Talk:1 Ne 13:30-14:17

Minor Edit

Just rearranged the ordering in the discussion, felt that the commentary on verses 13 and onward should be under the commentary for verse 7, but wasn't sure if I was helping in ordering, or just being a little obsessive-compulsive with numbers. Also an insight on 13:37, if anyone can help with grammar edits or better wording, I'd appreciate it! --Light4astandard 17:26, 5 January 2014 (CET)

Verses 13:36-42

On the Crosswalk website I don't understand what the parenthetical words (abbreviations?) mean for the different definitions. For example, here I don't understand what (Qal), (Pual), (Hiphil), (Hophal), and (Piel) refer to. My best guess is different dictionaries or something, but I can't really tell. Can anyone help me out on this?? --RobertC 17:15, 9 Sep 2005 (CEST)

Does this help: [1] ? Note--I know nothing about this--just passing on the link. --Matthew Faulconer 20:26, 9 Sep 2005 (CEST)

Yes, thank you! I guess these are different verb stems for the root word. I pasted the relevant section explaining this onto this user page for reference.

Verses 14:6-10

Hi Eric and all, I spent some time thinking about this two churches thing that both Eric and I had written questions on. I posted what I came up with after thinking about it this morning. I'd be interested in hearing other people's thoughts. My view is that the point of verses 7 & 10 is that there isn't a middle ground where the gospel is concerned. But that point really only applies to those of us who know the gospel. The question I wrote was about people who don't know the gospel. So after thinking about it more I feel my question leads the reader down the wrong path. Anyway, I'd be interested in hearing other's thoughts on the general topic of when a question should be removed if it is addressed in part of the commentary. I am thinking now about either modifying or removing my question. --Matthew Faulconer 16:43, 24 Aug 2005 (CEST)

I think what you wrote is good, but I don't think the questions have been answered, at least directly. Unless a question has been answered directly, I don't see any need to remove it (although maybe modify it). Someone else might still come along and add to the exegesis or maybe come up with a different approach. Eric 18:31, 24 Aug 2005 (CEST)

Eric or all, Do you think that the exegesis now explicitly answers the question enough to warrant its removal? If not feel free to add the question back. --Matthew Faulconer 23:30, 27 Aug 2005 (CEST)