837 reputation
112
bio website
location
age
visits member for 8 months
seen 21 mins ago

18h
comment Is the “White Stone” of Revelation the “Urantia Book”?
Awesome-I would have deleted my comment myself if I knew you were going to examine it this carefully-Thank you!
18h
comment Is the “White Stone” of Revelation the “Urantia Book”?
@Daи Gomen nasai, I stand corrected. I originally saw it as the OP's attempt to introduce something which was not Scripture into making it such. As to the "cult" comment; I had to look Urantia up(if it quacks like a duck, etc....). By no means do I want to undermine someone's legitimate belief system; however, at what point do we draw the line and say,"...that's just superstitious nonsense"? Do we want "The Game of Thrones" to be examined as legitimate commentary? But I am thankful for ScottS's forensics into this aberration; and for that I appologize.
18h
comment In Romans 3:26, why not translate dikaiosunēs as “justice” rather than “righteousness?”
Good answer-and it dealt w/the Protestant preference.
1d
comment Theophilus to Autolycus
@user3910 I would like to take on the question, but you will have to reference it to a text to remain valid, Be careful it is not a 'duplicate' of [this] previous question (hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/8493/…).
1d
comment Theophilus to Autolycus
@fdb I didn't get your 'here'-was it a link?
Apr
13
comment In Romans 3:26, why not translate dikaiosunēs as “justice” rather than “righteousness?”
Great question-the Catholic sources(Douay-Rheims/Confraternity) translates it "Justice". I suspect you will find the answer more in line w/Reformation theology, as they attached a particular emphasis on "Justice" vs "Righteousness", which we equate to 'right-standing'.
Apr
13
comment What is the correct interpretation of Matthew 7:6?
@JamesKrieg I agree w/Dan, are you asking a question or airing your opinion: if it is the 1st, then delete the last paragraph, and modify the 2nd one to clarify your question: otherwise it may get closed.
Apr
10
comment What does Jesus mean by “father” In Matthew 23:9?
Much better-thank you.
Apr
10
comment Why do the Jews in John 8:33 say that they have never been enslaved?
@ScottS Thank you for your clarification!
Apr
10
comment Understanding Jesus' apparent lie in John 7:8
Jesus was fully God and fully man. Living as a man, he lived within the constraints of space and time. As God in heaven, He is not bound by those constraints.
Apr
10
comment Understanding Jesus' apparent lie in John 7:8
@Wikis That's presumptive of "He knew He was going...". My comparison is to the miracle at Cana-at first He says,"My time is not yet come", and yet his time apparently had come when He performed the miracle.If He is not duplicitous(and there's nothing in the text that says He is), then the answer is simply 'He didn't know He was going at that time'.
Apr
10
comment Jewish Captivity
You may have a better command of ancient languages than I do-if so, consider my link in my comment to The Freemason. Otherwise I essentially said the same thing as you.
Apr
10
comment Jewish Captivity
I answered this question here so I won't repeat it. It follows in line w/ScottS's answer.
Apr
10
revised Understanding Jesus' apparent lie in John 7:8
added 14 characters in body
Apr
10
answered Understanding Jesus' apparent lie in John 7:8
Apr
10
comment What does Jesus mean by “father” In Matthew 23:9?
While I agree with your answer Don, it might be spruced up with a source describing how 'father' was used in the context Jesus was talking about. I also don't gather from your answer any negative connotation of a child addressing his "father" ; >)
Apr
10
comment How to save Paul from the Galatians 3 “seed” vs “seeds” argument blunder?
+1 for this answer, explaining Paul's referal to 'seed' being spiritual seed.
Apr
10
comment Are the periods in Revelation a single period of 3 and 1/2 years or something else?
@ScottS Fair enough, there is enough debate out there about this issue to circumnavigate the globe. But this explains my hermeneutic for interpreting Revelations: it doesn't follow a "Dispensational" theme, nor a "Covenant" theme. Rather, it follows the language in the context is is meant: Literally and Figuratively, under the rules I have described.
Apr
9
comment How to save Paul from the Galatians 3 “seed” vs “seeds” argument blunder?
@davidbrainerd Paul is making an argument to the Gentiles-not the Jews. The Jews knew intuitively that the 'singular' seed meant them-for the Promise was to Isaac(not Ishmael), and Jacob(not Esau). Paul's argument that we(Gentiles) are partakers of Abraham's blessing through faith in Christ presupposes that Christ is the fulfillment of the Law-a point he makes in the following chapter.
Apr
9
comment Are the periods in Revelation a single period of 3 and 1/2 years or something else?
@ScottS (cont.)To say you are "Born Again" does not mean you have re-gestated through your mother's womb. Nicodemus was using the historical/grammatical interpretation of the day and Jesus reproved him. Therefore "Born Again" doesn't mean 're-pass through your mother's womb' but regeneration. It is a reality-just not the 'reality' that is assigned the historical/grammatical meaning of the words. In summary, if we are talking about how the language is meant to be interpreted in it's normal grammatical usage, it's Literal. If the words are representitive of another reality, it's figurative.