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

writing partner Are you intersted in this project

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I am told that I write in a fashion that is 'too dense'.  I did a one chapter proposal, which the reviewer had me break into a 30 chapter book. He then took the first chapter and had me divide it into another book. So i have started writing 'papers' which I am happy to have someone else make it less dense. These are a couple papers.

 

https://sensusplenior.net/wiki/Pneumnemonic_Hebrew_for_Beginners

 

https://sensusplenior.net/wiki/The_Dietary_Law

 

Thanks for looking.

Edited by BobJ
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I'd say your writing is perfectly fine, but you'll need to submit your proposals to Baker Academic or Intervarsity Press. These would both be MDiv. level books, and require a good amount of Hebrew for understanding. I'd offer to write, but my Hebrew is not nearly good enough for this project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, mnwriter said:

Honestly I'd say your writing is perfectly fine, but you'll need to submit your proposals to Baker Academic or Intervarsity Press. These would both be MDiv. level books, and require a good amount of Hebrew for understanding. I'd offer to write, but my Hebrew is not nearly good enough for this project.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by BobJ
add ps
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Since they are short papers (and presumably you don't expect us to read Hebrew)....  I'll take a shot at it with the Pneum.... paper.  My first suggestion is to take that word out of the title so people will read it.  It's actually an interesting paper.

One initial comment:  "Every Good Boy Does Fine Always" (don't forget A)

EDIT:  Well, upon re-reading, it's not a short paper.  It's a bit confusing to open a link (say for the introduction) then go back and find the list again and open the next link. I guess I get lost too easily to be able to review something this deep.

Edited by Ora
second reading

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ora said:

One initial comment:  "Every Good Boy Does Fine Always" (don't forget A)

 

No wonder I can never reach the high notes...

 

Quote

My first suggestion is to take that word out of the title so people will read it. 

 

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.

Quote

It's actually an interesting paper.

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was glancing over your link (don't have time right now to thoroughly read it) and something puzzled me. Your use of riddles. I don't think riddles and parables are quite the same. Since I was confused, I googled it and found this:

 

Parables transmit an underlying, useful life-message in a way that will not be rejected. Riddles, in contrast, are largely unintelligible, leaving one helpless, unable to derive any life-lesson.

 

I wonder if it would be better to not use riddles as a comparison to the parables Jesus told. Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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.

Edited by BobJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, lynnmosher said:

Riddles, in contrast, are largely unintelligible, leaving one helpless, unable to derive any life-lesson.

 

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.

 

Edited by BobJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2020 at 7:18 PM, BobJ said:

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

 

According to the Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew lexicon, the Hebrew verb translated “took” is in the active form. 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.  How can you make a direct correlation between two different verb forms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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.

 

 

 

Edited by BobJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You are quick to dismiss BDB, a mainstay of Hebrew language study, but  I do agree tools aren’t Scripture. Yet you are quick to refer to your tool. Eliezer, to support your position. Is this Eliezer a Christian rabbi? Would you consider him a higher interpretative authority than Jesus and the Apostles? They revealed certain areas in the OT where the Messiah  was revealed, but I’d be careful going beyond what they have done. 

The reference to Gen 19:14 needs a closer reading. It is a participle translated “who were pledged to be married.” Notice “were pledged” is not active but passive where the subject is being acted upon. The difference in the Hebrew is because it is a participle not a regular verb form. 
How do you go about choosing which definition fits when a word has several meanings? Do you come to the verse believing it will reveal something about Christ and then pick the definitions that get you the intended outcome? If so, this is isogesis instead of exegesis. We are warned as Christians against isogesis, reading a meaning into a biblical text. I appreciate your desire to find Christ in Scripture, but the way you’re doing it isn’t perhaps the best biblical interpretation. I know you are down on seminaries and maybe you had a bad experience with one, but a couple Hermeneutics courses wouldn’t hurt. 
I wish you the best Bobj.

Edited by SpecFictionGuy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love learning about the Hebrew language. As an unlearned novice, I am confused. Isn't leqach/doctrine a different word from laqach/to take, though leqach's root is laqach? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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.

 

 

 

 

Edited by BobJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, lynnmosher said:

I love learning about the Hebrew language. As an unlearned novice, I am confused. Isn't leqach/doctrine a different word from laqach/to take, though leqach's root is laqach? 

 

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.

 

 

Edited by BobJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh! Gotcha! I love that Christ is hidden in the OT. Love looking into it. We miss so much of the deeper meanings by just reading the words on the pages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BobJ said:

The OT is like a "where's Waldo" book with Christ everywhere

 

It's the basis for my study of the Song of Solomon. The Shulamite bride is an allegorical representation of the church and the Bridegroom is Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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.

Edited by BobJ
added a breath ;P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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.

 

 

 

Edited by BobJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intriguing. Your comments about the rejection of sensus plenior remind me of God’s command to Daniel to seal up his book until the time of the end, and for John to not record what the seven thunders said. Some lost or forgotten things will suddenly be recovered as we near the end. Perhaps what you are undertaking is one facet of that.

 

The wisdom literature has been my special occupation since I first believed in my twenties. An obstacle for years prevented me from comprehending Job and Ecclesiastes, except at a surface level. Then about three years ago I felt a stirring and a call to try again. After six months getting nowhere with Job, I found the right questions to ask and had a breakthrough, resulting in Job Rises: Thirteen Keys to a Resilent Life. A few months after finishing that book, I decided to take another crack at Ecclesiastes. That was February of this year. This time I was pushing against air – no resistance. I have about 560 pages written so far, titled Peace, Like Solomon Never Knew.

 

My tools are very different from yours: history, mathematics, data clustering... My results lie in a space similar to yours. I am finding abundant  patterns and prophetic content where none of my reading prepared me to find it. For example, I see in the twenty-eight times of Ecclesiastes 3 a biography of the life of Christ, as well as a good summary of developmental psychology. You mention that there are really 28 letters in Hebrew. 28 Days is a lunar month and symbolizes a complete passage from infancy to maturity.
 

As you are reverse engineering a richer meaning for Hebrew words, so I have been reverse engineering an entirely novel eschatological framework based on Matthew’s genealogy, Ecclesiastes, Job, the Genesis account of Noah, Psalm 119, and Revelation 2&3. I threw away Premillennial Dispensationslism and started completely from scratch, focusing on parts of the Bible neglected by prophecy buffs. Ecclesiastes is all about time. Computers all rely on a clock inside their CPU to keep everything running smooth. Ecclesiastes is the CPU clock Of the Bible. My scheme may be wrong, but I am convinced that all the other end time schemes, because they fail to address what Ecclesiastes is shouting, Can’t possibly be right either.
 

So I am intrigued. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone has said that pattern is prophecy. Pattern exists, legitimately in many layers of the Bible. How do we know that we don't invent it?  Because it is validated by the other prophecies. (Every word is established by two or more witnesses). 

 

As for the sealing of books: 

The kingdom is teaching.

The keys to the kingdom are the shadows of the cross.

The kingdom (teaching) was taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles. The Gentile church has taught for 2000 years using the Gentile (Greek) hermeneutic.

The kingdom will be given back to the Jews. The teaching will return to a Hebrew hermeneutic.

 

Job is a shadow of Christ in his tribulation. Though he is confronted by God, he is not accused of sin, and it ends with seven burnt offerings.. no hint of sin.  My observations concern the voice of God through the prophet. it appears that yours are through the voice of God as king.  Mine is doctrine, yours is training in righteousness.  There are two more voices. The voice of the judge confronts original sin where we think we can judge good and evil. The voice of the priest tells how Christ corrected it.  So you might have a few more books from Job.

 

I think you are on the right track with Ecclesiastes.

 

In Matthew's genealogy, using Remez and Drash, you will find the titles "Usurping second son/Second Adam", "Only begotten son", "Unbegotten Only son", and "Forsaken Son".  It lays the foundation for 'sod' the mystery hidden in the history of the Hebrews.

 

28 is the completion (7) of the four voices. Or the complete Torah (revelation of God to man) . Everything God created and said is generated from the letters.

 

We must chat.  I have zoom.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • 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.