Replies

If I was going t ask someone for an ambulance to transport a deathly ill person to the hospital, I don't think I would take a shot of a beautiful flower with my cell-phone and send it to an emergency room to try to communicate what their response out to be, ne?

are you saying the only purpose of the bible is salvation? who is toying with who here?

even for Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin. That does not have a dozen meanings. It has one, and they had to get someone to interpret it.

WHY did they need someone to interpret it? Had it been written in a standard language, they would not have needed Daniel to interpret it. This is not even remotely referring to scripture.

Here your example of the OT Jews is obscured by the fact that the NT is in the OT concealed; the OT is in the NT revealed. Or, the NT is in the OT contained, the OT is in the NT explained.

OK, you are going to have to be clearer than that. to many OTs in NTs in OTs.

Why they argued is exactly that God had not finished writing His Bible, and they did not understand much of what God had caused to be written down. Daniel wrote stuff down exactly without understanding it. Check Daniel 12:9 in its context. But that does not meant that his sentences were not readable to anyone who could read. They may not at that time apply it, but we can now. And the meanings are exact and not containing dozens of inscrutable thoughts.

is it your interpretation that that is 'what they argued' or do you have rabbinical sources to back that claim up? Prophecy is obviously obscured to some extent, and you could make that claim about any of the prophets.

But even now, Jewish scholars are not likely to see the clear communication for the Tanach, because they are not looking at it from a deep understanding of the revelation of OT passages in the NT.

it isnt because they are looking in the wrong place. the OT is the basis and foundation for the NT

Interpretation (hermeneutics) is both an art and a science. But it is not just a bunch of jumbled allegories. It is language. With words. With grammar. With rules. With a culture. If I said "Give me a Susan B. Anthony dollar." that would be clear to most Americans today, but not to Susdan B, Anthony, who was well educated and would have known exactly what was said.

I find it very interesting that you would bring this up. Context makes a lot of difference.

If you can't or won't analyze what he is saying without prejudice, you are wasting time pestering others in criticizing the author or the work.

if the author cannot
1. speak in plain english
2. speak in agreement with scriptures
then i have no obligation to wade through 6000 words of false teachings.

It is simple, but has a lot of history and structure, not very pliant in bending obvious non-negotiable meanings that He wants you to get

this is what i have been trying to tell you

There is only God's way, and it is in the Masoretic Hebrew Text for the OT, and the Received Text of the Koine Greek of the NT: get a faithful literal equivalency translation of those, in whatever language you choose. Then settle down to do your own interpretation. If you do it correctly, it will be pretty much the same as anyone else's. If not, you didn't get it right.

I have been learning Hebrew for a while in order to read the scriptures as they were written. It has been incredibly rewarding and enlightening.

The Bible is not a Dick-Jane-Spot reader or a Three Bears and Goldilocks parable. It is reasonably difficult, but the plan of salvation from sin, judgment, and the Lake of Fire is not. It is plain and it is graphic, because The God wants it to be understandable.

If ancient sheep herders can read it and understand it, i can too. That doesnt mean it wont take study and work.

It is not a self-contradictory mystery trip of allegories and prophecies that never came true

I stand by the belief that the whole bible (i use only one book) is consistent and non-contradictory. I do not see how any of this makes sense otherwise.

Its deeper meanings are not found without spiritual maturity from being discipled by one who has himself been discipled, who has overcome the "Wicked One" (Satan). Quien sabe?

I am not saying there is no work involved here and anyone can know the whole depth of the bible from a surface gleaning of the letters. Satan means 'The Adversary' in Hebrew: הַשָּׂטָן

An interesting thought, is while 'Satan' is almost perfect Hebrew, 'Jesus' is an english transliteration of a Greek transliteration of his Hebrew name. How is it 'Satan' is the same as the original, but the Savior's name is obscured?

An interesting thought, is while 'Satan' is almost perfect Hebrew, 'Jesus' is an english transliteration of a Greek transliteration of his Hebrew name. How is it 'Satan' is the same as the original, but the Savior's name is obscured?

You did not WRITE (attempt to transmit) the Devil's OT name in Hebrew. You transliterated it into Aramaic letters and tagged those letters in html, including the definite article. Then in the comment above, you did not translate the wicked one's name into English, you transliterated it (from Aramaic, not Hebrew), but only partially; leaving out the phoenetic 'sh' sound, rendering it in English with a letter that represents the sound 'ess' -- so you did not Devil's name exactly, either.

Did you 'know' that? If you did, you are trying to 'toy' with me. If you did not, you are dabbling in linguistics and semantics with no background. Either way, you got burned.

For an exercise, write the name of Moses' army general-in-chief in Hebrew, then into Aramaic, then into Koine, then into Old English, then into American English, and see what you get. Recognize that a rose by any other name is still a rose.

Do you then understand what Hebrews 4:8 says, as from Koine translated into KJV English? If you do not, then you ought to find someone who can explain it to you. Same for everything else in my note from which you are quoting, and for which I said before that I don't have time to engage.

If ancient sheep herders can read it and understand it, i can too. That doesnt mean it wont take study and work.

They can't, and don't. And neither could Galilean fishermen. The were offered the opportunity to learn how to understand the Bible from a master teacher and took it. If you haven't, you might. So did the ancient sheep herder(s). But you cannot do it by yourself. It is uneconomical. If you try, you deny The God's offering in training a teacher to help you communicate better with Him. So you then would be selfishly stealing from The God the time that He has given you. One of the parables in the article demonstrates that. Find that and be instructed.

Finis