Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

> Glen wrote: "Paul mentions numerous times that events of the Old Testament
> were but a "foreshadowing"."
> 
> Do you not realize how insulting this is to people who are not Christian?
> Or do you not care?
> 
> Glen again: "Peter Kirk's "physical vs. spiritual sustenance" theory is
> theologically proven out (again) in John 7 where Jesus speaks toward the
> physical manna consumed in the wilderness by those who "died"; this Jesus
> does, in comparison to the spiritual manna which Christ offered to those
> "who should not perish".
> 
> How can the NT "prove" anything about the meaning of the Hebrew Bible [I
> note that you persist in calling it the OLD Testament]?  It can show only
> how the early Church chose to reconstruct parts of the Bible for its own
> use.  But that does not ipso facto constitute THE meaning of the Hebrew
> Bible.  It is only one Christian/NT way of declaring meaning.  When you use
> Christian/NT lens of faith as a "pony" to understand and then shovel
> Christian meaning backwards onto prior literature, you are not interpreting
> the Hebrew Scriptures, but preaching about your own prior commitment to a
> system of theology.  Come on.  This list is about B-Hebrew, not
> fundamentalist ideas about inerrancy or Christian supersessionism.

Wow.  Can you say "overreact"?

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"No study of probabilities inside a given frame can ever
tell us how probable it is that the frame itself can be
violated."  C. S. Lewis