aavichai wrote:I'm looking at the principle of Ideas
sometimes in proverbs (not just the book - but any book of proverbs) and poetry books
there is a use of words that represent an idea - that is already known
and because of that - they allow themselves not to write the whole idea in a clear way - to keep it poetry
Even with ideas, you need to make sure that the language actually communicates what you intend.
aavichai wrote:for example (this example is from a book - not mine)
in proverbs 21:9 it says:
טוב לשבת על פנת גג מאשת מדינים ובית חבר
it's better to sit on a roof's corner than...
Now what is the meaning of a roof's corner - we understand that it is a lonely place - but what kind of metaphor is that
What makes you think that living on a roof’s corner is lonely? Isn’t the picture more like that it’s better to live in a run down shack, than in a mansion with a nagging woman?
aavichai wrote:then you see the almost same verse in the same chapter:19 טוב שבת בארץ מדבר מאשת מדונים וכעס
so here we see that "roof's corner" somehow linked to "a deserted place"
Isn’t the contrast being between a comfortable place with a nagging woman, and an uncomfortable place without the nagging?
aavichai wrote:and then there is a support from psalm 102:7-8
דמיתי לקאת מדבר, הייתי ככוס חרבות
שקדתי ואהיה כצפור בודד על גג
here again there is the idea of "the roof" linked to מדבר and חרבות
So now when we read the first verse of psalm in this reply 21:9 and we see "roof's corner"
we can understand it as "a deserted place - a destructed place"
like the lonely bird that sits on a roof's corner of a destructed house in a deserted place.
I don’t see the connection.
aavichai wrote:so maybe this picture-idea was known at that time
and the writer of proverbs didn't have to explain it - but just to write "to sis on a roof's corner"
and everything would be understood
but for us... if we didn't see this idea on other places... we would just understand it as "a roof's corner" literally
with no understanding the real meaning of what the writer trying to picture us
this is just an example about understanding verses through ideas
In the examples you gave above in Proverbs, the ideas are very clear literally, without having to read into them what you’re trying to do.
aavichai wrote:the verse that is talked here is also have an idea
(in my opinion)
the idea of the preacher that eat the scroll that God gave him
and then he preach to the people
this idea is explained clearly in Ezekiel
(i don't want to write that again - but it is written before)
but i just say the points that in Ezekiel is is written
that the scroll is written both sides
and that God gave it to him
and then told him to preach
and so i see psalm
when it is written
אָ֣ז אָ֭מַרְתִּי הִנֵּה־בָ֑אתִי בִּמְגִלַּת־סֵ֝֗פֶר כָּת֥וּב עָלָֽי
i said, there, i come with a scroll
and now the hard part is כתוב עלי
the כתוב is referring to point that the scroll is written
(maybe in both sides and maybe when it's say written it means to just emphasize that - because no one thought it was blank)
the עלי is referring to the "God give the scroll"
he want to say that he come with the scroll, but how did he get it? God lay it upon him"
like the idea in Ezekiel, just there he say that God "gave him" - but the idea is the same idea.
now the next verse in psalm support that idea
לַֽעֲשֹֽׂות־רְצֹונְךָ֣ אֱלֹהַ֣י חָפָ֑צְתִּי וְ֝תֹ֥ורָתְךָ֗ בְּתֹ֣וךְ מֵעָֽי
your Torah (or just your laws) is inside my inwards
like Ezekiel when it says the same thing
so we can understand that he metaphoric ate it
and the next verse also support - Because now we ask: why did he eat it
בשרתי צדק בקהל רב הנה שפתי לא אכלא
I told the justice to a large crowd
and that is the purpose in Ezekiel - God tell him to eat the scroll so he could preach Israel
So in my opinion, Psalm wrote this idea in a short way, because maybe in his time it was obvious
now if you look at my first reply that addresses this subject in this interpretation (because before that i brought another one)
i think it will be more understandable, because there i brought all the verses and mixed them (just to show the idea)
What you’ve done is called “collapsing contexts”. Along with speculation. There’s nothing here about eating a scroll, that’s found only in Ezekiel and Revelation. It’s speculation to say that it’s obvious—in fact, it wasn’t obvious to me nor to others on this list.
When analyzing the verse on its own, the idea of eating the scroll is not there at all. When adding the context, there’s still nothing about eating the scroll. Putting both together, there’s the idea of responsibility to do God’s desires. The verse is understandable without needing to collapse contexts. Therefore, take it on its own, without bringing in extraneous ideas.
In contrast, Revelation 13 was written by John, a Jew, in a Jewish context, doesn’t explain what was meant by two beasts. The literary style is the same as in Daniel 7–8, which was known to John and those around him. In Daniel 7–8, the idea of beasts is explained, namely political systems, not individual people. Here’s an example of where one can take an explanation from one book and apply to a different book, because the one book was known to the author of the second book, and we’re dealing with the same context.
But that’s not the case with Psalm 40, which was written centuries before Ezekiel. Here we have both the idea and time scale backwards in order for your theory to work. Sorry, it just doesn’t work.
Karl W. Randolph.