Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
568
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Created page with "It is my '''s'''omewhat-'''i'''nformed, '''m'''ore-'''o'''r-'''l'''ess '''d'''eeply '''s'''tudied (SIMOLDS) opinion that there very well may be authentication codes crafted into ..."
It is my '''s'''omewhat-'''i'''nformed, '''m'''ore-'''o'''r-'''l'''ess '''d'''eeply '''s'''tudied (SIMOLDS) opinion that there very well may be authentication codes crafted into the text of the Pentateuch by its original writer(s), especially by Moses. But, it also is my SIMOLDS opinion that the Pentateuch, does, in fact, naturally contain various unique 'subtextual' patterns which, when first noticed, may have lent themselves to the reputed creation of these 'authentication codes'.
In other words, it is my opinion that, only because texts, as such, have patterns, and then some of these patterns are noticed, that anyone can get the idea in the first place of crafting a text in such a way as to contain 'secret patterns' that its author(s) use to help authenticate proposed and supposed copies.
So, imagine that the most important root text in the cosmos (Genesis) is like the most complex and powerful machine, such that, if every pivotal part were not made to the finest tolerances, then the machine would simply break down when submitted to the vagaries of human opinion. Imagine, further, that the means by which this machine is so well made is by the social, political, and linguistic dynamics of cosmological truth as wielded by human sincerity, and that sincerity passed down, with all due deliberation, by a true patriarch to that whom he identifies as most suited to the task.
With the foregoing in mind, what was the cause for God's having initially called Abra(ha)m? If the plain text of the first twenty-four (24) chapters of Genesis is to be taken at face value, and the Jewish tradition concerning Melchizedek and Abraham believed, then it was Shem who, as the true patriarch, and who then went by the name 'Melchizedek', identified that younger man whom God had already called according to that man's extreme act of defiance against the pagan gods.
Again, by what cause did God call Abra(ha)m? Was it by the cause of an 'eeny-meeny-miney-moe' caprice on God's part? No, I am convinced that caprice had nothing to do with why God sought that man to be the father of God's own nation. But, the cause for the absence in Genesis of that traditional Jewish story may, I think, be even more telling than is the story itself.
By ancient accounts of the Jews, and, by the most simple reading of the genealogies, Shem outlived Abraham by decades. And by the Jewish tradition of renaming/alternate-naming, a practice followed by Saul-who-became-Paul, and by Peter-who-became-Cephas, Shem truly was called 'Melchizedek', as the one man in Abraham's world who had no parents, and whose life continued even after [[Abraham died]].
The practice of oblique methods of accounting certain facts is meant not so much to hide those facts from the nefarious as to compel the most sincere to count the manners in which, and the depths to which, those facts are pertinent. The fact is, that, the more is known in common to an original set of authors and to its original audience, the less of some things are explained or even mentioned in the text. That fact is the ultimate, if otherwise valueless, context for that wholly true root text called 'Genesis'. If the hopefully rare Evangelical Christian reader doubts this point, all he need do is compare the entire explicit story of Abraham to the meager three verses dedicated to him in Hebrews chapter 11. Abraham was practically a pagan, otherwise God would never have consented to so test the man. It was not as if God, in one breath, introduced Himself to him and then asked him to slay his son suddenly during breakfast. God does not demand a kind of loyalty which only Satan could wish for, which is precisely why God stayed Abraham's hand at the last moment.
The title of 'Most High God, possessor of heaven and Earth' was a title which Abraham learned from the patriarchal line, likely from Shem himself, though Shem, by name, is never mentioned as having had any contact with Abraham. The literary device is to have the reader focus all attention on this man 'Melchizedek', who appears out of nowhere, is for no explicit reason greatly recognized by Abraham, and then disappears, never to be mentioned again. The phrase in the Lone Ranger serial, "Who was that masked man?", pales-to-invisibility by comparison.
The central initial question is, would Shem ever have had reason to see what 'little Abram' was up to? After that, who, if anyone, oversaw the setting-to-record of Abraham's story? Who could have been more qualified for that latter job than a man who, besides being so righteous as to be the most blessed of Noah, was so biologically functional as to be many hundreds of years old when Abram was first called? Who was that masked brain? The whole point was to make a statement about Shiloh, and in such a pivotal, information-dense way, that the only thing that could best it for drama was a certain incident in the relationship between a certain father and his son.
That incident began at the 555th verse.
In other words, it is my opinion that, only because texts, as such, have patterns, and then some of these patterns are noticed, that anyone can get the idea in the first place of crafting a text in such a way as to contain 'secret patterns' that its author(s) use to help authenticate proposed and supposed copies.
So, imagine that the most important root text in the cosmos (Genesis) is like the most complex and powerful machine, such that, if every pivotal part were not made to the finest tolerances, then the machine would simply break down when submitted to the vagaries of human opinion. Imagine, further, that the means by which this machine is so well made is by the social, political, and linguistic dynamics of cosmological truth as wielded by human sincerity, and that sincerity passed down, with all due deliberation, by a true patriarch to that whom he identifies as most suited to the task.
With the foregoing in mind, what was the cause for God's having initially called Abra(ha)m? If the plain text of the first twenty-four (24) chapters of Genesis is to be taken at face value, and the Jewish tradition concerning Melchizedek and Abraham believed, then it was Shem who, as the true patriarch, and who then went by the name 'Melchizedek', identified that younger man whom God had already called according to that man's extreme act of defiance against the pagan gods.
Again, by what cause did God call Abra(ha)m? Was it by the cause of an 'eeny-meeny-miney-moe' caprice on God's part? No, I am convinced that caprice had nothing to do with why God sought that man to be the father of God's own nation. But, the cause for the absence in Genesis of that traditional Jewish story may, I think, be even more telling than is the story itself.
By ancient accounts of the Jews, and, by the most simple reading of the genealogies, Shem outlived Abraham by decades. And by the Jewish tradition of renaming/alternate-naming, a practice followed by Saul-who-became-Paul, and by Peter-who-became-Cephas, Shem truly was called 'Melchizedek', as the one man in Abraham's world who had no parents, and whose life continued even after [[Abraham died]].
The practice of oblique methods of accounting certain facts is meant not so much to hide those facts from the nefarious as to compel the most sincere to count the manners in which, and the depths to which, those facts are pertinent. The fact is, that, the more is known in common to an original set of authors and to its original audience, the less of some things are explained or even mentioned in the text. That fact is the ultimate, if otherwise valueless, context for that wholly true root text called 'Genesis'. If the hopefully rare Evangelical Christian reader doubts this point, all he need do is compare the entire explicit story of Abraham to the meager three verses dedicated to him in Hebrews chapter 11. Abraham was practically a pagan, otherwise God would never have consented to so test the man. It was not as if God, in one breath, introduced Himself to him and then asked him to slay his son suddenly during breakfast. God does not demand a kind of loyalty which only Satan could wish for, which is precisely why God stayed Abraham's hand at the last moment.
The title of 'Most High God, possessor of heaven and Earth' was a title which Abraham learned from the patriarchal line, likely from Shem himself, though Shem, by name, is never mentioned as having had any contact with Abraham. The literary device is to have the reader focus all attention on this man 'Melchizedek', who appears out of nowhere, is for no explicit reason greatly recognized by Abraham, and then disappears, never to be mentioned again. The phrase in the Lone Ranger serial, "Who was that masked man?", pales-to-invisibility by comparison.
The central initial question is, would Shem ever have had reason to see what 'little Abram' was up to? After that, who, if anyone, oversaw the setting-to-record of Abraham's story? Who could have been more qualified for that latter job than a man who, besides being so righteous as to be the most blessed of Noah, was so biologically functional as to be many hundreds of years old when Abram was first called? Who was that masked brain? The whole point was to make a statement about Shiloh, and in such a pivotal, information-dense way, that the only thing that could best it for drama was a certain incident in the relationship between a certain father and his son.
That incident began at the 555th verse.