The method of 153 fish (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Bible



Message

rcjones -> The method of 153 fish (7/28/2008 8:08:29 PM)

The method of 153 fish

The primary question behind the debate of 153 fish is "How did the NT authors use the OT text".
quote:


The fact is plain: the Apostle Peter would get an “F” if he preached his Acts 2 sermon in Moody’s class, “Communication of Biblical Truth”. The professor, vigilant to eliminate any interpretation that went beyond the “original authorial intent,” would give the classic critique to the apostle: “this text used out of its context!” Of course, because Peter is an inspired author—in this case a preacher—such an imaginative scenario reveals the despairing gulf between the methods of exegesis of the modern conservative bible student, and the exegetical methods of the NT writers. How do evangelical scholars reconcile this? One on hand, how can they honor the inspired exegesis of the NT writers, and then hypocritically reject the same methodology for themselves? Conversely; how could evangelicals allow an open door for exegesis to turn into a literary or “Spirit lead” Picasso-painting of meaning, significance and application of the Word of God? The tension is real, and in attempting to resolve it there are four major schools that give clear responses to the issue[1].

The crucial weakness of the single intent school is not so much the complexity of its methodology theoretically, but the difficulty it has practically in solving the sophistication of the New Testament citations. Several New Testaments texts offer an extremely difficult challenge for the single intent view. 1 Peter 1:10-12, Peter writes “unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven.” This verse seems to be almost a direct contradiction to the idea that the OT authors understood completely the things that were prophesying[4]. Douglas Moo writes, “…he [Kaiser] does not allow sufficiently for the intention of the divine author of Scripture for the “added” meaning that a text takes on as a result of the ongoing canonical process.”[5] The plethora of OT citations in the NT gives a strong impression that the single-intent school may be jeopardizing a legitimate meaning that the NT is referencing. [emphasis mine]


http://www.davidniblack.com/articles/New%20Testament%20use%20of%20the%20Old%20Testament.htm

Here are more papers concerning the issue for those who would like an educated approach to the subject:

http://idontknownuthin.com/wiki/index.php/Papers

You may address the primary question here MrFribbles. But you will not be arguing with me. I post these for the benefit those whom you claim to be protecting, to show that your narrow interpretation does not even acknowledge the "problem" that has been the discussion of scholars for decades if not centuries. This is one of the dangers of thinking that "Intro to hermeneutics 101" will make someone an expert. A simple google by an uneducated person like me easily finds competing ideas.

Now to your credit you are not alone in your narrow biases. Dr. Walter Kaiser would nearly deny "security of the believer" by suggesting that those dabbling in "shadows" may place their salvation in jeopardy, as he refuses to even take a peek at them. So education alone does not free one from ego and prejudice, particularly if one has built a career and reputation upon a particular position.

Pr 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.


Primary challenge of this post:

MrFribbles... your insistence that there is only one way to answer this question denies scholarship and tradition.

In response, please explain in your opinion, why you insist that the literal-historical method (and your application of it) is the only proper method (in spite of the "problem" of NT Authors), to the degree that you want to "protect" us from all other wrong methods which are dangerous.



rcjones -> RE: The method of 153 fish (7/28/2008 8:11:59 PM)

"How did the NT authors use the OT text".

I did not set out to answer this question but was led to a methodology that appears to answer it... to use Midrash techniques on the full canon of scripture rather than just the Old Testament, and to constrain the interpretation by rules discerned from the scriptures themselves.

The core of the proposed method of interpretation is foreign to most Christians but is familiar to Jewish interpreters. They are the techniques of Midrash. They have been used in one form or another since the first century. You may find them systematized as the 32 rules of Rabbi Eliezer, The Seven Rules of Hillel, The Thirteen rules of Rabbi Ishmael, or PaRDeS and probably other formulations. Although comparing these formulations is an interesting exercise, it isn't necessary for this discussion since I did not discover that they explained the method until nearly a year after I began seeing the shadows. Also, it is not necessary for me to defend any baggage associated with any of the formulations, since I did not study them with the intent of discovering something new. But afterwards while trying to explain how I was seeing the shadows, was delighted to find that I had not invented something new.

Those who are prone to knee jerks reactions have already reacted. The results of rabbinic usage of these methods is largely unprofitable. The observation of hermeneuticists is that there are no controls on the interpretation, and they never found Christ in their own scriptures through them. These observations are true. These are the same reasons that I stopped studying with the rabbi. His methods were strange and his conclusions wrong, always missing the salvific message of Christ.

However, the proposed method of shadows overcomes both of these objections. The rabbis will not look at the New Testament, hence cannot see the Light that reveals the shadows. And they do not recognize the rules that constrain the interpretation.

1. They didn't find Christ in their scriptures: They weren't supposed to. God spoke in riddles to them to keep them blind and deaf.

quote:


Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

Eze 12:2 Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a rebellious house.

Mt 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

Mr 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Ac 28:26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:

Ac 28:27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.


Had they known that the Messiah was to be born of a virgin suspected of adultery, they would have opened brothels to help usher Him in. They were a rebellious people.

The shadows and riddles were not intended to reveal Christ. It is Christ that reveals the shadows and riddles. If you refuse to look at Christ, you will never see a proper shadow. Christ reveals the shadows to prove that what occurred at the cross is what was intended from the beginning.

Some who purely scoff complain that there are no shadows because we live in the light. This is an ignorantly simplistic scoffing indeed. If God spoke in riddles to the Hebrews, then the riddles are still there in their scriptures, which are now revealed in Christ. When Jesus showed Peter all the places in the scriptures that said he must die, he must have showed him something he had not seen before, though it was right there in front of him in the scriptures. When he showed the disciples on the road to Emmaus all the scriptures that spoke of him, he must have shown them something they had not seen before, though it was right there in front of them in their scriptures.


quote:


Nu 12:8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches <02420>; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?
Ps 49:4 I will incline mine ear to a parable: I will open my dark saying <02420> upon the harp.
Ps 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings <02420> of old:
Pr 1:6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings <02420>.
Eze 17:2 Son of man, put forth a riddle <02420>, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel;
Da 8:23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences <02420>, shall stand up.
Pr 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?


The primary challenge of this post:

MrFribbles insists that God does not speak in riddles and has repeatedly failed to address the scriptures above. Please give us good reason why we should deny the scriptures and instead believe that He does not speak in riddles.



rcjones -> RE: There are no controls. (7/28/2008 8:14:43 PM)

2. There are no controls. Oh but there are. And they have been enumerated twice in various threads and ignored by those who have knee jerk reactions.

C1. 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)
C2. 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)
C3. Since every word must be established by two or three witnesses, every shadow must have at least two supporting scripture witnesses. (This keeps us rigorous in methodology)
C4. Since God's word is established forever, a shadow means the same thing everywhere is it used. So, since a donkey is a shadow of a prophet, everywhere there is a donkey, it is a shadow of a prophet. This rule alone makes the shadows humanly impossible to fabricate. (This keeps us an awe)
C5. The riddle of Samson tells us Christ is the answer to all the riddles. If the shadow doesn't look like Christ, it isn't a good shadow. (This keeps us focussed)
C 6. And since we are to "let everyman be a liar and God be true", outside references are not required to solve the riddles and see the shadows. (This keeps us devoted)

Now there may be more that I haven't discovered yet, but these are sufficient to protect from heresy, and eliminate invention. I have labeled them with a prefix 'C' here to distinguish them from the rabbinic rules of midrash.

The primary challenge of this post:

Please explain how these control rules are so loose that they are dangerous, and show how your literal-historical method tightens it so that no errors can be made.



MrFribbles -> RE: The method of 153 fish (7/28/2008 8:17:11 PM)

The passage involving the 153 fish doesn't quote the OT. I don't see how it applies here.



MrFribbles -> RE: The method of 153 fish (7/28/2008 8:23:56 PM)

quote:

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.


An incorrect meaning might be ascribed to those jots and tittles, as I feel was done in your applying a Genesis passage speaking about having kids to mean a certain mathematics function should be carried out in a NT narrative.

quote:

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.


So if someone believes the doctrine of grace by faith alone after reading only Ephesians 2:8-9, they're incorrect?

quote:

Since every word must be established by two or three witnesses, every shadow must have at least two supporting scripture witnesses.


If the first interpretation is correct, what's to prevent the 2nd and 3rd from also being incorrect?

quote:

Since God's word is established forever, a shadow means the same thing everywhere is it used. So, since a donkey is a shadow of a prophet, everywhere there is a donkey, it is a shadow of a prophet. This rule alone makes the shadows humanly impossible to fabricate.


I've previously brought up instances where I feel shadows do not hold the same meaning, and you never provided an adequate response. If I should bring such examples up again, will you respond to them honestly this time?

quote:

The riddle of Samson tells us Christ is the answer to all the riddles. If the shadow doesn't look like Christ, it isn't a good shadow.


I completely disagree with your take on the riddle of Samson.

quote:

And since we are to "let everyman be a liar and God be true", outside references are not required to solve the riddles and see the shadows.


So, you don't study the historical context for Scripture?


Now, as for "my" method, I never said it was error-proof. No method is. Someone can take the best method and make the worst conclusions. I just feel that it is the way Scripture ought to be interpreted.



rcjones -> RE: Introduction to Midrash (7/28/2008 8:27:52 PM)

Introduction to Midrash rcjones way...

The most troubling part of the Midrash techniques that I found when studying with a rabbi and reading the old rabbis is the method by which context is shared across verbal links. An example in English might look like this: (the verses are invented so as not to get into theological debate of actual content)
Hezekiah 1:15 With her eyes lifted up she spoke....
Jacobi 3:25 With her eyes lifted up she angrily spoke....

From this the rabbis might conclude that when the 'she' in Hezekiah spoke, she was angry based on the 'remez' from Jacobi. This is absolute nonsense to our modern hermeneutics. MrFribbles thinks that if he repeats this long enough that I might understand it. I understood it long ago. However, it is not nonsense to the Jewish mind. There are discussions within the Christian intelligentsia about how Christ used Remez on the cross to point to the context of prophecies being fulfilled.

When Jesus answers the question about marriage, he pulls context from Genesis about there being only one woman and one man. This violates the literal-historical methods since marriage isn't even mentioned in Genesis 1,2, or 3. How one can equate rib surgery with marriage is beyond the scope of modern hermeneutics. But it is not beyond the scope of Midrash, and modern exegetes use some midrash techniques without crediting the rabbis. Jesus makes the connection because in his mind marriage is a mystery speaking of Christ and the Church. When they become "one flesh" it is like the rib being placed back in Adam, just as the church dwells "in Christ".

When the author of Hebrews pulls Melchizadek out of thin air as a type of Christ, he argues from silence concerning his origins to equate him with Christ who is without beginning of days. Now MrFribbles has said previously, that "we have no right" to interpret the scriptures this way. Again, Longnekker's concern is that of controls, and the assumption that the way the NT authors interpreted the Old was "magic" since he doesn't know how they did it. But there is no scripture to support this idea. Jesus promises that we can "Ask, seek and knock" and that he will answer. The only ones who ever thought reading the Bible was dangerous were the enemies of God. So choose your associates wisely.


The primary answer made in this post

MrFribbles is real loose with the words "you can't" which usually means that he is unfamiliar with Midrash techniques and is therefor unqualified to judge what can and can't be done with them. I will refer to this post while addressing specific issues, so that I do not have to explain it repeatedly.

Midrash permits you to link context in a way that is completely foreign to modern hermeneutics. I didn't invent it and don't have to defend it. The proposal is that we use midrash techniques, so the simple answer is that we can pull context across Remez links. Arguing against remez, is outside the scope of the proposal, since this is an exercise which uses midrash techniques.

Concerns about being dangerous should address the control rules, since it is they which constrain the interpretation derived from the midrash techniques. I can guarantee that if you use the midrash techniques without the control rules, you will get garbage.



rcjones -> RE: The method of 153 fish (7/28/2008 8:39:54 PM)

quote:

The passage involving the 153 fish doesn't quote the OT. I don't see how it applies here.



Please address the primary issues rather than nip around at the heels.


It is relevant because you have asked me to explain each point, and I shall. And I shall use scripture from all over the Bible to do so. And I shall use Midrash techniques, because that is the heart of the proposal.

C1. 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)
C2. 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)
C3. Since every word must be established by two or three witnesses, every shadow must have at least two supporting scripture witnesses. (This keeps us rigorous in methodology)
C4. Since God's word is established forever, a shadow means the same thing everywhere is it used. So, since a donkey is a shadow of a prophet, everywhere there is a donkey, it is a shadow of a prophet. This rule alone makes the shadows humanly impossible to fabricate. (This keeps us an awe)

These are the relevant rules which make the primary point relevant.

Also I would hope that you can do better than mere contradiction. Contradiction is not argument.

The main point was :your insistence that there is only one way to answer this question denies scholarship and tradition. Do you wish to address the main point or concede?



rcjones -> RE: The method of 153 fish (7/28/2008 8:45:53 PM)

quote:

quote:



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.

An incorrect meaning might be ascribed to those jots and tittles, as I feel was done in your applying a Genesis passage speaking about having kids to mean a certain mathematics function should be carried out in a NT narrative.


Mr. Fribbles, you asked for a meaningful discussion in a dedicated thread.

An incorrect meaning might be ascribed to words in the literal-historical method, as well. Now I have suggested that the control rules prevent errors like this. And you have only feelings to guide you that something terrible might go wrong.

Your feelings do not count as argument. So please show how your method prevents incorrect meaning from being ascribed to words, or show how the control rules have holes that permit errant interpretation.



MrFribbles -> RE: The method of 153 fish (7/28/2008 8:50:53 PM)

quote:

The main point was :your insistence that there is only one way to answer this question denies scholarship and tradition


Assuming the question is...

quote:

"How did the NT authors use the OT text".


Then I think there is only one way to answer the question - under the direction and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
The literal-historical method never denies that OT Scripture may have a meaning that the original authors may not have fully understood, if they had known about it at the time. However, it does deny that any OT Scripture was written without a meaning that the original authors would not have understood. It also denies our right to claim the same level of authority as the NT authors in finding meaning in the OT.



MrFribbles -> RE: The method of 153 fish (7/28/2008 8:53:58 PM)

quote:

Mr. Fribbles, you asked for a meaningful discussion in a dedicated thread.


OK, one question before I begin. Which English version did you use to key your shadows? If I go looking for "donkey" in a version that translates the word differently, our discussion would not be very fruitful.



rcjones -> RE: The method of 153 fish (7/28/2008 8:56:02 PM)

quote:

quote:


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.

So if someone believes the doctrine of grace by faith alone after reading only Ephesians 2:8-9, they're incorrect?


MrFribbles... this is being purely argumentative. These words or similar are used in your Intro to hermeneutics books, with which you did not take issue.

Certainly someone may have correct doctrine without study at all. Our context for discussion is that of the exegete. And there is no excuse for the exegete to be so casual about sound doctrine. I am surprised that one so adamant about protecting us from the scriptures would even suggest that a doctrine be derived from a single passage.



PeterD -> RE: The method of 153 fish (7/28/2008 8:58:42 PM)

Good evening rcjones

This new topic you started causes me to remember verse 5 not sure why but maybe it relates to your discussion.

Ecclesiastes 9:1-6

Death Comes to All
1But all this I laid to heart, examining it all, how the righteous and the wise and their deeds are in the hand of God. Whether it is love or hate, man does not know; both are before him. 2 It is the same for all, since the same event happens to the righteous and the wicked, to the good and the evil, to the clean and the unclean, to him who sacrifices and him who does not sacrifice. As the good one is, so is the sinner, and he who swears is as he who shuns an oath. 3This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that the same event happens to all. Also, the hearts of the children of man are full of evil, and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead. 4But he who is joined with all the living has hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion. 5For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. 6Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and forever they have no more share in all that is done under the sun.

Peter



MrFribbles -> RE: The method of 153 fish (7/28/2008 8:59:46 PM)

quote:

MrFribbles... this is being purely argumentative


I was merely questioning the wording of your rule. I suppose one could argue that Ephesians 2:8-9 accurately sums up the doctrine of grace by faith. I'm just trying to make sure every avenue of discussion is followed.



rcjones -> RE: The method of 153 fish (7/28/2008 9:00:27 PM)

quote:

quote:

Since every word must be established by two or three witnesses, every shadow must have at least two supporting scripture witnesses.

If the first interpretation is correct, what's to prevent the 2nd and 3rd from also being incorrect?



You didn't do your homework. Please read the rules and understand them before posting more drivel like this.

Explain how you can make an error if it "sums up and includes everything the Bible has to say about it" ?

How can you make an error "if it looks like Christ"?



MrFribbles -> RE: The method of 153 fish (7/28/2008 9:02:48 PM)

quote:

Explain how you can make an error if it "sums up and includes everything the Bible has to say about it" ?


Sums can be added incorrectly, friend, and a supposedly all-inclusive package often leaves the tourist wanting. Just because something claims to correctly take into account the witness of all Scripture does not mean it is so.

quote:

How can you make an error "if it looks like Christ"?


Many things look like Christ, and yet remain false. Looking like Christ is not enough.



rcjones -> RE: The method of 153 fish (7/28/2008 9:06:39 PM)

quote:

quote:

Since God's word is established forever, a shadow means the same thing everywhere is it used. So, since a donkey is a shadow of a prophet, everywhere there is a donkey, it is a shadow of a prophet. This rule alone makes the shadows humanly impossible to fabricate.

I've previously brought up instances where I feel shadows do not hold the same meaning, and you never provided an adequate response. If I should bring such examples up again, will you respond to them honestly this time?


You have not said that you would accept any evidence. You will not get any evidence if you cannot acknowledge midrash techniques. You don't have to like them or accept them. But this is an exercise using them. So if you are unable to understand them or follow them for what they are, you will not be able to evaluate evidence derived by them.



rcjones -> RE: The method of 153 fish (7/28/2008 9:08:21 PM)

quote:

quote:

The riddle of Samson tells us Christ is the answer to all the riddles. If the shadow doesn't look like Christ, it isn't a good shadow.

I completely disagree with your take on the riddle of Samson.


So what? Contradiction is not argument.



MrFribbles -> RE: The method of 153 fish (7/28/2008 9:12:38 PM)

quote:

So if you are unable to understand them or follow them for what they are, you will not be able to evaluate evidence derived by them.


You seem to equate disagreement with your method with ignorance. I assure you that I comprehend how your shadows work.

quote:

So what? Contradiction is not argument.


Samson was not a godly man. His actions were driven by pride, lust, and a desire to gratify the self. To think that his riddle is speaking of Christ, in my opinion, degrades Christ in a way I am not comfortable with.



rcjones -> RE: The method of 153 fish (7/28/2008 9:12:42 PM)

quote:

quote:

And since we are to "let everyman be a liar and God be true", outside references are not required to solve the riddles and see the shadows.

So, you don't study the historical context for Scripture?


Of course I do... for the literal-historical interpretation. The pashat never loses its meaning.

I do not use outside sources except Hebrew and Greek dictionaries for the shadows. Scripture interprets scripture, unlike some of the wild inventions that literalists have to make.



MrFribbles -> RE: The method of 153 fish (7/28/2008 9:18:03 PM)

quote:

I do not use outside sources except Hebrew and Greek dictionaries for the shadows.


Ah, for the shadows. I thought you meant at all, period. That would make things very difficult indeed.



rcjones -> RE: The method of 153 fish (7/28/2008 9:19:13 PM)

quote:

Now, as for "my" method, I never said it was error-proof. No method is. Someone can take the best method and make the worst conclusions. I just feel that it is the way Scripture ought to be interpreted.


Great.. You're making decisions on feelings again without properly evaluating the claim for shadows for what it is... You jumped to a conclusion without understanding midrash techniques, and without considering the controlling rules. You have assumed that it is Gnostic and Kabbalistic without knowledge and have been nipping at my heels from the start.

So buck up and do your homework. Your feelings don't count here. You have made serious insinuations against me in every thread, so here is where you must make the point succinctly or retract your judgments based on feelings.

I know that decisions based in feeling are dangerous. I am surrounded by Mormons who base all their "testimony" on feelings. So you are sounding a lot like a cultist to me.

So back up and address the controlling rules before you continue. Show me hole in them. that make them dangerous.



ta_mosquito -> RE: The method of 153 fish (7/28/2008 9:20:16 PM)

MODERATOR'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE

As you continue this discussion, let me remind you of TOS 6:

You will not harass, threaten, embarrass or distress users, either in the community itself or via personal email, phone, physical mail or in person. You will not engage in name-calling or personal attacks in the course of discussion or debate. You will not post inflammatory remarks simply for the purpose for evoking reaction or starting fights with other community members (Often referred to as "trolling"). Overall, promoting a spirit of divisiveness in the chat and forums community will not be tolerated.

- Attacking the character or motives of someone who differs with your view or denying that he or she is a Christian is unacceptable.

There have been some descriptors used in this thread already that are getting awfully close to a TOS 6. Please tone down the rhetoric.

Tricia
Forums Moderator

Please do not reply to this message within the forums or chat.

Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.

Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.



MrFribbles -> RE: The method of 153 fish (7/28/2008 9:21:55 PM)

quote:

Great.. You're making decisions on feelings again


You misunderstand me. When I say I "feel" something, it is my way of admitting than none of us have absolute, infallible knowledge. I don't "feel" the way I do because of warm, fuzzy feelings in my tummy, or because it makes me feel good. I feel the way I do from years of research and study. So, yes, I am making decisions on those feelings.



rcjones -> RE: The method of 153 fish (7/28/2008 9:28:09 PM)

quote:

quote:

The main point was :your insistence that there is only one way to answer this question denies scholarship and tradition

Assuming the question is...
quote:


"How did the NT authors use the OT text".

Then I think there is only one way to answer the question - under the direction and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.


I think anyone reading the articles tat are background for this discussion would think by your answer you have not read the background documents. And based on your quick response, I can almost guarantee you have not.

The main point was that you do not acknowledge scholarship and tradition and you have made the point succinctly. Thank you.



rcjones -> RE: The method of 153 fish (7/28/2008 9:30:34 PM)

quote:


The literal-historical method never denies that OT Scripture may have a meaning that the original authors may not have fully understood, if they had known about it at the time. However, it does deny that any OT Scripture was written without a meaning that the original authors would not have understood.


Please give scriptural support for this a-priori assumption that contradicts tradition.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI