Reputation
5,986
Next tag badge:
40/100 score
30/20 answers
Badges
1 4 30
Newest
 Revival
Impact
~115k people reached

2h
comment Should James 2:26 read “spirit” or “breath”?
As Occam would tell us, the simplest explanation is probably the correct one: the simplest explanation is that the author intended πνεῦμα to mean 'breath'., without which the body is dead.
Apr
26
comment Is Exodus 21:21 about a dead slave or one who survives?
I read this a third way (without the benefit of knowing Hebrew grammar). if the slave survives for at least a day or two, the owner is not punished - because the striking was not so obviously severe that he could have foreseen the eventual death of the slave (if indeed he does die after 2 days). Would that make sense?
Apr
26
comment Is Satan the master of music?
@Chris We think of wealthy kings as enjoying music. It "fits the context" but whether more so than sockets depends on the understanding of the translator - I did not express a view on this. Gems (also enjoyed in abundance by wealthy kings) are placed in sockets for display.
Apr
25
revised Is Joshua 21:36-37 authentic or an addition?
correction
Apr
25
answered Is Joshua 21:36-37 authentic or an addition?
Apr
25
comment Is Satan the master of music?
@WoundedEgo If you do come across that reference, I'd love to read an extract of it. (You could post it on chat). As Moriya and Hata point out, Ezekiel's reference does not appear to be from Genesis.
Apr
24
comment Is Romans 1:27 referring to venereal disease?
In many cases, we don't need to be able to ask the author, because there are enough clues in the text or in the context or in the way contemporaries use the same phrase - but that is not the case here. Of course, we know that homosexual sex was treated as normal in ancient Greece, whereas the Romans would have tended to frown on it. So, Paul probably has to remember where he is writing when saying things like this.
Apr
24
answered Is Satan the master of music?
Apr
24
comment Is Romans 1:27 referring to venereal disease?
@WoundedEgo As now stated twice in my comments on the question, it is my opinion that he may have meant a sexually transmitted disease - but that is only an opinion. Incidentally Gee Sus cites a source that says another option is 'rebellion and spiritual emptiness', although I would say this is just as anachronistic for 1st century Greece as would AIDS be.
Apr
24
comment Is Romans 1:27 referring to venereal disease?
@MicahGafford I agree with your statement that hermeneutics extends beyond exegesis of the text. As far as I can see, no other biblical author uses ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει such as to give a guide as to what Paul meant. This leaves me with my opinion that he may have meant a sexually transmitted disease - and this is probably the opinion of many others- but I can't see how to go from opinion to an answer.
Apr
24
comment Is Romans 1:27 referring to venereal disease?
May I insert a fairly trivial issue here, relevant to this answer, but not the question. AIDS did not exist as a human disease at the time of Paul. For Macarthur BC even to give this generically as a "frightening evidence" demonstrates a lack of intellectual rigour ill-suited to a site like ours. ie gonorrhoea would have been less anachronistic, but of course less emotive.
Apr
23
comment Is Romans 1:27 referring to venereal disease?
Although this may be what Paul intended, there is nothing in the text that can lead to an answer through hermeneutics, especially as heterosexual promiscuity can also lead to venereal diseases. Your question seems to be seeking an opinion.
Apr
23
comment In Romans 6:23 why does Paul speak of the “wages” of sin and not the “penalty” for sin?
@Daisy You say you are learning hermeneutics, so here is my input: At least on this site (BH.SE) it does not matter what I think personally. It only matters what I read the text as meaning. As I think you understand, this meaning can be the author's original meaning or the meaning we take from it in our modern culture. The other issues you raise belong on Christianity.SE if anywhere, and are unrelated to hermeneutics. Hope that helps. [BTW try entering @d at start of a comment and you should see my name come up; click on that and you will get the correct spelling :) ]
Apr
23
awarded  Revival
Apr
22
comment In Romans 6:23 why does Paul speak of the “wages” of sin and not the “penalty” for sin?
@curiousdannii I don't see metaphorical baptism here. To me, baptism results in a metaphorical death (of the old, sinful self - 6:4). Paul's baptisms are real baptisms, with water.,
Apr
22
comment In Romans 6:23 why does Paul speak of the “wages” of sin and not the “penalty” for sin?
@Daisy I feel we are agreeing on most things here, which is good. I realise my exegesis is too far out of 'left field' for most people, so I appreciate your comment that it is a well-written argument.
Apr
22
comment Was the LXX used in Palestine in the First Century?
First of all, it would be surprising if a copy of the LXX scriptures would have been found in a Palestinian synagogue, where it would have sat alongside the Hebrew scriptures, and it is the Hebrew scriptures that were considered sacred. Moreover, those opposed to Jesus would quickly have realised that his reading was inconsistent with the Hebrew scriptures and could have used this against him. If Jesus read the LXX, then he would have been reading in Greek, and then it is moot whether Palestinian Jews would be likely to understand.
Apr
22
comment In Romans 6:23 why does Paul speak of the “wages” of sin and not the “penalty” for sin?
@Daisy Thank you for your kind words and comment. Yes, Paul is saying people die to sin when baptised. No, baptism is not a metaphor. Also, Paul is writing to the Romans (hence Epistle to the Romans). Elliott does not speak of 'elect', so I can't read this into his epistle. Of course, this analysis is not original to me but I do not remember where I learnt it as a unit, so I drew on authors whose writings are basically in agreement.
Apr
22
comment In Romans 6:23 why does Paul speak of the “wages” of sin and not the “penalty” for sin?
This is the death of our old selves (Rom 6:6), which takes place at the time of baptism, after which our new selves have new life. In verse 6:6, Paul actually likens baptism to being crucified with Jesus. Paraphrasing Rom 6:7, when we (our old selves) are dead we are free from sin. Of course this is not our mortal death, nor an eternal death.
Apr
22
comment In Romans 6:23 why does Paul speak of the “wages” of sin and not the “penalty” for sin?
Paul is saying that we are baptised into death. Instead of suffering a penalty for the sins of our former selves, we receive the wages consequent on having sinned and been baptised - life with God, free from servitude to sin. As Turner implies, Paul is a Paul of surprises.