Dubbayou2: /* p4.2 */

2020-11-24T15:23:58Z

‎p4.2

Dubbayou2 at 13:06, 5 October 2020

2020-10-05T13:06:31Z

Dubbayou2: Created page with " =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 th..."

2020-10-05T13:06:10Z

Created page with " =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 th..."

New page

=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). <ref>[[Isa 43:10]] Ye [are] my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.</ref> 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' <ref>[[Eph 3:9]] And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:</ref>, 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. <ref>[[Mt 5:18]] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.</ref>

==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. <ref>[[Mt 16:19]] And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. [[Mt 16:20]] Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. [[Mt 16:21]] ¶ From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.</ref>

==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 distration 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' <ref>The application of the Sefir Yetsirah as a phonics and grammar in the formation of words from the meaning of the letters, rather than as an esoteric foundation for Cabala</ref> of words, and disassembly of words <ref>Notarikon is the ancient practice in the reversal of formations, to dissect a word into its formative parts: letters and gates (2-letter sub-roots)</ref> 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. <ref>[[Pr 18:13]] ¶ He that answereth a matter before he heareth [it], it [is] folly and shame unto him.</ref>

==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 <ref>[[Heb 10:1]] ¶ For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.</ref>. 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==
{{:Rules}}

==References==
<references/>

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:06, 5 October 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
−		+	<font face="TimesNewRoman">
	=General Introduction=		=General Introduction=

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 ==p4.2==
-It might be suggested that for the benefits gained by Auerbach's insights, the movement to create a modern Bible became a distration from understanding the 'old 'mystery' hidden in plain sight.
+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==

Alter: Introduction - Revision history

Dubbayou2: /* p4.2 */

Dubbayou2 at 13:06, 5 October 2020

Dubbayou2: Created page with " =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 th..."