Alter: Introduction

General Introduction

p1.1

In times past, familiarity with the Bible was required to be considered educated. It might appear in this post-modern age, that one thinks they are educated if they are more familiar with a few 'classic' apparent contradictions, and discard the Bible, in ignorance of it's actual contents. We now have the illusion of familiarity even as we artificially magnify it's strangeness.

p1.2

Because Christians, Jews and secularists accepted the Bible as revealed truth, it divided it's proponents into two camps: Those who would attempt to discern the process by which it emerged, and those who would elevate their own dogmas by riding on the generally accepted 'authority', though there was no agreeable means to discern between dogmas.

p1.3

The purpose of the book is laudable: to present the Bible as a great literary force which is credible. The God of the Bible does not demand faith before knowledge, as those riding on it's 'authority' coattails would demand. By it's literary authority it reveals truths about God which the non-believer may know, without trust (belief). This reveals the nature of it's intrinsic authority.

p2.1

These comments are not designed to dispute observations of others using various means and within various world views, but to provide observations which supplement them. The conversation is richer when different aspects are considered.

p2.2

There is one significant difference between the literary means of the Bible and other literature. The Bible tells one story which begins in Genesis and ends in Revelation. That story is told as a literal-historical record of God's dealing with man in preparation, and results of, the cross. But it also tells the same story in a fractal layering of mystery and riddle called 'dark' sayings, which can be discerned without reliance upon free-for-all allegory. Without understanding the 'mystery hidden from the beginning' , the intent discerned by Greek-trained rhetoricians is unlikely to match the intent of the divine author, who wrote by inspiring Hebrew authors. More about Greek authors will be addressed later.

p2.3

The revival of interest in secular writers is benefited much by a study of the literal-historical record as literature, since that is the only access available to the secular authors in their time. The observations offered by this commentary will provide insights beyond the literal-historical record, but because the mystery tells the same story, will firmly establish the Bible as a divine work.

p3.1

The real value of dramatist and poet was the close-reading skills they applied to the text. They identified pattern in motif and trophe hidden by the imposed dogma of the theologian. Pattern IS prophecy. This pattern provides the warp and woof of the record in such detail that not only can proposed 'missing books' be validated as part of the divine record, but can also be discarded if missing the 'security paper' of the mystery layer. So finely detailed is the mystery, that variations in texts may be more readily evaluated for veracity. A presumption that there are lost texts is contradicted by the teaching of Jesus that not the smallest dot or stroke of the word of God would be lost.

p3.2

Higher criticism had no means by which to validate truth. The mystery is the key to understanding the divine purpose. The key to understanding the 'dark sayings' is the cross. When Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom (teaching) to Peter, he immediately began to show him where the scriptures said he must die and be resurrected.

p4.1

"...[accomodate] the Bible as it is... as literature of high importance and power." Yes!

p4.2

It might be suggested that for the benefits gained by Auerbach's insights, the movement to create a modern Bible became a distraction from understanding the 'old 'mystery' hidden in plain sight.

p4.3

The scientific approach to the text provides many of the close-reading skills required to unpack the mystery. This becomes apparent as the 'close reading skills' augmented by the Hebrew 'formation' of words, and disassembly of words are observed to be used by the New Testament authors, even as they are accused by theologians of "misappropriating" the Old Testament scriptures. It will be observed that the differences between Gospels are plausibly explained as an increased skill in understanding the mystery; the apostles continued to study the scripture. Mark, Matthew, and Luke appear more like snapshots of the apostles' teachings at 10-15 year intervals, rather than disjointed testimonies or records augmented by outside texts. The mystery of Old Testament is the source of the 'alleged discrepancies'.

p5.1

This commentary will highlight methods used by the authors which correspond with the ancient hermeneutics as well as the "inventive" aspects of the various contributions.

p5.2

This commentary is not exhaustive of all aspects of the Hebrew hermeneutic, but reflects off the works of the contributors to enter into the conversation. References to the formation and notarikon of words will be made without proofs, being built on the unpublished, and continuing research into these topics (found elsewhere on this site). Those wishing to contribute (positive or negative) to this massive study of formations and notarikon may contact me for access to the 'Discussion' pages of this site. The difference between a skeptic and a scoffer is that the scoffer doesn't take the time to ask questions and clarify issues before rejecting an idea; using their own knowledge as repository of all truth. No scoffers please.

p6.1

This commentary is added to the pluralism of the book. It is pluralistic, not in it's approach, but in offending all comers; biblical scholars because it does not reflect any particular dogma, and literary critics, as it eliminates many of the hopeful solutions to hermeneutic problems. The theological position observed in the mystery is determined by unpacking the formations and notarikon of words, coupled with the correlation of patterns. Outside sources are not used to 'fill in the blanks' for symbolic meaning, as tropes are determined by the text itself. Strict rules eliminate invention and free-for-all allegory; both common tools of biblical scholars and literary critics alike.

p6.2

This commentary will recognize contributions mentioned in text, no matter the source as they are validated by the strict hermeneutic and demonstrated by New Testament authors. The mystery provides a standard of truth, not by dogmatic statements, but by verifiable and reproducible results; much akin to solving a crossword puzzle.

p6.3

It is hoped that this contribution provides not a "New Bible", but reinvigorates our understanding of the Old Testament as we learn to read it the way Jesus and the New Testament authors did.

p7.1

In agreement with the book, we choose the Protestant Bible when referring to the Bible, not out of convenience, but because of it's intrinsic nature. The Old Testament retains the 'security water marks' of the mystery, while the books of the New Testament not only have the testimony of the church as having the teaching of the apostles as its source (no matter who the particular authors or scribes were) but also have a nature where all the doctrine contained therein have a source in the Old Testament, and all of Jesus's actions and teachings have Old Testament sources as well. He not only 'fulfilled' the law by not sinning, but fulfilled the mystery contained in the law; the shadow . The 'Catholic' inter-testament books do not have the 'water mark'.

p7.2

The order of the books of the Bible will follow the treatment of the book for convenience. The order is not significant for smaller fractal renditions of the gospel story; only becoming significant in the larger multi-book recapitulations.

p7.3

The King James Version is not only used for familiarity and convenience; not requiring tedious copyright notifications, but because it is the closest translation to a concordant version. Ideally, to correlate Hebrew ideas while studying in English, when a word is translated, it should be uniformly translated and uniquely translated so that each word has no added confusion by conflating words in the new language. Leprosy should always be leprosy and not mold, mildew or a rash. King James is not perfect in this, but closer than other translations I have used.

8.1

There is not a standard for transliterating Hebrew, so no standard is used. Good luck. Joking aside, when the vowels, which were added about 600 AD are eliminated, there is little need to transliterate, and Hebrew letters are used. The added vowels actually obfuscate the formation of words. If you require familiarization with the Hebrew letters (as well as the formations), see Pneumnemonic Hebrew for Beginners (this REALLY needs a new name). This has been successfully used to teach children as young as eight, to not only recognize the Hebrew alphabet, but to think theologically about the short catechism contained therein.

Rules

| Home | About |
| Symbols | Changes | Links here |
| May your heart burn - Contents |

---

Rule - Introduction The prophets of old packed away the mystery. As they wrote, God concealed the mystery in their words using prophetic riddles. They wrote about a literal history, while God hid prophecies of Christ in double meanings. Modern prophets unpack prophecies with the help of the Spirit to solve the prophetic riddles. They validate what the Spirit tells them, by these rules.
Divine meaning Since God’s word is established forever ; a metaphor/shadow means the same thing everywhere is it used. If a donkey is a metaphor of a prophet, everywhere there is a donkey, it is a metaphor of a prophet. This rule alone makes the metaphors humanly impossible to fabricate as it requires the interlocking of a double entendre found in all the scriptures. This keeps us in awe. The use of free-for-all allegory in other theological works has been properly criticized because allegorical or metaphoric meanings produced in this manner have no way to be verified; how do you know it is true? This rule of "Divine meaning" prohibits free-for-all allegory by prescribing a limited standard for the use of allegory so that every scripture participates in a hidden picture of Christ. Such a phenomenon is impossible for men to produce and therefore when we observe it occurring, we can have confidence that it is God’s intended meaning. Consequence of lack of Divine meaning: The resulting interpretation is likely to be free-for-all allegory and eisegesis.
Christocentric Since the riddle of Samson tells us Christ is the answer to all the prophetic riddles; if the shadow (prophetic riddle) doesn’t look like Christ, it isn’t a good shadow. This keeps us focused. Jesus told the disciples on the road to Emmaus that all the scriptures spoke of him , and chastised the scribes and Pharisees for searching the scriptures to seek life, but rejecting him, since they spoke of him. If we don’t see Christ in the scriptures, we have missed the primary purpose of the scriptures. And if Christ is not central to a proposed interpretation, it is to be rejected. This rule alone separates the mystery from Gnosticism, Kabbalah and Midrash . Consequence of lack of Christocentric meaning: You miss the point of the scriptures in revealing God through Christ.
Rule - Self-contained Since we are to let every man be a liar and God be true ; outside references are not required to solve the riddles and see the shadows. This keeps us devoted. Not only are we not going to bring in extra-biblical books to determine the meaning of scripture, but we will not make apostles out of historians, document critics or scholars by elevating their writings concerning the meaning of scripture. Historian We miss the meaning that Jesus intended as he confronted the rich man who asked how to get into the kingdom, if we accept a historian's report that here was a gate in Jerusalem called "the eye of the needle" . Do we really believe that people were incapable of understanding the word of God until this little gem was 'discovered' by a 'professor' who needed to publish or perish? Document critics We will not make apostles out of document critics. The mystery, written in the same words used for the literal history, act like security paper. If one were to change the words of the literal history, the mystery would be scrambled. If there are errors to documents that have been received, they will be plain when the hidden narrative is discerned. God said he would protect every jot and tittle of his word , so we know that one of the variant documents is true. Scholars We will not make apostles out of scholars. Scholars present opinions. They get no credit for presenting old truth, they must perpetually come up with something novel to get their name cited in other papers. Your pastor has more motivation to teach truth than scholars. If we reference historians, document critics, or scholars, it will be to add color to the discussion, and more often than not, to refute popular myths they perpetuate. Consequence of using outside resources: You make the historian, the document critic, or the scholar into an apostle, giving him power over the interpretation of scripture.
Rule - Self examination Jer 17:9 The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it? Our assumptions about scripture and the rules we use to guide our interpretation effect the ultimate meaning that we get from scripture. It is important to evaluate those assumptions and rules to ensure that they permit the scriptures to speak for themselves rather than permitting us to impose our own meaning upon them. My assumptions and convictions are these: 1. The Bible is the word of God which has been protected for us in such a manner that it is considered infallible in every jot and tittle. 2. It is acknowledged that there are variant texts in existing manuscripts. By using the proper methods of interpretation, as taught by the apostles, errant manuscripts may be discerned by the 'security paper' of the mystery. 3. The meaning of the Bible is contained in multiple layers as described by the church from the earliest days , as a literal and a spiritual layer. These layers are in complete agreement with each other in every way. Apparent contradictions are intentional riddles describing two sides of the issue. 4. The hidden spiritual layer is discerned using methods taught by the apostles in the New Testament. It is called the meat of the gospel, whereas the literal meaning is called the milk of the gospel. The milk is sufficient for salvation. The meat provides the spiritual nourishment to enable a mature faith and walk. The rules are discerned using the same methods as discerning the mystery, so it should be expected that those practicing literal methods may disagree with how the rules are determined. That doesn't matter. The mystery needs to be evaluated to see if it is self-consistent as well as if it produces verifiable, meaningful, and orthodox results. Consequence of not doing self-examination:: The measure of truth becomes the individual and the standard changes to meet your own goals.
Rule - Humility Since God has said that not a jot or tittle will pass away ; until one knows why each jot and tittle is there, a complete understanding has not been derived. This keeps us humble. Such humility is exemplified by one who listens to others’ observations based on scripture, and tests all things to hold fast to those things which are good . Such humility is missing in one who insists that his opinion is correct, and uses phrases like “The Bible says so” while pulling passages out of context and displaying an attitude of unwillingness to discuss the meaning or context of those passages. It is a shameful behavior to decide a matter before it is heard. Consequence of lack of humility The scriptures are wrested or twisted to mean what you want them to mean. 2Pe 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Rule - Complete Since man shall live “by every word” ; a doctrine is not sound until it sums up and includes all that God has said about it. This keeps us searching. This attitude of searching recognizes that the Bible is full of meaning, and that perhaps one person in his own studies has not yet identified or considered all the applicable passages. This attitude is missing when a few verses are used as a shotgun to force a discussion to a preconceived conclusion. A doctrine must sum up and include everything the Bible says about it in the literal and hidden layers. Consequence of lack of completeness Conclusions may be premature.
Rule - Rigorous Since every word concerning life and death must be established by two or three witnesses ; every shadow/symbol must have at least two supporting scripture witnesses. This means we cannot define a shadow with a single verse. The shadows speak of Christ and the cross. There is no other topic which addresses life and death for all men. This keeps us rigorous in methodology. A shadow is a hidden meaning which is not contained in the literal meaning . Shadows are not the product of a wild imagination and are therefore verifiable by the scriptures. When a shadow has two or three witnesses, it should be regarded as a tentative meaning. This rule does not permit three verses to be the end of discussion, but specifically forbids a single verse from becoming definitive. Consequence of lack of rigor: Conclusions may be premature and/or wrong.
Rules - Conclusion If one skims through the rules without comprehending them, or like Naaman hears the instruction but is insulted at their apparent simplicity , the results of exegesis will look like the free-for-all allegory of others that we all reject. It should not be expected that using the 'Syrian waters' of free-for-all allegory should produce a result any different than before. The rules must be used rigorously to discern the truth of scripture.

MYHB Ch2 - Teaching

Links

https://stolenhistory.net/threads/devil-went-down-to-georgia-stolen-hermeneutics.5664/

References