gengwall

“The concept that a sentence or two can be understood clearly without reading before and after it is irresponsible reading. And from there one builds irresponsible doctrines with errors in them. And errors in doctrines will always hurt the people of God somewhere, somehow.”

Which is also why you can not possibly read vss. 11-12 without reading all the way through 15. If vss. 11-12 are related to 9 and 10, then 15, as the conclusion of the thought, also has to be. So where is the vs. 15 equivalent in your story, Patrick? It has to be there or you have proposed an incomplete comparison and argument. Where is the specific “she” in your home that will be “saved” or somehow otherwise be positively changed/redeemed by, I don’t know, continuing to remain downstairs?

The problem with trying to make vss. 11 and 12 an extension of the thought of 9 and 10 is that verses 13-15 turn the whole thing into gibberish. I suspect that is why Patrick is avoiding inclusion and consideration of those last verses.