'. This is like a super root word. It gets decorated to narrow it's meaning for literal usage, but in word play is the point of contact for all the decorated meanings. All words containing קח share the common idea of taking. If a gate is reversed, there is a reversal of meaning. The reversal of קח is חק having the meaning of a statute or delineation. This is drawing the line, קח is crossing it. חק is understanding ח the gospel ק (death and resurrection...), קח is being taken by it. 4. We will actually go farther: לקח in De 32:2 means 'doctrine'. From this we will derive that the bride of Christ, those 'taken' by him, are taught by him. Breaking קח further, the gate means "understanding ח the death and resurrection of the Son of God קח". The primary idea is that of doctrine and teaching. Marriage is a descendant metaphor. The woman shall learn from her husband because marriage speaks of Christ and the church, and the church will learn from Christ. I think this is a bit much for the children's books, but certainly a legitimate topic for a seminary text. p.s. ל means to teach.
  6. This is a poor definition of a riddle. A riddle is a perplexing saying which cannot be resolved without outside information. But once the outside information is known, the riddle is plain. What a perfect way to hide the 'mystery hidden from the beginning' in plain sight. The answers to the riddles of the OT are in the New. It is said that the OT is the NT concealed. This is true, but only until the time of the cross. then the NT authors started teaching us how to read the concealed doctrines of the OT. That's what these papers are all about.
  7. Maybe I need to clarify it. The parables contain riddles. There are two meanings. So just as the door is ajar, so the parables are something else as well. This is 'sensus plenior'. Many deny it exists, but we can pretty well discern it in a reproducible and verifiable manner, which eliminates free-for-all allegory. Ps 49:4 I will incline mine ear to a parable: I will open my dark saying upon the harp. Ps 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old: The whole OT is written in prophetic riddle where the literal-historical record is a parable of Christ which is revealed by solving the riddles. The Hebrews acted out a dinner theater to instruct the rest of us about God. The links in the OP explain it in more detail, and the appendices are larger examples.
  8. Since my first sample scared a bunch of you with Hebrew and big words 😜 This is a new sample of my writing. I have tried to capture how I speak with young children about the Bible. https://asalittlechild.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
  9. "I, just , remember, you , are, supposed, to , use, them when , you, take, a, breath." he said, gasping-ly.
  10. Thanks Johne for the welcome. I was not intending to restart the debate. I think not even a court ruling solves it legally until it reaches the SCOTUS, where they will consider my position 😜 I actually did read the link in the OP referencing that same case. It was more of a way to say "hi" near our 4th of July with a tip of the hat to our British friends. When they gave secretaries Pagemaker, everyone thought they were graphic designers and we saw many Business cards laid out in 12pt Helvetica. The same thing happened when the online publishing became so easy. Now everyone thinks that all opinions are equal, and if a spelling-grammar checker doesn't catch it, it will end up online. I am far from being a pro wordsmith, but I appreciate those who are.
  11. Being an American engineer the argument is pointless. Take "I like Diet Coke, peanut butter and chocolate." If peanut butter and chocolate are single item called 'Thing', then you have : I like Diet Coke, Thing. This, no one would think was proper English, since a comma is a dependent conjunction (it must be related to a proper one). It is obvious that this sentence must signify three things. The additional comma required by Oxford was probably added during a time when they taxed by the quill stroke. 😜
  12. No wonder I can never reach the high notes... I would love to. But I would also like to distinguish it from other Beginning Hebrew Books. You will not find this content anywhere else. I'd love a different way to do that. The other reason it is a bad title is that it is not about teaching Hebrew, though that is done, It is about teaching Christ in the Hebrew language itself. Thank you.
  13. BobJ

    Jesus in the OT

    Thank you for the welcomes.
  14. Since the whole OT has a second layer which speaks of Christ. Another work could be Christ in children's stories of the Bible. Ps 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings [riddles] of old: All of the parables, mean what they do as parables, but they also have a riddle concerning Christ. Content is easy to produce, getting it at a level people can understand it the challenge. Maybe a riddle book: Ge 2:21 ¶ And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; sleep also means death Adam also means the man took also means married ribs also means certain limping side closed also means delivered flesh also means mankind What does it say about Christ? What is his limping side? Hint: bruised heel of the seed of the woman, withered thigh of Jacob Giveaway: Gethsemane As they say. this isn't a one pony dog show. Well maybe they don't say that. I have 20,000 hours of research. It is a lifetime project for me. I just need to get over the hump to make it understandable in print.
  15. Thank you. You basically express what I have said, in a different way. I am incompetent at writing for the broader audience. I am hoping to open this teaching to them. I am happy to teach others and let them write their own books, 1. I currently teach these to children 8 years old and up. they are quite capable of learning the catechism of the Hebrew alphabet, and think theologically based on it. Ex. If the bride are those who are taught by Christ, does learning make you the bride. Answer from an 8 year old: No. The bride is distinguished when they understand, the way a blue book is already blue when you distinguish it. But I don't write at a 4th grade level. 2. Seminaries push the "literal-historical" methodology of interpretation. They decided last century that although they cannot read the OT the way that Jesus and the NT authors did, that we are not allowed to try. I give them credit for attempting to eliminate free-for-all allegory, but you can see that there is not free-for-all in this work. It is more like solving a giant crossword puzzle, locking in the meaning of the letters. This is called notarikon, in Hebrew studies, documented in the early second century. And it is practiced by the NT authors. Consider the paper on the dietary law. There is an old song "Swinging on Star". The dietary law was intended for children, like the song, except it's topic is who you should learn from and who you should stay away from. I can envision a children's book on this. I am currently writing the dictionary of word formation and symbol so that others can see them without learning Hebrew. And there are many things to be clarified: Agape is actually a Hebrew word meaning "the combatants". Dr. Strong missed it. Agape love is not a super Greek love, but the love you give your enemy, with no expectation of return. This is how God loves us: While we were yet sinners, while we were enemies of his, Christ died for us. Mammon, though it is a Syriac word meaning 'money', it is a Hebrew word meaning 'the believing ones'. You cannot serve God and self. Consider a different layer, understandable in English: https://www.christianforums.com/threads/lukes-sensus-plenior.8107027/ So the first papers establish the idea, and then it explodes from there. Thanks for looking. p.s. The purpose of these is not to teach Hebrew, but to make the invisible God known through the word, works, life, teaching, death, resurrection, and indwelling Spirit of the Son. I am hoping that the works will use Hebrew incidentally for those who wish to dig deeper, but understandable to the novice.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.