Stack Exchange
log in

Peter Kirkpatrick

 Discussion between Peter Kirkpatrick …

Imported from a comment discussion on hermeneutics.stackexchan...
Peter Kirkpatrick
May 17 07:22
@RevelationLad I disagree, but I'm sorry, I haven't got the energy to continue what to me feels like a futile discussion. Blessings to you.
Peter Kirkpatrick
May 16 20:36
But I still feel you are misreading the psalm, and we can talk more about that if you want.
Peter Kirkpatrick
May 16 20:35
@RevelationLad Again you have tagged me with a view that I don't hold, about Abraham and his descendants. Go back to my very first comment and see that I explicitly agreed with you: the covenant is not through all Abraham's descendants. So what?
Peter Kirkpatrick
May 16 13:49
As for Abraham, my instinct is that yes, Abraham thought the covenant was to all his children. For example, he appealed to God on behalf of Ishael, and God promised to bless Ishmael as well. See Genesis 17. But to be honest, I don't really know why you're asking that question.
Peter Kirkpatrick
May 16 13:45
...(continued) You tell me off for reading Christian ideas back into the passage. But that's exactly what you are doing. To quote you, do you really think that the psalmist's audience would have understood the psalm to be talking about the Trinity? I certainly don't.
Peter Kirkpatrick
May 16 13:45
@RevelationLad I will answer your question about Abraham. But first, your Trinity comments. For me, this is a good example of what I'm trying to say. My very first sentence of my main answer was precisely on this point. I said the I believe in the Trinity (just as you do) but that this is NOT a passage which talks about the Trinity. But until I pushed, you completely ignored that part of my answer....
Peter Kirkpatrick
May 16 04:27
You ask me to read the psalm in its original context. I agree that context is important. (It's good to find points on which we agree, as well as points of difference.) So let me ask you a question in return. Why on earth did you tag this question with the Trinity tag? surely that's the biggest example of reading Christian ideas back into an OT text.
Peter Kirkpatrick
May 16 03:01
Yes I did say that. But I said other things as well, and I have yet to see you respond to any of them. I have a responsibility to read your comments in context, and I admit again that I'm struggling to do that. But you also have that responsibility, to read the totality of what I have said. And both of us have that responsibility, namely to read and interpret psalm 105 in its fulness. I still feel we are going round in circles.
Peter Kirkpatrick
May 16 02:57
With respect, you keep telling me what my position is, and based on what you're saying I don't think you even understand my position. I'm comfortable with my answer, and it's probably best if we agree to differ and leave it at that.
Peter Kirkpatrick
May 16 02:57
To be honest, I'm not even sure now what the point is that we are discussing. Are you saying that there is a difference between the words covenant and promise? If so, I disagree. The parallelism of verse 8 makes it clear that they are synonyms (nothing to do with Paul). So they describe the same commitment made by God: first to Abraham, then confirmed to later generations. Is that the issue between us?
Peter Kirkpatrick
May 16 02:57
I accept that covenant does not flow through all of Abraham's descendants. But it's also true that the covenant promise was precisely to bless Abraham through the gift of children and descendants in the longer term. If there were no children, God's covenant would have failed. This is the picture offered by the psalm. (We could say a lot more on this subject, as Paul's writings demonstrate. But this Q&A was specifically about the meaning of the psalm.)
 

 Discussion between Peter Kirkpatrick …

Imported from a comment discussion on ell.stackexchange.com/qu...
Peter Kirkpatrick
Sep 3, 2024 05:11
Your summary all looks very good. Well done. Remember my comment from the beginning that choosing tenses is not so much about right and wrong. It's much more important to understand that different tenses have different meanings, so the choice is based on the message we want to communicate. And I think think you are showing a good understanding of that principle.
Peter Kirkpatrick
Sep 2, 2024 07:46
To be honest, when you ask about "the other two explanations" I'm losing track of exactly what we are referring to. So let me repeat my last answer: You are doing very well. Trust your instincts. I haven't read anything unnatural in any of your recent posts, so I think you've got it nailed!
Peter Kirkpatrick
Sep 2, 2024 07:13
Yes again! And God's blessings on you too.
Peter Kirkpatrick
Sep 2, 2024 06:28
Yes.
Peter Kirkpatrick
Sep 2, 2024 04:02
Oh well, I shall leave the formatting question as a mystery! As to the main point of your last question, your examples sounded fine to me. It seems to me that we are getting to the stage where you need to trust your instincts and just get on with it. It's as if you said, I know that "John went to the library" is correct, but what about "Susan went to the library"? You're doing well, and you will be fine.
Peter Kirkpatrick
Sep 1, 2024 21:01
Changing topics for a moment, can you tell me how you are formatting bold/italic in this chat room? I've tried the standard mark up with ... and ..., but on my screen the asterisks just display as asterisks. Nothing gets formatted. What formatting do you see in my last post? (I need to go out now, but will answer your last question soon.)
Peter Kirkpatrick
Sep 1, 2024 10:04
Probably all of the above. Technically I wouldn't describe *has been* as continuous here. There is a tense difference between *I have gone* (perfect) and *I have been going* (perfect continuous). But that difference doesn't exist for the verb *to be*. We simply have the one form, *have been*. (For example, we wouldn't say *I have been being sick.*)

So I would label this as a perfect tense, but as to meaning, it does indeed have a continuous sense. Therefore *has been* describes the whole period from the past up to now. And of course, because you are repeating the tense ("If there ever has …
Peter Kirkpatrick
Aug 29, 2024 05:18
Consider these two sentences from your OP: (1) *If there has ever been anyone who was their own, worst critic, it’s me.* (2) *If there has ever been a man who has been faced with challenges of opposition both at home and away, then it is King David.* Now in my opinion, both of these sentences are correct, and they both use the same pattern. It’s got nothing to do with living or dead, it’s all about the time frame, which is **from then until now.**
Think of it this way. Imagine a list of names of “people who have been faced with challenges…”. Imagine that the list has names spread out over t…
Peter Kirkpatrick
Aug 29, 2024 04:55
I think you've done well here. Your answer (timestamp 0:54) is exactly the understanding that I would have. Regarding the Present Perfect question, I'' organise a separate post soon.
Peter Kirkpatrick
Aug 29, 2024 04:34
First, my apologies for the delayed reply. In the comments section, I get alerts when there is a reply, but in this format I didn't get an alert, so I assumed there was nothing to discuss. Now that we are both aware, I will check more regularly.
Peter Kirkpatrick
Aug 27, 2024 10:01
All of these examples are perfectly natural. You say you understand, so let me ask you: What do you think the difference is between Charles Dickens is a fantastic writer and Charles Dickens was a fantastic writer?
Peter Kirkpatrick
Aug 27, 2024 09:57
These are just more examples of the same issue, which I've already answered. I don't mind you asking, but you are the one who will be writing in future. You are the one who must decide if your words say what you want them to say. For example, you could say: I think Charles Dickens is a fantastic writer, and he has written some of the greatest novels in the world. If you're not sure, rewrite. Your choice.
Peter Kirkpatrick
Aug 27, 2024 09:57
Ah, sorry. I saw the highlighted is, but missed the other one! Again, it's just perspective (I think). Was is certainly correct, and perhaps looks back from the writer's position: He [David] was faced... But if we put ourselves in the place of David, we can imagine him saying, "I have been faced with many challenges..." Has been brings out that flavour, and also makes the tenses consistent. We could also push the tense further back: A man who had been faced...
Peter Kirkpatrick
Aug 27, 2024 09:57
There are two perspectives in that sentence. There is King David, and there is the writer of the sentence. Is and was are both valid tenses here. The past tense means we are thinking from David's perspective. The present tense means we are thinking from the writer's perspective. Compare Looking back, Mother Teresa was the most inspirational figure of the 20th century, and To me, Mother Teresa is the most inspirational figure of the 20th century.
 

 Discussion on answer by Mr. Bond: Mat…

Imported from a comment discussion on hermeneutics.stackexchan...
Peter Kirkpatrick
Aug 22, 2024 10:28
@OneGodOneLord, That shows the danger of looking at this issue verse by verse. If the trinitarian view of God is wrong, then your reading of 2 Cor 5:19 makes sense. But if it's right, then God was in Christ takes on a much deeper meaning. Also, it is true that God's Spirit is in us, but again that will be interpreted differently depending on how you read the whole sweep of the Bible story. Jesus and I are both in relationship with the Father: If we are the same, that relationship will be the same, but if we are different then that relationship will also be different.
 

 Discussion on question by So Few Agai…

Imported from a comment discussion on hermeneutics.stackexchan...
Peter Kirkpatrick
Jul 16, 2024 21:37
@SoFewAgainstSoMany, I am not questioning either the truth of scripture or your high view of it. But precisely because it's important for both of us to uphold that truth, it's also important for us to take care in determining the meaning of scripture. Not all scripture is literal. But that doesn't mean it's untrue. God is truly "the rock of my salvation." But he is not literally a rock. Because of your response I'll try to set out a more detailed answer soon.
Peter Kirkpatrick
Jul 16, 2024 21:37
The river of life is simply a poetic/pictorial statement of the reality that God is the source of eternal life. Don't read it literally as something happening after resurrection according to historical time. Paul and John are saying the same thing but in different language.
 

 Discussion on question by Thomas Pear…

Imported from a comment discussion on christianity.stackexchan...
Peter Kirkpatrick
May 26, 2020 12:51
I agree with Nigel. As I said in my answer, it's ok to have a view for or against Trinitarian teachings. But Thomas you've got to show respect for other views by showing that you understand them first. I did answer your question directly by interpreting and explaining what Harris actually said. I think that you have completely misunderstood the point he is making.
 

 The Library

General discussion for hermeneutics.stackexchange.com
Peter Kirkpatrick
Apr 10, 2017 07:56
@Dɑvïd Thanks for your reply. I clicked on your link and found stuff I hadn't seen before, so that certainly helped. But your 5 links ... I couldn't find that at all. So without the link I would have been lost.
Peter Kirkpatrick
Apr 9, 2017 08:52
@Susan Thanks @Susan, if he continues the discussion I will follow your advice. My only other question at this stage is whether there is a help resource for using the chat room.
Peter Kirkpatrick
Apr 9, 2017 01:07
Thanks for the reply. But I'm talking about a discussion that is not currently in the chat room. I thought in the main BH.overflow site there should be questions and answers, but not discussion.
Peter Kirkpatrick
Apr 9, 2017 00:46
I want to follow the rules, but as a newcomer I would say the help for chat rooms is hopeless. What can I do? What should I do? How do I proceed? Any practical advice will be so appreciated.
Peter Kirkpatrick
Apr 9, 2017 00:46
Hi, this is my first time choosing to enter the chat room process. I've had one occasion where a discussion about a question was long enough that it automatically got transferred to chat. I think I'm in another discussion (hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/27238/…) where we are getting to the same point.
 

 Discussion between Peter Kirkpatrick …

Imported from a comment discussion on hermeneutics.stackexchan...
Peter Kirkpatrick
Mar 18, 2017 12:43
My general point is that yes, it's obvious that Ezekiel is using imagery from Genesis in the judgment against Egypt. But it's a one way process. We can't say that Genesis has the same meaning as from Ezekiel. Genesis is a book written before Ezekiel, and must be read on its own terms.

Perhaps a very small modern example might help you understand my opinion. Next door to where I work there is a big storage warehouse named Kennards. Recently a large advertising banner went up on the building. The banner says, "Space. The final frontier." Now we all know where that came from. It's inspired by…
Peter Kirkpatrick
Mar 18, 2017 12:33
@TedO, ...Indeed, it is so great that even the mighty trees that once lived in the Garden of Eden would not have compared favourably with it. But because of its pride, God will chop the tree down. All of this is poetic imagery used for the purposes of this particular judgment, and says nothing about how we should read Genesis 1-3 in its own context.
Peter Kirkpatrick
Mar 18, 2017 12:32
@TedO, Ezekiel 31 is God's judgment on Egypt's Pharaoh. The judgment is written poetically. In the poem God reminds Pharaoh of Assyria's fate. Assyria too was once a mighty empire, but because of its pride God cut it down. The same will happen to Egypt. All of this is told by way of metaphor. Assyria is compared to a great cedar tree from Lebanon: in fact it is the greatest tree in the whole forest, lush, strong, nourishing all the birds and animals...
Peter Kirkpatrick
Mar 18, 2017 12:32
@TedO, I guess we'll have to agree to differ. I don't see any basis for concluding that your examples are what Genesis 2 is actually talking about. If your approach is valid, we could make Genesis mean anything we want.
Peter Kirkpatrick
Mar 18, 2017 12:32
Just because there is a tree in Genesis 2-3 and trees are associated with idolatry in some other texts, doesn't mean there is an association of meanings. To be honest it feels to me as if you are reading that meaning back into the Genesis text, rather than interpreting the text itself.