4,697 reputation
1650
bio website
location United States
age 32
visits member for 2 years, 7 months
seen 2 days ago

I'm a born-again Christian, active member of the body of Christ, husband and father, and Bible teacher. I love to study Scripture, and firmly believe it is the only credible standard for truth.

Aside from my devotion to God, His people, and His word, I don't really have any loyalty to a particular doctrine or creed.

(The guy in the picture is Zhuge Liang from the movie Red Cliff.)


Jun
26
comment Has the meaning of “Love” changed enough to warrant substitutions in Bible translations?
-1 This sounds very devotional and pastoral... I don't want to discourage you in any of your ideas, but I think you might be more at home on Christianity.SE with answers like this. Anyway, feel free to flag this comment as obsolete once you've read it.
Jun
26
answered Has the meaning of “Love” changed enough to warrant substitutions in Bible translations?
Jun
26
answered Acts 23:6: Were Sadducces different in their outward apparel from the Pharisees?
Jun
26
comment Who is an authority on what can be called a “Bible”?
@Caleb the absence of a good SE site to ask the question on does not make it a good fit for this site.
Jun
26
comment Who is an authority on what can be called a “Bible”?
I think This question appears to be off-topic because it is about opinion, authority, and the definition of "Bible." I'll explain more in chat.
Jun
25
revised Did Mark intend to end his gospel at 16:8?
added 325 characters in body
Jun
24
comment How can we ensure a given “chiasm” was intentional by the author, and is not merely fanciful eisegesis?
@Soldarnal But I should probably also reiterate that I'm sorting through this topic myself, so I'm not claiming to have all the answers. Or any of the right ones. :) This is just where I'm at with it at this point in time.
Jun
24
comment How can we ensure a given “chiasm” was intentional by the author, and is not merely fanciful eisegesis?
@rhetorician I see Scripture as "God-Spirited"; a perfect product of humans being led by the Spirit in their communication. As such, I am nervous of any claims to God intending to communicate something through the human author's words which the human author did not intend to communicate. That sounds more like puppetry than partnership to me. I'd love to discuss further if you are ever interested.
Jun
24
comment How can we ensure a given “chiasm” was intentional by the author, and is not merely fanciful eisegesis?
@Soldarnal Regarding Luke-Acts, I suspect what we see there is a (very significant) Divinely-guided movement in events, which the author faithfully represents. I wouldn't classify that as "chiasm" since it seems to be more of a theological presentation of God's movement toward and away from the Jewish center of religion, and less of a technique for organization, memorization, and emphasis of the central element. In other words, the movement in the text exists because of the movement in the order of events, not because the author was arranging the text for memorization, etc.
Jun
24
comment How can we ensure a given “chiasm” was intentional by the author, and is not merely fanciful eisegesis?
@Soldarnal Regarding Genesis 3, if we just restrict our inquiry to verses 9-19 I see a movement of blameshifting from the man to the woman to the serpent, and then God addressing them in reverse order. I suspect that what we have here is simply a retelling of a story that had a particular sequence of events. However, the section fails the criteria I have proposed here (not to mention that its "focus" would be on the cursing of the serpent, which seems odd given the author's reason for writing), so I don't think we're looking at a chiasm so much as a sequence of events and narrative flow.
Jun
24
answered How can we ensure a given “chiasm” was intentional by the author, and is not merely fanciful eisegesis?
Jun
24
comment How can we ensure a given “chiasm” was intentional by the author, and is not merely fanciful eisegesis?
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Could you perhaps edit your post to make your answer to my question more explicit? I'm not sure whether you're saying "yes" or "no," or what exegetical procedure you're proposing, exactly. I think you have some good thoughts, but it's hard to follow as a Q&A. In the mean time, I'll read the article you linked.
Jun
24
comment What is Paul referring to in 1 Timothy 4:14?
Please note that I am asking this on BH.SE intentionally. I am looking for an explanation from exegesis -- not from church doctrine
Jun
24
asked What is Paul referring to in 1 Timothy 4:14?
Jun
24
comment What does the prohibition against women speaking in church in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 mean?
This is a great answer. You might consider mentioning that Scripture records woman Prophets, Apostles, Teachers, etc. Furthermore, in the same context, "silence" is also commanded of those who would speak in tongues in the absence of an interpreter (28), and yet, no one would argue that they are not allowed to speak or participate in the service aside from this specific order-focused restriction. And recognizing that v.36 should be placed with v.37 further strengthens the case. Besides, for women to keep completely silent in all Christian gatherings is nonsensical. When would they ever speak?
Jun
24
awarded  Revival
Jun
24
revised Did Mark intend to end his gospel at 16:8?
added 45 characters in body
Jun
24
revised Did Mark intend to end his gospel at 16:8?
added 24 characters in body
Jun
24
revised Did Mark intend to end his gospel at 16:8?
added 623 characters in body
Jun
24
revised Did Mark intend to end his gospel at 16:8?
added 623 characters in body