666 reputation
511
bio website twitter.com/#!/NinjaHalf
location Sweden
age 39
visits member for 3 years
seen Nov 9 at 17:37

An Englishman who lives in Sweden. I work at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. I work with C# a fair bit, do some simple work with SQL Server... am currently developing my skills in GIS and ASP.NET MVC4.


Feb
28
comment Did Ruth uncover Boaz' feet, or something else?
The text doesn't have to be sexual. Earlier translators did not preserve/inclkude a sexual element there. And as I said (with the expressed caveat that I don't know too much) we should look at the morality of the time. The fact Boaz was hesitant to quickly marry (given other 'claims') should give us pause at least, given the rest of the OT canon. I stand very much by my answer that the text does not demand that we infer (as the question asks). To establish whether we COULD infer sexual activity we need to continue to look at the language but also the writer's understanding of moral heroes.
Feb
28
comment Did Ruth uncover Boaz' feet, or something else?
Wow, that reads as a little harsh. While you're correct that the question "should I infer?" doesn't entirely ground on 'does it work' (and my answer doesn't base on that either), establishing that it is possible to read literally is important because it's easy to let your "seems weird" attitude influence your reading too early.
Jan
13
comment Why does Matthew double people?
Really? Humour? On the Interwebs?! Whatever next ;)
Jan
13
comment Why does Matthew double people?
I think "Why does Matthew double people?" is a poor way to phrase the question. It seems to imply (when I read it) that Matthew has described one person as two. Wouldn't "Why does Matthew record two people?" sound better?
Dec
26
comment Are the four profitable areas in 2 Tim 3:16 covering doctrine and practice?
Thanks for updating. It's clearer what you mean and while I don't share your hermeneutical approach I find this answer more helpful now.
Dec
24
comment 1 Cor 7:21 Is there any justification to translate this “remain a slave”?
My Greek grammar has even more room for improvement, so thanks for your answer. Checking around more I've read that ἀλλ’ εἰ καὶ can be rendered literally as "but if even" or "but if also" or "although also". It seems then that both translations are possibly valid but one would have to look at other factors.
Dec
16
comment Why isn't there a taxonomic distinction between clean and unclean birds?
I think to start with we have to say that clean/unclean is not about avoiding disease if we accept Acts 10. I think an interesting question here would be whether this has the form of what I think they talk about as a "Suzerainty treaty" and how that informs our expectations of how rules are formulated.
Dec
14
comment Why isn't there a taxonomic distinction between clean and unclean birds?
Jon, it feels a little as though you have some underlying thoughts about how these rules were composed (and perhaps their purpose). Is this question deeper than "how did the rule-maker decide what was clean and unclean"?
Dec
2
comment Are the four profitable areas in 2 Tim 3:16 covering doctrine and practice?
In terms of looking at the terms you use terms like "instruction" which I have not used, nor is it used in the translation I quote. If you're using another translation then referencing that would help. Referencing a Hebrew word (which word?) is unclear and you've not shown its relevance. Again, thank you for your input you've put some work into it. But unfortunately I think it has skirted away from the focus of the question.
Dec
2
comment Are the four profitable areas in 2 Tim 3:16 covering doctrine and practice?
Thanks for taking the time to answer, it's much appreciated! I've not voted up your answer (despite a little debate and uncertainty in my own head about what such a vote would mean) and I'll try to explain why. As a side note, I'm not sure that one can throw in "Sensus plenoir" as a mechanism without any background. I'm not sure the term's meaning is just universally agreed. You then make reference to the "well established" four-voice approach. How "well-established" it is and its relevance to this passage is going to be highly debatable.