Ought To Be Excellent

I think both v.11a and v.12d-13c have the same thought or idea,namely, that both arcs talks about things melting away.. My confusion is that they have a difference, v.12d-13c has an additional idea - the fulfillment of God’s promise that He will return.

Actually kuya,v.17c-d is difficult for me..I think of three relationships that can be applied to this, progression, Ac-Res, or inference. Can you show the difference between the three kuya? Is this try out of the three correct kuya? PROGRESSION: (Do not) get led astray Then fall from grasp of truth. AC-RES: (Do not) get led astray That you fall from grasp of truth. INFERENCE: (Do not) get led astray therefore fall from grasp of truth.

I put SERIES on these kuya, because the two mainpoints are: 1. Be on your guard 2. Grow in the grace & knowledge of our Lord Jesus

This is not concessive, I think kuya. This is hard for me too. I tried Sit-Resp, saying, “Some things in Scripture are hard to understand, but the ignorant twist it.”

Burned up and dissolve, for me kuya, are two coordinate propositions.

I think v.10c & 10d have the same Idea kuya.

Why did it use the pronoun “it” instead of using “He” meaning Jesus? I have researched that it uses the pronoun “it” because it pertains to the day of Jesus’ return.

I did not put Idea-Exp in v.10a & v.10b-g, but a series, because I’m thinking that both descriptions of the day of Jesus’ return are not the same but two distinct ideas,namely: (1) it will be unexpected, (2) it will be horrifying.

I put concessive for v.5,6,7 because of the conjunction “but”, instead of three progression.

I put Id-Exp in v.5b-d & v.6, not a concessive, because the phrase “through these things” is like showing us that v.6 is an expansion of v.5b-d..I have researched that the phrase pertains to the Word & the water. What the Word & the water did at first was to create, and now in v.6, it also said that both causes judgment in Noah’s time.

discourse

Comments

Brent Karding

I like your large arcs! Very well chosen.

Brent Karding

that you do not get led astray by the error of these unprincipled men

In 17c-d, Inference definitely doesn't work: 17c isn't a logical conclusion from 17c. Ac-Res would work, because it's a temporal result. Progression would be good as well.

How to choose between the latter two is deciding if they are coordinate in importance, or if 17d is emphasized in the logic.

Mildred Queenie CS

Kuya, sorry but I don’t understand what coordinate in importance means.

Brent Karding

Progression is a coordinate relationship - the two pieces in such a relationship are equal. For example, "I walked to the table" and "and I walked back to the couch" are equal pieces; neither is subordinate to the other. But in this example, "I walked to the table" and "so that I could sit down," the latter is subordinate to the former.

Mildred Queenie CS

What does it mean when 17d is emphasized in the logic kuya?

Brent Karding

Notice that some labels have a grey circle around them. That shows where the logical emphasis lies. A Result has the emphasis in an Ac-Res relationship.

If you feel like 17d is emphasized and more important than 17c, then Ac-Res would work. If they are both equally emphasized, then Progression would be better.

Mildred Queenie CS

I see..okay kuya, I think I will choose progression because both are coordinate in importance.

Brent Karding

things the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction,

I agree that 16b and 16c-d aren't Concessive. But Sit-R doesn't work well, because the fact that these things are hard to understand makes it unsurprising that the ignorant twist them.

Since 16c expands on 16b, perhaps Id-Exp would be good. Or even Inference: "These things are hard to understand, and therefore the ignorant twist them."

Mildred Queenie CS

Right, I get it kuya. Thanks

Mildred Queenie CS

I choose Id-exp kuya, so that v.16b will be emphasized as the mainpoint, and it will be the one that will be connected to v16a. Is it a correct analysis kuya?

Brent Karding

Yes, that's right.

Mildred Queenie CS

Yeyyyy

Brent Karding

Because of this day,

Your reverse Bilateral is good, since both arcs talk about things melting away.

Brent Karding

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief;

Good thinking in making 10a and 10b-g a Series.

Brent Karding

Through these things the world existing at that time was destroyed

I like your Ιd-Exp in 5b-6b.

Brent Karding

But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire,

I think that perhaps Neg-Pos would work better here. There's a contrast between what "the word" did (5b), and what it will do (7a). I don't think it's saying, "Even though God created the world by his word, he will destroy it by his word," but rather making a contrast.

Mildred Queenie CS

Kuya, I find it hard to understand on how to relate it as Neg-Pos, please help me understand it better kuya..because I can’t find something that is enforced (positive) and something that is denied. Thank you kuya for the help.

Brent Karding

Neg-Pos isn't only used when something is denied and something is asserted. It is also used when there is a contrast between two things, like here. See the definition of Neg-Pos: "this is also the relationship implicit in contrasting statements." So since 5b and 7a are contrasts, Neg-Pos would work.

Mildred Queenie CS

“this is also the relationship implicit in contrasting statements”...so the contrasting statements here kuya is that by God’s word, there is creation, but also by God’s word, there is destruction. Is right kuya?

Brent Karding

Yes - and that the first was in the past, and the second in the future.

About Biblearc · Online courses · Report abuse

Disclaimer: The opinions and conclusions expressed on this page are those of the author and may or may not accord with the positions of Biblearc or Bethlehem College & Seminary.

Biblearc app Path Courses Courses Learning Resources Login / Free Account Subscription
Glories Authors Groups Donate Gift certificates Ownership, thanks, copyrights and terms