Teaser

Teaser [∞]

Discussion

Teaser - Notarikon [∞] CAT has nothing to do with CATastrophe. The ground hadamah האדמה. Adam = אדם where ם is the same letter as מ but written in final form (like our capitals but at the end of a word). Spirit ah (hovering on the face of the waters) = א Blood dam דם. Blood dam Commandment ד finished by the son ם
Teaser - Ancient Hebrew [∞] I am not referring to Paleo-Hebrew , but to the square text. Paleo-Hebrew does not possess the characteristics that will be demonstrated in the square text. It used to be believed that the Hebrew square test was the language of God. But modern theologians and "scholars" who are hostile to God have persuaded many that the Hebrews wrote their most sacred texts in the language of their enemies while in captivity. This is utter nonsense on it's face.
Teaser - Natural catechism [∞] God spoke and created the heavens and the earth א. He revealed to man ב.. that he pursued them ג with a .. command ד .. which they did not understand ה .. and it distinguished them ו .. as the bride ז... When they understood ח .. through the marriage ט .. they became a new creation י. The Son of God כ .. taught ל.. the promise of the Father מ. .. The Son of Man נ .. fulfilled the promise ס ... by becoming flesh ע. .. He spoke in parables and riddles פ. .. He exchanged his righteousness for our sin צ. .. The Son of God died and rose again ק.. revealing ר.. that his word returns with an increase ש. His completed work is your new life ת. The Son of God died ך... and finished his declared works ם. .. The Son of Man died and was restored to glory ן. .. All prophecy was completed ף. .. Judgement was ended ץ. .. We became co-heirs with Christ (four-pronged shin ש ).
Prominent Evangelical Scholars and theologians confess they cannot read the Bible
Sensus plenior debates [∞] Discussion In the last century prominent Theologians and scholars debated sensus plenior. They concluded that they could not read the OT the way Jesus and the apostles did. "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?" - RESEARCH PAPER “The Use of the Old Testament in the New”, David Niblack, BI-422 A. Schmutzer – February 17, 2005.
Misguided conclusions
Reading the Bible like Jesus did