Hermeneutics by Henry Virkler
How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth by Fee and Stuart
and
Reading the Bible as Literature by somebody–I can’t find the book right now

What you’re referencing is meditation/learning of scripture, not hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the method of interpreting scripture – something that can then be explained as part of teaching it. If you were to strictly use ‘visions’ or the sub-conscious as a hermeneutic, then you’re doing something close to the ‘reader-response’ method.

This is not to say that listening to scripture (awake or asleep) is not beneficial – but just to say that this should not be the basis for interpretation of scripture…

In my previous comment on this post, I mentioned a study practice that I used (i.e. tape recorder) in studying the scriptures while sleeping, to bypass the conscience, according to this the passage in Job:

For God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not. In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed; THEN he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction, That he may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man. He keepeth back his soul from the pit, and his life from perishing by the sword (Job 33:14-18).

I have a question. This is a type of subliminal study that is available today because of recording devices that was not avaliable as such to the early church a valid form of hermenutics? I also seriously doubt that any of the Catholic monks, Desert hermits, the Protestant Reformers, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, century preachers (i.e. Spurgeon, Wesley Chambers, etc.) used this type of study method. In light of the passage in Job 33:14-18, do you consider this a acceptable Bible study practice (hermenutics) even though it totally bypasses conscience deductive reasoning.

Are the historical-contexual, PaRDeS, sod, etc. methods the only ones that are useful in the correct understanding of the “deeper” things in the scriptures?

What if some parts of the “knowledge of God” is a knowledge that is “deeper” than the conscience mind can discover thru deductive reasoning?

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts (Isaiah 55:8,9 KJV).

It was during sleep when Jacob saw “heaven opened” and angel’s ascending and descending from Heaven on a ladder (Genesis 28:12).

If God’s thoughts are “higher” than ours, what usefulness do you see in Eastern meditations and contemplative prayer to gain access to higher scriptural knowledge? Unless these techniques result in an answer from “the other side” are they not just simple futile attempts to bypass the conscience by an act of the conscience? Are not meditation techniques (centering prayer, chanting mantras, etc.) just determined and focused acts of “self” applied to “yourself” to try and obtain knowledge that Isaiah say is “higher than self”? Would not this only result in obtaining the highest “knowledge of self” instead of the “knowledge of God”? The Bible says to mediate on the scriptures. What meditation techniques do you see would be most useful? Should not simple revelation of the “deeper things” of God in the scriptures by the Holy Spirit be enough?

F Whittenburg
http://www.christiannewbirth.com/whenfaithcame.html

I heard a woman teach on the David and Goliath story. She said that 5 was the number of grace. So when David picked up five smooth stones he represented grace and therefore Goliath represented the Law – the rest is obvious from there.

Is that “sod” (the deeper meaning) or a weak attempt to try and make an OT story preachable?

I’d have to look into it a bit more (though that seems like a stretch). In the original Hebrew there are some numbers associated with the David/Goliath story which have some additional rabbinic interpretations, but – as noted above – the layered meanings should not contradict the plain meaning to those to whom it was first spoken/written to…

Is that “sod” (the deeper meaning) or a weak attempt to try and make an OT story preachable?

I can barely spell the word. This is a sad state of being.

This post also explains the simplest remez of Jesus, which is the one referenced in the NIV video.

Actually, the “scriptural king-fu” described by Bell is not remez, but the debating techniques used by rabbis, not the teaching techniques.

If you watch the short video from the NIV Bible translators, which includes remez, you will get a better idea of its application. Ray Vanderlaan and others have documented about 30-60 remezim in Jesus’ words (so it is a fairly small number), and I’ve written about a few – like this one.