Replies

Yep, the same Michael Heiser who doesn't need a literal Adam: ...

This is amusing. I suppose he might be "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!"

Bob Jones University graduate, attended Dallas Theological Seminary, etc.

Mike earned his PhD in Hebrew Bible and Semitic Languages at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Before going to the UW-Madison, Mike earned an M.A. in Ancient History from the University of Pennsylvania (major fields were Ancient Israel and Egyptology), and another M.A. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison (Hebrew Studies). He also attended Dallas Theological Seminary. Mike’s undergraduate degree is from Bob Jones University, but he also attended Bible college for three years.

In any case, when I say, "What to me and you?" to my friend he knows immediately from context what it means. No, you do not leave out the "vav" and yes it means "and." The context is not the surrounding area and problem. The context is the relationship between the speaker and hearer. This is obvious when you use this idiom (in Hebrew) with friends, family, and brethren as opposed to using it with acquaintances, adversaries, or those of an unknown relationship.

I find it sad when Gentiles stumble over this idiom. Recognizing, and possessing yourself, a relationship of love and trust with your parent, your spouse, your child, your friend, you are saying "What can I do to help?"

What Catholics get right is having the heart and mind to love Miriam as their own mother. They are in the family, so to speak, and understand the love and trust between this particular mother and son.

To cement the point, I would refer you to a saying of Messiah, which I cannot publish from my heart to your eyes, lest a copyright be thought transgressed. Yet you must know it; it is within reach. When a son asks for a fish he is not served stone soup, as it were.

Just wait until some stumbles over the idiom about hating one's father and mother, wife, siblings, etc. This is why we so need a teaching holy catholic apostolic church.

I’ve long understood that the FR RC community has a difficult time distinguishing classical Protestantism from it’s liberal exponents, even though similarly liberal elements exist within the RC fold. Oh well. If it amuses you, so be it. But it is a double standard.

In any event, I’ve attended very conservative schools and hobnobbed with students who were completely out of sync with the conservative ethos. They paid tuition, and they got the school name on their diploma.

BTW, if you want access, that’s the way to go. When you have nothing better to do, I recommend you read Gary North’s “Crossed Fingers,” detailing how the liberals gutted the mainline Presbyterians by infiltrating the seminaries. The expression “crossed fingers” refers to the manner in which the liberal wing excused their misrepresentation of their personal beliefs in order to get past the confessional standards. So MH turning up such sour theology is no surprise to me. The Lord knows His own.

As for your assertion that the idiom automatically switches sense when used in a familial setting, I understand that the modern usages may have changed from Biblical times, and you may be correct about modern usage. However, please understand the 1) you are asking me to take your word for the modern usage you propose, and 2) you are further asking me to extrapolate from said modern usage to NT usage, which is rather like suggesting I can uncritically import every aspect modern English usage back into Shakespeare. Not logical, and opens one to a host of errors.

So if you really want to convince me, I recommend you 1) document your explanation of the modern usage, and 2) document how that usage is the same as the ancient usage, accounting for the adverse evidence I have already introduced and which you have not taken the effort to refute.

Otherwise, if I built my hermeneutic on the lexical say-so of any random anonymous poster, how credible would that be? :) Yes, I know that sword cuts both ways, which is why lurkers passing this way owe it to themselves to be good little Bereans and see for themselves whether these things be so.

Peace,

Who told you cannot post the Scripture passage you refer to? Is this the one you meant:

Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11:11-13)

That was EASY! All the RM told you to do was make sure you included the Scripture reference when you posted a passage of Scripture. If everyone else can do it why do you say you aren't allowed?