Reputation
16,011
Next tag badge:
121/100 score
19/20 answers
Badges
17 79 208
Impact
~1.3m people reached

Jan
23
comment Peter's Denial and the Rooster Crowing
A belated welcome to BH.SE. Did you get the sort of answer you were looking for? There are lots of examples of Matthew "correcting" or "simplifying" Mark. In this case, the way Mark presents Jesus' words is a bit convoluted and Matthew gets right to the point: "you will disown me three times and then the rooster will crow." Was there something more you were asking about?
Jan
23
answered Why are fathers missing in Mark 10:30?
Jan
23
comment Why are fathers missing in Mark 10:30?
Welcome to Biblical Hermeneutics! I think this is the right place to ask. ;-) I cleaned up the verse formatting a bit (and switched to the ESV) so that I could more easily tell what you are asking. Feel free to re-edit the question if I screwed anything up.
Jan
23
revised Why are fathers missing in Mark 10:30?
Cleaned up the verse quotations so that I know what's going on. Feel free to re-edit.
Jan
19
comment What is the “first resurrection”?
The connection to John 5 is stronger if you include verses 25-29 or even more context. I'm not sure I agree with the answer, but you make a very strong case, so +1. Thanks for taking the time to refine your answer.
Jan
18
comment Accurate translations of original scripts/text
@Peter Taylor: Very true. I've done some translation of poetry from Spanish and handling ambiguity is nearly an impossible challenge. But I find the NET text tends to make firm stands where the text seems open to interpretation. Since we have the notes, which often explain the translators' reasoning, it's a valid approach. This is why I prefer to use the ESV for most quotations here.
Jan
17
revised Does Paul intend that what follows after 1 Corinthians 7:25a have less authority?
Added a link to the passage and a tag.
Jan
17
comment Accurate translations of original scripts/text
Welcome to BH.SE! I agree that the NET Bible is pretty good--especially the notes. But I find the translation choices tend to remove ambiguous language which is present in the original. For the general reader, that's fine. But if you are struggling with the text, as we do here, it's not always helpful to have interpretation problems "solved" by the translation.
Jan
17
reviewed Approve Accurate translations of original scripts/text
Jan
13
comment Which experts believe Paul “lost” his arguments in 1st Corinthians?
Welcome to BH.SE! It's exciting that you've started out by asking three great (and diverse) questions. Although it would be entirely tangential to the question, would you mind linking to the theory in question?
Jan
13
comment The beloved disciple vs Peter
That's a lot better. I hope to see more answers from you soon!
Jan
13
comment The beloved disciple vs Peter
Welcome to Biblical Hermeneutics!
Jan
13
revised The beloved disciple vs Peter
The first sentence was a bit disjointed so I cleaned it up. ;-) Feel free to re-edit if I changed your intended meaning.
Jan
13
asked Is the “captain of the Lord's host” an angel or God Himself?
Jan
11
comment What was Ruth's legal status?
I'm not sure I understand why all the rigmarole. It makes for a great story of redemption and romance, but why did Boaz even bring up the field? It sounds like he did something clever, but I don't know what. Is the point that he managed to get both the girl and the field instead of just Ruth?
Jan
11
asked What was Ruth's legal status?
Jan
11
comment Was Goliath killed twice?
Good work at pulling a great question out of yesterday's drafts. It seems like potential contradictions could be a rich vein to mine for questions in.
Jan
11
comment Misleading “but” in Matthew 5:22 KJV?
+1 That's a really good point. Now I'm not so sure of my answer, however. ;-)
Jan
11
comment Misleading “but” in Matthew 5:22 KJV?
@Muke Tever: That makes total sense. Thanks for filling in a gap in my knowledge.
Jan
10
comment Misleading “but” in Matthew 5:22 KJV?
This started as a comment, but grew into a full answer. What I don't know however, is if there's any reason to use δε versus δ. Did Matthew (or subsequent scribes) usually pick one to mean "but" and the other to mean "and"? This verse would imply that usage.