“`html An Exegetical Examination of Human Agency in the Petition for God’s Will in Matthew 6:10 and Luke 11:2 An Exegetical Examination of Human Agency in the Petition for God’s Will in Matthew 6:10 and Luke 11:2 This exegetical study of “Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2” is based on a b-greek discussion from January 4,…
An Exegetical Analysis of the Genitive Absolute Construction in Matthew 8:5 This exegetical study of ‘AUTOU in Matt 8:5’ is based on a b-greek discussion from Sat Jul 10 13:00:02 EDT 1999. The initial query concerned the grammatical function of the word αὐτοῦ in Matthew 8:5, specifically whether it functioned as a genitive singular masculine…
“`html The Semantics of Doubt: An Exegesis of Matthew 28:17 body { font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.6; } h1, h2, h3, h4 { color: #333; } b { font-weight: bold; } i { font-style: italic; } blockquote { border-left: 5px solid #ccc; margin: 1.5em 10px; padding: 0.5em 10px; } ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 20px; }…
Thank you, Dr. Carlson. I thought that may have been what you were meaning. I did not notice the “point of departure” in the first example. It is worse when I admit I was reading Levinsohn prior to making that post. 
Dr. Conrad, your post contained some information that I need to investigate. Thank you.
Statistics: Posted by Wes Wood — January 29th, 2014, 8:31 am
An Exegetical Analysis of Matthew 19:9: The Exception Clause and the Nature of Adultery This exegetical study of Matthew 19:9 is based on a b-greek discussion from Wednesday, May 12, 1999. The initial inquiry focused on the grammatical structure of Matthew 19:9, particularly the phrase μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ, and its implications for understanding Jesus’ teaching…
