Reputation
2,350
Next tag badge:
24/100 score
1/20 answers
Badges
3 25 61
Impact
~122k people reached

Apr
30
comment What are the many Sabbaths referred to in scripture?
@Tau I avoided getting into the specifics of that issue because ① it didn't seem like the main problem the OP was facing, ② the issue of plurals still applies as described and ③ the sabbath years are an extension of the day concept but applied to the land rather than the people. On the other hand I did mention how that passage it different. If you thing there is a better way to clarify this all please feel free to post another answer.
Apr
28
comment What are the many Sabbaths referred to in scripture?
@JonathanChell Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my answer, but as I understood the question the OP was expecting "sabbaths" to refer to holy days other than the sabbath—other feast days perhaps—as if sabbath days were some general category of holy day rather than a reference to the weekly sabbath. The only inference I intended to make is that these are all references to the same weekly Sabbath and is only plural because it sometimes referrers to more than one week.
Apr
28
comment What are the many Sabbaths referred to in scripture?
@JonathanChell I don't see any indication that it wouldn't. Most commentaries I've checked seem to just take this for granted as the obvious reading of the plural just makes sense. The OP above just seemed to be in a funk and missing the obvious (it happens to all of us). If there is more of a question here than what was posed it would seem like the burden would be on the questioner to come up with some shred of reasoning why the obvious reading doesn't fit, which I don't see in this case in my cursory review of these passages and some commentary.
Apr
10
comment What language did Jesus commonly speak?
You're going to need to present more than your opinion to post answers on this site. We expect answers to build their case up from available evidence, thus presenting a case that can be examined. Sans any supporting evidence for this opinion I don't think this even qualifies as an answer. Even if the opinion turns out to be correct, raw opinion isn't the basis for posting answers here.
Apr
8
comment Why is Daniel Chapter 2:4 - 7:28 written in Aramaic?
The entire case hinges on subtleties of English that may or may even reflect the original text. And even if they are, there is nothing here to demonstrate that they mean what you are reading into them. Considering the far more likely plainer reading, it seems the burden of proof ought to lie on the one proposing a completely novel reading to demonstrate the case that the text actually leads in that direction and exclude other more attested explanations.
Apr
8
comment Why is Daniel Chapter 2:4 - 7:28 written in Aramaic?
This has all the components of a good answer on this site (well formatted, thoroughly explained, works from the text and specific context up, etc.), and yet I think you're missing the mark. The final conclusion you arrive at isn't even all that off theologically, but as far as hermeneutics go the actual process of interpretation here is … and please don't think I'm just out to bash some view I don't agree with here … but it's nonsense. It is beyond unconvincing.
Mar
30
comment Is the use of the smallest possible example meant to indicate a complete absence of faith in Jesus sayings related to mustard seeds?
@PaulDean I've tweaked the close reason here as I think the previous one was miss-applied, but it seems this is largely duplicated elsewhere. Perhaps if there is and angle you think isn't being addressed by the other questions you could edit this one to be more clearly focused on the aspect that is unique to this question and we could re-open it.
Mar
30
comment Is the use of the smallest possible example meant to indicate a complete absence of faith in Jesus sayings related to mustard seeds?
@Tau The over-dramatization of the normal work-flow for handling questions isn't really necessary. This has not "descended into a systematic theology discussion" at all. It got closed. Closing questions that have scope issues is normal and the normal response would be to figure out a way to fix them. The close reason is a stock thing and not phrased for this specific question. In this case I think it might have been miss-applied, but it's not hard to see where the original title of this question set off the wrong bells in people's minds.
Mar
28
comment Why is part of Luke 9:55-56 omitted in some Bible translations?
This is not only wrong, it is amusingly so since the alleged omission would actually be evidence for rather than against that understanding. The committee behind the ESV in particular supports that theological position, the suggestion that they would leave it out for theological reasons is amusingly misguided. If you really want to postulate this answer, I recommend at least dealing with the manuscript issues involved and them building your argument for why it must come down to this on top of actual facts.
Mar
28
comment Who were the Hellenistic and Hebraic Jews of Acts 6:1?
We expect a bit more than this of answers. Care to edit and make this a full answer?
Mar
27
comment Why do translations use “wild ox”?
It seems to me the part of this question not well covered by the other question is actually more of an English language question than a hermeneutic one. "Bull" for example has gender specific connotations, "cow" and "cattle" don't come across right at all and the range of usage covered by "ox" seems to vary considerably by locale, but generally does include the thing being talked about. Whether there is a term that is unequivocally better and whether "ox" is limited in the way you think of it seems like an matter of English usage more that a textual problem.
Mar
24
comment Can the term “eisegesis” apply to the interpretation of Old Testament passages as prophecies specifically of Jesus?
@Joseph This isn't a passage specific question, it's about terminology used in connection with the field of hermeneutics. I don't see a problem with that in general (see most of the stuff in the hermeneutical-approaches tag, and related meta posts (e.g. this one and this one, etc.).
Mar
20
comment How convincing were the proofs of the resurrection in Acts 1:3?
I apologize if my comments have come across as harsh. I'm not trying to rag on you and I don't speak Greek myself. I'm out of my depth here too but I got at least this far using readily available English resources. You've hit a pet peeve of mine though—and that is trying to gloss over translation issues as if words can only have one meaning and one possible corresponding word in another language. I'm a strong advocate for accurately translating Scripture taking as few liberties in diction as possible, but being bilingual I know that this is hard (and more complex than this post indicates).
Mar
20
comment How convincing were the proofs of the resurrection in Acts 1:3?
@DickHarfield The accusation is strongly implied that the KJV inserted a word that "wasn't there" in the original (scare quotes because that's much harder to demonstrate than it is to say), went against the king and didn't live up to their own translation philosophy. The case you make for this from the actual text is completely unconvincing, esp. as you use an interlinear that differs in its choice of root parsing from almost every other one I've ever seen. I don't think you can reasonably expect to answer this question without actually examining the semantic range of meaning of τεκμηρίοις.
Mar
20
comment How convincing were the proofs of the resurrection in Acts 1:3?
@PaulVargas You can't open that link directly, you have to first visit the hosting page on the original site and click on the link from there. They are blocking link referrers not from their own site.
Mar
20
comment How convincing were the proofs of the resurrection in Acts 1:3?
I try especially hard not to downvote answers to my own questions—and I do believe this is an honest attempt to help—but not only does it not answer my question I think it may actually be misleading. The one sentence mentioning the Greek is considerably less informative than any of the dozen commentaries or study Bibles I have at my disposal. I came here looking for something more, not less. In addition to not demonstrating whether the Greek is reasonably translated one way or another or both (and not even mentioning the ESV), the accusation leveled at the KJV seems completely unjustified.
Mar
14
comment Does Isaiah 7:14 refer to a virgin?
It appears you are not the original author of much of this analysis. Even in a question, not crediting this is considered plagiarism. You need to edit this and use > markers to format quoted text and include appropriate credit where it is due (to include names, publication data, and links as appropriate).
Mar
6
comment Did Mark intend to end his gospel at 16:8?
Besides being a raw assertion of a conclusion (rather than the demonstration of how a conclusion was arrived at as required by this site in general) this answers the wrong question. It's basically an answer to the opposite question that was asked and does nothing to explain to the inquisitive what case might be made the other direction.
Feb
19
comment Do the specific gifts the father gives to the prodigal son have any special significance?
@rhetorician If you ask me the "teller" of the whole Bible, the centerpiece that is woven through every story is Jesus. But we're talking about tagging here man—and there all all sorts of things told by or about Jesus that don't benefit from the jesus tag. This one is about Jesus audience and the times and culture he was speaking to, not about his own person. Tags are a taxonomy for the site and should reflect the scope of each question. Just because the parable itself might be about Jesus or he was the speaker doesn't make this question about his person.
Feb
16
comment Are the judgement's in Joel 3:2, Matthew 25:31-32, and Revelation 20:12 referring to the same event?
Can you edit this to indicate what you mean by "difference"? Are you expecting the same words (you know they were written in different languages right?) or that they refer to the same event or what?