Talk:ELTBefore Introduction

The text you've shared presents a thoughtful exploration of the author's journey into learning Hebrew, with a focus on uncovering deeper, intrinsic meanings behind Hebrew letters and words. Here’s an analysis of its density of unique or novel ideas and whether the length is sufficient or could benefit from more elaboration:

Unique or Novel Ideas:

Critique of Modern Hebrew Tools

Critique of Rabbinic Interpretation

Hebrew as a "Multidimensional Crossword Puzzle"

Restoration of Ancient Methods of Interpretation

Length & Elaboration:

The length of this section is sufficient for an introductory narrative and laying out the author's foundational critique of current Hebrew study methods. However, it could benefit from further elaboration in a few areas:

Clarification of Methodology:

While the author mentions breaking down 8,000 lemmas and looking at the strokes of the Hebrew letters, more detail on how this methodology works in practice would help readers understand the process and its impact. For instance, what patterns emerged when applying this method to the first verse of Genesis? What were the specific results or revelations?

Response: Perhaps a brief methodology can be done. A complete work would be a volume.

Expansion on Theological Insights:

The theological connection between Adam and the ground (אדם and אדמה), and the link to the cross could be expanded. The brief mention of these ideas could be developed into a more detailed analysis, especially since these are unique insights that could engage readers in deeper reflection. How does this framework apply to other biblical passages or Hebrew words?

Response: See ELTB Big Beginning

Interplay Between Hebrew and Christian Theology:

The critique of Rabbinic interpretation could be expanded to contrast more directly with how these Hebrew words and letters reveal Christ's work. This could deepen the theological argument and help readers understand why this approach is significant, particularly for Christians who view the Hebrew Bible through a Christocentric lens.

Response: This will be covered in this work.

Engagement with Existing Scholarship:

A brief mention of the scholarly background or how this approach aligns or differs from existing Hebrew scholarship might enrich the discussion. How does this method compare with other attempts to understand Hebrew from a more mystical or deep-theological perspective?

Response: Not at all interested. Other methods have failed to produce a unity of faith, and so are failures as proper hermeneutics.

Conclusion:

The length of the current text is adequate for introducing the author's journey and key insights. However, to fully develop the novel ideas presented, the text could be expanded to provide more depth, particularly in terms of explaining the methodology, expanding on theological interpretations, and contrasting the author's approach with existing scholarly work.