• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Recent content by Michael Peterson

  1. Michael Peterson

    How to rationalize these two Bible narratives?

    I'm not disagreeing, Tumah, but I just want to make sure I understand your point: are you contending that G-d 'wanted' Abraham to challenge Him and in so objecting to G-d's intention did what G-d wanted? Fair enough. Nevertheless, my conundrum still stands in spite of what G-d's motivations may...
  2. Michael Peterson

    How to rationalize these two Bible narratives?

    Fair enough, i.e., when seen through the lens of the New Testament. But, at this time in history, resurrection of the dead was unheard of - even in the surrounding pagan mythologies. Moreover, there is nothing in the whole of Pentatuchal history about resurrection or its possibility, so I do not...
  3. Michael Peterson

    How to rationalize these two Bible narratives?

    This is a reasonable point because within the cultural context of those times child sacrifice was not uncommon in Canaan and across into North Africa. Moreover, this was before God formally promulgated His will to mankind (i.e., before Torah, before Joshua's genocide of Canaan - to prevent the...
  4. Michael Peterson

    How to rationalize these two Bible narratives?

    It's been a goal of mine to write a translation and commentary of Genesis in one year. I'm now in the tenth month of this project and am not even half-way through. Here's my latest stumbling block: How are these two narratives - The story of Sodom and Gomorrah and the story of Abraham's attempt...
  5. Michael Peterson

    By Faith Alone?

    Thanks, Skwim for your response. I think it best if, in this reply, I simply point out that you do not address the validity of Gen 15:6. Rather, you simply cite Bibles that misinterpret Genesis 15:6 for the reasons I cite in the OP, and here in this post. So let's do this - for clarity's sake...
  6. Michael Peterson

    By Faith Alone?

    @shava. I'm not sure what relevance Baptism has to the discussion of the validity of Genesis 15:6 so thank you for your time and your thoughts, but a discussion of the salvific nature of baptism probably belongs in another thread. Peace and blessings to you,
  7. Michael Peterson

    By Faith Alone?

    Correct, but unlike Hebrew, Greek is heavily declined - more so even than English. Punctuation in such languages is far less problematic by which I mean one can more easily introduce punctuation that clarifies and does not give rise to ambiguity (just as your example showed). Hebrew is not such...
  8. Michael Peterson

    By Faith Alone?

    Because I may be wrong. It's happened many, many times. Over the years I've learned that one can be as clear as unblemished crystal and still be wrong. This approach has the advantage that increase the possiblilty that any correction(s) I receive will be on-point and illuminating. Let me give...
  9. Michael Peterson

    By Faith Alone?

    Thanks for your thoughts. My aim is slightly different and not nearly so difficult as yours. I try always to seek clarity, not agreement. An important part of serious Bible study is to test and compare one's understanding with that of others - Hence, my goal of clarity, not persuasion. Blessings,
  10. Michael Peterson

    By Faith Alone?

    @shava Your post, Shava, takes us somewhat far afield. My point in the original post is that Genesis 15:6 cannot be used as a proof text for justification by faith alone (as St. Paul clearly does). Justification by faith alone may well be a sound doctrine, but Genesis 15:6, correctly...
  11. Michael Peterson

    By Faith Alone?

    I may not understand the point of your question - in which case I apologize. My confusion arises from the observation that many (most?) Jews and Christians devote much of their formal worship time reckoning God's righteousness just as Abram did, i.e., as a [positive] reaction to God's...
  12. Michael Peterson

    By Faith Alone?

    @jeager106 Thank you for the gracious welcome. I am truly flattered, but I do not consider myself a scholar. To me, a scholar is someone who subjects their findings to peer review. Now, while I have many friends (mostly my former teachers) who know more about biblical Hebrew than I will ever...
  13. Michael Peterson

    By Faith Alone?

    Thanks, your clarification helped a lot. If by "ordinary reading" you mean conventional, then the "ordinary" reading of Gen 15:6 is a mistranslation - see the link in the OP. Precisely so, but note that Paul's evidence was the Septuagint's mistranslation.of Gen 15:6. Alas, I am unable to...
  14. Michael Peterson

    By Faith Alone?

    Perhaps I'm missing your point, in which case, maybe you could explain it more detail. But, just so that my point is clear; in the Bible, God nowhere and never declared Abram righteous as I understand you to say. And certainly Gen 15:6 does not. As for the Binding of Issac, this is a...
  15. Michael Peterson

    By Faith Alone?

    I'm not sure I fully understand your point so allow me to clarify mine: My point is only that Genesis 15:6 is widely misunderstood as describing God imputing righteousness to Abram. In fact, the original text means something entirely different, namely that Abram is simply reacting to God's...
See more
Top