Scott Hahn says that Ham (Cham) can be interpreted as having had sex with

[rcjones]

Yes, God speaks in riddles. God also speaks in prophecy, in Apocalyptic language, and in very clear terms. God is not limited to speaking in riddles.

No disagreement here. In fact, there are no shadows unless there is a literal meaning.

No, this is simply not true. I’ll have to remember my sources on this, but there are cases where images mean completely different things. A rose is not always a rose is not always a rose. I’ll have to get back with you on the details.

Now you are comparing apples and oranges. Some allegory is really shadow. Some is not.

I disagree, yet again.

I am not asking you to agree. I am asking that you verify it against the scriptures. It should be simple enough to falsify anything I say considering the very strict rules.

I’m not disagreeing with this theory entirely, I just think it gets the typical reader bogged down in chasing rabbits down false holes. In other words, sometimes a shadow is simply a shadow.

Until you can see the shadows for yourself, they all look like just shadows. Even as we speak, people are learning to see them for themselves.

A ten year old discerned that the real agony of the cross was that the Father was split from the son, God himself was torn when the Father couldn’t bear to look at his son who had been made to be sin for us. She discerned this from the tablets of the law, the split water, the split rock and the torn veil.

The really amazing thing is that a ten year old would even meditate upon these things on her own.

I share them in the hope you will be blessed with the ability to see them for yourself. You don’t need me to point them out.

 

[SenorSalsa]

After reading through this,

You guys put way too much emphasis on Hahn being a convert.

There isnt a protestant and a Catholic interpretation of the bible. Just a right and a wrong one.

And for a man that was converted by studying the Catholic faith(trying to find a fault in it), im going to guess he is pretty well sound in Catholic vs Protestant views.

More importantly, i dont think that the two interpretations discussed here are mutually exclusive. In the literal, we have the phrase of uncover the nakedness. This can allude to Christ’s nakedness on the Cross, and all the other things pointed out. Through the euphamism, it can be said that it was Ham having sex with his mother.

We must remember that Scripture is Divinely Inspired. As someone pointed out, the story of Lot does not use the same phrasing. It is then apparent to me, that there is some reason that it would be used here, not just a stylistic choice, but rather to get across two different meanings through the same story.

 

[rcjones]

In regards to the claim that a donkey is always a donkey, we have a rock. What is the rock? Sometimes its Abraham, sometimes its Jesus, and sometimes its Peter.

Since the shadows always point to Christ, a rock would not be Abraham nor Peter. And this does not deny any literal interpretation that is derived. It would show that Abraham or Peter played the role of Christ in the shadow.

There are over a hundred references to rocks and stones in the scriptures and a fascinating study of them all. My conclusions are subject to investigation. But it is premature to do that. The first question that should be asked is are they really there or did I invent them?

If they are there, am I reading them correctly? Then if I am reading them correctly, what do they mean?

They exist as extended narratives, not just isolated images.
I know it sounds crazy. I just ask that you check it out for yourself.

Take an easy one, Gen 2:21 And God caused Christ to die and he died, and he married his limping side and redeemed mankind.

Just check out the double meanings of the words and substitute Christ for Adam since Adam is a shadow of Christ. Learn the tools, then you will be qualified to judge them. And I invite you to judge them.

But comparing them to something else is not a fair judgment.

 

[Benadam]

I find the method of confirming the double meaning a good one. It turns a double meaning into a parallell meaning of who the OT is a testimony of. With the method of confirmation it helps us discover how these central figures within the People of God experienced in their own lives the beginning and end of all human history. It in a certain way shows us how the prophetic spirit operated. It shows us why we call Jesus the Beginning and the End, The Lord of History.

The warnings of Marymol and NotWorthy should not go unheeded because it is just this sort of thing that without boundaries to safeguard from error that have played the hearts of so many people and dragged them down into water they would have avoided had they known it was boiling.

 

[rcjones]

I find the method of confirming the double meaning a good one.

Thank you.

The warnings of Marymol and NotWorthy should not go unheeded because it is just this sort of thing that without boundaries to safeguard from error that have played the hearts of so many people and dragged them down into water they would have avoided had they known it was boiling.

Exactly. These are Jewish midrash techniques. The Jews cannot see Christ in the shadows using them because they refuse to look at the New Testament. It is Christ who reveals the shadows, not the shadows that reveal Christ.

The Gnostics used them, but did not adhere to the rules. Some of what the Gnostics said was misunderstood, and some of it was garbage. Here’s an example: “Women must become men…” Just as Paul said the woman was deceived, the female represents those who do not see clearly. This Gnostic saying simply means “the blind must see”.

Furthermore, the first century Jews intentionally perverted these methods to hide Christ. In a system called PaRDeS, standing for Pashat, Remez, Drash and Sod, (literal, hints, compare and contrast, and hidden) they coupled the method with a parable and warned “When you see the white rock don’t say water, water”.
When you interpret these words they say “When you see Christ, don’t call him the word of God in heaven and on earth”.

They further added extra-biblical texts and from this jumble produced the Kabbalah. It was intentionally made to distract Jews from seeing Christ in the scriptures.

The midrash went astray because they didn’t look at Christ and the NT. And didn’t follow the rules.

The Gnostics went astray because they didn’t follow the rules.

The Kabbalah was an intentional distraction so that Jews wouldn’t see Christ in their own scriptures.

The simple key is that the shadows will not contradict the literal. If it doesn’t look like Christ, it isn’t Christ.

You can see them top down or bottom up. Mystics saw them top down. I first saw them top down and have derived the bottom up method in three steps.

1. Dictionary substitution of double meanings, roots and homographs. There is occasionally a pun.
2. Shadow substitution of known shadows. Since once they are known they are the same everywhere they are reusable.
3. Solve the riddles.

You can jump in almost anywhere and find them. ( I have not looked in the epistles too closely and don’t expect to find many since God speaks plainly to the church “as friends”.

When you start seeing them, there will be plenty of discussion to validate them. So far I hold all my conclusions tentatively until others can validate them.

 

[SenorSalsa]

rcjones, what kind of biblical education do you have? It seems as if you have at least some knowledge past the everyday “ive read it” type stuff.

 

[rcjones]

rcjones, what kind of biblical education do you have? It seems as if you have at least some knowledge past the everyday “ive read it” type stuff.

I hope you are asking because you have recognized that the claim I have made is crazy, and you are wondering if I am also crazy.

You can rest assured that the seminaries don’t teach this stuff… yet.

Except maybe a bit at John Knox Seminary where Dr. Gage has independently discovered sequential parallels between John and Revelations, and Luke and Acts, which validate the parallels I found in Matthew. He does not yet see the double entendre.

If the shadows are real, they should glorify God, and I should not be important to the process.

I hope you are being blessed by them already and more so as you attempt to validate or falsify them.

 

[SenorSalsa]

I hope you are asking because you have recognized that the claim I have made is crazy, and you are wondering if I am also crazy.

Not really, i was just pointing out that the every day Bible reader wouldnt be able to come up with such connections throughout both testaments(right or not), so it seemed to me like you had had some, probably formal, education. I wasnt really making a judgment either way on the validity of the statement

 

[rcjones]

Not really, i was just pointing out that the every day Bible reader wouldnt be able to come up with such connections throughout both testaments(right or not), so it seemed to me like you had had some, probably formal, education. I wasnt really making a judgment either way on the validity of the statement

Sorry, I was being facetious, ASCII text doesn’t convey a wink and a nod very well.

But now that you have added a bit to you query I can answer more precisely so as not to discourage others from looking.

I studied briefly with a rabbi and found the experience most unsatisfactory. His methods were strange to me (but familiar to others in the class) and his conclusions were always wrong (missed the redemptive meaning).

When I returned to my own studies, the shadows of Christ popped out everywhere. I thought they were pretty cool and tried to shared them with people. I have received the greatest condemnation from evangelicals who have signed the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, which insists that scripture has only one meaning and it is derived from literal-historical (higher critical) methods. It was bizarre to be told that I was not supposed to find Christ in the scriptures.

So I reverse engineered the methods, researched the history, and tried to find others that were seeing them or had seen them.

I have studied the Bible for 30 years, so I may have a greater reservoir of scriptures available for recollection than many, but to do the study itself, I am dependent upon the computer to help me correlate. When I study the donkey, I will read everything said about the donkey before coming to a conclusion. The computer helps me do this quickly. Documenting what I do takes significantly more time, and documenting it in a way to explain it to people who don’t know what I’m doing is almost impossible.

But I hope I am getting better at explaining it so that you may do it as well.

It is much easier to explain in person since I can respond immediately should I see the eyes glaze over.

I have a few families that study with me now, and the children as young as 9 can do it at the schematic layer (top down they can see hints and compare and contrast) and can also apply known shadows in new circumstances.

I am hoping to collaborate with a programmer since the first two steps can be done mechanically, leaving the riddles to be solved.
This will speed up the process significantly. I would like to read the second layer of the Bible all the way through before I go to be with the Lord.

A few of the study participants have observed that the shadows show more of the heart of God.

I tell the kids that God must have been eating chocolate when He wrote the scriptures because He left fingerprints all over it.

I am hoping you will be able to see them for yourself if just to confirm that they are real and allow others to have the same awe of God that they give us.

 

[BRB]

Thank you.

Exactly. These are Jewish midrash techniques. The Jews cannot see Christ in the shadows using them because they refuse to look at the New Testament. It is Christ who reveals the shadows, not the shadows that reveal Christ.

The Gnostics used them, but did not adhere to the rules. Some of what the Gnostics said was misunderstood, and some of it was garbage. Here’s an example: “Women must become men…” Just as Paul said the woman was deceived, the female represents those who do not see clearly. This Gnostic saying simply means “the blind must see”.

Furthermore, the first century Jews intentionally perverted these methods to hide Christ. In a system called PaRDeS, standing for Pashat, Remez, Drash and Sod, (literal, hints, compare and contrast, and hidden) they coupled the method with a parable and warned “When you see the white rock don’t say water, water”.
When you interpret these words they say “When you see Christ, don’t call him the word of God in heaven and on earth”.

They further added extra-biblical texts and from this jumble produced the Kabbalah. It was intentionally made to distract Jews from seeing Christ in the scriptures.

The midrash went astray because they didn’t look at Christ and the NT. And didn’t follow the rules.

The Gnostics went astray because they didn’t follow the rules.

The Kabbalah was an intentional distraction so that Jews wouldn’t see Christ in their own scriptures.

The simple key is that the shadows will not contradict the literal. If it doesn’t look like Christ, it isn’t Christ.

You can see them top down or bottom up. Mystics saw them top down. I first saw them top down and have derived the bottom up method in three steps.

1. Dictionary substitution of double meanings, roots and homographs. There is occasionally a pun.
2. Shadow substitution of known shadows. Since once they are known they are the same everywhere they are reusable.
3. Solve the riddles.

You can jump in almost anywhere and find them. ( I have not looked in the epistles too closely and don’t expect to find many since God speaks plainly to the church “as friends”.

When you start seeing them, there will be plenty of discussion to validate them. So far I hold all my conclusions tentatively until others can validate them.

Very interesting ! Any books or internet sources regarding these ideas / rules , etc ?

 

[rcjones]

Very interesting ! Any books or internet sources regarding these ideas / rules , etc ?

Google Dr, Gage, John Revelation Project Knox.

He has found sequential parallels between John and Revelations and Luke and Acts. He doesn’t do double entendre, but has discerned the prostitute-bride theme independently.

I’d give a link, but they seem to change it every few weeks or something.

Then biblesecrets.org is written by a guy who is Mormon. He has independently discerned that Job is a shadow of Christ and documents some good stuff. He does the hints, and the compare and contrast. He also uses the double entendre, but only for place names. You must overlook his heavy Mormon bias.

idontknownuthin.com is my site. I basically try to document and explain things there in various ways. I have started a dictionary of shadows. Consider everything there as tentative until it gets verified by someone else.

I make no copyright claims and everything there is free. There aren’t even ads. It’s just a private wiki that I use to share with friends.

 

[Benadam]

Dear RCJones,

I see now that unless a person is so well grounded in the authentic teaching of the True Faith it is possible, even likely that either false truth’s or preconceived truth’s already believed are either found in the shadows and riddles or projected into the text as shadows.

I advise that any shadow found or riddle solved is in accord with what is taught. Not what a person may think is taught but what is really taught.

Theological misunderstandings of what the Church teaches by sincere and even knowledgfeable Catholics can easily be projected onto the text and confirm or create distortions in their minds.

 

[rcjones]

And the same is true of the literal.

Which is why the rules are so important.

The shadows are there to give delight to those who hear the voice of the shepherd and meditate upon his word.

Those who can only see the word, must be very careful.

Those who can hear God in the literal have no problem reconciling faith and works. This who can only see, are always looking for the line that justifies sin.

 

[Benadam]

Have you wondered if misunderstandings of your own have been attached to biblical signs thereby confirming you in that misunderstanding?

You would perhaps never know unless you came across the teaching and discovered your error. Has this ever happened? Have you ever found that you were attaching a meaning to a shadow or symbol that it didn’t mean / Something that if you had known beforehand would have been prevented?

 

[rcjones]

Well, I have always held them to be observations until I can get others to confirm them. Although I am personally convinced they really exist, what they mean must be held as an opinion until there are others who can dialog about them and subject them to the Berean tests.

I first “heard” them. When I started “seeing” them, I ran into the same difficulties as the Gnostics. It troubled me because I knew that the literal and what I thought I saw in the shadow did not reconcile with each other. I knew Christ well enough to know that the erroneous pictures were not of him. So I searched for guidance in understanding and that is when I started finding the rules.

The rules actually corrected some of the early pictures.

Most of the time, the early picture is accurate but not precise. Was Mary at the appointed time or before?

Some of the pictures I know are a bit fuzzy. For instance I know there is a subtle difference between a rock and a stone, but I am not able to verbalize it yet. Some of the pictures I have a 30% confidence in, others 90%.

Some things I interpret as pre-incarnate discussions, fully realizing that there may be another interpretation, but not quite seeing how it fits any other way.

It is important that others put them to the test.

I do believe that they are less subjective than the literal because of the strict rules. It’s just that I don’t have full confidence in my ability to properly interpret them yet.

 

[rcjones]

Have you wondered if misunderstandings of your own have been attached to biblical signs thereby confirming you in that misunderstanding?

If the shadows were invention, consider what you must do to invent them.

You must invent a meaning for each shadow word, so that everywhere it occurs in the Bible it must mean the same thing.

Then you must take the new meanings and invent a new meaning for the immediate context of where the word is, everywhere that the word is (all the sentences).

You must ensure that not only do the new sentences have meaning, but that they must fit in the context of the whole narrative.

And in the process you are limited to selecting the meanings attached to the words in each sentence, you can’t just invent them.

And finally, not only must the new meaning be sensible in the genre of narrative, dialog and riddles, but they must be plausible meanings and theologically significant meanings that correlate with the theology of the New Testament.

The rules pretty much make the process self-correcting. It took me a while to discern what the camels were. I figured them either for judges or patriarchs. Because I hold thing tentatively, I would just read it both ways until it became clear from the bulk of the evidence.

There can be no dispute that the dozens of things that split are related and that they refer to the Father and the Son being “split” at the cross. The question comes into what it means to be split at the cross.

The Mormon can only say that they were physically separated by death… Big deal, lots of people are separated more than three days by their jobs.

The JW can’t say much different.

When your theology recognizes that the Father and the Son were one “hypostaseos”, then the imagery is much more profound in that God himself was torn, whatever that means. The Father could not bear to look upon His son to such a degree, that the very essential nature of God was torn.

When you meditate upon all the things that were torn, it is no longer just symbolic. I believe we are looking into the very heart of God. What is the price of sin. Someone lost their first-born son? Not a real big deal considering all the people that lost their first-born son. That he died a painful death on a cross? Lots of people died on crosses. But God himself was torn asunder, whatever that means. We can’t comprehend it, we can only marvel and wonder.

You instinctively know that must be the case, but the shadow has revealed it to a degree that we have never considered. If the rules are applied, I really don’t think we can go too far astray without correction. But it must be done in community. A single interpreter is tempted to get lazy and easily falls into allegory.

 

[BRB]

The rainbow isn’t a gay symbol, it is the Light of God descending to the earth as seen through water. As such it is Christ who is the Light and he is the water which represents the Word, … and He’s that too.

It’s because of the same rainbow that Joseph wore that his brothers hated him and put him in the ground.

It came with a promise not to destroy the earth with water (the word) ever again. It is the same lesson as when Elisha removed the borrowed axe from the brook. Since the axe is laid to the root, it represents judgment. The judgment they were making was a borrowed judgment, it wasn’t theirs to make since Christ is the judge.
He removed judgment from the living water. Christ brought grace to the fallen world.

If you choose to “know him as a man” you will not know Him as God.

If you focus on the earthly things, you miss the heavenly things.

You are clearly onto some deep concepts … the deep mysterys.

Water clearly represents Christ in OT/NT. H.S. is represented by clouds, mist, etc. And God the ‘Father of Lights’ … in Him there is no darkness.

But, I’m concerned about the ‘shadows’ you speak of. Darkness is the antithesis of the Trinity. The Trinity will not cast shadows. There are no shadows in the Kingdom …per Johns description of heaven. Yes, Christ had a shadow on earth… but, only his human form caused. When He, Moses and Elijah were transfigured … no shadows would be found.

I’ll look more into your sources on shadows … I assume you only use the term ‘shadows’ in cause/effect ways. I do know Bible speaks of H.S. ‘overshadowing’ us. Language used with Mary … for example.

 

[BRB]

The term used for the phenomenon is sensus plenior. It is a meaning that God put there that even the human author was unaware of. It is not allegory, since allegory has no rules. The meaning is not invented, it is attached to the words themselves and discerned by correlation. Because of this, the meaning can be validated by anyone.

.

It would seem impossible for all the hidden meanings in scripture to be the creation/imaginations of the various authors. Surely much of the double meanings were not perceived by the authors.

However, John and Paul seem to have discovered much of this. And John in Revelations and his Gospel book … was inspired to make key linkages with the deep OT wisdom. And, if not they … by 130 AD the early chruch fathers had seen much of double meanings and written of it.

 

[rcjones]

You are clearly onto some deep concepts … the deep mysterys.

Water clearly represents Christ in OT/NT. H.S. is represented by clouds, mist, etc. And God the ‘Father of Lights’ … in Him there is no darkness.

But, I’m concerned about the ‘shadows’ you speak of. Darkness is the antithesis of the Trinity. The Trinity will not cast shadows. There are no shadows in the Kingdom …per Johns description of heaven. Yes, Christ had a shadow on earth… but, only his human form caused. When He, Moses and Elijah were transfigured … no shadows would be found.

I use the term shadow the same as Heb 10.1:
For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

Christ does not cast the shadow. The shadow already exists. His light reveals what’s in them.

 

[rcjones]

I would like to thank you all for welcoming me in the forum.

I know I have said some things that should not get blanket approval, and should be examined to see if they are true.

But here I have seen no one who has rejected the shadows on their face. You have been courteous, and generous in listening to the claims and considering them to see if they are true.

This is the first forum where I believe you have actually listened before making judgments. You may still decide that what I think I am seeing is not there. That’s OK, because I believe you are giving it a fair hearing.