Not veiling is a sin just like not baptizing your babies
Contrary to a common objection bandied about today, there is nothing sectarian about head covering, and to disallow it on such grounds is grossly inconsistent with how these very same people approach other important doctrinal disagreements.
The hair is not the only covering in 1 Corinthians 11
It is impossible for the covering that Paul is speaking about in 1 Corinthians 11 to be merely the woman’s hair. Verse 6 makes this reading incoherent, and verse 15 directly signals that it is wrong by using a different word for covering than the rest of the chapter.
Prayer and prophecy are not just supernatural gifts in 1 Corinthians 11
Prayer and prophecy in scripture can be supernatural gifts. But they can often be exercises of our natural faculties too. Paul’s use of these terms is broad, and certainly encompasses what women do in worship today.
Is Psalm 82 depicting actual gods?
TL;DR: yes, but accusing someone who believes this of polytheism or liberalism is semantic mischief.
Applying torque to opposing corners of my Bible
Fundamentalists claim that I am mishandling Deuteronomy 22:5 by going beyond its literal meaning. I illustrate how their literalist hermeneutic makes nonsense of not only this passage, but all of human discourse.
Who is the serpent in Genesis, and is it an actual snake?
Several different strands of evidence point to the serpent being not an animal, but a shining, serpentine angelic being.
Thorny problems with the serpent being a talking snake
This surprisingly common YEC interpretation of Genesis 3 is problematic for at least seven reasons.
Angels and ghosts
The common assumption that Matthew 18 and Acts 12 give us glimpses of guardian angels is probably mistaken. Rather, the term angel in these passages is referring to human spirits.
Word studies are not exegesis
Or, don’t bother learning the original languages if you don’t yet know how communication works in even your native tongue.
Annihilationism versus eternal torture
…and why I don’t have anything to do with the Christian Apologetics Alliance.
How would a Hebrew have pictured Genesis 1?
I meant to note down a few interesting thoughts, but I accidentally wrote a commentary.
Fallen, sinning, incarcerated angels
A further exchange with Steve Hays in which I defend the Enochian interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4, Jude 6–7 and 2 Peter 2:4–10.
A further exchange with Steve Hays in which I defend the Enochian interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4.
How many sons of God can dance on the head of a pin?
A response to Steve Hays in which I defend the Enochian interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4, and point out some obvious problems with his objections.
Was Moses the first Asimov?
A commenter accuses me of turning Genesis 6:1–4 into science fiction, and I use the occasion to further demonstrate how the traditional Enochian interpretation is the only one that stands up to testing.
What is Genesis 6:1–4 talking about?
Some hermeneutical and exegetical thoughts defending the Enochian view of the sons of God and the Nephilim.
What does the Lord say about homosexuality?
A response to a friend’s questions on Facebook.
Did Aaron’s staff actually turn into a crocodile?
Most translations say it turned into a snake. I think they are right—a crocodile is not in view—given both the inter-textual and socio-religious evidence.
Inerrancy without the weasels
Why do formulations of inerrancy always seem to conceal the most important issue?
What if the Bible depicts a solid domed sky and a flat earth held up by pillars?
What would this tell us about the Hebrew worldview, and about inerrancy?