Hidden riddles real or imaginary?

[SensusPlenior]

God says He speaks in riddles:

Dark sayings = riddles
<dl><dd>Nu 12:8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches <02420>; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? </dd><dd>Ps 49:4 I will incline mine ear to a parable: I will open my dark saying <02420> upon the harp. </dd><dd>Ps 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings <02420> of old: </dd><dd>Pr 1:6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings <02420>. </dd><dd>Eze 17:2 Son of man, put forth a riddle <02420>, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel; </dd><dd>Da 8:23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences <02420>, shall stand up. </dd></dl>Yet we see so little identification and discernment of them in the scriptures.

Jesus said that all the scriptures spoke of him, yet we find many scriptures where it is difficult to see him.

The author of Hebrews suggests that the law has a shadow 'of the good things coming' and gives a few samples of what he means. Are these samples representative? Or are they the complete list of shadows?

And many scholars recognize that if the New Testament authors were in a modern seminary, they would fail because they do not adhere to our modern methods of interpretation when referencing the Old Testament.

I would like to submit some observations from the scriptures to you to be examined closely to see if the pictures of Christ therein are real, or invented.

They are in the form of riddles hidden in double entendre (or double intent). This is where within the text itself, there are plausible multiple meanings, revealing childish riddles which are solved by a knowledge of Christ.

The method will be strange, but the results should be familiar if you know Christ.

The first example is found in Gen 2.21.

The Hebrew words each have multiple meanings. When you hear the word for 'sleep' you also hear the word for 'death'. You must normally distinguish by context what the intent of the author was. For the sake of this game, we are looking for a second meaning. The word for 'flesh' also means 'mankind', 'took' also means 'married', 'rib' also means 'limping' and 'side'.

By the time we substitute all the words with legitimate meanings for the same words we get:

And God caused Adam to die and he died, and he married a certain limping side and delivered mankind.

These are substitutions made solely with the Hebrew dictionary and it looks like nonsense. But We know that Adam is a type of Christ. Adam was the first man and Christ the second man. So we also substitute Christ for Adam.

Now we get : And God caused Christ to die and he died, and he married a certain limping side and delivered mankind.

This is the double entendre stage. Now we must solve the riddles.

1. What is the limping side of Christ? It is the same as the side with the bruised heel.
2. Whom did Christ marry? The church is called the bride of Christ.
3. How did Christ deliver mankind? He died (and rose again) and married the church to redeem us.

Hidden within this verse is a verifiable picture of Christ. You will be tempted to dismiss it as an accidental novelty. How many must you see to convince you that it is the norm, and not an accident?

I am hoping to dialog with those who are willing to check the scriptures to see if it is true rather than those who would make snap judgements for or against it.

Thanks.

 

[Boanerges]

Translating scripture with a dictionary or concordance will always lead to error as it leaves out the intricacies of the language. In fact one of the largest cults in the US has translated their bible in just such a manor resulting in confusion at best.
If you want to study the meaning of specific words in their original languages then I would suggest the use of a Vines Expository Dictionary unless you are an advanced student of the original language. The Vines not only gives the various definitions of a specific word but demonstrated which definition fits each particular verse This is based on the text of the manuscript the grammatical structure of the sentence and is keyed (conveniently) to the numbers of Strong's Concordance.
Below is an example, I have taken the liberty of highlighting the correct translation of flesh in Genesis 2:21 in red :

Flesh

basar (H1320), "flesh; meat; male sex organ." Cognates of this word appear in Ugaritic, Arabic, and Aramaic. Biblical Hebrew attests it about 270 times and in all periods.
The word means the "meaty part plus the skin" of men: "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof" (Gen_2:21—the first occurrence). This word can also be applied to the "meaty part" of animals (Deu_14:8). Gen_41:2 speaks of seven cows, sleek and "fat of flesh." In Num_11:33, basar means the meat or "flesh" of the quail that Israel was still chewing. Thus the word means "flesh," whether living or dead.
Basar often means the "edible part" of animals. Eli's sons did not know God's law concerning the priests' portion, so "when any man offered sacrifice, the priest's [Eli's] servant came, while the flesh was [boiling], with a [threepronged fork] in his hand" (1Sa_2:13). However, they insisted that "before they burnt the fat..., Give flesh to roast for the priest; for he will not have [boiled] flesh of thee, but raw" (literally, "living"—1Sa_2:15). Basar, then, represents edible animal "flesh" or "meat," whether cooked (Dan_10:3) or uncooked. The word sometimes refers to "meat" that one is forbidden to eat (cf. Exo_21:28).
This word may represent a part of the body. At some points, the body is viewed as consisting of two components, "flesh" and bones: "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man" (Gen_2:23). That part of the "fleshly" element known as the foreskin was to be removed by circumcision (Gen_17:11). In other passages, the elements of the body are the "flesh," the skin, and the bones (Lam_3:4). Num_19:5 mentions the "flesh," hide, blood, and refuse of a heifer. In Job_10:11, we read: "Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast [knit] me with bones and sinews."
Flesh sometimes means "blood relative": "And Laban said to him [Jacob], Surely thou art my bone and my flesh" (Gen_29:14). The phrase "your flesh" or "our flesh" standing alone may bear the same meaning: "Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother and our flesh" (Gen_37:27). The phrase she'er basar is rendered "blood relative" (Lev_18:6; KJV, "near of kin").
About 50 times, "flesh" represents the "physical aspect" of man or animals as contrasted with the spirit, soul, or heart (the nonphysical aspect). In the case of men, this usage appears in Num_16:22 : "O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and wilt thou be wroth with all the congregation?" In such passages, then, basar emphasizes the "visible and structural part" of man or animal.
In a few passages, the word appears to mean "skin," or the part of the body that is seen: "By reason of the voice of my groaning my bones cleave to my skin" (Psa_102:5; Psa_119:120). In passages such as Lev_13:2, the ideas "flesh" and "skin" are clearly distinguished.
Basar sometimes represents the "male sex organ": "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When any man hath a running issue out of his flesh [NASB, "body"], because of his issue he is unclean" (Lev_15:2).
The term "all flesh" has several meanings. It means "all mankind" in Deu_5:26 : "For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God...?" In another place, this phrase refers to "all living creatures within the cosmos," or all men and animals (Gen_6:17).

 

[SensusPlenior]

Not a translation

You have missed the point in thinking it is a translation. There is no claim that it is a translation.

This is something else. Double entendre uses the same words to have multiple meanings.

You have not pointed out any errors in what has been claimed.

I had hoped you would not jump to conclusions based on an introductory example. But alas my hopes have been dashed.

Since there is a reference to a cult using this, I must give you another portion that prevents cults from using this:

Rules discerned from the scriptures using the same hermeneutic:

1. Since God has said that not a jot or tittle will pass away, until one knows why each jot and tittle is there, a complete understanding has not been derived. (This keeps us humble)
2. Since man shall live "..by every word", a doctrine is not sound until it sums up and includes all that God has said about it. (This keeps us searching)
3. Since every word must be established by two or three witnesses, every shadow must have at least two supporting scripture witnesses. (This keeps us rigorous in methodology)
4. Since God's word is established forever, a shadow means the same thing everywhere is it used. So, since a donkey is a shadow of a prophet, everywhere there is a donkey, it is a shadow of a prophet. This rule alone makes the shadows humanly impossible to fabricate. (This keeps us an awe)
5. The riddle of Samson tells us Christ is the answer to all the riddles. If the shadow doesn't look like Christ, it isn't a good shadow. (This keeps us focused and keeps us clear of heresy)
6. And since we are to "let everyman be a liar and God be true", outside references are not required to solve the riddles and see the shadows. (This keeps us devoted)

Now I would be interested in specific examples from a cult that conform to these rules.

The methods of word play provide the raw material for double entendre, but the rules constrain them and keep them from free-for-all allegory.

 

[Chad]

I don't think there are "riddles" in the Bible, nor do I think we must solve the riddles as you claim in your first post. How do you figure this? The Holy Spirit is the One who gives understanding, not you nor I nor some preacher. Without the Holy Spirit, man cannot teach another man what this or that verse of the Bible means.

Why is it so hard to understand the Bible?

What is the proper way to study the Bible?

Why did Jesus teach in parables?

“But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come” (John 16:13).
1 Corinthians 1:18


Christ the Wisdom and Power of God

<sup value="18" class="versenum" id="en-ESV-28365">18</sup>For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

 

[SensusPlenior]

I don't think there are "riddles" in the Bible, nor do I think we must solve the riddles as you claim in your first post.

I appreciate your position. However I have made no claims. I have made observations which I am submitting for evaluation.

I would like to submit some observations from the scriptures to you to be examined closely to see if the pictures of Christ therein are real, or invented

.

Why is it so hard to understand the Bible?

It's not. The gospel is easy. But God hid the gospel from the Jews. Where did he hide it? Right in front of them in their own scriptures. Now that we see Christ clearly, the proposition is that we can go back and see him hidden in the Old Testament.

It isn't required that we see him there. But it is a joy when we do.

 

[jiggyfly]

It's not. The gospel is easy. But God hid the gospel from the Jews. Where did he hide it? Right in front of them in their own scriptures. Now that we see Christ clearly, the proposition is that we can go back and see him hidden in the Old Testament.

While I do very much agree with you here concerning the revelation of Christ in the old testament I don't think that we need to re-translate every word to see Him in it. The writing is clear but our sight and understanding is dim.

Paul said it this way, "Now we see things imperfectly as in a poor mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God knows me now." 1Cr 13:12

 

[Benoni]

God says He speaks in riddles:

Dark sayings = riddles

<DL><DD>Nu 12:8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches <02420>; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? <DD>Ps 49:4 I will incline mine ear to a parable: I will open my dark saying <02420> upon the harp. <DD>Ps 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings <02420> of old: <DD>Pr 1:6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings <02420>. <DD>Eze 17:2 Son of man, put forth a riddle <02420>, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel; <DD>Da 8:23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences <02420>, shall stand up. </DD></DL>Yet we see so little identification and discernment of them in the scriptures.

Jesus said that all the scriptures spoke of him, yet we find many scriptures where it is difficult to see him.

The author of Hebrews suggests that the law has a shadow 'of the good things coming' and gives a few samples of what he means. Are these samples representative? Or are they the complete list of shadows?

And many scholars recognize that if the New Testament authors were in a modern seminary, they would fail because they do not adhere to our modern methods of interpretation when referencing the Old Testament.

I would like to submit some observations from the scriptures to you to be examined closely to see if the pictures of Christ therein are real, or invented.

They are in the form of riddles hidden in double entendre (or double intent). This is where within the text itself, there are plausible multiple meanings, revealing childish riddles which are solved by a knowledge of Christ.

The method will be strange, but the results should be familiar if you know Christ.

The first example is found in Gen 2.21.

The Hebrew words each have multiple meanings. When you hear the word for 'sleep' you also hear the word for 'death'. You must normally distinguish by context what the intent of the author was. For the sake of this game, we are looking for a second meaning. The word for 'flesh' also means 'mankind', 'took' also means 'married', 'rib' also means 'limping' and 'side'.

By the time we substitute all the words with legitimate meanings for the same words we get:

And God caused Adam to die and he died, and he married a certain limping side and delivered mankind.

These are substitutions made solely with the Hebrew dictionary and it looks like nonsense. But We know that Adam is a type of Christ. Adam was the first man and Christ the second man. So we also substitute Christ for Adam.

Now we get : And God caused Christ to die and he died, and he married a certain limping side and delivered mankind.

This is the double entendre stage. Now we must solve the riddles.

1. What is the limping side of Christ? It is the same as the side with the bruised heel.
2. Whom did Christ marry? The church is called the bride of Christ.
3. How did Christ deliver mankind? He died (and rose again) and married the church to redeem us.

Hidden within this verse is a verifiable picture of Christ. You will be tempted to dismiss it as an accidental novelty. How many must you see to convince you that it is the norm, and not an accident?

I am hoping to dialog with those who are willing to check the scriptures to see if it is true rather than those who would make snap judgements for or against it.

Thanks.

I having trouble with replying to your message. Please Email me direct at [email protected]

 

[SensusPlenior]

I appreciate that many have already formed opinions on the matter. But I am not really asking for for opinions which are formed without hearing the evidence.

I am really looking for some people who are willing to validate the observations.

So far, three opinions have been forwarded without one critique of the simple example presented.

I would hope that someone who was willing to look at evidence before forming a judgment would have asked a question about the rules. For instance, I wouldn't expect someone to accept rule 5 without further understanding.

Rule 4 asserts that a donkey is always a prophet. I would hope that someone who was willing to examine the evidence would have questions of how that was derived and how it is applied.

How many pictures of Christ need to be revealed in this fashion before your opinion would change?

Healthy skepticism is welcome. I just ask for the evidence to be heard before judgment is made.

This is not a whimsical lark for me, but the result of years of study. If I had found a pattern within the text that made a shape of the cross, many would think it was cool, but likely just a happy accident.

Someone else determines that Barney is the beast and everyone gets a chuckle.

I propose that the Old Testament shows Christ repeatedly like a watermark behind the literal, and see the response. From the "rules" of the forum, I thought speaking of Christ, and how he has been shown to us would be a welcome conversation here.

Apparently not.

 

[Boanerges]

My friend, your point was not lost on me but I have a bit of a Sheppard's heart and I always bear in mind that things like that could serve to confuse one young in the Lord. They have all kinds of folks here from babes in Christ and up.
BTW- I simply do not subscribe to your riddle theory but I am entitled to my opinion and I respect the right of you to yours.
Many blessings,
brother Larry.

You have missed the point in thinking it is a translation. There is no claim that it is a translation.

This is something else. Double entendre uses the same words to have multiple meanings.

You have not pointed out any errors in what has been claimed.

I had hoped you would not jump to conclusions based on an introductory example. But alas my hopes have been dashed.

Since there is a reference to a cult using this, I must give you another portion that prevents cults from using this:

Rules discerned from the scriptures using the same hermeneutic:

1. Since God has said that not a jot or tittle will pass away, until one knows why each jot and tittle is there, a complete understanding has not been derived. (This keeps us humble)
2. Since man shall live "..by every word", a doctrine is not sound until it sums up and includes all that God has said about it. (This keeps us searching)
3. Since every word must be established by two or three witnesses, every shadow must have at least two supporting scripture witnesses. (This keeps us rigorous in methodology)
4. Since God's word is established forever, a shadow means the same thing everywhere is it used. So, since a donkey is a shadow of a prophet, everywhere there is a donkey, it is a shadow of a prophet. This rule alone makes the shadows humanly impossible to fabricate. (This keeps us an awe)
5. The riddle of Samson tells us Christ is the answer to all the riddles. If the shadow doesn't look like Christ, it isn't a good shadow. (This keeps us focused and keeps us clear of heresy)
6. And since we are to "let everyman be a liar and God be true", outside references are not required to solve the riddles and see the shadows. (This keeps us devoted)

Now I would be interested in specific examples from a cult that conform to these rules.

The methods of word play provide the raw material for double entendre, but the rules constrain them and keep them from free-for-all allegory.

 

[Chad]

I appreciate that many have already formed opinions on the matter. But I am not really asking for for opinions which are formed without hearing the evidence.

I am really looking for some people who are willing to validate the observations.

So far, three opinions have been forwarded without one critique of the simple example presented.

I would hope that someone who was willing to look at evidence before forming a judgment would have asked a question about the rules. For instance, I wouldn't expect someone to accept rule 5 without further understanding.

Rule 4 asserts that a donkey is always a prophet. I would hope that someone who was willing to examine the evidence would have questions of how that was derived and how it is applied.

How many pictures of Christ need to be revealed in this fashion before your opinion would change?

Healthy skepticism is welcome. I just ask for the evidence to be heard before judgment is made.

This is not a whimsical lark for me, but the result of years of study. If I had found a pattern within the text that made a shape of the cross, many would think it was cool, but likely just a happy accident.

Someone else determines that Barney is the beast and everyone gets a chuckle.

I propose that the Old Testament shows Christ repeatedly like a watermark behind the literal, and see the response. From the "rules" of the forum, I thought speaking of Christ, and how he has been shown to us would be a welcome conversation here.

Apparently not.

Well since you're not satisfied with everyone's opinions here to your observations, since you're not satisfied with "rule 5" then consider your thread a waste of time, and observation.

There are no riddles in the Bible. Keep your confusion to yourself. 3 posts in a row with unnecessary remarks towards others responses just because you're not satisfied. Too bad.

I am really looking for some people who are willing to validate the observations.

That' a weak statement, or remark. Those are your observations and no one is obligated to heed to your request. A handful of people replied but you're not happy with their responses. Then don't ask further.

We observe the Holy Spirit and what He has to say about the Word, Jesus Christ. Not men.