Does Scripture Wear Clothes?

1,089 Views | 21 Replies | Last: 11 hrs ago by codker92
codker92
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:47p, 9/23/26
AG
To know God all you must do is open your eyes. Uncover my eyes that I may see wondrous things from your law. Psalm 119:18. This conceals a hidden truth which reveals God's form. The meaning of scripture is not what any man makes of it. But the meaning of scripture may change without changing any word of scripture. God's scripture itself may move, and the meaning changes, though the words and letters are the same.

Noone has seen God at any time. John 1:18 Noone has seen God, because no man can see him and live. Exodus 33:20. But if we cannot see God, then how can we know he exists? You must have light to see him. To have light, you must open your eyes to expose them to the light.

God's law teaches his commandments are a lamp and his law is a light. Proverbs 6:23. God wraps himself in light which is his garment. Psalm 104:2. God's law is light and light is his garment. God's law is his garment. Though God cannot be seen by man, his law, his garment is visible. A garment does not merely conceal, it may also reveal the form beneath it.

A parable or [url=https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4912.htm][/url] in hebrew is ha-mashal in english. Psalm 104:2 A garment or [url=https://biblehub.com/hebrew/8008.htm][/url] in hebrew is salmah. The same four hebrew letters appear in both garment and parable. Therefore when the garment moves it becomes a parable. God's law is a garment and when it moves it makes a parable. The same four hebrew letters that make garment are also found in the word parable in Psalm 78:2.

God's law, as clothing can both conceal and reveal what is communicates. When God's garment, his law moves, the movement is not an obstacle to overcome, but the form which God reveals meaning to us. When the Psalmist asks for uncovered eyes, might the goal be not to reduce the wonders of God's Law to a single meaning but to recognize more fully that scripture may have more than one meaning without changing it? Does the fact that scripture has a multitude of interpretations for a single passage make it more wonderous?

Reply Quote
CrackerJackAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:09a, 9/24/26
AG
Clothing now… Heaven and Earth on another, people breathing fire on the first.

You could've just listened to the whole series of whatever it is that you're listening to first and just made one post or amended the first with further discussion to the point you're trying to make.

It's too difficult on this forum to wrangle one post in any type of straight line much less three different conversations that are essentially the exact same thing.


I'm not a smart man and this just came across as a lot of rambling to me and I was having a really hard time understanding.

I had to go pop this into Gemini to understand what this is even about.

Geminis words not mine.

Prompt with screen shots of posts: "I don't understand what it is that this person is trying to say. I understand the concepts, but I don't understand the point he is trying to make. Please explain it to me."

Answer:

He is rambling because he is trying to reinvent the wheel of Jewish Rabbinic hermeneutics and mystical Kabbalah to defend an extreme Protestant view of Sola Scriptura, and the two systems completely contradict each other.


1. What He Is Actually Saying (Translating the Jargon)
* He is trying to defeat Catholic/Orthodox Holy Tradition: In the second screenshot, he attacks Catholic Catechism Paragraph 82 (which states the Church does not derive certainty from Scripture alone) and St. John Henry Newman's development of doctrine.
* His Core Claim: He argues that all possible truth God has ever spoken or will ever speak is strictly trapped inside the written words of the Bible. To him, if tradition is true, it must already be physically encoded inside the text.
* His Weird Wordplay (The Third Screenshot): In the third screenshot, he borrows a classic Kabbalistic/Midrashic technique (anagrams and root-letter games):
* He points out that the Hebrew word for parable/proverb (mashal, --) and the Hebrew word for garment/cloak (salmah, ---) share consonant root letters.
* From this wordplay, he spins a poetic theory: the written Law is God's "garment". When the garment "moves," the meaning changes and reveals new parables.
* Therefore, he thinks the text itself has infinitely shifting meanings without needing an external Church authority or living Tradition to interpret it.


2. Why His Logic Completely Collapses
* Historical Absurdity (The Church Preceded the New Testament):
The Christian Church existed, worshipped, celebrated the Eucharist, and baptized thousands for decades before a single word of the New Testament was written down, and for over three centuries before the 27-book canon was formally settled by Church councils. How was certainty derived when the letters didn't exist yet? Christ did not hand the Apostles a leather-bound book; He established a living Bodythe Church.
* He Confuses the Logos (Christ) with the Printed Page:
In his first post, he quotes verses about God's word creating the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1, Psalm 33:6). But in Christian theology, the Word that created the universe is Jesus Christ (John 1:13), not ink on parchment. By equating the eternal Logos with the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, he commits functional bibliolatry.
* The Irony of His Hebrew Wordplay:
He claims all truth is strictly in Scripture alone, but to prove his point, he has to rely on mystical Jewish rabbinic methods (the Pardes and Midrashic word scrambles) that are nowhere taught in the New Testament. He is literally inventing an unbiblical, private oral tradition to argue that there is no oral tradition outside the text.
* Shifting Meaning = Subjective Chaos:
He claims that "the meaning of scripture may change without changing any word". If the meaning of Scripture shifts and moves like fabric, without the living apostolic consensus (phronema) of the Church, then the Episcopal priestess in your other thread is fully justified in claiming Jesus was trans. He has accidentally argued himself straight into post-modern relativism.

>
Reply Quote
3
3 edits
codker92
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CrackerJackAg • 11:38a, 9/24/26
AG
CrackerJackAg said:
Clothing now… Heaven and Earth on another, people breathing fire on the first.

You could've just listened to the whole series of whatever it is that you're listening to first and just made one post or amended the first with further discussion to the point you're trying to make.

It's too difficult on this forum to wrangle one post in any type of straight line much less three different conversations that are essentially the exact same thing.


I'm not a smart man and this just came across as a lot of rambling to me and I was having a really hard time understanding.

I had to go pop this into Gemini to understand what this is even about.

Geminis words not mine.

Prompt with screen shots of posts: "I don't understand what it is that this person is trying to say. I understand the concepts, but I don't understand the point he is trying to make. Please explain it to me."

Answer:

He is rambling because he is trying to reinvent the wheel of Jewish Rabbinic hermeneutics and mystical Kabbalah to defend an extreme Protestant view of Sola Scriptura, and the two systems completely contradict each other.


1. What He Is Actually Saying (Translating the Jargon)
* He is trying to defeat Catholic/Orthodox Holy Tradition: In the second screenshot, he attacks Catholic Catechism Paragraph 82 (which states the Church does not derive certainty from Scripture alone) and St. John Henry Newman's development of doctrine.
* His Core Claim: He argues that all possible truth God has ever spoken or will ever speak is strictly trapped inside the written words of the Bible. To him, if tradition is true, it must already be physically encoded inside the text.
* His Weird Wordplay (The Third Screenshot): In the third screenshot, he borrows a classic Kabbalistic/Midrashic technique (anagrams and root-letter games):
* He points out that the Hebrew word for parable/proverb (mashal, --) and the Hebrew word for garment/cloak (salmah, ---) share consonant root letters.
* From this wordplay, he spins a poetic theory: the written Law is God's "garment". When the garment "moves," the meaning changes and reveals new parables.
* Therefore, he thinks the text itself has infinitely shifting meanings without needing an external Church authority or living Tradition to interpret it.


2. Why His Logic Completely Collapses
* Historical Absurdity (The Church Preceded the New Testament):
The Christian Church existed, worshipped, celebrated the Eucharist, and baptized thousands for decades before a single word of the New Testament was written down, and for over three centuries before the 27-book canon was formally settled by Church councils. How was certainty derived when the letters didn't exist yet? Christ did not hand the Apostles a leather-bound book; He established a living Bodythe Church.
* He Confuses the Logos (Christ) with the Printed Page:
In his first post, he quotes verses about God's word creating the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1, Psalm 33:6). But in Christian theology, the Word that created the universe is Jesus Christ (John 1:13), not ink on parchment. By equating the eternal Logos with the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, he commits functional bibliolatry.
* The Irony of His Hebrew Wordplay:
He claims all truth is strictly in Scripture alone, but to prove his point, he has to rely on mystical Jewish rabbinic methods (the Pardes and Midrashic word scrambles) that are nowhere taught in the New Testament. He is literally inventing an unbiblical, private oral tradition to argue that there is no oral tradition outside the text.
* Shifting Meaning = Subjective Chaos:
He claims that "the meaning of scripture may change without changing any word". If the meaning of Scripture shifts and moves like fabric, without the living apostolic consensus (phronema) of the Church, then the Episcopal priestess in your other thread is fully justified in claiming Jesus was trans. He has accidentally argued himself straight into post-modern relativism.

>


I don't actually subscribe to Sola Scriptura. Latin is a dead language friend. I don't subscribe to Protestantism. I don't subsribe to Kabbalah, what ever that is. Your reliance on Gemini has expanded my post farther than what I actually said. I never argued the church didn't exist before the new testament and never argued that Christians cannot transmit oral traditions and I never made any claim about dead languages Sola Scriptura. We speak English now friend.

My post merely concerns whether the same scriptural text may contain more than one true meaning without the text changing. And it does its called Polysemy. Polysemy is more than one correct meaning. That is different from relativism. Polysemy means there are multiple firm meanings, some of which may not already be revealed. Maybe you shouldn't use artificial intelligence, it is apparently hallucinating the shifting meanings bit.

In my first post I did not say God's word created the heavens and the earth. I said God created the heaven's and the earth. You are adding words to the text and to what I said. Genesis does not say God's word made the heaven's and the earth. God used his law (or word if you will) like a tool to create the heavens and the earth. That is why Psalms 33:6 says by his word he made the heavens and the earth. There is a distinction. God's word alone did not create the heavens and the earth, God using his word did.

I have not said truth is in scripture alone. But God's law is literally truth. Psalm 119:42. The meaning of scripture literally does change when the context of the word is changed, just as the meaning of any word changes depending on the context. For example, what is a bank? It can be a financial institution, a physical building where the financial institution offers services, a deposit of money at an account, a supply of something held in reserve, or a synonym for "rely on'. There are probably others. None of them are wrong.


Reply Quote
CrackerJackAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:40a, 9/24/26
AG
That's cool. I just didn't understand what you were possibly trying to say and I still don't so I'm just gonna lay low on this one.
Reply Quote
3
codker92
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CrackerJackAg • 11:57a, 9/24/26
AG
CrackerJackAg said:
That's cool. I just didn't understand what you were possibly trying to say and I still don't so I'm just gonna lay low on this one.

I said that scripture has multiple meanings and the meanings change depending on the context. Its not hard to understand. It is very simple. There is an interpretation that fits your verse about John 1:1 where the word was in the beginning. The word was held inside the beginning. Christ himself said he is the beginning. Therefore, the word was inside Christ's mouth. God created the word and placed it in Christ's mouth. Christ spoke the word, and that word was Elohim. Christ yelled out to God calling his name; because Christ says he is Wisdom and Proverbs says Wisdom cries out. Christ yelled Elohim because the word that came from God's mouth was God, which in Hebrew is Elohim. Christ yelled out to God and God turned on the lights and created the heavens and the earth so Christ, would have a place away from the darkness. Indeed, this very fact is why the evil one asked Jesus to cry out when testing him in the wildereness. The evil one was hoping Christ would cry out so God would create another heavens and earth he could infect and escape to.
Reply Quote
CrackerJackAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to codker92 • 11:58a, 9/24/26
CrackerJackAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:18p, 9/24/26
AG
I'm not being rude.

I just don't understand the thought process. That may be me and you're just getting into a deeper and maybe fun understanding of something I just don't see.

Reply Quote
1
codker92
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CrackerJackAg • 6:18p, 9/24/26
AG
CrackerJackAg said:
I'm not being rude.

I just don't understand the thought process. That may be me and you're just getting into a deeper and maybe fun understanding of something I just don't see.


Ok let me break it down for you.

John 1:1 says "the Word" was "in the beginning." Christ refers to himself as "the beginning". So if Christ is correct that he is the beginning, and the Word is in the beginning, and the beginning is in Genesis 1:1, there is a word in Christ in Genesis 1:1. When someone speaks, the air to make the word comes from within them. Therefore, a Word in Christ means he is saying something in Genesis 1:1. Christ was only able to speak the Word with God. God places his words in people's mouth. Duet 18:18; Jesus says the Father commanded him was to say and speak.. John 12:49. This shows the Word in Christ's mouth was there With God.

John also says the Word "was God". this could mean that the word was literally God and another God proceeding to climb out of Christ's mouth. That is not what I am saying. When John says the Word "was God" it means that the Word in Christ that Christ spoke was God. The Word that Christ was spoke was God, precisely. Christ said the word God, which is in hebrew Elohim. We know this because Christ is called the "wisdom of God". 1 Cor. 1:24. Proverbs describes Wisdom as crying out. Proverbs 1:20; 8:1 and places Wisdom with God in creation. Proverbs 8:22-30.

So this is the word from God. The Word placed in Christ (the beginning) and Christ (Wisdom) speaks the word as a cry: ELOHIM. God heard Christ call out for him and turned on the lights and created the heavens and earth. See Genesis 1 generally. John just saw these ideas and completed the equation for you. John 1:1.

When the accuser tempts Jesus in the wilderness he calls upon Christ. Satan calls on Christ to throw himself from the temple to escape satan's torture and temptation. Satan quotes Psalm 91:11-12. But as we all know, Satan always stops short and deceives. Satan stopped short of Psalm 91:15 which says " He will call on me and I will answer him". In order for God to send his angels, Psalm 91:15 says Christ must call out. So the Accuser wanted Christ to call out, because if Christ called out for help God would surely help him and create a new heaven and earth for him just as he did in Genesis. Satan wishes to exploit this to corrupt another heaven and earth.
Reply Quote
1 edit
powerbelly
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CrackerJackAg • 6:49p, 9/25/26
AG
CrackerJackAg said:
I'm not being rude.

I just don't understand the thought process. That may be me and you're just getting into a deeper and maybe fun understanding of something I just don't see.



It's not you.
Reply Quote
8
codker92
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to powerbelly • 10:41p, 9/25/26
AG
powerbelly said:
CrackerJackAg said:
I'm not being rude.

I just don't understand the thought process. That may be me and you're just getting into a deeper and maybe fun understanding of something I just don't see.



It's not you.


You don't have to agree the wordplay carries theological significance. I am just showing that even without changing a single word the text has different meanings. Do you think the text can only have one meaning? Can a word have only one meaning? When someone puts on clothes doesn't that reveal they are human and conceal what is beneath?
Reply Quote
codker92
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to codker92 • 2:30p, 9/27/26
AG
codker92 said:
powerbelly said:
CrackerJackAg said:
I'm not being rude.

I just don't understand the thought process. That may be me and you're just getting into a deeper and maybe fun understanding of something I just don't see.



It's not you.


You don't have to agree the wordplay carries theological significance. I am just showing that even without changing a single word the text has different meanings. Do you think the text can only have one meaning? Can a word have only one meaning? When someone puts on clothes doesn't that reveal they are human and conceal what is beneath?

Reply Quote
codker92
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to powerbelly • 11:56a, 10/1/26
AG
powerbelly said:
CrackerJackAg said:
I'm not being rude.

I just don't understand the thought process. That may be me and you're just getting into a deeper and maybe fun understanding of something I just don't see.



It's not you.

God's temple is created in silence.
Reply Quote
TXAG 05
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:42a, 10/5/26
AG
What does "wear clothes" mean. I am not familiar with this term.
Reply Quote
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:21a, 10/5/26
AG
Quote:
The same four hebrew letters appear in both garment and parable. Therefore when the garment moves it becomes a parable. God's law is a garment and when it moves it makes a parable.

I find it amusing that this logical leap is just accepted unquestioningly in your argument. So if two words share the same letters something said be one is actually both? Is that true in just this one specific case because it helps your argument or can we just assume it to be true anywhere we find it?
Reply Quote
1
codker92
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAG 05 • 9:41p, 10/5/26
AG
TXAG 05 said:
What does "wear clothes" mean. I am not familiar with this term.

The title Does Scripture Wear Clothes is basically asking whether the literal narrative of the scripture can function a "clothing" in that is reveals something, i.e. that someone is human or human like and conceals what is beneath the clothing. Its just a metaphor because God's law says his law is light, and God wears like a garment. So if A = B and B = C then A =C.
Reply Quote
codker92
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 10:30p, 10/6/26
AG
Rocag said:
Quote:
The same four hebrew letters appear in both garment and parable. Therefore when the garment moves it becomes a parable. God's law is a garment and when it moves it makes a parable.

I find it amusing that this logical leap is just accepted unquestioningly in your argument. So if two words share the same letters something said be one is actually both? Is that true in just this one specific case because it helps your argument or can we just assume it to be true anywhere we find it?

Well obviously not, because not every word can move. Garment can move because garments move when the person wearing them moves. Sometimes, a same word can actually conceal a hidden meaning. For example, God's law reveals another name for God is "Who". The english equivalent letters are MI. If you reverse the letters to make IM, it makes the Hebrew word for sea. So God in reverse is sea or the opposite of God is sea. This is why there is no sea in the new heavens and the earth.

I am having trouble finding something that does not move. Just about anything can move so I would imagine the general rule is that you should be aware of the possibility of word play or movement in the words you are reading for concealed meanings. That is not to say that the literal meaning of the text on its face does not have value. I just find it more interesting to search out the concealed meanings.

Perhaps an interesting argument to make is the hebrew word ET which is essentially the first letter of the hebrew alpha bet and the last letter of the hebrew alpha bet next to each other. English equivalent is AZ. I don't believe that moves any where. So maybe you could make an argument that Christ is everlasting or God's angel is everlasting?
Reply Quote
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to codker92 • 8:15a, 10/7/26
AG
What you're doing is basically the equivalent of looking at clouds and identifying familiar shapes and patterns and then attributing meaning to that. But it's nonsense and you could use this type of logic to argue for literally anything. That your immediate defense is "Well garments can move when worn" as if that makes any kind of sense at all just further shows how devoid of any type of consistent reasoning your entire viewpoint is.

I had a bottle of Tums on my desk, but maybe I should throw it away because Tums is smut backwards! I just realized "race car" backwards is "race car", surely this has some profound meaning because race cars can MOVE! They have speed but speed backwards is "deeps" and that sounds ominous. What does it all mean?!
Reply Quote
1 edit
codker92
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 8:36a, 10/7/26
AG
Rocag said:
What you're doing is basically the equivalent of looking at clouds and identifying familiar shapes and patterns and then attributing meaning to that. But it's nonsense and you could use this type of logic to argue for literally anything. That your immediate defense is "Well garments can move when worn" as if that makes any kind of sense at just further shows how devoid of any type of consistent reasoning your entire viewpoint is.

I had a bottle of Tums on my desk, but maybe I should throw it away because Tums is smut backwards! I just realized "race car" backwards is "race car", surely this has some profound meaning because race cars can MOVE! They have speed but speed backwards is "deeps" and that sounds ominous. What does it all mean?!

I don't think I would categorize my statements that garments move when worn as a defense as more of a factual assertion. If you don't want to accept the interpretation that is up to you. But saying the technique can be used to argue for literally anything misses the point. I am applying a creative interpretive technique and asking whether the result is illuminating.

I am not looking at clouds, I am looking at letters on a page. They are different. Do you really think the authors of the bible wrote it to have only a superficial plain meaning? Are the pagan poets, who are capable writing works with multiple meanings better than God's writers? I don't think so. God clearly inspired his writers to prepare a work with a multitude of correct meanings.

I don't think this means a plain meaning goes out the window, but like clothing which is worn in layers, God's law has layers and multiple meanings, depending on the context.

Reply Quote
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to codker92 • 8:45a, 10/7/26
AG
And what I am saying is that you could take literally any lengthy text and use this method of finding hidden clues to argue it supports any belief you could ever come up with. With so many words and letters there are a countless number of possible combinations and interpretations to be found. It's just too messy. There is no consistent way to separate out meaning (assuming there is any at all) from background noise, you're just using your own feelings to do so.
Reply Quote
codker92
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 9:54a, 10/7/26
AG
Rocag said:
And what I am saying is that you could take literally any lengthy text and use this method of finding hidden clues to argue it supports any belief you could ever come up with. With so many words and letters there are a countless number of possible combinations and interpretations to be found. It's just too messy. There is no consistent way to separate out meaning (assuming there is any at all) from background noise, you're just using your own feelings to do so.

That is the point though. I am not using my feeling. God's law itself says it many meanings. Solomon himself had wisdom a limitless as the sand on the seashore. 1 Kings 4:29. But, even Solomon himself could not understand all of God's law. Ecclesiastes 7:23. Solomon spoke 3000 proverbs and 1005 songs. 1 Kings 5:12, but even that number was not everything.

I understand you have a problem with words having more than one meaning. That problem is not really a problem with the bible or my interpretation. That is your problem with words. Words can have more than one meaning. Bank for example can be a financial institution or a barrier between river and land. Just because a word or phrase can have a number of correct interpretations does not mean the word is false.

It sounds like there is a fundamental disagreement. You tend to think that a text is created to support a belief system or set of values in someone. In a way I think it does that. But, perhaps though, a purpose of the text is not to create a set of values, but to illuminate understanding? If the text is truly from God then, the text itself being the fabric of the universe. Then the text must be polysemous when the universe is itself polysemous.
Reply Quote
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to codker92 • 10:10a, 10/7/26
AG
Motte and bailey fallacy.

The issue is not words having multiple meanings. That's self evident and words having more than one meaning is constantly used in literature whether to make a point or just as a pun. You can find plenty of examples of such things in the Bible and no one really disputes that. It's a common trope.

You're arguing something completely different. You're arguing that the letters in words can be rearranged to make other words that somehow change how we should interpret the first word. That isn't about one word having multiple meanings. That is what I am specifically taking issue with.

Nobody is going to be shocked by the idea that some texts were intended to have multiple interpretations by their authors. That's not miraculous, it's just literature. Metaphor and symbolism aren't unique to the Bible.
Reply Quote
1 edit
codker92
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 8:47a
AG
Rocag said:
Motte and bailey fallacy.

The issue is not words having multiple meanings. That's self evident and words having more than one meaning is constantly used in literature whether to make a point or just as a pun. You can find plenty of examples of such things in the Bible and no one really disputes that. It's a common trope.

You're arguing something completely different. You're arguing that the letters in words can be rearranged to make other words that somehow change how we should interpret the first word. That isn't about one word having multiple meanings. That is what I am specifically taking issue with.

Nobody is going to be shocked by the idea that some texts were intended to have multiple interpretations by their authors. That's not miraculous, it's just literature. Metaphor and symbolism aren't unique to the Bible.

Look I know I am not going to change your mind. I don't care if I change your mind and I am not here to win converts. I don't care about traditions, church history, belief systems etc. But for the sake of the readers I will write this response.

God decided to reveal his law through writing in the form of poetry, psalms etc. The technique I used, an anagram or rearranging letters is used in many forms of literature, including ancient forms of literature. So, even Lycophron Chalcis in third century BC used an anagram to communicate in his works. He rearranged Ptolemaios into Apo Melitos. He changed the a king's name into "from honey". There are a bazillion examples of this everywhere in literature from the beginning of time. So I guess I think rearranging the letters of God's law is valid because God chose to communicate using poetic literature and that is what poetic literature does. It can be read literally, but it does not have to be.

The people reading God's law in the second temple period would expect the find anagrams and rearranging letters in God's law. If that was not there, they would be disappointed. By way of example, if God released a movie or film today, and that movie was wholly in black and white, would you really think that movie was from God? I mean if God's own movie is poor quality or doesn't use excellent standards doesn't that tend to show the work is not from God? I just think God's law is an excellent work of literature that uses advanced literary techniques and processes that people reading it would expect, especialyl ancient readers.

The technique I used makes sense if you think about the creation narrative.

Normally human language works like this: (1) person sees a thing (2) person forms a concept of the thing in their mind (3) the person makes a spoken word for the thing (4) the person decides which letters describe the word.

God's creation is the opposite. God's creation narrative is: (1) God exists (2) God creates letters (3) from the letters God creates his Law (4) God uses his law to make creation and things. I don't see creation merely as something God created. Creation is produced by God using his law. Therefore, correspondences between letters in God's law are not a coincidence God inadvertently left for humans to decide after the fact. The correspondences between letters and wordplay are relationships embedded in creation by God. In order for God to use his law to make creation, he would need letters to write the law. Therefore, God created the letters comprising the law as a process of creating his law.

Everything ever created, including the heavens and earth is contained within God's law, therefore it would make sense God intended for permutations of his letters and words to show everything is contained within his law.

Reply Quote
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.