MemberJanuary 4, 2021 at 1:03 am
Doug, I have said nothing personal to/about you… but you have immediately made personal derogatory statements to/about me. I have addressed the issues, not the person, which is how such debates should proceed. I observed (not necessarily in this order) that, 1. your in-article definition of ‘crux’ is at odds with the common literary understanding (and is also at odds with your recently supplied Cambridge definition), 2. the idea of weighting one text above others is of doubtful value as it is subjective and adversarial (i.e. text against text), 3. I have found a holistic and harmonistic approach to the biblical data is more productive, 4. a local solution must comport with the global context, 5. I have read your article (though you claim I have not), 6. it is very long in proportion to the issue it addresses, 7. I don’t have the time for a point-by-point critique of it, 8. it is better to address an argument in-forum and not by external links and articles, 9. that I did at least try to do this by copying my own (2001) arguments into the thread, and 10. that you have shown no more engagement with my arguments that I have with yours, so we are ‘squits’ as things stand.
None of these comments amounts to “accusations” or “sarcasm”. FWIW (“I speak as fool”) I was 2015 dux of the Baptist Seminary where I did my BTheo(Hons) which included hermeneutics units of course. Your negative evaluation of my abilities and training is inappropriate and uncalled for. I have not made, nor would ever make, any comparable remarks about your training or abilities, nor would I surmise whether or not you should be in the academic position you presently hold. I would also point out that unlike the ‘resident’ scholars here, I am paying a considerable amount to be on this forum, and would like to be treated with respect.