IF GOD SO LOVED "EVERYONE", THEN WHY DID HE HATE ESAU?

[Eddie Ramos]

It seems like John 3:16 is by far the most widely memorized verse among people who know anything about the Bible because it speaks about God loving the world. While this verse may seem like "good news" to everyone who reads it, it does not stand alone from the rest of the scriptures. No verse does.

So, as most people are glad to memorize that verse, what happens when they come across a verse like this?:

Romans 9:13 (KJV) 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Malachi 1:2-3 (KJV)
2 I have loved you, saith the LORD.
Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us?
Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD:
yet I loved Jacob,
3 And I hated Esau,
and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Psalms 5:5 (KJV)
5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight:
thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Psalms 11:5 (KJV)
5 The LORD trieth the righteous:
but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

Psalms 5:6 (KJV)
6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing:
the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

How does John 3:16 look in light of these passages? Did God change? No, God does not change (Malachi 3:6). This teaches us that we can't just focus on John 3:16 and conclude that God's love for the world, in the giving of his Son, is actually not referring to every individual in the world (because there are passages that tell us about God hating others), but rather John 3:16 is referring to certain people within the world. These certain people are also known as God's beloved which means to be loved.

1 John 4:10-11 (KJV) 10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.

The beloved are thise who were chosen for salvation, those who were called to be saints.

Romans 1:7 (KJV) 7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

My question for this thread is: Can you see that the Bible, on one hand, speaks of God's love in conjunction with those whose sins were laid on Christ? And on the other hand, can you see that those who were hated, are those whose sins were not laid upon Christ? This is what it means to be hated. It means that you have to pay for your own sins by your own death.

[JehovahsWitness]

You forgot to address the second question

Where did Jesus (who probably spoke Aramaic and possibly Greek) ever make reference to the original ancient Hebrew language [rather than simply quote the words text in whatever language he was communicating] to make his point.

When he explained his parables, where did he say "Now to understand this parable you need to go back to ancient Hebrew (that nobody really speaks anymore) and look up the root for the verb..." Where is the biblical precedent of refering to the root meaning of words (rather than what the word meant in their scriptural context), to extract an type for a corresponding antitype?

Where is the precedent for what you are doing in scripture? You are not just pointing to scripture and quoting it as Jesus did. Put simply there is not a single scripture in the bible that links the tar of the ark with the ransom

You are extracting the root of the word, and using that without any indication that any of the inspired writers did the same. What? Do you not think Paul was not educated enough to say "Now tar covers covers and the roit meaning of ransom ..." ? Did God need you to do what Paul or Jesus were incapable of doing?

Where did Jesus ever say the words "root meaning of the word in its original language" (Ancient Hebrew and Aremaic were related but not identical) ... means ABC"? You are doing something that is unscriptural you methodology is not one employed by tge inspired writers. Human methods may impress people but tuuth is not to impress .


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

If you don't see a biblical precedent for examining root words in order to better understand what a Hebrew word means, then can you explain how the WTS arrived at a definition of the word "Bethlehem" to mean "house of bread"?

I didnt say there was anything with seeking to understand the root of the word. I said using that understanding to establish a type for its correstpondjng antitype without scriptural authorization. is going beyond the things writren.


IN POST #76 I SAID ...

There is nothing wrong with understanding the meaning of an original word (it is essential in translating) but when it comes to extracting an antitype (for example tar pictures ransom), there must be a scriptural indication in the bible itself, that is the Jehovah's Witness position.

IN POST 54 I SAID ...

.

There is no scripture that says everything in the bible has a type/antype, so to start from that premise is of itself breaking the first and fundemental rule of "letting the bible interpret itself".

Can we not take the original Greek or Hebrew meaning of the word and draw the an allegorical link ourselves? No. The author of the bible alone has to be the one that authorizes when we do this or not.

IN POST #63 I SAID ....

If we are being guided by scripture surely we must let scripture point to a multiple meaning and not see faces in every cloud because we can

For example that Bethlehem means "house of bread" helps us understand that it was in a fertile region. Thus we can see the irony when Naomi and her family had to leave Bethlehem because of famine. But from there to saying that because Bethlehem means house of bread , and Jesus likened his body to bread, and Jesus body was given as a ransom ... Bethlehem represented the ransom. That is taking liberties. Jesus could have done that, Paul or any of the other bible writers had authority to make the link, YOU do not. You are not the bible, and biblical truth rests not in linguistics but in scripture.

CONCLUSION Jehovahs Witnesses refer frequently to the meaning of words in their original language to understand the writers intent and context but from there to presuming an antitype without scriptural indication is taking unauthorized liberty.

[The Tanager]

Because every time this word "heaven" (šāmayim) appears in the entire Old Testament , it is always plural in the original text (please check me on this). Thus God is the one who refers to the "heavens" as one general meaning, not three. We are the ones who like to distinguish the sky, from outer space and from the third heaven where God dwells in order to make the context make more sense to us.

So, God means all three parts to be included in every instance?

Ok, so you are saying everything is a parable. Are you referring to Revelation 13:8 here?

Yes,...

Okay, so what is what is referred to in Revelation 13:8 a parable or allegory of?

Thanks, but I'm not interested in what C.S. Lewis says, as they have no bearing in how we come to truth. We should only be interested in what the scriptures teach. But I think I have exhausted my explanation on this point. Again. my intent is not to try and convince, but to offer a biblical explanation as to why the scriptures are to be studied the way God has laid out if we hope to come to a harmonious truth. And as Christ himself set the example, no amount of biblical truth can open the eyes of those who can't see or hear spiritual truth, especially if they are convinced they can indeed both hear and see. And this truth, I must first apply to myself before putting it out there for everyone else, as no one is exempt from deceiving themselves into thinking they are true children of God, when they never were. That is why salvation was always an extremely personal relationship between each individual and God, because only God could give assurance of his salvation, and not we top ourselves.

I’m not appealing to authority, just trying to help you understand what I was claiming, since you misunderstood me.

But I think I have exhausted my explanation on this point. Again. my intent is not to try and convince, but to offer a biblical explanation as to why the scriptures are to be studied the way God has laid out if we hope to come to a harmonious truth. And as Christ himself set the example, no amount of biblical truth can open the eyes of those who can't see or hear spiritual truth, especially if they are convinced they can indeed both hear and see. And this truth, I must first apply to myself before putting it out there for everyone else, as no one is exempt from deceiving themselves into thinking they are true children of God, when they never were. That is why salvation was always an extremely personal relationship between each individual and God, because only God could give assurance of his salvation, and not we top ourselves.

I agree that we all need this humility. Thanks for exhausting your thoughts on this point for me to consider and be challenged by.

What that portion of 1 Cor 2 is teaching us is that the scriptures of the Old Testament, which the Jews read and literally followed, was concealing within it a deeper truth that was kept secret ("hidden mystery") from the very Jews that God entrusted his word to (the princes of this world (vs 8)). The reason it was kept hidden from them was so that they would reject the messiah and crucify him, thus fulfilling the perfect will of God (vs 8). This hidden wisdom is later referred to as "the deep things of God" (vs 9). But verse 10 says that this hidden mystery of who Christ really was, was revealed to God's people "by his Spirit". Because only the Spirit of God that is within a true child of God can properly discern that which is "spiritually discerned" (vs 14). Thus this hidden wisdom, these deep things which God has hid within his Word, is referred to as "spiritual" (vs 13) and only by comparing "spiritual with spiritual" does the Holy Spirit teach.

Now, verse 9 doesn't say, "that no one had ever seen, heard, or had in his heart an allegorical interpretation prior to this time" as you stated. It has to do with the Jews (as I explained above) not being given ears to hear nor eyes to see the truth of the Word of God because they (as a nation) did not have the Spirit of God within them. I looked at the ESV translation which is where I assume you are reading from, and it says there, "But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard". But that's not what the original text says. In other words, it doesn't say "no eye hath seen", it says, "eye has not seen". And we can quickly see which translation is more faithful by comparing it to the rest of the scriptures.

Why do you think “the princes of this world” refers to the Jews? Why do you think verse 8 says the wisdom was hidden so that the Jews would reject the Messiah and fulfill God’s perfect will? Verse 8 doesn’t say why it was hidden; it says that if they had known it, they wouldn’t have crucified Jesus.

So, you’ve been saying that “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” is a definition of allegory and that is why 1 Cor 2:13 is teaching your allegorical approach. But now you are saying “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” is equivalent to saying “comparing allegory with allegory” since spiritual and allegory are synonyms. That’s a bit confusing.

Your overall case here seems to rely on your view that one Biblical term always has the same meaning, which I don’t see valid reasons for, but perhaps your response above on that will shed some light on the reasonableness of that.

You're the one who asked me to show you where the Bible ties an allegory to a spiritual meaning, and I showed you in a previous post. Thus it's God who makes the connection, not me. You didn't address the scriptures I gave you which answered your initial question, but instead you just said that to you it's confusing. I have no problem with that. It would be an impossibility for me to make "clear" something that is spiritually discerned. But I put forth the scriptures you asked of me and explained them as best as I was able. The rest is not in my hands, it never was.

No, I didn’t just say it’s confusing; I addressed your interpretation of those scriptures by pointing out two critiques:

(1) Your view that “spiritual” and “allegorical” are Biblical synonyms leads to 1 Cor 2:13 saying the Spirit teaches through comparing allegories with allegories rather than it is teaching allegorical understandings of historical events/stories/etc., which is what you were saying earlier. This is what I called "confusing," not that I was confused on what you were saying. Which of these are you saying is true? Does 1 Cor 2:13 tell us that all scripture is taught through allegory or that all truths of God involve comparing allegorical understanding with other allegorical understandings?

(2) Your case also relies on their only being one meaning for every Biblical term, which I still have questions about.

Because we can take both understandings (yours and mine and anyone else's) and see which one the Bible as a whole agrees with.

But in that analysis you are taking both of our understandings and comparing it to your understanding of the rest of the Bible. Of course your understanding of one passage is much more likely to agree with your overall take on the Bible. That doesn’t support that your understanding of the rest of the Bible is an accurate gauge. I’ve shared why I’ve disagreed with every single passage (or group of passages) that you’ve brought up. If you haven’t established those as proper (or even agreed-upon) interpretations than it is an error to bring in the “it matches with the rest of the Bible better” as support for any particular passage. It’s just a huge circular feedback loop unless you can show each passage is a proper interpretation. You’ve shared your thoughts, but I find them unconvincing. And vice versa. That’s all we can ask of each other: try to explain our views as best we can. Thank you for doing that.

[Eddie Ramos]

Because every time this word "heaven" (šāmayim) appears in the entire Old Testament , it is always plural in the original text (please check me on this). Thus God is the one who refers to the "heavens" as one general meaning, not three. We are the ones who like to distinguish the sky, from outer space and from the third heaven where God dwells in order to make the context make more sense to us.

So, God means all three parts to be included in every instance?

If the word God chose to use was plural, then we must be faithful to the original text and understand it the way He wrote it. When we do this, we learn to see things in the scriptures that we may have not noticed before. For example, the translators took the liberty of translating this plural word singular (most of the time) in my KJV Bible and possibly in most other Bibles as well. But they also translated the word as "air" sometimes in order to make the passage make more sense to the reader. Here is the first time they did this:

Matthew 6:26 (KJV 1900)
Behold the fowls of the air (heavens): for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

Our way of thinking would tell us that since fowl don't fly in "space", then "air" is the best translation here. And for readability sake, that's fine, as long as we understand that this word is indeed plural and God wrote it that way for a reason, therefore, it's best translated (or understood) as "the fowls of the heavens". So, our job is not to focus on what English word best fits based on our grammar, but on what God is trying to teach us by writing it the way he did. So, when we study the word "heavens", we find many interesting verses that teach us why God chose to encompass the heavens altogether. It is because the heavens identify with God's dwelling place. In other words, God inhabits all of it, but even the vastness of the heavens cannot contain God. And this gives us a glimpse of his greatness.

1 Kings 8:30 (KJV 1900)
And hearken thou to the supplication of thy servant, and of thy people Israel, when they shall pray toward this place: and hear thou in heaven (the heavens) thy dwelling place: and when thou hearest, forgive.

1 Kings 8:39 (KJV 1900)
Then hear thou in heaven (the heavens) thy dwelling place, and forgive, and do, and give to every man according to his ways, whose heart thou knowest; (for thou, even thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men;)

2 Chronicles 6:21 (KJV 1900)
Hearken therefore unto the supplications of thy servant, and of thy people Israel, which they shall make toward this place: hear thou from thy dwelling place, even from heaven (the heavens); and when thou hearest, forgive.

2 Chronicles 6:18 (KJV 1900)
But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? behold, heaven (heavens) and the heaven (heavens) of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built!

Okay, so what is what is referred to in Revelation 13:8 a parable or allegory of?

Revelation 13:8 (KJV 1900)
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Well, the context here is set in the time of the great tribulation and verse 8 is making reference to those who worship Satan (the beast). These are those whose names are not written in the book of life, meaning they are not true children of God. We know this because the book of life is referring to the book of eternal life because it's being identified with the lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world. This is Christ. In other words, there are 2 books the Bible speaks of, the book of life in which everyone who has been given the breath of life has their name written therein, and then there's the lamb's book of life. This book has the names of those whose sins were paid for from the foundation of the world. So, the whole passage is a parable because those who are worshipping the beast include those who think they are worshipping God. But because they were never chosen for salvation, they never became saved and came under the strong delusion that God sent them.

2 Thessalonians 2:3–12 (KJV 1900)
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he (God) who now letteth will let, until he (the Spirit of God) be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

2 Thessalonians 2:13–14 (KJV 1900)
But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The book is also not an actual book, but a spiritual reference to God's acknowledgement of people and the happenings of this world.

Psalm 56:8 (KJV 1900)
Thou tellest my wanderings:
Put thou my tears into thy bottle:
Are they not in thy book?

Also, Christ is not an animal, but he consistently refers to himself as a lamb because the lamb spiritually points to the animal that was used in the Old Testament to "atone" for sins.

Why do you think “the princes of this world” refers to the Jews? Why do you think verse 8 says the wisdom was hidden so that the Jews would reject the Messiah and fulfill God’s perfect will? Verse 8 doesn’t say why it was hidden; it says that if they had known it, they wouldn’t have crucified Jesus.

Because the "princes of this world" are linked with those who crucified Christ. And the nation of Israel were consistently referred to a "princes". Also, the world "world" is not the "earth" of even "land", but it's referring to an age, "the princes of this age (or period of time)".

Luke 24:20 (KJV 1900)
And how the chief priests and our rulers (princes) delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.

Regarding what was hidden, we have to look at the previous scripture first.

1 Corinthians 2:7 (KJV 1900)
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

And now, the reference is to the nation of Israel.

1 Corinthians 2:8 (KJV 1900)
Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

So, the question is, how did they not know this hidden wisdom? Verse 9 and 10 teach us that it was because this was hidden from some but revealed to others.

1 Corinthians 2:9–10 (KJV 1900)
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

God had purposely blinded the nation of Israel so that they would not believe who Christ was and thus crucify him.

John 12:37–41 (KJV 1900)
But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: 38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? 39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, 40 He (meaning God) hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. 41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

And this was the outcome of their blinding:

Acts 4:26–28 (KJV 1900)
The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. 27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, 28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

If they had understood the mystery which God hid about who the Lord Jesus Christ was (God in the flesh as the messiah), then that means that they would have had their eyes and ears open to the truth, which means that they would have become saved and refused to crucify Christ (as Peter demonstrated and was rebuked for it). But God will had to be accomplished and he did so by not opening the spiritual eyes and ears of the nation of Israel.

I'd like to thank you also for the civil discourse we can have even in disagreement.

[The Tanager]

I'd like to thank you also for the civil discourse we can have even in disagreement.

Of course. And thank you!

So, when we study the word "heavens", we find many interesting verses that teach us why God chose to encompass the heavens altogether. It is because the heavens identify with God's dwelling place. In other words, God inhabits all of it, but even the vastness of the heavens cannot contain God. And this gives us a glimpse of his greatness.

If 'heavens' includes the idea of God's dwelling place, it's the opposite: it's saying the heavens do contain God. This is what holding onto there being only one definition per term forces you into, but this can be avoided by seeing that Biblical terms have multiple meanings.

Well, the context here is set in the time of the great tribulation and verse 8 is making reference to those who worship Satan (the beast). These are those whose names are not written in the book of life, meaning they are not true children of God. We know this because the book of life is referring to the book of eternal life because it's being identified with the lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world. This is Christ. In other words, there are 2 books the Bible speaks of, the book of life in which everyone who has been given the breath of life has their name written therein, and then there's the lamb's book of life. This book has the names of those whose sins were paid for from the foundation of the world. So, the whole passage is a parable because those who are worshipping the beast include those who think they are worshipping God. But because they were never chosen for salvation, they never became saved and came under the strong delusion that God sent them.

You said Jesus’ crucifixion on earth (since it’s spoken of in the Bible) was an allegory of the Lamb being slain before the earth was made. But the Lamb being slain before the earth was made is spoken of in the Bible, so it must be an allegory of some other event, to remain consistent. Above you allegorize about the other parts of the passage, but not this event. Which event is the slaying of the Lamb that occurred before the earth was made an allegory of?

Because the "princes of this world" are linked with those who crucified Christ. And the nation of Israel were consistently referred to a "princes". Also, the world "world" is not the "earth" of even "land", but it's referring to an age, "the princes of this age (or period of time)".

It’s not just the Jews that are linked with crucifying Christ in the Bible; it's the Romans as well (Matt 27:26, 35/Mk 15:15, 24-25/John 19:16, 18, 23). It’s not just the nation of Israel that is consistently referred to as princes in the Bible, but Gentiles as well (Gen 12:15, 25:16, etc.).

[JehovahsWitness]

I have ample biblical precedent (as provided above) for going back to the original Word of God in order to make sure that any translation is faithful to the original Word of God ...

You seem to be confusing translating (which obviously requires a knowledge of the source language) with extracting a pictorial type (which does not). The "tar =ransom" is a very good example of where overstepping from translating to forced type/ antitype leads to all manner of problems and distracts from the clear message of truth in scripture.

JW





RELATED POSTS

To what did the ransom correspond?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 14#p852214

Why is there a need for atonement in biblical theology ?
viewtopic.php?p=1042433#p1042433

[Eddie Ramos]

I have ample biblical precedent (as provided above) for going back to the original Word of God in order to make sure that any translation is faithful to the original Word of God ...

You seem to be confusing translating (which obviously requires a knowledge of the source language) with extracting a pictorial type (which does not). The "tar =ransom" is a very good example of where overstepping from translating to forced type/ antitype leads to all manner of problems and distracts from the clear message of truth in scripture.

JW

It is only "overstepping" if you assume that your hermeneutic is the correct method. Yet, you still have not provided any scriptures to support your hermeneutic claims. You have only told us what your scholars have given you to follow. That is trusting in the wisdom of man rather than God. I showed you that Christ is the one who set forth the precedent that we need to always go back to the original text in order to see what God is really saying (what words God decided to use in every instance of the Bible). That is the text that the Jews had (the Hebrew text) and they were not only able to read it but to speak it (as I also showed you in a previous post). So, I have no problem following suit because doing so, ensures me that I have done my due diligence in checking to see whether the translators did a faithful job in each instance.

Now, the problem you're having with me "forcing" a "type/antitype" on a word is again based on your own man-made hermeneutic which you are imposing on me. I have tried to show from the scriptures that the Bible has its own hermeneutic which God has established and that's the one I follow. Now, this may seem offensive to some, as they believe that their hermeneutic is the Biblical one, yet that's why, this whole time, I've been asking for the scriptures which reinforce said hermeneutics and have yet to be given any.

When God wrote the Bible, he used the exact words he wanted to use in every instance. A translation, we know, is just that, a translation of the inspired text. And as such, it is subject to much error as it undergoes translation. Words have to be changed entirely in order to make the verse make sense to us. Genesis 6:14 is one such example.

Genesis 6:14 (KJV 1900)
Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

I have spoken plenty on this verse, but if we only read this verse in English, we won't be able to see what words God actually used here. But when we go back to the original text (which we have the obligation to do) we realize that this word "pitch" is not at all the word "tar". As I also showed earlier, God has a word which he uses for tar, it's found here:

Exodus 2:3 (KJV 1900)
And when she could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch, and put the child therein; and she laid it in the flags by the river’s brink.

If we read both passages in English only, how would we be able to know that there is a huge difference between both words which were translated the exact same way as "pitch"? We wouldn't be able to. But when we look at the original text, we learn that the word for "pitch" in Genesis 6:14, we learn that these words are the word "atonement" and "ransom". And we find that rather curious why God would choose to use these 2 words here particularly? These words are never translated as "pitch" anywhere else in the Bible, only here. And as we continue to study the Bible, we realize that the ark was a representation of salvation. That means that when we look at the word "pitch" again, we can see confirmation that our understanding of what the ark typifies is abundantly in line with the scriptures.

So, I never said that "tar" is spiritually represents "a ransom", I said that the word "pitch/tar" IS the word "ransom" and the other word "pitch" IS the word "atonement", which again, reinforces what the spiritual picture of the ark is.

Moses' ark, on the other hand, was not described the same way because it doesn't represent the same thing as Noah's ark.

[JehovahsWitness]

It is only "overstepping" if you assume that your hermeneutic is the correct method. ..

Allowing the bible writers to point out types and antitypes HAS to be the only correct hermeneutic because they were inspired if God.

So if, for example the tar pictures/represents -> the ransom, Jesus or one of the bible writers (who were fully aware that Noah covered the ark in tar) needed to say so. Paul for example wrote extensively about biblical patterns, from family dramas to the items in the tabernacle...he was more than capable of drawing a parallel between the tar on the ark and the ransom.

Paul knew the root meaning of the word tar, he knew the root meaning of the word ransom/atonement. He (or any other bible writer) could have written a verse explaining the link/spiritual significance of the tar but nobody did. What were they waiting for? You?

I know YOU have drawing a parallel ...but you are not inspired of God and your posts are not part of the bible canon. The lexical link is interesting and sheds some light on how the word should be understood but from there to imply some "spiritual significance" on the tar is to assume the role of bible writer rather than student.

We (who take our hermeneutics from the bible not internet posts) need scrcripture to do what you so eloquently have done. If it doesn't, then your conclusion is based on your own man-made hermeneutics rather than the word of God.





JW

[Miles]

[Replying to Eddie Ramos in post #8]

So you think God should love evil people? Which means nobody would need to repent or obey him or accept Christ.

And so you think everyone is evil?

e·vil
/ˈēv(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: evil

profoundly immoral and wicked.
source:Oxford Languages Dictionary

Interesting. Although nobody needs to repent or obey god or accept Christ at all.

.

[JehovahsWitness]

Our way of thinking would tell us that since fowl don't fly in "space", then "air" is the best translation here

HEAVEN
The Hebrew sha·maʹyim (always in the plural), which is rendered “heaven(s),” seems to have the basic sense of that which is high or lofty. (Ps 103:11; Pr 25:3; Isa 55:9) The etymology of the Greek word for heaven (ou·ra·nosʹ) is uncertain.

Physical Heavens. The full scope of the physical heavens is embraced by the original-language term. The context usually provides sufficient information to determine which area of the physical heavens is meant.

RELATED POSTS

Did anything exist prior to "the beginning"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 99#p882099

Does the bible contain scientifically accurate insights about the origin of the Universe?
viewtopic.php?p=1032301#p1032301

What are we to understand with the world "God created the heavens"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 09#p763409

Does the bible say God created plants before the sun?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 17#p836617

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

HEAVEN , THE HEAVENS and ...THE 7 CREATIVE DAYS OF GENESIS