New Subscriber

Michael Miles michaelwm at earthlink.net
Sat Nov 27 16:30:33 EST 1999



Greetings Jonathan,

I understand the spirit in which your reply comes and I welcome it so much
moreso than those I've received thus far.  Thanks for taking the time to
explain.

I also think it an ODD thing that men would presume to take upon themselves
the understanding of the Word of God outside of HIS blessing on the
individual to have comprehension.  It is not merely a thing of linguistics
or typology, but a gift and to spend much time in without seeking His help
makes the whole process rather a moot point, as one will never come to
understanding without His help.  This is an example of why Christ spoke in
parables.  It was not and is not now for those that are not meant to see.
But, I see that I am once again speaking "Christian" and not Hebrew;
neverminding the fact that Christianity is reality and religion shall be the
downfall of man.  Simple dissection of Biblical Hebrew offers NOTHING and is
vanity indeed without blessings of comprehension from above.

Thank you again for the kind words.

Regards,
Michael


Jonathan Bailey wrote:


> Michael, I doubt there are too many people here that are interested in
proving you right
> or wrong. I for one am not here to grind theological axes.
>
> You are welcome to your exegesis. In my short time on the list, however, I
have
> noticed that the list seems to involve itself with questions of
linguistics, historical
> criticism, or textual criticism, and when theological views are brought up
(such as the
> typology thread), they usually involve exploration of issues of method and
types of
> interpretation without necessarily seeking to apply methods of
interpretation to
> support any particular exegetical conclusion. Though the list is (much to
my
> enjoyment) quite casual and open to a variety of levels and areas of
discussion, you
> would probably be met with more enthusiastic responses if you had written
your post
> to a list which devotes itself more fully to theological and exegetical
matters.
>
> The reason Mr. Wagers did not devote more time to your post or try to
support or
> refute it is quite probably because he did not care one way or another
about your
> gap-theory exegesis. Most of the people on here are using the list to keep
in touch
> with other competent professionals to the event of furthering their
personal research,
> aquiring tools of their trade, etc. They are not particularly trying to
convert anyone to a
> particular exegesis.
>
> But I haven't been on the list for terribly long, and in my short time on
the list I have
> noticed that almost anything goes, so enjoy and write what you will. But
don't get
> discouraged by responses like Mr. Wagers.
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan Bailey
> MA Kandidat
> Hochschule für Jüdische Studien
> Heidelberg
>





More information about the b-hebrew mailing list