Well this bites

seekeroftruth

Well-Known Member
So I went to do the study this morning.... and the commentary won't come up. It's not secure.... guess it got hacked by some ransom ware kind of stuff..... so that's it for the Quran....

Sure I could go on.... the site with the actual verses on it is still working. But I'm clueless and I know it..... I can't interpret or comment without someone leading the way. Without a guide.... well I'm lost.

The Bible and the Quran talk against just making it up as we go along. I could be chucked with a millstone around my neck.

So... if anyone knows a free commentary for the Quran, that even I can understand..... let me know and I'll go on.... if not... well I'll take it as a sign.

Should we go back to Genesis or Matthew or John? Which will it be?

☕
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
(Apologies upfront for the following somewhat rambling post/rambling thoughts. But I hope you will get my "drift.")

Why not do something different? A subject study? Of something "provocative"?

For instance, something along the lines of "Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism" by Alan Segal. I was floored by this; that until about A.D. 100 Judaism held to a "two powers" view of God, the "invisible"/"distant" Yahweh and the "visible"/"approachable" Yahweh (i.e., the "man" that is often identified by "The Angel of the LORD"). This was known as Jewish binitarianism. For pretty much obvious reasons (i.e., Jesus and the growing Christian movement), rabbis around the close of the first century declared the "two Powers" view heretical. Interestingly, along with the rabbis, modern Christians often see it as heretical, too; rejecting this "Two Powers" idea because it seems too similar to other Near East "religions" (e.g., El and Ba'al). But perhaps we shouldn't reject the idea.... Not rejecting the idea doesn't make us all Joseph Campbell acolytes; instead, I would argue that while all these ancient religions are myths (in the technical/academic sense) Judaism/Christianity is the myth that is true (to riff on C.S. Lewis).

Anyway, back to the "Two Powers" idea. It's clearly shown in Daniel 7 (the "distant" Yahweh being the Ancient of Days in v. 9 and the "approachable" Yahweh being the "son of man" in vv. 13-14). (As an aside, there are even hints of (Jewish) trinitarianism in the early chapters of Ezekiel; my point being that the Christian notion of the Trinity didn't just pop up in the New Testament and the early Church, it had solid roots in Judaism.)

I suggested Seagal's book because it opens up new vistas in understanding the background and touchpoints in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. For instance, the symbolism used in Old Testament prophecies or the "odd" references John uses in Revelation (that link back to (for example) Isaiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel). Second Temple Judaism (beginning with the return of Judah from Babylon and ending with the destruction of the Temple in CE 70) is understudied in most accessible commentaries, but is absolutely essential to the understanding of Christianity (hence, why I recommended "Two Powers").

My point is also this: many of the readily accessible commentaries are often colored by the theological leanings of the volume's writer. So the authors sometimes use (tortured) logic to prove their theological/denominational views ("dishonest" eisegesis; reading into Scripture) rather than letting the Bible drive ("honest" exegesis). Not that the denominations were dishonest in what they came up with; rather, we now (in the last at least half-century) have access to material folks like Calvin or Luther (etc.) didn't have. So our understanding of the Bible's background and the Bible itself should evolve. We don't still practice medieval medicine, maybe we shouldn't practice "outdated" theology? Not that this means essential aspects of the Bible change; the "truth principles" remain....

Another book I would recommend (if you're interested in a subject study) is Robert Alter's "The Art of Biblical Narrative."

But if a commentary on a Bible book is still the way to go what I would dig into (if I could afford them) are the Anchor and Word Bible commentary series. Even though I know I wouldn't agree with some of the things found in these series, they are scholarly, academic series that (generally) aren't inhibited by denominational boundaries. And agree or disagree, the point is to be challenged and to think....

Since the Anchor and Word series are expensive resources to get ahold of, allow me to recommend - to get a taste of this academic angle - "The Bible Project" (and its associated podcast):

And (as I have recommended in another thread) Dr. Mike Heiser's "Naked Bible" podcast and website. Here:

and here:

(Both The Bible Project and Heiser introduced me to the idea of the "Divine Council" (see e.g., Psalm 82) and it opened up a number of new avenues for exploration such as Segal's book.)

Again, apologies for the ramble. Again, why not a subject rather than a Bible book?

Keep on keeping on! Cheers! Peace!

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Last edited:

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
...the symbolism used in Old Testament prophecies or the "odd" references John uses in Revelation ....
Ramble continues.... I forgot to add these two examples...

For example, from the Old Testament: the merkava "throne chariot" and cherubim described in Ezekiel 1. The former was a well-known motif as it relates to the "Supreme Being" in the ancient Near East (and not Erich von Däniken's Chariot of the Gods). The latter may very well be based on Babylonian cartography and astronomy/astrology (which wouldn't be surprising since Babylonian culture dominated at that time like American culture dominates these days). Despite some differences John is clearly referencing Ezekiel 1 with his "living creatures" in Revelation 4.

Speaking of Revelation, there are now excellent reasons to believe that John was employing "astral theology" in a number of places throughout the book (something earlier commentators of Revelation couldn't see because they didn't have the archeological discoveries of the ANE (ancient Near East) we now have. For example, the woman in Revelation 12 may very well be a vision of "astral theology. If so, then we may - believe it or not - confidently be able to state that Jesus was born on 1 Tishri 3 BCE (as an aside, 3 BCE is generally not considered valid b/c Herod supposedly died in 4 BC. But there are good reasons to dispute 4 BCE). Anyway, 1 Tishri is an incredibly important date to Second Temple Jews; they believed the Messiah would be born on that date. (Perhaps interestingly, 1 Tishri 3 BC translates in our calendar as September 11, 3 BCE.)

My point in writing this is that new research is uncovering things not accessible to earlier commentators (and it is these early commentators who have set the stage for the denominationally-oriented commentaries easily available today). Bottom line, this new research brings into better clarity the Bible story. (I find it ironic (?) that at a time where the West is aggressively moving away from the Bible God is providing more "proof" of the Bible's enduring legitimacy! It's almost as if Romans 10:14-21 is taking place before our eyes...!)

I could go on and on, but the reader would - I think - find more of this quite tiresome. And in any event, I have some errands to do!

Cheers.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

seekeroftruth

Well-Known Member
Ramble continues.... I forgot to add these two examples...

For example, from the Old Testament: the merkava "throne chariot" and cherubim described in Ezekiel 1. The former was a well-known motif as it relates to the "Supreme Being" in the ancient Near East (and not Erich von Däniken's Chariot of the Gods). The latter may very well be based on Babylonian cartography and astronomy/astrology (which wouldn't be surprising since Babylonian culture dominated at that time like American culture dominates these days). Despite some differences John is clearly referencing Ezekiel 1 with his "living creatures" in Revelation 4.

Speaking of Revelation, there are now excellent reasons to believe that John was employing "astral theology" in a number of places throughout the book (something earlier commentators of Revelation couldn't see because they didn't have the archeological discoveries of the ANE (ancient Near East) we now have. For example, the woman in Revelation 12 may very well be a vision of "astral theology. If so, then we may - believe it or not - confidently be able to state that Jesus was born on 1 Tishri 3 BCE (as an aside, 3 BCE is generally not considered valid b/c Herod supposedly died in 4 BC. But there are good reasons to dispute 4 BCE). Anyway, 1 Tishri is an incredibly important date to Second Temple Jews; they believed the Messiah would be born on that date. (Perhaps interestingly, 1 Tishri 3 BC translates in our calendar as September 11, 3 BCE.)

My point in writing this is that new research is uncovering things not accessible to earlier commentators (and it is these early commentators who have set the stage for the denominationally-oriented commentaries easily available today). Bottom line, this new research brings into better clarity the Bible story. (I find it ironic (?) that at a time where the West is aggressively moving away from the Bible God is providing more "proof" of the Bible's enduring legitimacy! It's almost as if Romans 10:14-21 is taking place before our eyes...!)

I could go on and on, but the reader would - I think - find more of this quite tiresome. And in any event, I have some errands to do!

Cheers.

--- End of line (MCP)

Boy you guys are way over my head.... lol

I like the idea of a subject.... with the #metoo movement going on.... I was thinking maybe "women" in the Bible and how they were really treated...... Or how Daniel and Revelation are stacking up against the pandemic and global warming.....
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Your connection is not private


☕


OK this is a basic common website problem .... these days 99% of the websites run HTTPS <---- Secure Browsing and encryption


The Secure Browsing requires a security certificate ... these expire and require renewal every yr or couple of years


 
Top