Reputation
3,587
Top tag
Next privilege 4,000 Rep.
Access 'trusted user' tools
Badges
3 19
Impact
~160k people reached

1d
awarded  Popular Question
2d
comment Does Genesis 1:2 refer to the Spirit or a wind?
@DickHarfield: Your first comment's key words are "critical scholars." As Susan points out (OK, she hints), even critical scholars come with a boatload of assumptions. Furthermore, they do not constitute the only game in town. I would go so far to suggest they are in the minority among Christian theologians. Again, just because they're in the minority does not ipso facto make them wrong. It does give me pause, however, when I find out a critical scholar neither believes the Bible is God's word nor that the analogy of Scripture (i.e., Scripture interprets Scripture) is valid hermeneutically
Jul
25
comment Does Genesis 1:2 refer to the Spirit or a wind?
2 Timothy 3:16 speaks of the Scripture being "God-breathed (Theoneustos), and yet 2 Peter 1:20-21 tells us that "no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." Put the two expressions--God-breathed and moved by the Holy Spirit together (and not even mentioning Jesus' teaching on "the wind blowing where it listeth" in John 3)--and we begin to get a feeling for how God's Spirit moves. Even so, I have no problem with your "breath of God," since the word "breath" used figuratively leaves plenty of room for the breath being God's Spirit! Don
Jul
25
comment Does Genesis 1:2 refer to the Spirit or a wind?
Of the 30 versions of Scripture made available at biblestudytools.com, 28 of 30 translate ruach as Spirit (of Elohim). This is not to say that the majority of Bible translators are wrong, but it surely gives me pause when I'm reading Genesis 1:2 and wondering whether ruach is spirit, wind, breathe, or Spirit. According to the analogy of Scripture, not a single verse of the Bible should be read out of the largest possible context as possible; namely, the entire Bible. That's a basic rule of hermeneutics, which Jesus demonstrated by quoting umpteen OT passages. Interestingly,
Jul
24
revised What does “spirit” mean in John 3:6?
excised
Jul
24
revised What does “spirit” mean in John 3:6?
punct
Jul
23
revised What does “spirit” mean in John 3:6?
corrections and amendments
Jul
23
answered What does “spirit” mean in John 3:6?
Jul
22
comment Why is 'fine' added in the translation of ἱματίων in 1 Peter 3:3
@DavidMulder: Thanks, Dave. Paul's "take" on adornment (see footnote number one in my answer) makes a similar point. He's NOT saying women must not dress elegantly if they have the means to do so. Rather, he is saying that adorning oneself with good deeds is more significant to the local assembly and to God than merely adorning oneself with haute couture and bling! In a poorer congregation, dressing down could be a good deed for a woman who is well off. OTOH, in a richer congregation, dressing up could make the other women feel comfortable. The same thinking applies to public occasions. Don
Jul
22
answered Why is 'fine' added in the translation of ἱματίων in 1 Peter 3:3
Jul
22
revised Why is 'fine' added in the translation of ἱματίων in 1 Peter 3:3
tidied it up a bit, esp. wi punctuation
Jul
20
revised How should the chronologies of Galatians 1:16-17 and Acts 9 be reconciled?
tidied it up a bit. fixed capitalization, punctuation, formatting, and more.
Jul
13
comment Matt. 22:15-22 says, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.”Did Jesus proclaim a separation of church and state?
@MicahGafford: For some reason I am not able to post my rewritten answer to your question on 1 Peter 3:18. If you'd like a copy of it, I'll be glad to send it to you. Just write me at the email address indicated in my biography. Just click on my picture to access it. Thanks. Don
Jul
12
comment What “spirit” is 1 Peter 3:18 referring too?
@MicahGafford: You're probably right. I'll attempt a rewrite to see if I can come up with a better answer. Don
Jul
8
comment What “spirit” is 1 Peter 3:18 referring too?
Forgive me, I didn't know (and still don't) that comments were to be worded only in question form, which seems to be your guiding assumption. My "answer," as you call it was not an answer but a thank you, of sorts. As you already know, Dick, we will never see eye to eye on the issue of biblical authorship. Frankly, however, the people who insist that the names appended to various epistles are NOT necessarily --if ever--the people who wrote them need to assume the burden of proof as to why they aren't. The ethics of writing back then were not so different than as they are today.
Jul
4
comment What “spirit” is 1 Peter 3:18 referring too?
Thanks for your wording: "We need not even assume that the author of First Peter . . .." In other words, we CAN assume that Peter wrote the letter we call "First Peter," but we NEEDN'T assume. I can live with that. Don [P.S. One good reason for thinking the apostle Peter wrote First Peter is in verse one of chapter one: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ . . .." In Peter's day, one identified oneself as the writer of a letter at the very beginning, not the end, as we do today (by saying, for example, "Sincerely yours, Dick Harfield").
Jul
4
revised What “spirit” is 1 Peter 3:18 referring too?
erratum
Jul
4
answered What “spirit” is 1 Peter 3:18 referring too?
Jul
4
revised Logic and life from the dead in Romans 11
yada, yada, yada
Jul
4
revised Logic and life from the dead in Romans 11
erratum