Thanks very much. I happened to pick up a book by John Tayman "The Colony: The Harrowing True Story of the Exiles of Molokai" just yesterday, and am not sure about the Eponym. Molochai? Moloch? Murloch? Molochii? This is a history of "Hawaii" - which was cruel to the indigenous people. Howoii? Homoai? I'm worried about these language features. I just learned, yesterday, that Dionysii was not Dionysius, but Dennis. Actually, I'm wondering if that was a specific usage of Dionysii - because I caught it while paging through a book on an old chapel. I'm seeing that it was specific to Paris.
bit of an interesting episode. I think there are key hermeneutical differences with how O’Brien takes the text versus many religious people. I understand her frustration with those that read modern concepts into ancient texts, but I think she has too much of an all-or-nothing view that disposes the text as ancient without any real modern application.
This particular scholar got my spidy senses going, so I looked her up and she has a full lecture on how to "justify homosexuality" interesting, because if she uses the same kind of rules of interpretation for Malachi as she does for homosexuality then her whole system of interpretation is weak at best. Oh well.
![How God is Both One and Three at the Same Time [Animated Explainer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eAvYmE2YYIU/mqdefault.jpg)
![How God is Both One and Three at the Same Time [Animated Explainer]](/img/tr.png)
Thanks very much. I happened to pick up a book by John Tayman "The Colony: The Harrowing True Story of the Exiles of Molokai" just yesterday, and am not sure about the Eponym. Molochai? Moloch? Murloch? Molochii?
This is a history of "Hawaii" - which was cruel to the indigenous people. Howoii? Homoai? I'm worried about these language features. I just learned, yesterday, that Dionysii was not Dionysius, but Dennis. Actually, I'm wondering if that was a specific usage of Dionysii - because I caught it while paging through a book on an old chapel. I'm seeing that it was specific to Paris.
What if Malachi means, "angel of God?"
bit of an interesting episode. I think there are key hermeneutical differences with how O’Brien takes the text versus many religious people. I understand her frustration with those that read modern concepts into ancient texts, but I think she has too much of an all-or-nothing view that disposes the text as ancient without any real modern application.
Great insights, but she lost me at climate change and the thought that God is not in charge of climate.
This particular scholar got my spidy senses going, so I looked her up and she has a full lecture on how to "justify homosexuality" interesting, because if she uses the same kind of rules of interpretation for Malachi as she does for homosexuality then her whole system of interpretation is weak at best. Oh well.