@Caleb @JackDouglas @JonEricson any of you around?

fast question

moreso on how I handled it, I am confident the second half does not answer the question but is a comment on Dick's answer

but Sammy's question is also wrong from a linguistic standpoint without any elaboration on context so I prefer to DV it, but since I edited it I'm hesitant if I should correct it - but probably that would be bad

actually, perhaps Dick is misreading which text

hmm, this is interesting

I may need to respond

@Dan Well, I wouldn't have worried too much about that. Obviously, it was written because he thought the other answer was wrong. Since he did answer the question, I think it's reasonable for him to address answers that come to the opposite conclusion. If the answer didn't address the question, I'd have recommended converting to a comment, which is a diamond mod thing.

Thinking about it, I'm rolling back to your initial version.

@JonEricson I was thinking that needed to happen

BTW I have been working on the 'correct' answer for over an hour

I keep finding cool stuff in the Hebrew

the biggest issue is that the Hebrew text is one verse number off from the English text, and I am almost confident Dick (accidentally) is looking at the wrong verse

@Dan That's good. I'm uneasy with both the current answers, which lack support.

@JonEricson haha I offer too much support

@Dan I expect nothing less.

@JonEricson AND... I found a SWEEEEET word play in the Hebrew

that actually strengthens a particular translation

I almost missed it

@JonEricson OK, that took a long time to write

Was there a glitch, or was my comment removed? If the latter I would like to know what was seen as inappropriate, as I wrote it carefully and think that it (like my question) was level-headed and thoughtful.

Removing it kind of makes me look like an oaf (not acknowledging his response), and of course removes the followup question. I'm assuming you don't want another meta post about that.

@MonicaCellio Robert deleted that with a comment about not wanting to fragment the discussion between there and email. I'll let him sort that out.

@Caleb thank you for the info. Could you paste it here so I have it for reference? (I want to at least redo the first part so I don't look like I'm ignoring him, and would like to refer to what I wrote previously.)

@MonicaCellio Nevemind I just reversed the deletions.

@Caleb thank you. That leaves a better public record without fragmenting.

@MonicaCellio I think he may have overlooked the fact that since it wasn't you're post and you aren't a local mod you wouldn't even get the ping for that.

@Caleb that makes sense. (Would I have gotten a ping if it had been my post? Or would the deletion have removed the ping from my inbox?)

@MonicaCellio As mods we have gotten used to being able to leave comment posts then delete and still ping the authors. I suspect a general cross wiring of that concept, probably not even consciously. It works when you delete the post, not the comment :)

@Caleb right, deleted posts are different. It's easy to get lost in all the different behaviors...

@Monica Let me know if you disagree with this comment and I'll delete it

@JackDouglas I think it's better that DVs be explained when that's practical, so I have no problem with you leaving that comment.

@MonicaCellio Thanks. I actually take heart when members of the community here support your request when I think it is genuine (even though I cannot myself)

Your DV puts me in an awkward position, though. Desptie his motives what he says is largely correct, which calls for an upvote, but I don't want to encourage the bad motives. So I was just going to sit it out and not vote either way, but now I'm feeling a push to counter that DV because of the content.

It's always good to see folk care

@JackDouglas a bunch of them did, but it wasn't enough. :-(

@JackDouglas yes.

I do not think Ali does

Others that do could not support you

@JackDouglas I agree, but are votes for motives or for content?

but I don't think any amount of support would have been enough

@JackDouglas ?

@MonicaCellio I guess we get to choose

@MonicaCellio Please don't think that not supporting your request = not caring about what you are going through

@JackDouglas (I was just eaching for an edit, having figured out what you meant.)

OK, sorry for lack of clarity

@JackDouglas it's probably me. I never could get the hang of Thursday mornings, or something like that. :-)

:-)

@JackDouglas thanks. The "it was ok at the time" approach doesn't really get me off the hook; maybe I didn't transgress then (though I was foolish to not think ahead), but I am part of an ongoing transgression that I set in motion. This sucks.

@MonicaCellio May I ask if you are referring to God or fellow Jews?

The only ways to fix that are to remove/disclaim or to make the site not inappropriate, but I really don't know if the users have the will to do the latter.

@JackDouglas both, but primarily God. For fellow Jews there's an additional consideration: I've been a terrible role model, and not just some random Jew but a (small-scale) leader in the community. There isn't even a way to disconnect my BH account from the rest (most notably Mi Yodeya) to fuzz that a little. A mod on Mi Yodeya taught torah on a Christian site. Ok I didn't at the time, but that's not what people see.

I was thinking about God when I wrote this rather than fellow Jews

@JackDouglas I figured. But we don't just get to say "I'm sorry"; we also have to undo the damage (make restitution).

@MonicaCellio But you aren't answerable for Robert's decision?

@JackDouglas I'm not answerable for his decision. Sometimes restitution is not possible. But I haven't exhausted all paths yet either. I was hoping for the most-direct one; now we move on to mitigation.

I read that as migration

@JackDouglas since the posts are still out there in the wayback machine and whatnot (and people's memories, I suppose) deletion isn't full restitution. A disclaimer is lesser mitigation than deletion, but still better than doing nothing. (Edit: caffeine finally did its job and I reread your comment...)

BTW, just for the record, the DV on Robert's answer is not from me.

@JackDouglas oops. :-) Migration would presumably only happen if BH shuts down, and in that case the only target would be C.SE, and I for sure can't have my stuff end up there. But fortunately it would be off-topic there.

@MonicaCellio there's almost no overlap in scope between BH and C as far as I can make out

@JackDouglas that could change if BH were to shut down. I don't know if C would want to absorb anything from here, but I have to assume it would at least be discussed briefly. I hope that answer would be "no", but people seeking to preserve content can do surprising things.

@MonicaCellio Well you have my word I'll fully support you requesting removal if that ever happens. I think the chances are vanishingly small fwiw

@JackDouglas thanks. I appreciate that.

Even if it's unlikely, it's not impossible.

Yes, I don't have a crystal ball

you would not be the only user with serious questions in the event it was ever proposed

@MonicaCellio The way C.SE sits right now there would be much more to deal with in a mass migration scenario than your answers. It would be discussed and maybe doable but not a drop in fit.

@Caleb do you agree that Jewish answers (that is, ones that don't consider, let alone accept the validity of, Chrisitan axioms) would be out of place there?

@MonicaCellio In any event your answers would be among the first things that would HAVE to go. We already delete literally thousands of posts because they don't purport to represent any specific Christian view. That letting answers stand that purport to stand for something else would even be considered is preposterous. The site has graduated and its scope is well established and there is a large community behind the concept. Also, I have some influence there (but it wouldn't be needed).

You have my word as well that I would actively oppose any attempt at wholesale migration without weeding out yours and any other content that not identifiably Christian.

@Caleb thanks, much appreciated.

@MonicaCellio: It's really inappropriate to alter the wording here. Note that the title is a direct quote of Paul's words, so changing it to "Jesus" is a distortion. More importantly, you are obscuring the question by inserting the awkwardly phrased "identified as the christ by Paul". This is a very ill-informed change.