Search results

Yes, that is one of three possible interpretations. The other two: (1) The first word "Nothing" has been chiseled in, which proves that the phrase is true. (2) Five words have been chiseled in, so something is written in stone, which proves that the phrase is false.

But sometimes words can have more than one meaning. (Isn't that a line from "Stairway to Heaven?") And when that is the case, we need to figure it what the declarant meant. For instance, is this true or false:

And that was justice? Believe me, as the beneficiary I'm not complaining! But objectively, punishing Christ for our sins is not what we normally think of as just. Even if Christ volunteered for the gig.

I already addressed this in #87. Let's just stop. Enjoy your day.

He started out as just plain disrespectful, but now I suspect that you are right. I'll bow out of this.

Fair enough, but it still doesn't gainsay that God is unjust in punishing A for the sins of B -- at least as we humans reckon justice.

I'm not so sure God carries out justice quite that way when it comes to imposing a penalty for sin. It is central to our human notions of justice that one person should not be punished for another’s transgressions. But in God’s scheme of justice there seems to be an exception for the children...

Didn't you just reject my particular assertion by calling it speculative?

Point taken. So let's not call God a "tyrant" quite yet. Let's call Him a benevolent dictator or something without the negative connotation, until we come face to face with irrefutable evidence that He acts against our best interests.

I suppose He could be a benevolent "tyrant" i.e., He can do whatever He wants (= tyrant by your definition) but He always wants to do what ultimately is best for his subjects. Isn't that a possibility?

I don't know what you mean by "husband" in this context, so I can't answer. There is probably some sense in which the marriage analogy could fit, but it will still only be a metaphor. By "nuanced" I was referencing the concept of time --a measure of change -- as having a beginning at the point...

No. What did I write that gives you that idea?

I don't think it's simplistic at all. Quite the opposite. It's nuanced to the hilt. The word "proving" doesn't fit here. But if you have some "scholarship" please share.

Maybe I have unwittingly exceeded a size limits on attachments. I'll try sending one at a time. Here is Mitchell Dahood's "PROVERBS 8,22-31 TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY" published in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, October 1968, Vol. 30, No. 4,pp. 512-521. I am not a Hebrew scholar (if you...

There are of course competing perspectives. Here are two, suggesting "created" rather than "possessed." As to the upshot of Wisdom's creation implying a time when God was unwise, you might enjoy this hypothetical colloquy: Alexander was the first to rise and address the congregation. “My...

Sorry, what did I miss?

“The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. Before the mountains had been shaped...

Not so! I've been a lawyer for nearly 45 years, and a careful student of the Supreme Court for my entire career. I'm thoroughly familiar with the Obergefell case. Justice Kennedy, who was the swing vote, is someone I have particularly followed, through his pro-gay opinions in Romer v. Evans...

I am not of that view. I think there are lots of instances of scriptures not agreeing with each other that can ONLY be understood as just plain contradictory. Fortunately, they are generally disagreements over irrelevant factual details. Do we really care whether the centurion who wanted...