Reputation
10,870
Next tag badge:
59/100 score
15/20 answers
Badges
1 15 48
Impact
~156k people reached

Apr
19
comment Why do some translations say “translated Dorcas” in Acts 9:36?
@RevelationLad: No, there is no cause to believe she was Gentile. She had an Aramaic name, Tabitha, which in Greek = Dorcas, so it seems clear she was non-Gentile. But the event happened in Joppa, with Peter, prior to and leading up to his call to the Gentiles (Dorcas is what got him to Joppa, v.38), so I do think that is why she became known among the upcoming new Greek believers (in ch. 10), and hence why Luke was clarifying for Theophilus who she was and the story about her. Regarding Jewish body prep, see Jn 19:39-40 and laying out the dead, see girl in Mk 5:35-43 // Lk 8:49-54.
Apr
14
comment In Luke 23:54 - Was Jesus Entombed Right Before the Sabbath Dawn?
@Daisy: To be put in a tomb is to be buried; it may not be the same way a typical coffin is buried today, but both are a burial. Hence, Paul says of Christ "He was buried [ἐτάφη, aorist passive of θάπτω, 'bury']" (1 Cor 15:4).
Apr
12
comment Did Paul take the Old Testament out of Context?
@Marisa: The hermeneutic I follow does not allow for any real contradictions between the texts, as foundational to it is that the text is inspired of God, as much His words as the human author's words. But not all hermeneutics follow that view. I'm thankful this answer was a help.
Apr
7
comment Historical Evidences that the Israeli Calendar Day Began at Sunset?
@elikakohen: Your original question was essentially about a transition at night (sunset to sunset) versus day (sunrise to sunrise), and the title still notes the point is "why ... assert ... day began at night"; so the evidence above shows why a "night" transition. However, if I understand your present objection/question, it is now based on a refined view of "when" in the evening (i.e., dusk [traditional Jewish], midnight [Roman], or otherwise). I will work on an edit to clarify that aspect.
Apr
6
comment Historical Evidences that the Israeli Calendar Day Began at Sunset?
@Susan: Not all date the entire Pentateuch as pre-exilic; note in Dick's answer where he notes some view at least parts of Genesis 1 as post-exile, and I know some view Deuteronomy as post also. Hence why I emphasized agreement on the texts I noted. But you are correct, I read the question as excluding "later" texts (as stated, "to avoid circularity"), but clearly the question is seeking "earliest texts and evidences," and I dare say one is not going to find earlier texts on the matter than Exodus and Numbers, and those clearly existed in 2nd temple period.
Apr
6
comment Historical Evidences that the Israeli Calendar Day Began at Sunset?
@Susan: Also notice that while I do have my own presuppositions about the dating of the text, observe that the two primary passages I use to argue for dating, Exodus 12 and Numbers 33 even Dick's answer notes are pre-Exilic. So my argument supports a pre-Exile dating of sunset to sunset, showing it was not an adoption of Babylonian dating, but an earlier dating system the Hebrews shared with them.
Apr
6
comment Historical Evidences that the Israeli Calendar Day Began at Sunset?
@Susan: Apparently the question changed some while I was composing, as I quoted what the question was when I started in my conclusion. It does appear the question has morphed some, but I think the Hebrew Scriptures themselves are still the "earliest" basis for the view, which is still a question asked. I'll edit that revised question in.
Apr
4
comment What is the (grammatical) subject of Romans 10:10?
@fdb: If middle voice, the "he" contained in the verbs themselves become the subject of the middle voice (the individual who is believing/confessing). The verse becomes a transition from the 2nd person of v.9 to the generic believers discussed in v.11-13 by the use of the 3rd person. So it is a generic "he" (i.e., anyone that is believing and confessing) that is the subject, hence why many of the English translations interpolate a subject generically as man/one/person.
Mar
30
comment Does Romans 9:5 assert the deity of Christ?
@elikakohen: The first four enumerated points all relate to linguistic exegesis, as do the next four. The notation of people who have observed similarly shows that others have seen these linguistic points (which does speak to the OP's desire to know if there is any consensus on the evidence for how to punctuate). Further, linguistic exegesis relies just as much on "appeal to authority" as all knowledge does, and such is not necessarily fallacious. We generally trust lexicographers and grammarians know of what they speak.
Mar
30
comment Does Romans 9:5 assert the deity of Christ?
An Ad Hominem argument is only fallacious if a person is making an argument, not if they are testifying. MLJ shows they cannot argue against it "on grounds of grammar or scholarship or textual criticism," but only testify (i.e., through their translations) against "the fact that Jesus was the eternal Son of God," so one can call their character/motives into question in so testifying against the evidence. This, again, is not part of the argument itself, but part of the conclusion from the argument.
Mar
30
comment Does Romans 9:5 assert the deity of Christ?
@elikakohen: A Bandwagon argument is only fallacious if an argument rests on the bare statement alone of it being widely believed. MLJ's evidence shows: (1) there is a "flimsy basis" to believe otherwise, and (2) that many people have followed the evidence. That is not fallacious. The argument rests on the proof of the evidence. The Bandwagon notation simply shows that many have seen that evidence. He does not call the Bandwagon forward as evidence itself. Cont.
Mar
21
comment Why distinguish the genders of asses/donkeys in Gen 12:16?
Good. In cross-checking lists, חֲמוֹר appears to be the gender-neutral and gender-specific term, often used to refer to "donkeys" as a group, implying the split is with purpose since it could be used alone (along with sheep, oxen, etc.; Gen 24:35, 30:43, et. al.). The order probably is by co-incidence gender grouped, and number (though unstated explicitly) driving the order: more male donkeys than male humans than female humans than female donkeys than camels. Perhaps a small enough number to easily count that males outnumber females in those groups (camels perhaps all one gender).
Mar
21
comment Does Hosea 1:9 contain a reference to the divine name I AM?
@Susan: Yes, there is some merit in the parallel of name with the preceding clause; yet contra, as "a normal verb," it is in parallel with the descriptions that follow each name about what God will do with respect to that name. Perhaps a better "normal" translation would be not to speculate any elision, something like "I will not exist to you" or "I will not be there for you." Either plausible of לֹֽא־אֶהְיֶ֥ה לָכֶֽם. I can see why it is debated. I need to examine the passage and context closer sometime, since I cannot come to a conclusion myself which is the better way to read it.
Mar
20
comment Why distinguish the genders of asses/donkeys in Gen 12:16?
+1 for revealing something I had not realized about mules, and this seems a step in the right direction. Yet the questions to still answer are, (1) does the Hebrew term show evidence of referring to also to these mixed breeds (mules) or only to the pure blood donkey (which is what the lexicons point to; e.g. Equus asinus [HALOT])? And still, is there significance in the text to the ordering (splitting those references around the male/female human servants)? But your argument makes theoretical sense.
Mar
20
comment The lexicology of Pharaoh's heart
@C.Kelly I think it shows intentional usage patterns, so I'm glad at least one other person agrees with me. I think more study could be done on this, but that will be for some other time. I've invested too much in this already (but the question interested me when it was first posted, and your bounty brought it back to my attention, and I had some time to work on looking at the verses).
Mar
18
comment The lexicology of Pharaoh's heart
Also, "This is the only pattern shown to emerge from the text itself" is not true, as the text itself does not split itself into "source sections" as the DH presupposes and then imposes onto the text.
Mar
18
comment The lexicology of Pharaoh's heart
"Assuming this pattern emerges independently of the source-coding – i.e. assuming this vocabulary was not itself a criterion by which the text was coded." That is one of the primary faults of the DH, it fails to see that multiple words can be used by a single source (the prime example being the split on the divine name of "Jahwist and Elohist sources.")
Mar
18
comment The lexicology of Pharaoh's heart
@Schuh All translations have bias :-). I believe 13:15 should be included (as I note). There are multiple levels of context to look at, and I have completed a major revision of my answer to help show the contextual points I believe are relevant to determining the distinctions. (At one point I was over 42000 characters and the limit for an answer is 30000, so this is quite paired down!) You likely will still disagree with me, but at least I think I've clarified my thoughts; I know I tweaked some of my understanding as I noticed two significant points with qšh and kbd I missed before.
Mar
17
comment The lexicology of Pharaoh's heart
Also, 13:15 Pharaoh is subject, not YHWH, so 9:35 is not the final point for all the verbs. But again, subjects do not really matter here in finding a pattern. The surrounding context of its usage matters. What occurs before/after the statement matters. I feel I have demonstrated that, but you are free to disagree about my level of success or not.
Mar
17
comment The lexicology of Pharaoh's heart
@Schuh The lexicons show they differ in typical meanings ("be strong," "be heavy," and "be hard/stubborn"). No other evidence than that is needed to indicate they do differ in many cases. Only qšh has close to a more base definition of "be hard" (i.e. difficult/severe). So the burden is on proving they should be equated. Verb/subject analysis tells little about a meaning of a verb when by nature actions can be done by multiple subjects. Context is what will answer if there is distinction, and I believe and have tried to show context does answer that. I'm fine with you disagreeing. cont.