6,120 reputation
1425
bio website
location East Coast USA
age
visits member for 1 year, 10 months
seen 8 hours ago

My undergraduate degree was in fine arts. Later, I became a largely self-taught web designer while also pursuing Biblical studies (M.Div). I am now mainly inactive with web design, but when I do still dabble with CSS (or LESS), I tend to seek pushing it to its limits. Such dabbling is now a very part-time hobby as I work on my Ph.D. studies in Systematic Theology, which has found me spending more of my "free time" being active on the Biblical Hermeneutics SE site. This meta question of mine will reveal a lot about where I come from regarding that topic.


2d
comment Who was “speaking in David”?
@Jas3.1: I added a parenthetical note after my phrase. Most of the references to "God" in the first chapter of Hebrews and in my post are to "God the Father" (the Son's "appointment" by another of 1:2 and 3:2 indicate this) but at the same time, I believe because of the Trinity, any action by any Person of the Trinity is also an act of the "Godhead," and so there is a participatory aspect of all Three in each One's actions. Each Person is an individual agent of action for the Godhead in total. So I would classify the "Godhead" as "He" also, since They work in perfect unity as One.
Dec
19
comment Is Romans 3:24-26 original to Paul?
@Davïd Jas 3.1 and I have discussed inspiration extensively in our private chat. I hold a model of verbal plenary inspiration. It sees Scripture as both the human's (Paul's here) and God's words, both as authors. Some actually being dictated/recorded (i.e. Moses recording some of God's words of Law), much not, but all still as much God's words. I put "(and God)" in parenthesis to emphasize that if one holds verbal plenary inspiration, then such challenges are also presupposing what God would say through the human author.
Dec
17
comment Is Romans 3:24-26 original to Paul?
@Susan cont. Now if there is other biblical or non-bibical textual evidence that some earlier tradition communicating these ideas together existed, then it might be argued Paul had a more direct textual source from which he pulled the ideas into his theology. But both of the ideas Pate notes as being argued as "un-Pauline" could be supported by a canonical reading of the OT (i.e. blood sacrifices were required for redemption and God often showed mercy rather than punishing sin), so Paul simply could have got those ideas from it.
Dec
17
comment Is Romans 3:24-26 original to Paul?
@Susan: I do not believe "quoting an existing source need compromise" inspiration (though I do see little need to identify sources because of inspiration). But if one questions a text merely from what is believed the author would say (his thoughts), then that is a red flag implying (consciously or not) they do not see a Divine Author (thought) behind the text guiding what would be said. Also, if one takes the text as is, the words are there as stated; so even if sourced, it was in Paul's thought to convey it, and so cannot be "un-Pauline" if written by him, as he chose to include it.
Dec
4
comment What historical reasons resulted in Revelation being included in most Christian canons?
@GrzegorzAdamKowalski: I gathered from those links that there were two Peshittas, and from the second link that canon was still the 22 book version ("Eastern One") for ACoE. What was a bit confusing was whether the "Western One" was used at all within ACoE, like Bloch noted for the CCC perhaps as "apocrypha" (which seems to be at least what the first link implies). Thanks for the info. Do you happen to know which version the CCC branch of CoE uses?
Dec
3
comment What historical reasons resulted in Revelation being included in most Christian canons?
@Bloch: Ok, another 500,000 is still small. If in "full communion," then do they hold Revelation as canon? This page indicates that both the Chaldean Catholic Church and the ACoE have included Revelation in the Peshitta now (see 2nd paragraph), but it does not seem that it is yet canon based on this page (table footnote), at least for ACoE. But the note does not mention the CCC, so about Revelation, can CCC be considered aligned with ACoE or rather other branches?
Dec
2
comment What historical reasons resulted in Revelation being included in most Christian canons?
Yes, but historical numbers would then have to be added to other groups, which numerically would still tend to overshadow. Islamic conquest started in the 600's in that area, and at that time total world population was only estimated at just over 200 million. So I can easily grant "literally millions" have followed that branch historically, but still would question how "major" its impact in comparison to other branches historically and geographically (worldwide). So it depends on defining "major."
Dec
2
comment What historical reasons resulted in Revelation being included in most Christian canons?
@Bloch: I guess it depends on what is meant by "major branches" since the reported membership of the Assyrian Church of the East is ~500,000. Not the multiple millions of other denominations (even many subgroups within denominations), so I probably would not have classified it as "major" either. Nevertheless, that it was an early split in Christianity, one that continues today, and happens to have relevance to the discussion regarding canonicity of Revelation, it might be considered "major" in this context.
Dec
1
comment When was Job written?
@DonaldBoyd: Thanks for the correction. Those two references were actually typos in Harris' journal article that I had not caught.
Nov
29
comment Is ἐγώ εἰμι testified in extra-biblical Greek as an expression for saying “I am he”?
FYI-Still digesting all this as I have time. Good information, though! +1
Nov
26
comment To Interpret Koine Greek, which contemporary writers can be used for comparison?
There is gray area. Most source lists for doing interpretation have been given on meta, this one for example and this. List questions tend not to be on topic, but yours may fall within hermeneutical approaches. Yet it may also be borderline too deep into language itself apart from a verse reference. So the question should evoke the community to "hash this one out."
Nov
26
comment To Interpret Koine Greek, which contemporary writers can be used for comparison?
This seems more like a question that should be on META
Nov
19
comment What does the vocabulary of 2 Peter indicate about its authorship?
FYI-I replied to the above comment in chat.
Nov
19
comment What does the vocabulary of 2 Peter indicate about its authorship?
The value of vocabulary analysis from my view is primarily in isolating topics that God decided to write about through certain authors (and across Scripture as a whole). Other points of style (how an author uses a particular phrase for example) may have use in interpreting, but again, in my view, one has to always keep in mind that a single Author is behind that as well, and so how much different a word/phrase is used between authors is suspect if basing it merely on the writer. More important is how they are used within context that is valuable (whoever it is that wrote the word/phrase).
Nov
19
comment What does the vocabulary of 2 Peter indicate about its authorship?
Yes, presuppositions influence all, but at least in dealing with meaning of the text, one can argue definitions of words, literal/figurative, etc., staying within the realm of "hermeneutics." With this question, my answer to the title question/2nd bullet would be "It tells us nothing about authorship" and to the 1st bullet would be "There is no such freedom with divinely inspired texts." But the only "proof" I can offer would be a theological argument about the nature of the Scripture's formation (too far outside the realm of the site[?]). So I agree: "more so" impossible to answer.
Nov
19
comment What does the vocabulary of 2 Peter indicate about its authorship?
Both your title question and final subsidiary questions are impossible to answer objectively (without presuppositional influence). I put no weight in vocab of text for authorship of Scripture because (1) people have a wide range of vocab; (2) vary vocab by topic; (3) [most important to me] the words are as much chosen by God in the inspiration process as they are a part of that person's vocab, so the dual authorship means they are not merely writing as themselves; (4) because of (3), there is no change from author to any amanuensis. Views on 3 & 4 greatly influence value of vocab analysis.
Nov
18
comment Why is the observation that “it was good” missing on the second day?
I would argue the waters were not yet complete on day 2, as they were "unbounded," and were not yet "good" precisely because they were still covering land that was needing to be made dry (which is, of course, what I do argue in my answer). I'm actually taking my observations from your observations and incorporating that into my answer.
Nov
18
comment Why is the observation that “it was good” missing on the second day?
The completion segment organization (keying on "was good") then has the pattern of 1/4 - 2 occurrences parallel, 2/5 - 2 occurrences chiastic, 3/6 - 2 occurrences parallel, 7 - 1 occurrence culmination (mankind)/summary (totality). It seems significant that this works out to 7 as the final lone statement. This also, of course, happens to fit my answer's argument better (cheesy grin), and your thoughts have helped me to expand mine in seeing this pattern emerge. Thanks.
Nov
18
comment Why is the observation that “it was good” missing on the second day?
Interesting. Two things: (1) highlight "sea(s)" along with "waters", just as "land/earth"; (2) You organized by "day" (understandable), but it might be better as "completion" segments--it looks like the first part of day 3 should move up to join with day 2, as the "waters" are still being dealt with (to expose the land), and this puts day 3's 1st "good" statement parallel to day 5's (chiastic relation "was so"/"was so"/"was good"/"was good"), leaving day 3's 2nd "was so/good" to parallel the 1st "was so/good" of day 6, and the 2nd "was so/good" as the overall summary of all days (as it reads).
Nov
5
comment Earliest attestation to Luke's gospel
@DickHarfield Agree that we differ in "views on the same evidence," as I hold all Scripture to be 1st century works by the author's they are ascribed to, and I believe all Scripture was recognized as such by whatever generation the Scripture was written in (and thus partly why it was preserved), so the 1 Timothy and 2 Peter references to me are not anachronisms. Thanks for your thoughtful participation.