Ike_hike



























  1. Playing in Citi will help. Our defense is pretty solid too. He had an ERA below 3 last year so even if he regresses a bit he should still be solid for the value we got him at. The Mets and Hefner are good at developing pitchers so I’m excited to see what they can do with Quintana.

  2. Maybe these numbers don't mean anything, but last year's Mets had 11 DRS (16th), to the Cardinals' 70 (4th), and on BBRef a Total Zone rating of -33.

  3. Quintana is a pretty extreme ground ball pitcher, is there a way to only look at infield rankings? Obviously the Mets corner IF isn't as good as the cards, but lindor is one of the best SS in the game and McNeil is solid at 2b, plus Guillorme is great wherever he plays. I could see the Mets playing G at 3b every Quintana start, giving him a really tight infield behind him. In the outfield, the Mets are pretty mediocre, I could see that bringing down their overall stats

  4. According to this page, they are only in positive numbers because of Pitcher and Catcher numbers, but I don't know the methodology. Every other position is pretty bad.

  5. Gortimer is certainly being aggressive, but are these really antics? Can I request transparency with this? Attributing something to Ehrman and not providing the citation is a little sus, probably something that could be overlooked, but Gortimer says they aren't able to find the passage.

  6. Feel free to contact the Mod mail for more discussion of this if you are interested. We are fully transparent but don't like to litter threads with meta drama.

  7. I highly recommend Staggs Nursery in Taylors. Their staff is very knowledgeable, and they have a houseplants section that is excellent. Also, if you find the right staff person you can get good help at Lichtenfelt's near Five Forks.

  8. Hi there, unfortunately, your contribution has been removed as per rule #1.

  9. Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3.

  10. Hi there, unfortunately, your contribution has been removed as per rule #1.

  11. Yeah ok, but I am not discussing a "movement" and have only presented an existing text that is quite literally, exactly what OP inquired about (a commentary on Revelation). Swedenborg was an exemplary polymath and scholar (during his time) and wrote about Biblical interpretation, specifically on how the authors and ancients understood the content of the source texts. Swedenborg studied many different languages and many different cultures and many different texts of antiquity (as well as many other subjects). Yes, the last 25-30 years of his life were dedicated to continuing his study of Hebrew and writing about the Biblical Scriptures. These writings include in-depth rational analysis and support, as well as much from Swedenborg's own personal human experience. Swedenborg made no effort to start a church or a movement and originally published many of his writings on the subject anonymously.

  12. Swedenborg is not a modern critical biblical scholar. Even actual critical works from that time period need to be put in the context of their times. I hadn't seen this book, so I looked at it before I deleted your comment. This is from page 3:

  13. This post could better be framed academically as "what are different views of the afterlife and "hell" in the development of biblical literature. The question of "proof" and "support" leads to theological discussion and to analysis of modern religious movements, i.e., JW. This is not the forum for that discussion.

  14. Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #2.

  15. Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3.

  16. Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3.

  17. The Greenville one does at least, and stock is good.

  18. Prepare yourself: getting in and out of there is a nightmare.

  19. never been and was thinking of getting a membership. why is it a nightmare

  20. Holiday traffic on top of usual Woodruff road shenanigans. Sometimes on a weekend the Costco lot itself gets gridlocked and then you're really stuck.

  21. There's also U+02BF. Here's all three as they appear in reddit's default font in the context of a word:

  22. Yes, excellent point. You can also get the "right half ring" if you need to do an aleph:

  23. What I would like is if there were (maybe there is?) a unicode character that consistently shows up as a little larger than 02BF does, but otherwise placed similarly to 02BF, but also smaller than A724.

  24. I just checked and the BibLit font uses 02BF and 02BE, so OP should probably use those for interoperability. It actually looks really nice in BibLit, a bit larger.

  25. Do not forget that this sub requires academic, secondary sources for historical claims.

  26. It’s certainly a borderline post, and probably better in the Weekly Thread.

  27. Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3.

  28. It's working for me. Try clearing your browser cache, or use another browser to check.

  29. Here is David Clines in the WBC. He concludes that there's no good reason to change it from "day."

  30. Oh, I should add in case someone doesn't know this, the Hebrew words for "day" and "sea" have the same consonants, so it's a very easy emendation to make.

  31. Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3.

  32. How do you see your work on Metaphor connecting with your work as a translator? What metaphors are hardest to get right in Bible translation?

  33. Please do not engage at this level. I removed his abusive comment, so please leave these kinds of interchanges to the Mod system. Thank you.

  34. Feel free to appeal any decisions by contacting the moderation team through ModMail.

  35. I recommend William Dever's book Beyond the Texts: An Archaeological Portrait of Ancient Israel and Judah. He is a good and careful scholar, and he is nowadays more traditional or conservative in his judgments (using those terms to refer to the range of secular scholarship, not theologically).

  36. Very few scholars of biblical archaeology would now speak with confidence about Abraham as an historical figure, or take the Habiru hypothesis very seriously. Reconstructions of Israelite history begin in the pre-monarchical late bronze age (William Devers) or in the monarchical period (Israel Finkelstein), or even later (Phillip Davies).

  37. Sorry, can you clarify me where gods are cited on Job 41?

  38. verse 25, though the textual emendation/translation is subject to debate.

  39. It’s interesting how ’el is translated as “god” almost universally, then you hit Job 41:25 and several translations decide to go with “the mighty” instead. I’m curious what their justifications are for that decision.

  40. As best I can tell, it's mostly just a reluctance among translators to have a plain reference to the existence of other gods. However, here is David Clines in the WBC volume:

  41. Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3.

  42. As you wish.... a Building Biologist:

  43. "If you are confused about electricity, you are not alone."

  44. So if the earliest found gospel is John why does everyone claim it's the final gospel to be written?

  45. Manuscript evidence is not the main factor used to date texts, as he says in the video. Historians make arguments based on the internal contents of the document. There's no material "evidence" either way, generally, but only whether a particular reconstruction makes sense with our understanding of the overall history and of the texts.

  46. I was going to say something foolish like if we used the most common claims bandied about we'd still be saying the apostles wrote the gospels, but thought better of it. In his ealier paper, The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel, Nongbri notes D. Moody Smith's point that the prospect that John was not written, or at least not published, until mid-second century was a workable one. So, for example Justin had a logos christology, but doesn't explicity cite John and as

  47. I hear you. When I write the names of biblical books like John or Isaiah what I generally mean is "John" or "Isaiah," as in the larger textual tradition that we call "John," including all of the various textual possibilities, oral and written. So even if this fragment were found in situ and dated archaeologically to 125, it's so small that it "proves" very little about "John" as a whole.

  48. Are you willing to claim that about the NIV and TNIV? There’s a lot of theologizing going on in their text criticism and translation!

  49. I would always counsel someone to read multiple translations and investigate any differences they encounter. The NIV is a respectable academic translation even though I agree that it has problems. But at this very basic level, it's fine.

  50. What’s the history behind why evangelicals tend to prefer it?

  51. Their rejection of the RSV in the 1950s led to the massive growth of evangelical translations starting in the 60s and 70s.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Author: admin