« first day (563 days earlier)      last day (4033 days later) » 

Jon Ericson
Jon Ericson
12:38 AM
@hannes Welcome to chat. I'm sorry you had a rough time on that answer. One of the side effects of deleting an answer is that new comments are not accepted. But I think you'll get better help on chat, so thanks for coming over.
 
 
7 hours later…
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
7:16 AM
Ok. I think I know what my problem is: if we can't reproduce the logical argument of a commentary, it might be useful as a historical source, but it doesn't (in itself) count as an answer that is backed up. For some questions, that might be the best we have, I suppose. But in general, we should be able to reproduce the work that a commentator did to arrive at their answer. If we can't, the answer fails to show it's work even if the conclusion is correct. No commentator is authoritative enough to be above this standard. — Jon Ericson 12 hours ago
@JonEricson I really like where you are going with this comment ^^^^
and I like your answer too: my only reservation is that it comes across almost as an endorsement of your own particular hermeneutic and just might be too narrow for the diversity of this site. I've voted for it anyway because I think it is a very useful addition.
 
 
6 hours later…
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
1:05 PM
@DanO'Day This is the thing I was left pondering last night: I don't think I've ever regarded these as being anything other than one and the same thing. For example Romans 11, particularly verses 28-29.
 
 
5 hours later…
Jon Ericson
Jon Ericson
5:57 PM
@JackDouglas I have the same reservation. It's part of my reluctance to even answer the question.
 

« first day (563 days earlier)      last day (4033 days later) »