« first day (504 days earlier)      last day (579 days later) » 

12:00 AM
@DanO'Day he'll basically tell you the same thing, but i'll walk you through it. i'm leaving for the day so it may be tomorrow before i get around to it. also, i have a big deploy tomorrow so it may be the end of the day
 
actually, metzger pretty much is the apparatus to UBS4
so the stuff I posted in the question itself would be helpful
 
 
1 hour later…
1:22 AM
Hi Dan. You emailed me the SBLGNT apparatus. I'll scan UBS and give you a walk through. Who knows, maybe it'll help an answer here or there.
 
@JonEricson, about your "mobile" meta post, I think you and I may be answering different questions. I am looking for a guideline by which we can say "this answer needs work" (what we should strive for), while you seem to be trying to catalogue answers that need work. Without the former what can we do about the latter? Am I misunderstanding?
And because we could use more eyes on this:
2
Q: How ought we to balance diversity?

Jon EricsonThis is a mobile: Most of us are familiar with them in the context of children's nurseries. But the inspiration came from Alexander Calder, a kinetic artist: I'd like to argue that Biblical Hermeneutics is like a mobile: We have a fixed point in space, the text of the Bible and the philo...

 
 
2 hours later…
3:31 AM
@swasheck thanks!
 
3:51 AM
@DanO'Day yes. the sblgnt apparatus is ... odd and foreign to me. do you actually have the UBS4 apparatus in Logos?
 
@swasheck I guess not - it appears I have to pay extra for the apparatus (grr....)
I have the NA27 and NA28 in print tho with apparatus
 
@DanO'Day ok well the apparatus should read similarly
 
never mind - I have a print UBS (I forgot, my old pre-seminary program used UBS)
ok i have it
but it has no notes for 14:15
 
cool
? what page is it?
meaning ... which version do you have?
 
It is the UBS4 greek text but a reader's edition (did I mention that I cheated when I first studied Greek in 2002?), so it has limited textual apparatus
I do have a full NA27 and NA28 tho which I used more recently at the Reformed seminary
 
4:04 AM
@DanO'Day ah.
ok. so back to the drawing board. :) i'll work on those scans and then mark them up and email them to you.
my deployment got cancelled tomorrow so i can focus on this for/with you. would you like me to do that in here or via email?
 
either way, here is good because I can ask questions - but I don't get to control how busy I get at work
so I may come and go
 
totally fair. i guess in here would be fine.
have a good night
 
ok you too, thanks again
 
 
11 hours later…
3:19 PM
Question: I answered this question but only went so far:
2
A: What does John 12:40 mean?

Dan O'DayThe Text John 12:40 literally reads: [He] has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, in order that they would not see with their eyes and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them. A parallel passage also seems to exist in Matthew 13:14-15. However, slight manu...

The specific question was: "Is this saying that God blinded and prevented the understanding of some, thus preventing them from being converted and believing in Christ?"
To me, this is a doctrinal question.
I responded by sticking to the text: "In John 12, the author is equating the Lord/LORD of Isaiah's vision with Jesus Christ. The Jews' unbelief in the context of this passage is seen as fulfillment or continual evidence of Isaiah's prophecy concerning God's people (they refused to turn to God).
The implication also seems to be that God is the cause of (or at least a contributor to) the Jews' blindness and hardness of heart (getting into this any further would be impossible without introducing significant doctrinal speculation)."
My question (for clarification): Am I allowed to elaborate more on the meaning and assert doctrine when doing so, or is this best reserved for Christianity.SE? (I'm still confused about this)
 
3:40 PM
@DanO'Day Yes, hermeneutics is about the interpretation of a text. I don't know how you can interpret a theological text without getting into theology at some point.
2
What we don't want is fishing expeditions (wherein someone says "Does the Bible teach x?")
 
@Soldarnal ahh ok. In this case the verse could potentially deal with predestination and God's will and whatnot - and there are several prevailing ideas on all of that
 
@DanO'Day Yeah - I think there the community would prefer biblical theology to systematic theology
Although systematic theology is probably acceptable if it you're citing someone else
 
Do you think my answer was appropriate or too vague
I ask because in my tradition, if you want the interpretation of a text, that means first I go look up what Church Fathers had to say about it and see if there is consensus (which I did in the footnotes)
 
@DanO'Day I think it's fine. I think the person asking the question is looking for more theology probably than you feel comfortable giving; but your mini bibliography is a start there
 
@Soldarnal I don't mind dumping theology into the post, I just don't want to violate site rules - I'm always a little unclear on how far is too far with doctrine
I'll probably modify the response to highlight the Fathers' more
 
3:49 PM
@DanO'Day Yeah, for questions we have pretty clear guidelines; while for answers, the community is divided.
 
3:59 PM
@Soldarnal that's christian history in a nutshell
 
@swasheck haha nice
 
@DanO'Day i still love it even with its warts. but the church is not without its divisions :)
@DanO'Day here is step one ... dropbox.com/s/mpmf73qliwzjygx/…
 
4:16 PM
@DanO'Day I don't think anyone is too worried about your answers. Even if they include doctrine, you're constantly citing sources and backing up your answers. I think you're well within the bounds of the community quoting the Church Fathers.
2
Would you agree @swasheck?
 
4:30 PM
@Soldarnal i'm staying out of it. i find that i'm part of the vocal minority that causes all kinds of turbidity. i've not even actually thought through whether or not Dan's answer is in-bounds because it's just too exhausting to talk about it. i'll just hang out
@DanO'Day ... you around?
 
@swasheck yeah
 
5:08 PM
@DanO'Day sorry. recruiter just called me
so ...
 
@swasheck not a problem, i'm intermittent as well (I think we all understand that work comes first)
hmm SSL connection error whenever I click on any of them
 
whaaaa?
oh for goodness sake
 
even when i ditch the https
ok now it is working
weird
 
got it
 
5:12 PM
ok
so they're actually in order
Grading.pdf is how the variants are rated
 
ok got them in order
 
cool. i didnt copy everything because there are a lot of pages and i didnt want to violate copyright :)
 
@swasheck understood, no prob
 
@DanO'Day so you look at John14_15.pdf and see the "decided-upon" passage and you see there's a note number <sup>8</sup>
so you look at the bottom and the first thing that you notice is {C}
which you look at Grading.pdf and notice that the Committee had difficulty choosing a variant. Ruhroh - we're gonna need a bigger boat ... i mean we're going to actually have to evaluate this
so then we go back to the text and look at the variants which are each separated by //
 
@swasheck tracking
 
5:18 PM
variant: witnesses // variant: witnesses ... etc
here we see B L Psi which are uncials
so we look at uncials
Vaticanus, Paris, Athos ... they're dated
4th, 8th, 9th-10th
also, we can get an idea of geographical distribution two alexandrian and one byzantine
 
@DanO'Day I think this is a fine example of what I meant when I said we should strive for "clinical", dispassionate answers rather than the assertions we so often see here. It is quite possible to explain how a particular perspective understands a text without crossing the line into "and therefore this is true".
 
@MonicaCellio indeed
 
well actually, i'm not sure psi is byzantine ... i'll have to do some research
at any rate. the next few numbers are minuscules
the l +numbers are greek lectionaries
then there are some coptics and some church fathers
we do the same for the next variants
 
I like how it shows the Fathers
 
in this case
the second variant is also strongly-attested
 
5:26 PM
sorry, i'll be right back
 
with sinaiticus and and old papyrus (bodmer) ... both of these are alexandrian-text type.
the third variant is also strongly attested because of the major uncial support and the geographic diversity. both alexandrian and byzantine text types are represented in this, not to mention a wealth of Fathers, lectionaries, etc.
it looks like the change was made based on the strength of the diversity of the attestation.
 
5:47 PM
everybody happy? i used the word Theologically
+1. The "aorist active imperative reading (τηρήσατε)" has a wider geographic distribution of attestation which may be the rationale behind the change. At any rate, the subjunctive introduces a degree of uncertainty, and may have greater governance over the entire clause. Ergo, the imperative can't be evaluated in a vacuum but as subordinate to the subjunctive. Theologically it makes more sense for ἀγαπᾶτέ to govern, because otherwise the passage would read, "You MUST keep my commandments if you might love me." — swasheck 22 secs ago
 
@swasheck my apologies for the delay. I was hitting less than 1MBps and a bunch of my projects were dropping on and off
 
@DanO'Day totally fine. no worries
 
@swasheck diagnosed it as the line in the wall (figures), so I ran a line across the lab to another port and now I'm back up at 50MBps
(about where I should be)
 
@DanO'Day nice troubleshooting. at any rate, way up above i shared a file that you may be able to use for future TC
 
@swasheck yeah figures it would be the one thing I can't do on my own right now (drop a new line in the wall)
 
5:59 PM
solid work
 
@swasheck just broke down and bought logos.com/product/18617/german-bible-society-bundle
 
cool
 
that should have all the apparatus i should need
 
indeed.
 
I don't know what it will look like in the software, but online it is like this:
 
6:09 PM
@DanO'Day imgur is blocked
 
ahh sorry
 
@MonicaCellio What I was arguing in that post (ineffectually, it turns out) is that answers is the wrong level of granularity to look at when trying to understand if our site is presenting a balanced view of any particular question. Rather we should look at the entire page as if we were reading it without any context at all. Does the entire page give a "balanced" view of the question?
So what I'm arguing for is, yes, let's have answers that are themselves balanced, but let's also encourage answers that are "minority opinions" so to speak.
And we should judge, look for, and correct Q&A pages that are unbalanced by any means that we have at our disposal.
 
@swasheck so have you just memorized which are Alexandrian, Byzantine, etc.?
 
@DanO'Day no. i misremembered. honestly, byzantine text type is what follows in the brackets of Byz
 
@JonEricson minority opinions are fine, but an unsupported assertion-driven minority opinion still throws the page out of whack unless it's downvoted. (And even in that case we need a good answer to offset.) We're both talking about the mobile as a whole, but I think we give different weight to the individual pieces.
 
6:14 PM
@DanO'Day against my better judgment, i'm weighing in on the question
 
My examples are intended to show pages we can improve. Sometimes it might be by editing or voting on particular answers. But sometimes it might be by getting an alternate answer that balances an otherwise great answer. (See Amichai's wonderful, but unusual, answer to the Lot's daughters question.)
 
@swasheck here's what I usually see in NA28: crossway.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/…
 
@JonEricson If I misunderstood the point of your CW post feel free to edit out my additions. I thought I was doing what you asked but I could certainly have misunderstood.
 
@DanO'Day right. similar
 
@MonicaCellio No. Those are perfect examples.
 
6:17 PM
@swasheck I like UBS4's grading system
 
@DanO'Day it's nice
 
@MonicaCellio I think I'll try to tackle some of those today to show what sort of actions I hope we will take.
 
@JonEricson oh good. I was trying to figure out what I'd missed.
 
@MonicaCellio I think I'm trying to take a different approach to the issue than I have in the past. I don't think I can explain it in a short phrase. ;-)
 
@swasheck thanks for your help, sorry but i must drop off again for a little bit
 
6:21 PM
@JonEricson thanks. On this one note that the question also has problems and OP never responded to this comment.
@JonEricson it seems like you're trying to address individual problems as they come up (though the community doesn't seem to agree on what's a problem) while I am looking for a guideline we can say to (especially new) users about what we want to see here.
To me, trying to tackle them individually without a guideline makes me worry that we will be arbitrary and inconsistent. A user who doesn't like what we did with his post, but there's a consistent guideline, will react differently than one who thinks he was picked-on or in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Since several of our bad posts come from a few users, I want to avoid them feeling targeted and driven off. I want them to improve their posts, but obviously they aren't doing it already so how do we help them?
 
6:37 PM
@MonicaCellio Right. So rather than figure out exactly how we are going to edit other people's posts and prod them with comments and so on, I'd like to fix problem pages by providing answers that balance things out when possible.
@MonicaCellio Yeah. That question remains a bit of a mess. Deletion might be necessary since some participants have not returned.
 
@JonEricson Hmm. I'd strike that differently. It's <s>a bit of</s> a mess.
 
@TRiG True. ;-) I debated adding a word or two, such as "huge" and "stinking".
 
in The Upper Room, Feb 9 at 20:53, by TRiG
> And so round and round we go in this never-ending argument. The particulars change, but the pattern is always the same whether it’s Eric Siebert talking about violence, or Steve Chalke talking about same-sex relationships, or Jonathan Blanchard talking about slavery, or Paul talking about circumcision, or Peter talking about unclean Gentiles, or Jesus talking about the Sabbath, or Isaiah talking about feast days.
 
@Soldarnal and @DanO'Day: Absolutely. Truth is we have so many participants that produce spectacular answers that I'm tempted to say we don't need new users coming in. From day one, I've felt so blessed to have y'all answer my questions and correct my answers. It's a rare privilege.
I note that not all of us were here on day one, so that's way I want to encourage new users: who know when we will find another gem!
 
@JonEricson regardless of needs or desires, new users will come in, which means it is incumbant on us to teach them.
@JonEricson exactly.
(Who was here on day 1, anyway? Not I, so I don't know.)
@JonEricson indeed. :-)
 
6:55 PM
@MonicaCellio Well, the site is 504 days in beta and I joined 1 year, 4 months ago. I'm not sure about the math, but I think I was here on day two or three of the private beta.
Trivia: our oldest question came on Aug 25 '11. I first answered a question on Oct 5 '11--one day after the start of the private beta. How can this be?
 
@JonEricson do you remember who was here with you? (Just idle curiosity.)
@JonEricson is the oldest question a migration by any chance?
I believe I came in when, or within a few days of, the start of the public beta.
 
@MonicaCellio Bingo! From Christianity.
 
@JonEricson by constructing the URL and trusting that to do the right thing, I arrived at this as possibly our first native question.
 
@MonicaCellio I recall Amichai, Richard, Caleb, GalacticCowboy, Jack Douglas, Soldarnal...
 
And my Yearling badge came on Oct 16, so I guess I showed up about five days into the public beta.
 
7:02 PM
@MonicaCellio That's the one I found too.
 
@JonEricson thanks. Whatever happened to the guy who proposed the site, by the way? (Another Jon, IIRC.)
 
@MonicaCellio Jonathan Sampson. He still stops by once in a while, but he never got very active. :-(
 
@JonEricson ah yes, here he is. I wonder what happened -- Area 51 took too long and he lost steam, maybe? (Of course we can only either speculate or ask him. :-) )
 
@MonicaCellio My speculation is that he's busy with other things. ;-)
 
@JonEricson BTW I added a comment on the huge stinking question.
 
7:08 PM
@DanO'Day no worries
 
@MonicaCellio I doubt it will be seen by the asker who was unregistered and last seen Nov 28 '12.
I think this is a case where we can edit freely without hurting anyone's feelings.
 
7:29 PM
@JonEricson oh, unregistered! I missed that. Yes, we should edit as needed then, though I suspect the question will collapse under the weight. Fundamentally the premises of the question (as currently written) don't seem to be there, so unless someone else can fill those in...
 
@MonicaCellio I'll take a look. My guess is that I can "borrow" some of the answers to make the question less of a strawman (or whatever it is).
 
@JonEricson sounds good. If you can rescue it, great! If you can't, there's always NARQ (or the like).
(I really hope that in their reworking of closing, they rename NARQ...)
 
@MonicaCellio Not an Answerable Question?
 
@TRiG proposed "unclear question".
 
@MonicaCellio I like that. +1.
 
7:49 PM
@JonEricson ya never know, there may be some new users with even better answers
 
8:40 PM
Did I do the right thing by closing:
0
Q: If synoptic parallelism is a valid hermeneutic, is the Holy Spirit = the Spirit of the Father?

H3br3wHamm3r81Matthew 10:19-20 (KJV) But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. Mark 13:11 (KJV) But when they shall lead [...

 
@JonEricson fine by me
 
@JonEricson I think so.
Is asking if something is valid...valid? (Re this) Asking how a hermeneutic works, or who uses it, or something like that seems fine, but is this question on the right side of our line?
 
8:58 PM
@MonicaCellio Good question. As it happens I missed that one. I think the question I just closed is a duplicate of it.
 
And this answer reads like something I would expect to find on meta. Am I missing something? To the extent it answers the question it's pure opinion, and the rest treats the example as the question
 
Yeah. Valid is a difficult word to use if there is no pre-defined standard.
 
@JonEricson ok, I'll vote to close so you have some visible support.
and done.
@JonEricson somewhere in all that (between these two questions) it seems like there's a "how do we reconcile these different texts that maybe are talking about the same thing?" question. I can't tell.
Along the lines of this, I guess.
Oh. Which is also part of the xref-tangle. :-)
 
@MonicaCellio Yeah. It's a . Of course, harmonizing the gospel traditions has a long and interesting history. So synoptic parallelism has great pedigree. Perhaps the question is "Is synoptic parallelism compatible with modern Textual Criticism scholarship?"
 
@JonEricson thanks for the link. Yeah, you guys are kind of like the man with two watches, but with four. :-)
 
9:10 PM
@MonicaCellio I am trying to compose a comment that will help him be more productive on the site. He obviously values us, which is gratifying. He ran into this issue:
27
A: Is there any point forcing a post to Community Wiki after 6 owner edits?

Jon EricsonThis "auto-moderation" feature has outlived its usefulness. Community Wiki really isn't used much anymore. Partially, as I explain below, that's because it's a malfeature. But more importantly, we now have Suggested Edits, which means that even anonymous users can fix problems in posts. It's ...

(It's 10 owner edits now and he got to 13!)
@MonicaCellio Yeah. And each is set to different timezones.
 
@JonEricson ouch. :-(
 
@MonicaCellio Actually, that's good news. Otherwise we would not be able know the time at all!
 
@JonEricson I used the closed question as support for this
1
A: Is synoptic parallelism a valid hermeneutic?

Dan O'DayI'm going to say that it's somewhat invalid to ask about the validity of a hermeneutic. For instance, most modern biblical scholars would say that allegories and typologies should not be used as valid proofs for doctrine. And yet St. Paul "explicitly indulges in allegory (allegoroumena, Galatians...

 
@JonEricson my ouch was about him getting CW-ified, not about watches. :-)
 
@MonicaCellio Oh. Somebody needs to appoint me dictator for a day on SE: that's one of the first things to go!
@DanO'Day I noticed. This issue is getting tricky!
 
9:24 PM
@DanO'Day I hadn't seen that when I made my comment about validity. It's always nice to know I'm not alone in at least some of my impressions. :-)
 
Michael Legaspi spoke about his book at the conference I attended at Princeton - it was very intriguing and he made some excellent point: amazon.com/Scripture-Biblical-Studies-Historical-Theology/dp/…
The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies
He argues that tools (hermeneutics included) themselves contain an underlying ideology, so even the tools used introduce bias and steer in potentially misleading directions
but he traces how studying scripture survived in academic --> by using the methods of the Classics dept and applying them to the bible
he is very critical of modern biblical scholarship (and he's a Harvard Ph.D. grad in Hebrew Bible, so he can hack it in academia)
Rather than tie the origins of the demise of the “scriptural Bible” to the Enlightenment, as is often done, he attributes it to the crisis of epistemological authority engendered by the Protestant Reformation (p. viii). The center of his thesis is that eighteenth-century approaches to Scripture as a text like any other were not a rejection of a “scriptural Bible” (it was, he argues, already a thing of the past) but an effort to preserve its presence in a new cultural context (p. 9).
“The academic Bible was created by scholars who saw that the scriptural Bible, embedded as it was in confessional particularities, was inimical to the socio-political project from which Enlightenment universities draw their purpose and support” (p. viii). Legaspi’s interpretation of the period and phenomena involved is thus focused on “social causes” rather than “intellectual antinomies” like the tension between faith and reason (p. ix).
 
9:39 PM
@DanO'Day Sounds like a variation on Kuhn's SSR work in philosophy of science.
 
Do we still use the exegesis tag?
 
@Soldarnal I don't. But it still gets used sometimes.
 
I've stopped doing so, but I noticed a couple questions lately that do. So I'm wondering if I should be still.
 
@Soldarnal When a question has (like ), the is implied. In my opinion.
6
Q: Blacklist exegesis tag?

RichardIt has been suggested in previous posts regarding the exegesis tag that we blacklist the tag. The subject came up again in chat. Reasoning It seems that a large majority of our questions are exegetic questions. To be complete, each of these questions seeking exegesis would include this exeges...

 
2
Q: What is our tagging philosophy?

Jon EricsonJeff Atwood says, "It is my strong belief that the tags page is an essential map of what your community is, and is not, about." Many sites have a primary set of tags that categorize questions. On Arqade, those primary tags are the only tag most questions carry. It's easy to see the site is abo...

 
9:47 PM
@Soldarnal Or that. I'm not sure how to interpret the voting. :(
 
@JonEricson Yeah, and maybe we need more questions still before we bring it up again
 
@Soldarnal: I just realized I left you off of my list of people I recall from day 1! Your number is one less than half of mine !
I'd like to plug:
 
@JonEricson the first question was asked during the first weeks of the site. I think with the benefit of experience it's worth asking again, maybe making the "tagging philosophy" question more pointed. grates on my nerves (it's pointless) and is in pretty much the same boat -- they're overly broad and implied by the other tags that ought to be on those questions. I say kill 'em.
 
10:02 PM
@MonicaCellio Do we have any questions with either of those that don't have some other meaningful tags?
(Normally, I'd look myself, but I'm drowning in stuff I ought to be doing instead.)
 
@JonEricson how do I search for singleton tags? (that wouldn't fully answer your question, but it's a first cut)
 
@MonicaCellio I'm not sure. That sounds like a useful feature.
I know you can't easily search for untagged questions. :(
Hi @SarahNoll! I'm glad you approved of my edit!
 
Absolutely--what a relief!
 
@JonEricson on a quick visual inspection of I've found and fixed a few questions that were missing a language. I think for both of these the order would be: review questions, add other tags where needed, and then mass-delete the over-broad tags. In that order, because untagged is a bear otherwise. :-)
 
@SarahNoll Sorry I didn't offer sooner. I'm not quite up to snuff on the question myself.
 
10:14 PM
What question?
 
@SarahNoll Peshitta primacy. ;-)
 
Ah,
On a different note, I read somewhere the other day ( I think in a link you posted here to a discussion), but cannot find it now-- one of the rules governing edits is that you don't edit something that is regarded by tradition or has been generally accepted as fact or a given even though new trends may emerge. (I know I'm mutilating it; but that is what I got out of it). Boy did I mess up.
I wish I had read that before I came in. Is there a BIG BOLD FOR BEGINNERS START HERE somewhere.
3
 
@SarahNoll How to edit other people's answers turns out to be a tricky issue. We haven't worked out our policies yet.
@SarahNoll We have an about page.
 
Why don't the questions tagged 'peshitta' come up? hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/peshitta
 
@DanO'Day Are you on the "unanswered" tab?
 
10:28 PM
@JonEricson aha, duh
@SarahNoll yeah, generally speaking, editing an answer is usually for spelling/grammar errors or removing offensive language
 
@DanO'Day I had the same problem a day or two ago. Otherwise I wouldn't have known myself.
 
@SarahNoll not trying to 'correct' it or make it more true. Granted, there are times when it can be more focused so a tangent may be removed, but these waters must be tread on lightly :P
 
@DanO'Day Interesting! No wonder I created such a stir!!
 
@SarahNoll of course this is only my understanding, which may be flawed
 
I wish I could find the page I was looking at. It was just after my conversation with Jon the other night, maybe the next day (yesterday).
 
10:30 PM
@SarahNoll when in doubt, you can flag any question, answer, or comment to talk to the moderators and high-rep users about it.
 
@SarahNoll Scroll to the top of this page and click one of the orange buttons to see earlier messages.
 
10:53 PM
@DanO'Day ... sounds like you have another question
@swasheck what about the use of ἱλαστήριον in Hebrews 9:5? — Dan O'Day 2 mins ago
 
@JonEricson @Caleb what say you about migrating this question to Christianity.SE?
@swasheck yes, I suppose, but I am going through all my questions with no accepted answer and trying to figure out why I have not yet accepted one
I am torn between yours and andy's, but neither of you address its use in Heb 9:5 which was part of the reasoning in my question
 
@DanO'Day too old (60-day limit on migration), so you'll need to ask anew there.
 
@DanO'Day I think it's doable, but needs some tweaking.
> What do you think is the application of these texts for today?
That reads too close to "what do you think the application should be", which would be not constructive.
But you could easily modify it to ask about how it has historically been handled.
Going on with "Do Christian groups today specifically apply these texts and how?"
It runs the risk of being too broad, so if while formulating it you think of any way to par it down to a particular sector either traditionally or doctrinally that would be great.
And @MonicaCellio is right we can't technically migrate it, if you think the answers should come with it, we can actually pull off a stunt to do that.
 
@Caleb nahh, it has become a different question: christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14361/…
@Caleb @MonicaCellio is that acceptable (before it gets flagged)?
 
The existing answers are very BH though.
Looks good to me.
+1 and goodnight.
 
11:09 PM
@JonEricson I just ran through the questions. I retagged some that should have had book tags to begin with. There were three singletons, two which are closed, and then this question by Caleb which is really a question about exegesis proper
Not sure how I would retag that - perhaps hermeneutical-approaches?
 
@DanO'Day ah. that's fair.
 
@swasheck I'm leaning towards yours, despite the fact that I completely disagree with your conclusion that ἱλαστήριον must mean propitiation (because it clearly doesn't in Heb 9:5)
 
@DanO'Day i'm not sure that i contend that it's for all time. different authors use different words at different times to convey different concepts differently
but re-reading i can see how it comes across that way
 
@swasheck I'm also of the historical mindset that the authors of the NT didn't have the mentality of propitation - this didn't really appear in Christianity until St. Anselm in the 11th century
 
@DanO'Day iirc propitiation was an ancient mindset by which the wrath of a god was appeased. that, of course, is something that i learned in seminary but do not have a reference for it. i'll have to look
 
11:23 PM
@Soldarnal Probably. I would likely close it if @Caleb had just asked it. ;-)
 
@swasheck yes, but was it associated with this word, and did that mentality exist in Christianity?
@swasheck I'm trying to find some good sources on this also (I don't have a definitive answer)
 
@DanO'Day i see.
 
@swasheck Jaroslav Pelikan in this book makes the case that the idea of satisfaction as used today in Christianity didn't exist until the 11th century.
 
I found what I was looking for. It was Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality quoted by Monica: •Avoid stating opinions as facts.
•Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.
•Avoid presenting uncontested factual assertions as mere opinion.
•Prefer nonjudgmental language.
. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3aNeutral_point_of_view#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view
 
@DanO'Day ... in the Christian mind?
 
11:26 PM
@swasheck yes
 
@DanO'Day interesting. did satisfaction exist in the Jewish mind?
 
@swasheck and he was Lutheran when he wrote that, so he certainly had no theologically vested interest in asserting otherwise (he did convert to Orthodoxy later in life)
 
@JonEricson see previous post.
 
@DanO'Day :) ... i'm not yet invested in questioning his motivations or biases
 
@swasheck I don't know. He notes the use of satisfaction by Tertullian (obviously pre-11th century) but it is in the context of us making satisfaction (repentance / reparations) to God, not something he does for us
@swasheck he's solid, he was teaching at Yale at the time - good at keeping his bias out (and challenging a lot of other folks' biases - especially von Harnack)
 
11:30 PM
@DanO'Day i think that the overall concept of satisfaction is a limited perspective of propitiation. i guess i've understood propitiation to be along the lines of divine wrath being meted out upon the deserving object. that's what makes Jesus so pivotal in all of this. he was the object of deserved wrath.
@DanO'Day it sounds to me like he's describing expiation, though ... where expiation is "atonement" or "discharging"
 
@swasheck but that is not how the East sees it ;)
 
I'd like to ask @MonicaCellio about the idea of divine justice and satisfaction of deserved wrath in the Jewish mind. summoning @MonicaCellio, where are youuuuu?? :)
@DanO'Day a fair point. this is why i asked about the Jewish mind.
 
@swasheck she actually spoke with @SarahNoll and I about it last night and posted some great links on Mi Yodeya about it
 
@DanO'Day forgive my sloth.
 
@swasheck no no I am looking for it now
 
11:38 PM
what the what????
0
Q: Who were among the greatest evangelists in the bible?

AndrettiMilasOut of all the biblical characters, who are the best known evangelists?

 
@swasheck starting here
 
@swasheck I can never figure out which VtC category things belong in (except duplicate)
 
fascinating parallel ... "sacrifices schmacrifices" and "i said the prayer"
@Soldarnal i went with Off-Topic
 
@swasheck Alright, I'll follow suit with that then
 
@swasheck @Soldarnal I jumped in with a welcome
 
11:47 PM
@DanO'Day so kind of you. didn't want to "pile on"
 
@swasheck he is a first time user :P
 
@DanO'Day i know.
 
@swasheck but I still voted off topic, belongs on C.SE
@swasheck plus, what is the bible? what is an evangelist? All doctrinal presuppositions :P
 
@DanO'Day agreed
@DanO'Day well ... yeah. that's a coaching thing. which scriptures and how does one define evangelist.
 
@swasheck finally think i have everything in iOS 6.1 parsing correctly... I hate updates
 
11:58 PM
@SarahNoll Ah. We aren't in agreement about whether the Wikipedia guidelines apply to us. Certainly, we aren't ready to enforce them. ;-)
 

« first day (504 days earlier)      last day (579 days later) »