Miscellaneous objections

From idontknownuthin

1. We must be diligent to rightly divide the Word of truth (II Timothy 2:15).

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

Ac 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

2. A child can understand and know the Scriptures (II Timothy 3:14-17). The kind of "shadows" that have been discussed in this thread are unlikely to be the kind of thing a child would just pick up on.

The experience in our fellowship contradicts this.

The skills required are the same as making fourth grade humor. The only caveat is that we don't speak the language, which makes it difficult for English speaking children to pick up on many of them. But they certainly can understand at the schematic layer.

3. The truths of Scripture can be understood by those who are spiritual babes (I Peter 2:2), and they can grow by it. The type of "message" described in the story of Tamar is not one that spiritual babes would discern.

The author of Hebrews calls the shadow of Melchizadek the meat of the gospel.

God chastises those who would remain simple in their understanding:

Pr 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

Spiritual babes would not have found the shadow of Melchizadek, nor even the type of the rock without explicit teaching.

4. In general, this kind of approach exalts the teacher, rather than the Word, because the general response will be, "Oh, I never saw that before. He's a wonderful teacher." This is not consistent with I John 2:27, I Corinthians 1:26-27, Matthew 11:25, etc.

So presumably teachers should only teach things that make them look stupid or which the students already know?

This teaching exalts God and always points to Him.

5. If you are talking about divine and human authorship, the premise is flawed. The whole point of inspiration is that the human authors would say what God said, not that they would say two different things.

In order for God to produce a double entendre in the words of the human author unbeknownst to the human author, God would have to direct every jot and tittle the human author wrote.

6. Aside from intentional double entendre, words only have one meaning in one and the same context.

OK, let's take this slow... I am claiming double entendre.

7. Me:Er and Adam could both be said to have been killed by God. Objection: Not in the same way. Er was killed prematurely by God; Adam lived presumably to a natural death.

This objection calls God a liar when he said that Adam would die the day he ate the fruit.

8. A shadow is caused by light behind an object being prevented from passing through it. As such, a shadow reproduces only what is there. It does not create things that are not already there. Furthermore, a shadow reproduces exactly what is there.

Doesn't require a response.

9. This isn't really a shadow since it's clearly spelled out that Adam way a type of Christ in Romans 5:14 and 1 Cor. 15.

Shadows and type are just words we use to describe similar phenomenon. We use the word 'type' for shadows which meet the definition of the current high priesthood. I use shadow to not step on their toes for the ones I am pointing out.

10. Ok...so your problem is that you have basically asserted that you believe your correlations are divine revelation and I have no way to demonstrate the validity of falsity of your claim because your methodology and rules are sufficiently flexible as to allow any fanciful correlation to be made.

Divine revelation? The claim is reproducible exegesis. Rules that can be learned and practiced by any one. Prove your assertion that any fanciful correlation can be made. Take the story of Tamar and tell us about Paul Bunyan keeping within the 32 rules of Rabbi Eliezer.

11. FWIW, observing that what you are doing is "Creative Correlation" is not the same thing as saying they are valid. You would have to demonstrate that they are actually intended by God BEFORE we even need to bother talking about the meaning of them.

See my Old Main Page. This is exactly why I am trying to enter into rational discussion about it. So far not a single detractor has suggested a test for double entendre. Bob Hope should pass it and probably Mother Theresa wouldn't.

12. The problem I see is equivocation. You say "first" and "second" but don't even apply a consistent set of parameters. For some you mean firstborn and second born, but Judah was the 4th son of his mother, and Solomon was way down on the list. So, you invent some other way that they can be "first" or "second." This is simply a combination of equivocation and selection bias. You think you see a pattern, then you fudge to make things fit.

The problem is that you do not know how to identify and solve riddles, or that you deny that God speaks in riddles. Also you have not understood the rules or you would understand that they are more restrictive than those found in the literal-historical methodologies. Riddles do not play by the same rules as Greek logic.

13. this appears to be some sort of a verbal numerology.

Not once you do it yourself and see where the extra meaning comes from.

14. This looks like Kaballah.

Then you have never looked at Kaballah. You will never find Christ glorified in Kaballah.

15. 'Single-intent' is founded in two presuppositions: God has spoken and He expects us to respond rightly to His revelation. Thus, He chose to use language and expects man to act upon the plain meaning of His words. So we can at least take the plainest and most obvious parts of Scripture and be assured that we can understand what God has spoken.

And we don't find people in both the Calvinist and Wesleyan camps.... right. No room for disagreement there.

16. IF we accept this "new" hermeneutic, what do we gain? The theology of the "shadows" must reflect the literal theology. The literal theology is already spelled out plainly. So, while interesting, I don't see what new information will be gained. I understand that the "shadows" reflect Christ, but the NT reveals Him plainly, so . . . well, I hope my question is clear.

This is a classic Pharisee trap. Both answers are wrong. If it has nothing new, then why read it. If it has something new, then it is dangerous. First determine if it is real, and if it is then see what God has to say.

17. There is nothing harmless about it, and Hermeneutics is a foundational issue not something that can be tweaked with casually or without grave consequences. Some of what Bob has proposed, even in this thread, will lead us to conclude that Jesus and the Father are the same person.

Inventing trouble here. Search this site and see if there is any suggestion of that. How can someone claim that I am promoting a doctrinal conclusion when the whole site is presented as an observation that requires validation at several levels.

18. I am not sure how that is relevant, but if you have ever seen a bunny, you know that shadows from fingers may resemble a bunny in some way, but they certainly don't look like a rabbit to any but the most naive of observers, do they? Isn't it well know that finger shadows are just that ... shadows of fingers? I think children are impressed by that, and that's great. But mature adults know exactly what is there, I think.

This is how it is relevant, if you have ever seen Christ, you know that shadows from the law may resemble Christ in some way, but they certainly don't look like Christ to any but [those who are child-like], do they? Isn't it well known that shadows in the law are just that... shadows of the law? I think children are impressed by that, and that's great. But mature adults know exactly what is there, I think.

Point made. Thanks Larry.