|
|
Post by John on May 18, 2009 14:19:18 GMT -5
you shouldnt be sorry- you only strengthen a person when you ask them questions, and you stengthen yourself in the process.
but, i am not a liberalist. rather, i agree with a few liberalist's ideas. i do not interpret the bible freely as i please. but i am open to progressiveness of interpretation. just because Shaul thought the bible said one thing doesnt mean that he lied, but that he didnt understand what we can now. Isaiah didnt fully understand what would happen with the gentiles in YHVH's plan, but he saw it. we can see the bible written out but stil not understand it until YHVH, decides that we should know it nbow.
i am all for the interpretation of progresive revelation.
but i am saying that not all liberal ideas are bad. you didnt exactly state that, but you could easily get that idea from your comment on 'liberal christians'
shin-lamed-vav-final mem (<-------thats cool, and i came up with it all by myself! lol :-) )
john
|
|
Jonatan
B'nai Elohim
BLUE
Posts: 260
|
Post by Jonatan on May 20, 2009 6:06:24 GMT -5
Then that's me too. I won't stand on manmade dogma. I'm open to understand it just like how Word of God understands it. And good report is, that is Word never wrong. Such as about the rapture, I didn't knew - some people defending it, some people denying it - but I proved it by at least two witnesses from the Word that it is correct doctine. Shin-lamed-wav-mem sophit  |
|
|
|
Post by John on May 20, 2009 13:59:03 GMT -5
Yo jonotan: what does 'hevenu shalom aleichem' mean?
shalom- john
|
|
Jonatan
B'nai Elohim
BLUE
Posts: 260
|
Post by Jonatan on May 21, 2009 3:15:12 GMT -5
Lol, now you've got me!  ;D I don't know for sure - really a shame, isn't it? I know that Shalom aleichem means Peace unto you or Peace be to you (you - plural 2.person masculine). Arabs have copied it from Hebrews and they have their famous equivalent for it that sounds 'Salaam Alaikum' - that means the same. Hevenu? - We're bringing? 'Hevenu shalom aleichem'? We're bringing peace unto you (you - plural 2.person masculine)? Gentile believer can hardly know hebrew better than native Jew. Sh'lom! |
|
|
|
Post by John on May 21, 2009 15:25:58 GMT -5
what if it said something that didint express the love of christ? you should wach out before doing things like that.
but interesting.
shalom- john
|
|
|
|
Post by itiswritten on May 22, 2009 8:24:42 GMT -5
Heres a post from another thread.  Well, I know, now you are catching me on my statements, because I've condemned allegory and promoted literal meaning too much. I know that true christians/messianics mean it different way and that both literal, allegorical and symbolical senses take place in Bible. On the other hand, I have had terrible experience saying to atheists about Word of God that it's true, persuading them with all the miracles of the Lord. You may guess what did they told me on it - "You must not take it literally!"  That's your opinion Jonatan. It's also the opinion of most prophecy teachers. Are the time frames below also LITERAL? If not, on what basis do you interpret them as not literal? Revelation 2:10
Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.Hosea 6:2
After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.I do interpret it both ways. I believe Revelation 2:10 was clearly historical matter, that there WERE disciples in the past, in times of John to whom he has written the letters. - And they had tribulation for literal ten days - yet for us, into future, it may be allegorical or symbolical. About Hosea 6:2 - I don't know yet - you do know? It's all correct! I do not attack your opinion. Just want to say that there must be interpretations GIVEN ALREADY BY THE WORD. Word interprets itself. It cannot be such difficult and philosophical for us to understand. Lord forbid it! Let our Almighty God, Author of it all say the last word. Let Him interpret it and let us submit to it. Just want to say that if John explained (or angel that was interpreting his vision) that seven stars = Seven angels, they are 7 angels literally, seven candlesticks = Seven churches literally, fine linen = righteousness of saints literally, seven heads = seven mountains literally, ten horns = ten kings literally! And we may proceed further and further. If there are some symbols we don't understand yet, it must be in the Scripture, maybe formerly mentioned or later. Before God, in Lord's eyes, no man is allowed to interpret the word by his own philosophy or opinions and to be correct. Word of God has been given to humble who take it in faith - as children and not as 'wise of this world' - cos wisdom of this world is foolishness and abomination in Lord's eyes. In fact, people who do not take Lord's word literally, UNLESS HE SAY it's some symbol OR THAT HE EXPLAIN IT OTHER WAY, they're not believing it to be undeniable truth. That atheists do also. Red Sea was cleaved asunder literally as it is in Exodus! All the miracles are literal just as they are written in Bible. Let us rather believe the Word than modern science, scientists, materialists or compromisers. Even heaven and earth may pass away, BUT NEVER THE WORD OF GOD! Otherwise, you're implying that our Lord is not that Almighty! I understand what you are saying. There are atheists and others that dismiss much, if not all of the Bible. However at the same time we can't determine our methods of interpretation based upon their unbelief and ignorance. Certainly there is a lot of scripture that can be read and interpreted on a "literal" level. However, there many passages that can't be interpreted "literally." If we take the position that all of the Bible is literal, then we have a lot of problems to deal with such as some of the examples that I have given. The scriptures clearly forbid the drinking of blood, but Y'shua tells us to drink his blood. We cannot interpret his statements about this on a literal level obviously. It's been said often but the Bible does interpret itself. Also there are passages in the scripture in which certain interpretation principles can be seen. For example in Exodus we see that the Israelites spent 40 years in the wilderness. This 40 years was a year for a day because of those who spied out the land for 40 days. Also in Eze when he lays upon his right and left sides we see again this day for a year principle. Again, we see that one day is with YHVH as a thousand years. Here are three witnesses that show a smaller time frame representing a larger time frame. Something to consider. |
|
Jonatan
B'nai Elohim
BLUE
Posts: 260
|
Post by Jonatan on May 22, 2009 10:09:17 GMT -5
That's very interesting post Keith, I admit. Just want to eliminate disbelief of Word of God in this forum by allegorizing it by opinions and precepts of men.
We thank Lord greatly for His Word - and that it interpret itself. We were given the Word of God to understand it and not to be confused.
About the interpretation of symbols: such as 'the Beast', 'the Two Olives', 'Mother of harlots called Great Babylon' and so on - I would cathegorize them some kind of 'name-calling', the way how Lord sees those individuals, thus it reflect their spirituality, as the Lords sees them. The Beast is called the Beast (Antichrist, son of perdition) in Lord's eyes, because it's ravenous, rebelling and killing in opposition to the Lamb, who has given His own life for us.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on May 22, 2009 10:53:09 GMT -5
i dont think that the word interprets itself. i think the greatness of the word is that it was made for the individual to interpret. this is smart on Yah's part.
shalom- john
PS thank you guys for moving the discussion
PSS hey, we have a new member matthew- say hi and make him feel welcome. he's 13 as well.
|
|
Jonatan
B'nai Elohim
BLUE
Posts: 260
|
Post by Jonatan on May 25, 2009 7:13:35 GMT -5
i dont think that the word interprets itself. i think the greatness of the word is that it was made for the individual to interpret. this is smart on Yah's part. shalom- john PS thank you guys for moving the discussion PSS hey, we have a new member matthew- say hi and make him feel welcome. he's 13 as well. Ok, but there must be also true interpretations and also false interpretations, which are heretical. I admit Word is good and well designed by Lord for people to interpret it for themselves to give them solutions for life, but concerning broader scale (as whole Logos, not Rhema), it cannot have many correct interpretations, rather only one that will be real, that it WILL happen - especially in prophecies on Revelation. Or maybe two - one for Israel and one for Church and then global for all the world living without and against God - which means, condemnation |
|
|
|
Post by John on May 25, 2009 9:47:59 GMT -5
well, the bible has 4 possible interpretations for every word (PaRDeS)- but none of the interpretations can contradict the p'sat (historical grammatical, plain meaning of the text).
and yes there are heretical interpretations, and false interpretations. but sometimes it is better for that person to let Yah chastise them, instead of doing it ourself. and personally,m if they have an interpreation and are not teaching it than there is no danger to anyone else and you REALLY need to just let Yah handle it.
shalom- john
|
|
Jonatan
B'nai Elohim
BLUE
Posts: 260
|
Post by Jonatan on Jun 15, 2009 7:08:31 GMT -5
Well, super! Now I had more time to understand it and I enjoy it. Just Jewish theological system - it resembles even evangelical-pentecostal theological system - as you mentioned LOGOS and RHEMA (Peshat and Remez + Midrash). Ok - and the SOD addition. One note on your first post. I marked one place as Jeordin usually do. another interesting thing is the gospels parrallel to the hermeneutical meaings: Mark is P'shat, Mattityahu is drash, luke is remez, and Yochanon is Sod. This can solve the synoptic problem (look it up). hope you enjoyed the information; tell me what you think about it!! shalom- john Didn't you make a mistake? Shouldn't be Matthew rather Peshat and Mark - midrash? You know, Mark is only a brief essay on the gospel - the most shortened, fast-readable version, where Matthew deals more with history, plus refers to the prophets. If Peshat is historical, literal meaning (or broad LOGOS) and Midrash RHEMA for our period we live in, shouldn't it be corrected? Maybe you wanted to write it this way. |
|
|
|
Post by John on Jun 15, 2009 17:00:55 GMT -5
mark is very literal in what he says.... matthew on the other hand gives scriptures that can only be applied through personal meanings- midrash. luke makes many hints and Yochanon is on the sod.
i did not make a mistake. i do believe that... but i could be mistaken in my beliefs.
the logos is the scripture itself. i never applied or meant to apply it to the level of peshat. but the Rhema word is a personal word recieved from the holy spirit working thorugh scripture, which i applied to the midrash.
plus, you have a tendency to make things into ages or time periods. you are very close to a dispensationalist. i dont apply things to times and ages. we shouldnt rely solely on the rhema. the word is a double edged sword, but we need both edges (Rhama and Logos). so we are not living in the time period of rhema, because we need logos along with rhema. and rhema is not a time period, it is a concept.
did i help at all? i love this subject and just hope that i clarified thihgs a bit for you.
shal0om- john
|
|
Jonatan
B'nai Elohim
BLUE
Posts: 260
|
Post by Jonatan on Jun 16, 2009 8:53:13 GMT -5
Yeah, quite fair and fine. thnx!
If you think I am more into Rhema, then I'd like to say I am more concerned with the broad Logos - Eschatology, which I am maybe concerned most, more applies to Logos than Rhema.
I'd say Eschatology contains Peshat most - historical, grammatical, literal - but into future. It is not Midrash, not Rhema! (If Prophets can be concerned as futuristic Peshat that hasn't been fulfilled yet)
Next thing I'd like to ask you: What is the difference between Remez and Midrash? They both sound like it has some personal meaning for us and thus could be compared with Rhema. Now, however, there's a problem - as far as I know, evangelical-pentecostal hermeneutics have the Logos and Rhema levels - I don't yet know about any more - SO TWO LEVELS, while in Jewish - RHEMA is split into REMEZ and MIDRASH. There must be some difference between them.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Jun 16, 2009 14:47:58 GMT -5
the remez is a hint that the author himself makes, or Yah through the auther makes. these hints are like the sacrifices that yah gave to Mosheh. Yah put a remez into them so that the remez meaning would be Yeshua is our sacrifice. however, a midrash is our own personal application f a verse (pasuk).
for example, i can look at Hagar and Sarah. i can apply those to the two part avrahamic cov't: one to Avrahams literal seeds, the seed of flesh, and one to his seed (yeshua) who make the cov't of sinai one of freedom, not bondage like those of the flesh. (gal 3) however, this is not the literal meaning of that historical account, nor is it hinted at. it is a pure allegory, or midrash.
i hope i explained.... john
|
|
Jonatan
B'nai Elohim
BLUE
Posts: 260
|
Post by Jonatan on Jun 17, 2009 9:51:38 GMT -5
So Remez can be also literal (or hint) - it is valid for us even in presence - can be the commandments REMEZ? Today the same as it was in that time. It is, yeah, PESHAT - because it happened in times of Moses, but we are obliged to keep it, so REMEZ for us today?
And yeah, REMEZ are prototypes? - animal sacrifices = perfect Yeshua's sacrifice, crossing the red sea = baptism, Old Babylon (historical Babylon) = new Babylon (Rome)... ?
And MIDRASH... Anyone can have different Midrashes, right?
For example:
44 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid; and for joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. (Matthew 13:44)
One would interpret it that: Lord(the man) treat all mankind as the treasure(he found and hid) and therefore he sent His only Son (sells all that he has) to do the perfect sacrifice (buys that field) to gain the treasure (saved mankind)
while someone (as me) would interpret it also that: Someone who is a sinner(the man) has heard the gospel(found the treasure and hid), but he/she must put to death sinful nature and confess sins(sells all that he has) and then recieve a new, everlasting life in Yeshua(buys that field)
Can this be MIDRASH?
And yeah, what about Eschatology - literal meanings or particular parts of prophets or the Revelation that must be fulfilled one day? Can it be PESHAT? Is that literal meaning PESHAT even if it's not in history, but it waits to be fulfilled?
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Jun 27, 2009 11:14:42 GMT -5
i think that you are making this more complicated than it needs to be;
a remez is either a hint that YAH made or the WRITER made in the text. the sacrifices ARE remezim because YAH gave them so that they would hint at the death and even resurection of Yeshua.
a MIDRASH would be applying a meaning to a verse that was not the strictest meaning intended by the author or Yah. for example, 1 peter 3:15 says this:
"always be ready to give an answer to everyone who askes you to give the reason for the hope that you have."
now, this was probably meant by peter to give a THEOLOGICAL answer. however, a scientist or apologist like Josh McDowell or Henry Morris can apply this verse to proving the bile as a whole scientifically, or proving the ressurection through legal and documented proof.
shalom- john
|
|
Jonatan
B'nai Elohim
BLUE
Posts: 260
|
Post by Jonatan on Jun 29, 2009 4:40:41 GMT -5
PESHAT = history
REMEZ = prototypes derived from Peshat applicable for today
MIDRASH = individual interpretation of some verse or parable
SOD = going into hidden sense, something like decoding the mark of the Beast
seems ok?
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Jun 29, 2009 12:06:55 GMT -5
pretty much. great definitions
i think you got remez right, but i just want to clarify:
REMEZ: spiritual meanings hinted at by the peshat.
shalom- john
|
|
Jonatan
B'nai Elohim
BLUE
Posts: 260
|
Post by Jonatan on Jul 15, 2009 10:20:03 GMT -5
I'll support these terms by hebrew dictionary, for those who don't know WHY is it called such.
PESHAT - or every word that is PSHT (Pey-shin-teth) פשט - (biblical commentary) simple explanation ; literal meaning, (it means even "literalness", or "to simplify", "to be simplified")
REMEZ - or every word that is RMZ (Resh-mem-zayin) רמז - hint, clue ; indication, to hint, to imply ; to indicate, to hint
MIDRASH / DRASH - derived from DRSH (Daleth-resh-shin) דרש - to demand ; to require, to need ; to seek, to search for ; (biblical) to seek higher guidance, to turn to powerful forces, to interpret in a homiletic manner ; to sermonize, to preach, homiletic interpretation of the Bible ; homiletic exegesis
SOD - (Samekh-vav-daleth) סוד - secret
For everyone to know - that every thing is named for something - nothing has its name just to have it - and this is very good where we can apply this method with hebrew biblical names for our sermons.
I'll give an example - the prophet Eliyahu has such name because his name means: YHWH is my God! - do you marvel why such name? I do not - his mission was to show Yisrael the One True God YHWH and to return them to Him. If you have some people to preach them - and you have the mission to return them to Lord, then Eliyahu is possibly the best allusion you may fetch from the Scripture.
Or one of the judges - "Barak" means 'storm' (or lightning), "Deborah" (hebr. "D'vorah") - means 'bee', "Abimelekh" = My father (is) king.
These names are useful and that's why it's quite essential to study hebrew to apply it for yourself and for the plan YHWH has for you.
Now, a question - is this method Remez, Midrash or Sod? Yeah, if we apply it to our sermon, when we preach the Word, it should be Drash. But yeah, there's hebrew name that carries some spiritual information. I hope you understand me. It this combination of Midrash and Remez or Sod?
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 21, 2009 21:23:08 GMT -5
names are literally just something to call you buy. they have no mystic meaning. however, a hint that the name gives is what your mission on earth is to be.
this would be remez. not drash at all, simply because the person who named eliyahu intended that message to be conveyed.
thank you Jonatan... that post was a great addition to this thread.
shalom
john
|
|
;D
Well, I know, now you are catching me on my statements, because I've condemned allegory and promoted literal meaning too much. I know that true christians/messianics mean it different way and that both literal, allegorical and symbolical senses take place in Bible.