Reputation
786
Top tag
Next privilege 1,000 Rep.
Edit questions and answers
Badges
3 16
Impact
~155k people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 0 helpful flags
  • 37 votes cast
Oct
18
comment “You will have delivered your soul” in Ezekiel 3
To answer by proving there is no valid question is not allowed here? Who set this silly rule?
Oct
11
comment “You will have delivered your soul” in Ezekiel 3
[לחיתו] = to his participation in being alive.
Oct
11
comment “You will have delivered your soul” in Ezekiel 3
piel is intensive/participative, not causative. חיה = be alive. Since Hebrew has no difference betw participle form and verb form, חיה = state of being alive. Hence [לחיה] either = to be alive or state of being alive. A participant of being alive. 2king8:10, 14 [חיה תחיה] = your life(state of being alive) shall live. Ezekiel 18:9, 18:17, 18:21, 33:13
Oct
11
revised “You will have delivered your soul” in Ezekiel 3
added 151 characters in body
Oct
11
answered “You will have delivered your soul” in Ezekiel 3
Oct
9
comment “Blessed be the glory of the LORD from its place”
ם - ך ? Yet another mistranscription theory to explain phrases people don't like to see?
Oct
8
comment “Blessed be the glory of the LORD from its place”
קול רעש ממקומו ברוך כבוד יי
Oct
8
comment “Blessed be the glory of the LORD from its place”
A spirit or the spirit ? Or simply spirit?
Oct
7
comment Do Acts 10 and 11 invalidate the prohibition against consuming blood?
Only the sacrifice of edible animals is implied. There was not implication of the "slaughter of people".
Oct
7
comment Does the king of Tyre send Solomon a bunch of girls for his stable of women?
I did imply that it could be a fantasy of a generic commoner to be a prince, and hence having unrealistic and exaggerated expectations of a prince. For example fantasizing that the princess of Tyre would honour him before honouring the king. Still it could be true that the fantasy is that of a prince thinking of usurping his father's honour.
Oct
7
comment Do Acts 10 and 11 invalidate the prohibition against consuming blood?
Sorry for the road rage, but too many people have irresponsibly used the excuse of "context".
Oct
7
comment Do Acts 10 and 11 invalidate the prohibition against consuming blood?
Context is a stale and dishonestly evil excuse for brushing off the abnormal use of a word that has been deployed outside its usual boundaries. People must prove that the word had a statistical normality within the whole linguistic koine framework by pulling up other verses and if possible contemporary literature and graph a histogram of its usage. Before even thinking of using the "context" excuse to bury any trace of deliberate intention why a word was used.
Oct
6
comment Does the king of Tyre send Solomon a bunch of girls for his stable of women?
The young fantasy prince fantasizes being told "those girls will be brought to you."
Oct
6
revised Does the king of Tyre send Solomon a bunch of girls for his stable of women?
added 295 characters in body
Oct
6
comment Do Acts 10 and 11 invalidate the prohibition against consuming blood?
So then why Acts passages say "ritually slaughter and eat"?
Oct
6
answered Does the king of Tyre send Solomon a bunch of girls for his stable of women?
Oct
6
comment What is the significance of Acts 10:13, 11:7 “make sacrificial slaughter”
I voted you up, even though I think the septuagint is crapola, for the very fact that you helped reinforce the misalignment between the masoret and the septuagint. However, I would love to have a response that ignores the septuagint but uses the masoret.
Oct
6
comment Do Acts 10 and 11 invalidate the prohibition against consuming blood?
You need to explain why Acts 10, 11 does not invalidate the prohibition against eating a pig. Because it is apparent to me that it does.
Oct
4
comment Do Acts 10 and 11 invalidate the prohibition against consuming blood?
Could you then make that statement clearly, because pardon me for my autism, I am unable to decipher that from your answer. Because I would hate to vote an answer up without knowing what it actually says. Basically, I have encountered overwhelming claims from Christians that Acts 10, 11 invalidates prohibition against eating of animal blood as well as generically (rather than ceremonially/ritualistically) unclean animals. I don't see removing blood from meat as a ritual or ceremony.
Oct
4
comment What is the significance of Acts 10:13, 11:7 “make sacrificial slaughter”
"Peter is not a Levitic priest" - doesn't Christian doctrine associate a believer to priestliness ? I was wondering if Acts 10, 11 is somehow correlated to 1 Peter 2:9.