I just wanted to take a post to write a few odds and ends. As I have been looking for some new things in Candice's book, I actually have found something that is not new. When I wrote my paper Real Authors Write Responsibly in response to Ted Slater citing an article by Candice Watters called Ruth Revisited when someone brought up the fact that Boaz did not inititate his relationship with Ruth, I got a strong response from the folks who disagree with me, and expecially those who were supporters of Candice Watters. I could not figure out why. However, the reason why there was such a response is because, though the book had not come out yet, unknown to me or anyone else, the entire set of three articles on the book of Ruth were republished word for word in the book. Hence, my article dealing with Candice's arguments on the book of Ruth will have to be included as part of the response.
Now, apparently there have been some developments in Old Testament scholarship since Edward Campbell's Commentary on Ruth in the Anchor Bible Commentary Series was published. Usually Anchor Bible commentaries are pretty up to date, but my Northwest Semitic Inscriptions professor, Dr. Lawson Younger, told me that we now know exactly how big a ephah is, and it is exegetically significant. I will have to get back to the reader of the blog on that topic, but everything else is up to date.
Also, I keep on receiving these comments from people who, apparently, just sign up to take shots at me. For instance, a poster by with the simple screenname of "kt" posted this in the comments section of my second response to Candice Watters:
Alrighty then -- God decreed that all these believing women would be left single so that the conditions in our churches that enable men to be passive, ignorant, absent and disobedient may be revealed!
Better add "sparing us from our own stupidity" to the pile of things that, as you say, "God is under no obligation whatsoever to give us"
PS... Adam, what is YOUR idol? Fruitless debate, perhaps?
Ah yes, those loving radical marriage mandators. However, the other interesting thing that I have found is that, if you click on his screenname to see his profile, he has been a member since June 2008!!!!!!! Yes, apparently, one of the reasons this user even signed up to post on blogger is so that he could write this nasty stuff to me.
Again, when it comes to the radical version of this movement, I have seen some language that I have not seen from King James Onlyism. That is how radical this stuff is. I just have to keep pointing that out along the way.