Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Origen last won the day on July 19

Origen had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,114 Excellent


About Origen

  • Rank
    Staff Member


  • Interests
    Hebrew, Aramaic (and other cognate languages), Greek, Latin, textual criticism, exegesis, philosophy


  • Gender


  • State (No Abbreviations)


  • Den
    Church of Christ

Recent Profile Visitors

2,254 profile views
  1. Correct but the Orthodox Study Bible is a special case. The Eastern Orthodox Church follows the Septuagint as it's Old Testament text. However the Orthodox Study Bible is not an official text of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Of source there are other English translations of the LXX, such as Charles Thomson's translation (1808), Brenton's translation (1844), "A New English Translation of the Septuagint" (2007), and "The Lexham English Septuagint: A New Translation" (2019).
  2. They take it as a place name. "As at Adam, they have broken the covenant; they were unfaithful to me there." As does the NIV. "At Adam they broke the covenant; Oh how they were unfaithful to me!" Calvin, on the other hand, takes the noun "adam" as a reference to "man, mankind" (i.e. "they like men have transgressed the covenant). He rejects the idea that it is the person Adam. Hosea 6 Commentary - John Calvin's Commentaries on the Bible WWW.STUDYLIGHT.ORG Hosea 6 Commentary, One of over 110 Bible commentaries freely available, this commentary, by John Calvin, helps you experience his lasting impact on Christian theology and thought We have had a discussion like this before and it led nowhere. That is a theological argument. Exegesis precedes theology. Again I find no reason if it was a covenant the author would not said it was and used normal covenant vocabulary.
  3. If there was a covenant, one would expect to see covenant vocabulary. It is just not there. Also there is no reason if it was a covenant for the author not to use normal covenant vocabulary. I knew you would bring this up. See your NET Bible note.
  4. William I am going to chime in here if you don't mind. The case for the so called Adamic\Edenic covenant is questionable. The fact is normal covenant vocabulary isn't found before chapter 6. And without that vocabulary the case, in my opinion, cannot be supported.
  5. There are no scientific tests\experiments which can determine if a behavior is moral or not. It is not possible. It is outside the scope of science. Thus your point is moot.
  6. @Benji seems to believe that the term "first one" refers to "any of the covenants... ...made prior to the last one." @Ben Asher's point is that grammatically the term "first one" refers to only one covenant since it is singular not plural. The Greek verb (i.e. πεπαλαίωκεν) is also singular. Thus the term "first one" could not "means any of the covenants... ...made prior to the last one" as Benji claimed. One would expect plural forms if the author was referring to more than one covenant. Does that help Becky?
  7. I am very happy to hear that very good news. May God bless your mother and you.
  8. Your comment has been edited. We have similar rules here in regard to language. What seems insignificant to you might not be to someone else.
  9. Hello and welcome Amorette
  10. @Ben Asher I believe you ought to explain the "Messiah ben Joseph" (Messiah ben Ephraim) and "Messiah ben David" theological terminology and what it means. I don't think many here know anything about dual Messianism.
  • Create New...