
Originally Posted by
RAM
Hey there Dan,
I was not disputing the order or content of the 39 books of the Tanakh. I was pointing out that the Haftorah is NOT a book of the Tanakh by anyone's reckoning and so your count is off by one, and the middle book is Micah, not the pair "Micah and Nahum." That was my only point.
Hello again RAM, When I read back some of my posts I do seem a little drastic and curt in my communications. I'm sorry about this. I guesse I'm quite concerned with the subject and I'm also just that type of personality, quick, harsh and get the job done and the point explained. Mabey I seem a bit self-centered in my presentations. I'm sorry if it offends. Thanks for not just abandoning me in this discussion.
Now about the Haftorah. Yes it is just some parts of the Old Testament which the Jews often read in their Synagoge. But the point of it is that is has indeed been put into the Old Testament Bible as a 40th book. So somehow history has indeed made the most commmon and available Hebrew Bible today to have the number of books that would make it's center between Micah and Nahum. The Lord has done many things throughout history to make them fit his pattern and therefore show us signs and paths leading to understanding.
I myself personally see that just as the Old Testament Law of Moses lasted just for 39 Centuries from Adam in Mesopotamia until the end of Malachi, so too was their old Law allowing only 39 stripes with the whip. Paul himself admitted to receiving the 39 stripes.2 Cor.11;24 He said he recieved "forty stripes same one." To me this shows that the Old Testament Law of Moses could not pass into the 40th Century. It is because Jesus was there. Jesus Christ is in the Bible represented by the Sun which was created on the 4th day. Jesus was born during the very end of the 4 millennium after Adam. But the Haftorah was added in order to bring about the miraculous harmony which is presented to us when we examine the generations of 4 Bibles brought down to us Protestant Christians.
Believe me, I have no problem with your perception of the miraculous! But myself, I see only a dim hint of a pattern here, nothing the speaks "clearly" to me, for the reasons stated. But don't let me discourage you. Maybe I'm blind or something! I appreciate your enthusiasm. Now that this is on my radar, perhaps more of a pattern will show itself.
Great chatting!
Richard
Bookmarks