Was this King David's palace?

[justified]

you have to stop putting parantheses in the text! My goodness.

Let the bible stand on its own without your help!!!!

 

[kofh2u]

you have to stop putting parantheses in the text! My goodness.

Let the bible stand on its own without your help!!!!

The Schofield Bible does it.

Jimmy Swaggart's new Bible Edition does it.

Many times other bible editions, even the KJV, have a few examples to point to.

I think it is justified.
It makes what the meaning is for me exactly clear and concise, directly in the text.
Isn't that just what an interpretation ought be?
Direct.
Clear, to the point.
COMPREHENSIVE, throughout in the whole chapter?

It makes the entire take readable holding in hand only the Bible.

Interpretations like The Interpretor's Bible, for instance, quotes two or three verses, and then, below, writes whole articles about what the opinions are concernong meanings.
Much is lost in phrases the IB does not address, and much attention is diverted from the essence of the verses themselves.

And, if you compare the complete bible rendered in both fashions, side by side, I think the traditional method smells of smoke and mirrors, too.

The long tradition of discussing the text outside the exact context, in long paragraphs has led people astry. Does lead people astry

Meaning, the unsophisticated reader has a tendency to abdicate his own understanding of the verses, submitting to the verbose and authoritative credentials of "experts" who write tangents and abstractions that seem convincing because of the implied academics.

But, a child ought lead them, and the wise should be confounded by the obvious Truth, IMO.

There is hardly a better wway, following terms and symbolisms, and parts of a verse which are unspecified references to abstractionswe MUST "guess."

I like it, because even I know what I am saying it means to me.

Consider this.
The places where the expression might be used again, in many other verses, in both the Old and New Testaments, this are subject to backing up interpretations suggested.
By substitution of the same bracketed meaning.

That the meaning fits the context in every case supports the interpretation.

For instance, in Revelation, how many times is there a reference to the same symbolism? Does the interpretor submit to a prompt substitution as easily as checking the bracketed repetition in both cases?

And, like what I read into Malachi, separating the text of the Bible by these brackets, can be clearly accepted or rejected knowing exactly what I am saying.
In other words, the interpretation isoe that fits all of Malachi, not a guess at a term or a verse.


Remember what I understand Daniel to be saying, the day of the lord, the end ofdays... the 1290 "days"... it fits here, too.

Mal. 4:1 For, behold, the day cometh (in 1939 AD), that shall burn as an (Holocaust) oven; and all the proud (Rabbi), yea, and all (the secular Jews) that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD, (crucified) of (1.44 billion Christian) hosts, that it shall leave them neither root (in Israel) nor branch (in their diaspora).

Mal. 4:2 But unto you (Christians) that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness, (American Evangelical Christianity), arise (in the New World) with healing (for the Jews) in his wings (of Democratic freedom); and ye (American Jews) shall go forth (into a Hebrew-Christianity), and grow up as calves (transplanted: [Rev. 4:7]) of the (new) stall (in American Jewry).

Mal. 4:3 And ye (American Jews) shall tread down the wicked (who twist the scripture); for they shall be ashes (from the Holocaust) under the soles of your feet (as foundation for interpretation of my prophesies) in the day. (2K25), that I shall do this, saith the LORD, (crucified), of (Christian) hosts.


Mal. 4:4 Remember ye, (the Old Testament, too), the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments, (and revisit it upon all Christianity).

 

[justified]

Listen,

It makes much more sense to let the text stand. I don't care what Schofield did. In fact, I am furious with Schofield every day because he spread an incredible amount of poor exegesis into mainstream Christiantiy. But let's be honest: the biblical text is sacred; it is the biblical text. Let the text stand, and then comment on the text. Please, do it for the love of God who gave you that text without your comments in it for a reason.

 

[CovenantRay]

Shalom:

Doesn't this debate belong elsewhere? How does this belong in "Biblical Archaeology" forum?

Personally I recommend that my bretheren review 1 Corinthians Chapter 13 about LOVE.

I respect the right of others to have strongly held beliefs, yet I strongly suggest you take it to the appropriate venue, which this is NOT.

This is only my humble opinion as a non-moderator. It would be appreciated if a MOD would put their HAT on and validate my opinion. Enough is enough.

In love,

CovenantRay

 

[kofh2u]

Shalom:

Doesn't this debate belong elsewhere? How does this belong in "Biblical Archaeology" forum?

Personally I recommend that my bretheren review 1 Corinthians Chapter 13 about LOVE.

I respect the right of others to have strongly held beliefs, yet I strongly suggest you take it to the appropriate venue, which this is NOT.

This is only my humble opinion as a non-moderator. It would be appreciated if a MOD would put their HAT on and validate my opinion. Enough is enough.

In love,

CovenantRay

Yes, I didn't realize we were so far off the mark here.

I have no reaon to discuss how my point of view is enunciated. I have been responding to the archealogy. So, I will ignore this recommendation by justified and return to the OP.

Thanks.