@JackDouglas The previous version gave a couple of examples, which I find useful - but sure, I have no problem with the edit, as you and others think it fits better with the rules and format. Thanks for the notification.
@LoverofStructure Thanks for allowing the edit: I wonder if you should have a go at answering yourself, perhaps those examples would fit better in an answer?
A short answer. The Greek word translated woman is the same word translated wife. This is true in many languages, in fact English is quite unusual in having two different words for this. It is a matter of context then to determine which is which. Adultery is a function of marital defect, and so w...
i'll agree that there are a few things in that answer that need shoring up, but i guess a comment would be preferable
what does "Thankfully, we live in the days when "by grace you are saved" not be a rigid adherence to the precepts of the Mosaic law taught in the gospels." mean?
@swasheck I think there is minimal guidence on voting
the tooltip says 'useful' or 'nt useful' and mods have no powers to reverse votes or discover voters
(which is probably for the best!)
It is not Fraser's best answer imo, but DVing wouldn't have crossed my mind personally
@JackDouglas oh certainly - i didn't want to start a witch hunt, but with things as subjective as interpretation and theology it'd be nice to have a comment that asks for better answers/clarification.
Hebrews 10:20 tells us the veil is Jesus' flesh. He was bruised for our iniquities Isaiah tells us. The gospels tell us his flesh was torn when the centurion thrust a spear in his . The veil was torn in the temple when Jesus died so based on Hebrews 10:20, I believe the blue, purple and scarlet c...
@swasheck hoo boy. Do you feel up to trying to set this new user on the right path? Not only is this a pure-doctrine answer, but it doesn't answer the question that asked for something beyond "wild speculation". He brings no sources.
My quick answer (without looking at commentaries or translating):
Moses is referring to a prophet archetype. That is, a prophet (or prophets) will be given by the Lord God for the good of the people. The singular is used generally; it isn't necessarily prescriptive. (I believe this is why the...
@swasheck I think he's right that it's a non-specific (non-singular) prophet -- describing the type, not saying just one individual. I was going to write something similar but that seemed so obvious (no one says the prophetic books weren't by prophets), so I left my comment on the question instead. I don't think he is correct about Jews holding by multiple fulfillment and would want him to source that (I could be wrong and I would learn something).
He should word-smith the 4th paragraph at least; even if Jews do hold by multiple fulfillment, they certainly don't hold that tanakh prophecies are about Jesus. :-)
@swasheck I assumed on reading that he was talking about the time of the early church, though that might not be a valid assumption. It's probably more proper to talk about how the rabbis interpreted things, as we don't have a window into rank-and-file Jews, but "Jews" and "Jewish" don't strike me as wrong there.
The question asks about Christian exegesis and (I think) he's bringing in historic context. Certainly what Jews think doesn't directly bear on a Christian question, but it's background.
(He probably ought to strike the "Jewish" in "Jewish/Christian prophet after Christ", as we don't consider Jesus to be a prophet in the first place...)
@MonicaCellio ok. that's fair. so if i had a question about how Judaism understands Deborah, would i ask about the rabbinic understanding, the Jewish understanding, or "How does Judaism understand/perceive/interpret the events surrounding Deborah's action(s)?"
@swasheck I think any of those would be fine. In a question I would go broad (Judaism); when bringing sources in an answer I think I'd be more likely to talk about the rabbis.
@swasheck yeah, I was wondering if I should suggest that. Moot now, though. :-)
BH + Mi Yodeya is a little different from BH + C.SE. Text-interpretation questions are equally on topic here and on Mi Yodeya, but I gather they're not on topic for C.SE. So in a sense it comes down to where you're more comfortable asking, though if you want, specifically, a Jewish interpretation, Mi Yodeya would be the place to go IMO. (If you want to include Christian interpretations of tanakh texts, of course, BH is the place to go.)
@swasheck and we want BH to both grow and have a variety of perspectives, and the Jewish perspective is very much a minority. I would ask on Mi Yodeya but that doesn't mean you need to. We've had a couple questions that started here and then had followups on Mi Yodeya, bringing the research results back here. I like it when the sites can work together like that.
@JackDouglas Hey now we're cooking with gas! +1 from me. People are still free to mention the resources they use and love, but a proper answer to the question must focus on the why, not on the possible examples.
On many Stack Exchange sites, a vote has a clear meaning:
Up vote answers that are correct
Down vote answers that are incorrect or unclear
The goal of voting is to help the cream rise to the top over time.
But when it comes to Biblical Hermeneutics, the meaning becomes a bit fuzzy:
Up vote...
I am a Christian. You might be Christian too. But we are neither Christian nor even religious.
If you are the sort of person who reads Meta, this is insultingly obvious. It says right in the FAQ:
We welcome Jewish, Christian, Atheist and other viewpoints as long as they take seriously the...
"Allegory" is often referred to in a negative way (at least by Protestant interpreters) to signify a sort of irresponsible replacement of authorial intent with some subsequent spiritualization of each element of the original story. The main criticism I have heard is that allegorists ignore the hi...
@swasheck I hate to say it, but the way the question is phrased, it would work better on C.SE.
@StackExchange I spent a bunch of time working on an answer, but I don't plan on posting it since I realized it was way too preachy. (One of my points was, "Don't preach.")
Friedrich Schleiermacher is often referred to as "the father of modern hermeneutics." He was a Protestant, and is highly respected by many Protestant interpreters for his contributions to the field.
Surprisingly, however, most modern Protestant interpreters seem to reject Schleiermacher's teachi...
Remove the GROUP BY part of your query and you will get one result.
My quick answer (without looking at commentaries or translating):
Moses is referring to a prophet archetype. That is, a prophet (or prophets) will be given by the Lord God for the good of the people. The singular is used generally; it isn't necessarily prescriptive. (I believe this is why the...
On many Stack Exchange sites, a vote has a clear meaning:
Up vote answers that are correct
Down vote answers that are incorrect or unclear
The goal of voting is to help the cream rise to the top over time.
But when it comes to Biblical Hermeneutics, the meaning becomes a bit fuzzy:
Up vote...
The Library
The Library