« first day (641 days earlier)      last day (2943 days later) » 

1:42 AM
@Dan I listened to a conversational Greek (modern of course) CD and I didn't catch this. I think you could probably rephrase the final paragraph a touch or remove it altogether. The rest of the answer was very educational too me.
 
2:06 AM
@JonEricson and on MSO, no less -- impressive!
 
 
2 hours later…
3:49 AM
so how do I get my mugshot off of the community bulletin? (RE: "please God, no more cookie-cutter questions like the ones Jas 3.1 just posted") ...lol...
 
 
2 hours later…
5:20 AM
@Jas3.1 Well, it will age out after a while or be replaced with something new. FYI: I was careful to not identify you in my question so it won't be on your "permanent record" so to speak.
On another note, @MonicaCellio and @Jas3.1. Please look into deleting extraneous comments on this answer:
0
A: Why does the Scripture say that Abraham sacrificed his "only-begotten son"?

Jas 3.1Short Answer: I think there is precedent for considering Isaac Abraham's "only" [true] son based solely on the fact that Ishmael was born by Hagar the concubine and not by Sarah his wife. Gideon's sons... and Abimelech Gideon had many sons: Now Gideon had seventy sons who were his direct de...

I'm sorely tempted to nuke the all the comments.
If there is valuable information there, please move it to an answer.
 
 
10 hours later…
3:31 PM
@JonEricson the point I brought up -- that concubines aren't always different so an answer based on the premise that concubines are different is flawed -- still stands. Using my answer to criticize another answer doesn't seem ideal; in particular, it moves the criticism away from where it needs to be seen, by a reader of the problematic answer. (If Jas removes more of his comments I can remove some more of mine, but everything remaining is a response to something that's still there.)
 
4:17 PM
But if you say you'd rather I take it up in my answer, I can do that. I'll still want to leave a comment on Jas's answer pointing to that, but then we could flush the rest. Your call.
 
 
5 hours later…
9:03 PM
@MonicaCellio unpinning because somebody added a post notice.
 
@MonicaCellio Sorry. That was probably me and I forgot to remove the pin. ;-)
 
@JonEricson hey, no problem. If the author had actually come back and fixed the post, this might have helped us notice. But he didn't, so no sense keeping the pin... (As for the other pinned one, that's kind of a train wreck and I don't know how to fix it. It needs an edit, but the author won't take it well (see the comments, and speaking of long comment threads...).)
 
@Jas3.1: Monica's point is a good one. If you are going to argue from the example of Gideon's son, you need to address the counter example of Jacob's sons by concubine:
> Now the sons of Jacob were twelve. (Genesis 35:22b ESV)
Please consider moving your comments into the answer itself.
@MonicaCellio Oh. That got slightly fixed as a result of my comment. I think I can remove that one...
 
@JonEricson He fixed the "heretical" part but not the rest. He added an addendum. He didn't remove the two paragraphs of sermonizing immediately before it. And the addendum -- or rather, its purpose -- is a little hard to follow.
"Hard to follow" is up to him, as is his preference for excessive verbosity, but the preaching is inappropriate.
 
@MonicaCellio That question is a mess too. Oddly the answerer did a good job of narrowing it down, but then left the answer broad. Hmmm...
 
9:17 PM
@JonEricson the question is rightly on hold, yeah. :-(
I remember approving that edit to it, by the way -- normally it would have been too major, but the question was even worse beforehand. But I don't think the edit is enough to reopen.
 
9:32 PM
I wanted to thank you for the edit on the question. That really helped make it focused! However, I notice that now your answer doesn't address the question. Since the whole point of a Q&A site is to get good answers to specific questions (and not use questions as an excuse to write about something eles), there's a good chance this answer will be nominated for deletion. Since the question is now about 2 Corinthians 12:21, could you edit the answer (and it might require a rewrite) to address a that verse in particular? Thank you and I'm sorry for all the trouble and confusion. — Jon Ericson 16 secs ago
@Jas3.1: I'm rereading the story of Abimelech and I'm not so sure about your interpretation. Certainly, the 70 needed to be removed so that Abimelech could become king, but the tribal politics seem to be as much of a motivating factor (if not more of one) than legitimacy. I think I'll ask a separate question.
 
@JonEricson nicely done. Thanks.
 
 
1 hour later…
Dan
10:41 PM
@JonEricson will do, thanks for the feedback.
 
@Dan Kinda like how the subject is optional in Spanish. Proficient Spanish speakers (like my wife) drop the subject all the time until it changes. Novice speakers (such as myself) treat Spanish like English with a few different vocabulary and speak English in Spanish. It's a useful tidbit for those of us who have just enough Greek to be dangerous to be aware of. Thanks!
 
Dan
@JonEricson yeah we are used to always having a subject and a verb, and also usually an object.
but in Greek the verb "to be" is almost always left out unless the author wants to emphasize it, and elsewhere verbs are left out for context to help
but I didn't know how to explain this: it is much more than just filling in a missing verb
the entire verbal idea goes with it
 

« first day (641 days earlier)      last day (2943 days later) »