Originally Posted by gilgal
Where did you get that quote from LTDahn? Was it in a private message? I don't see any posts from him on the forum in which he said those things.
I would be delighted if you would like to engage me on these questions. Here are my initial answers:
Beginning with your Point #1:
1. The wheel is predicated upon chapter and verse numbers, which means it is anachronistic in nature and could never have been recognized by the writers and initial readers. If you're familiar with the notion of sensus plenior, you'll know what I'm getting at. Virtually anything can be asserted anachronistically, reading a modern/contemporary framework onto an ancient text (or canon of texts). But those assertions are not beneficial to what a given text is communicating.The wheel is predicated upon chapter and verse numbers> That is not correct. The Bible Wheel itself has nothing to do with chapter and verse numbers. It is based solely upon the traditional order of the 66-book canon. Have you read the introductory material? It's very brief - see What is the Bible Wheel?
Now it is true that I have conducted an intensive study of the chapter and verse structure and have found what I believe are clear signs of design. But that is not a topic for a beginner. We must begin at the beginning, which is the Bible Wheel itself.
which means it is anachronistic in nature> The content of the Biblical canon itself is "anachronistic" in the sense you define because there was a long debate about the inclusion of the books of 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation. Furthermore, the order of the books is also "anachronistic" and would not have been recognized by the writers and initial readers. But this has nothing to do with the validity of the Bible Wheel. The one question is this - does the Bible Wheel show signs of design by an intelligent agent? If so, then we recognize that God continued working on His revelation beyond the mere act of tossing us some inspired but unordered and uncanonized books and hoping mere humans would put the Bible together the way He wanted. There is no a priori reason to assert that He did not continue working "behind the scenes" to establish the form of the Canon.
If you're familiar with the notion of sensus plenior, you'll know what I'm getting at> Actually, the Bible Wheel is a prime example of a valid sensus plenior, which is defined as follows:
In Biblical exegesis, the phrase sensus plenior is used to describe the "deeper meaning intended by God" but not intended by the human author. Walter C. Kaiser notes that F. Andre Fernandez coined the term in 1927, but it was popularized by Raymond E. Brown.This is really what the Bible Wheel is all about. The natural history (the part for which humans were responsible) can not in any way explain the design of the Bible Wheel. It is, therefore, an example of a pattern or meaning intended by God and not the humans he used to produce it. I talk about this in my article on the Twenty-two Books of the Jewish Tanakh. The historical fact is that the Jews attempted to force fit their canon to fit the pattern of the Hebrew alphabet. Their effort failed, but it anticipated the Work of God that designed the Christian Canon on that pattern.
The phrase originates from the Latin, and means "fuller sense". Brown defines sensus plenior as
“ That additional, deeper meaning, intended by God but not clearly intended by the human author, which is seen to exist in the words of a biblical text (or group of texts, or even a whole book) when they are studied in the light of further revelation or development in the understanding of revelation. ”
The implication is that more meaning can be found within Scripture than that which derives from understanding the circumstances in which the original was written.
Sensus plenior corresponds to Rabbinical interpretations of the Hebrew Scriptures — remez ("hint"), drash ("search"), and/or sod ("secret") — whereby 'deeper meaning' is drawn out or derived from the text.
Conservative Christians have used this term to mean the larger or whole teaching of scripture.
Virtually anything can be asserted anachronistically> Nothing like that is happening with the Bible Wheel. It is nothing but a two-dimensional view of the traditional 66-book canon.
Now on to your point #2:
2. The wheel is predicated upon an English translation of Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts, as though there are one-for-one equivalents between them. And the fact is that there is not. Pick up any source on Koine Greek lexicography and translation, and you'll find that it is very difficult to assign English referents to Greek terms in a one-for-one fashion - let alone assign Koine Greek referents to Ancient Hebrew/Aramaic terms as though mathematical parallels can be drawn, or are warranted.This comment is false. My work is fundamentally based on the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. I will take note occasionally of connections that are based on translations, but I almost always note them as such and they play no fundamental role in the Bible Wheel at all.
3. What are you asking to be "explained"? That there are coincidental numerical parallels? There are literally dozens of number schemes for the bible. There is not one end-all, be-all scheme which explains ANYTHING. What does this biblewheel do for us? What does it accomplish? How does it help you understand Romans, for example? And, more importantly, what does it contribute to our understanding of Paul's literary, cultural, rhetorical, regional contexts, and his initial readers' understanding of his texts? I emphatically submit that it contributes nothing whatsoever.I would be delighted to discuss this after you have read the basic introductory material. It is very brief. Until then, it is rather premature to be making such an emphatic assertion. Let us recall the wisdom we have been taught:
Proverbs 18:13 He who gives an answer before he hears, It is folly and shame to him.Richard