Reputation
790
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 Why do Isaiah 37 and 2 Kings 19 contain the same verses?
"How is it possible" part of the question is logically not a valid question.
Oct
18
comment Could the crowd have provided the extra bread and fish in the account of Jesus feeding the thousands?
Are you asking for scriptural, logical or mythological evidence?
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
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
comment Do Acts 10 and 11 invalidate the prohibition against consuming blood?
So then why Acts passages say "ritually slaughter and eat"?
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.
Oct
4
comment What is the significance of Acts 10:13, 11:7 “make sacrificial slaughter”
I don't think you can connect the corollaries of a Hebrew word to a Greek word. They are not the same word. That is like equating the word murder to kill, to prohibit against eating animal meat.
Oct
4
comment Do Acts 10 and 11 invalidate the prohibition against consuming blood?
I'm still trying decipher from your answer whether and how interpretation of Acts 10, 11 would say it is alright to consume meat with its blood.