^^^ does this make sense?

@JackDouglas I'm not sure it does! I mean - it makes a sort of sense, but there are passages in Paul marked by what feels like a high frequency of hapax, and these always get attention. I just posted a comment - we need some stats, I reckon, to quantify the impressions.

@Susan - the first link in that comment comes from this article on style in 2 Peter. FWIW...

My point in posting those comments was to address the fact that my view in answering the question is excluded from valid posting on this site because it is a theological view, and that "normal bounds of evidence and argument" are going to start from two distinct theological presuppositions, which will end up in two very different ways of viewing that evidence based on one's starting theology, not on just the textual evidence itself.

I'm not attempting to "police" questions at all (I did not vote to close the question), but rather point out that no objective answer can be given apart from either believing or not in verbal plenary inspiration.

And to answer why BH.SE over Xnty.SE, some reasons are (1) this site uses more academic argumentation for support (I just wished it allowed a bit more academic theological argumentation, but I live with it), (2) it deals with the text (which is what theology should derive from), (3) helping people understand the text helps them develop a more accurate theology.

Genocide in the Old Testament - folks, I know some of you had expressed an interest in "violence and the Hebrew Bible via the book of Joshua" - The following link provides a recent thought-provoking discussion at Dallas Theological Seminary regarding "Genocide in the Old Testament" with two of the principal professors of Old Testament at the seminary. Please click here. Very Respectfully, Joseph

@Joseph thanks for sharing! I've been reading through this book so this is timely, thanks.

I don't share many of the assumptions about the Bible that undergird these approaches, but I'm open-minded and enjoy learning about them

@ScottS If I may, I'm not sure this makes any sense. I don't think your view is excluded from being able to posit an answer an this question: in fact I think the basic outline you've dropped in comments deserves to be fleshed out into an answer where in would be constructive instead of being read as "policing" (not sure I would have put it that way, but your did come off as being against the question).

I think an answer saying essentially "given X framework and the Y presuppositions it makes, this issue is handled this way and these conclusions are drawn" relevant to that question would be a useful contribution.

@Caleb Why I questioned it is that my argument would be essentially a purely presuppositional argument, which normally if people come in and place an answer of "I follow X framework and the Y presuppositions" (which in this case essentially need not look at the evidence the way the question is posed), then the answer is not well received. It's essentially an "I believe" answer, based on other, theological evidence (i.e. Scripture's inspiration).

If others consider forming this type of answer valid for this site, please speak up (or star this comment).

@ScottS I do, and I'd likely vote for your answer even if I don't agree with it 100%, as your arguments tend to be cogent and interesting - and this case is no different judging by the comments.

@ScottS I admit that kind of answer can often be problematic, but I think that often has more to do with the shoddy work put into them than it does the basic premise or outline which they follow.

There is a big difference between dropping junk answers that just say "I believe X" (or the ever friendly "God said X, so stop all your foolish study and just believe him") and a careful answer that steps through what the presuppositions being made are, what evidence they factor in, what they reject, and how the conclusion is arrived at. I think if you answer from the perspective of explaining the hermeneutic method rather than just lobing a conclusion out there you'll be fine.

@ScottS you may (or may not) also like to add that a man's vocabulary and style of speaking is likely to change and mature throughout the years of his life

@ScottS Looks like you and @Caleb (and others) have had a productive conversation. :) And thanks for your thoughtful replies to the comment I lobbed onto yours appended to @Susan's 2 Peter question. Esp. the BH vs. Xnty.SE thoughts made good sense.

@ScottS A response will be well received if it handles the evidence (whatever that might amount to for a given case) and frames arguments that point to certain conclusions or inferences drawn. Of course patterns of understanding will incline us to weigh evidence differently, and construct arguments differently. But as long as we do that, we can have productive and illuminating Q&As, even when those frameworks (or "presuppositions", your preferred term) differ, and sometimes starkly.

I speak as a serial upvoter of your contributions, of course. ;)

I think I just said in a long-winded way what Caleb already stated more succinctly! ;)

@Joseph Also of interest to me - thanks for sharing!

@ScottS (Sorry for interweaving conversations!) I have trouble imagining what a "purely presuppositional argument" would look like - I suppose just a rant! What the evidence/argument combination ought to guard against is "spin", skewing, distorting, etc.

There will inevitably be times when framework/presupposition/commitment stands in tension with awkward "facts" that require explanation. But the point of the "argument" is to tease out such moments in the harsh light of day, and at least to have some clarity and transparency about what we're saying/arguing/claiming.

FWIW!