« first day (483 days earlier)      last day (4130 days later) » 

12:08 AM
@JonEricson Atheism sites work best as blogs, because there's really only so many questions that can be asked about atheism qua atheism.
12:23 AM
@JackDouglas Yeah, that's a good idea :-) I can't these days, but at a later time I might.
12:37 AM
@TRiG I must say that's my instinct. It would be a bit like a site on Postmodernism: hard to say anything concrete about.
1:00 AM
@JonEricson Friendly Atheist at Patheos and the crowd at Freethought Blogs demonstrate that there's plenty of material, but not much of it fits neatly into a Q&A format.
2 hours later…
2:45 AM
A: Friends, we are not Christian!

Monica CellioOne thing that could make the site seem more open and less Christianity-specific would be to adopt a cultural norm to use neutral terminology where possible. I am not proposing a requirement (put that straw-man away, please), but as polite people trying to get along in a heterogeneous (and heter...

7 hours later…
9:58 AM
@MonicaCellio Ah, edit wars.
1 hour later…
11:04 AM
@Soldarnal If I could star that twice I would—this is precisely my fear. I've taken the liberty of quoting you on meta, hope that's ok.
11:56 AM
@JonEricson SE does both: on dba.se for example I usually contribute 'new research'
1 hour later…
1:09 PM
@JackDouglas To be fair, I do too here. Even so, we need not expect all of our answers to be new research; simply summarizing someone else's work is enough to produce a useful answer.
3 hours later…
3:54 PM
@JackDouglas what is your fear? @Soldarnal's response betrays an inherent misunderstanding of my proposition which i tried to further explain.
otherwise, the evidence so far is that our words and our actions are not in line. we say that we're inclusive but the reality is that our actions are marginalizing the minority
and we're the wealthy Republicans just telling the minority to "go get a job" like it's that easy. we're telling Monica and Ami ... "just post questions."
it's easy, when you're the majority, to tell others how easy it can be for them if they just do what you tell them to do and what you think is the right path. but the reality is that there's a portion of their experience with which you (and we, i'm included) simply cannot sympathize.
i only have proposed what i have proposed as a means of pulling out of the debt that we've already accrued (@JackDouglas, @Soldarnal, @MonicaCellio, @JonEricson surely you're familiar with tech debt) so that we can almost begin anew. BH.SE has been a wonderful experience and i think that we've learned some things along the way.
and i think that it is possible, no necessary, to interact with a wide variety of approaches as long as they're actual hermeneutics and not the injection/regurgitation of doctrine as a response to a question.
4:32 PM
@JackDouglas i'm extremely confused by this conclusion that the two of you have drawn
but as much talking and explaining it seems as though you both have a certain picture of what i'm proposing and no amount of discussion will dislodge it. so if that's the picture you wish to have then ok.
@swasheck it's not from your conversation btw
I was taking Soldarnal's comment in isolation
People like Bob feel like they are under attack, I'm sure you understand that?
Also, Bob has an 'actual' hermeneutic (afaik), we just struggle to understand it
@JackDouglas i do. but you do also understand that people like monica feel under attack. and then i feel under attack for having a quote that was based on a fundamental misunderstanding taken out of context and used in a meta post.
@JackDouglas he does ... but trying to engage him in it (in chat) is something that has proven to be difficult. perhaps that's sensitivity?
4:51 PM
I may regret this, but:
Y'know what makes me feel under attack, besides all the things we've already talked about? That our current Christianity-favoring doctrine policy was set by Christian moderators (maybe just one), yet it somehow has the status of holy writ so changing it requires massing an overwhelming force, in a community where overwhelming force for anything doesn't happen. We are not starting from a balanced position and it goes downhill from there. Sorry to be blunt but I don't know how else to say this.
@MonicaCellio meta link for this policy?
@DanO'Day I'm talking about what @JackDouglas has been saying all along -- doctrine in answers is fine, editing it out is wrong, and the only doctrine restrictions are in questions.
And by implication (though it's been said outright): christianizing tanakh questions is just fine unless the asker opts out.
@MonicaCellio I can see the tension. At the same time, I'm not sure this site would float without allowing some of this. Some hold a Christocentric hermeneutic and think everything has to do with Jesus. At the same time, it would be interesting to see what would happen if a less popular hermeneutic was held by someone. One blatantly offensive - like an anti-Semitic hermeneutic.
@MonicaCellio Moderators do not set policy at all. We (myself foremost) certainly have our opinions, but our job is to draw consensus out of the community. We can only enforce SE set rules and our communities local consensus, not set policy ourselves. It so happens that some of us were nominated as moderators for being outspoken in the first place, but that doesn't take away the responsibility of acting on behalf of the community.
5:08 PM
@MonicaCellio @Caleb to be honest, I have found this interesting since this site was formed. I like this site, but it's a subjective topic that everyone tries to pretend is objective. How can we have meaningful discussion of hermeneutics without having any agreed upon hermeneutics? Meaning is somewhat of a construct. We all bring biases and hermeneutics to the text.
It would be far too exhaustive to lay them all out for each answer, but without doing so all responses are purely subjective - even when they cite sources.
@MonicaCellio If @JackDouglas went off and set a policy on his own that we can show is out of step with community consensus or SE policy, I'll personally pull him aside and give him a generous dose of mod-hammer.
In a way, this has to be expected.
@Caleb Prohibiting doctrine in questions got support on meta. Can you show me where the consensus for allowing doctrine in answers happened? I haven't found it (beyond Jack saying that this is what we do).
@MonicaCellio @Caleb honestly, a lot of this kills my drive to answer question here. To be a good answer, I will need to do a bunch of research and present multiple perspectives.
Sorry I have to run off. I didn't actually catch up in chat and now I'm running off without finishing. People excuse me....
5:11 PM
@DanO'Day which is why I've been wondering if the premise of the site is even viable.
@MonicaCellio @Caleb frankly, I don't have the time nor inclination to do so. But often I actually have a perspective to present that I know well and could present rather quickly - but it would be doctrinal / one-sided so I don't. So I just don't answer as much as I could.
@DanO'Day No. That's the opposite of the way we want to go.
@MonicaCellio I'm questioning the same. In many ways I'm more comfortable with C.SE and just prefacing my answer with, "This represents an Eastern Orthodox perspective."
For instance, I have a great response to this:
Q: Based on recent manuscript discoveries, is the LXX more reliable than the MT?

theosisBased on recent manuscript discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, is the text of the LXX more reliable than the MT?

But it is an Eastern Orthodox perspective, one that unfortunately has some perspectives that could be perceived as anti-Semitic, and I don't want to be offensive here nor present a one-sides argument.
So I'm probably not going to respond.
@DanO'Day yeah, I don't know what the answer here is. Answers that cover all hermeneutical approaches are going to be rare -- and justifiably so, as they require a lot of effort. When I answer questions I use the subset of approaches that I'm comfortable with. I believe I'm doing so without bringing a doctrinal perspective, but I grant that that may not be so easy with some hemeneutics.
@JonEricson explain where we want to go....
5:15 PM
@MonicaCellio I've always said doctrine in answers is inevitable, not fine
@DanO'Day I don't see why you can't do that here too.
@DanO'Day I agree with @JonEricson, summary answers of all the perspectives are not in fact the best answers. This is why I haven't accepted your answer on the 144,000 for instance. It's helpful in that it lays out interpretive options, but I'm looking for arguments for a particular interpretation.
then I think I don't get what this site is about at all. If I only answer from one (doctrinal) perspective, then the answer will only get voted for if the person who asked the question agrees with me and I'll only get votes if others agree
Though it's obviously helpful if your answer in arguing for one perspective also looks at and subverts other perspectives.
that is more or less a popularity content
5:18 PM
@JackDouglas I apologize for the error.
@DanO'Day Short version: we start with a question about the text and over time collect a variety of answers from a range of traditions. Voting is done by the strength of the argument rather than by agreement or disagreement. Given enough time, we will have a summary of all the relevant traditions for all of our answers.
@DanO'Day I personally think answers like the vast majority you give (or Frank for example, though I could have picked many others) are where we want to go: we just need more and more of that!
@MonicaCellio And I'm sorry I have singularly failed to communicate that in a way that can be understood! (thanks btw)
@JonEricson with the obvious exception that some questions fit the 'one good answer' mold much better
@DanO'Day I don't think that's how things are at the moment. People are voting up answers even when they disagree with the conclusions. Good arguments are rising to the top.
@JackDouglas what are you saying is inevitable: that questions will attract doctrinal answers, or that answers are doctrinal? If the latter, could you please point out some of my doctrinal answers, since I don't think that's what I'm doing and if I am I want to correct it?
5:21 PM
@DanO'Day I vote for what I find 'useful' not what I agree with: I think many others do the same, and your answers are 'very useful'
@MonicaCellio we've discussed that in chat before?
@MonicaCellio If the later, you can't correct it. ;-)
@DanO'Day Yeah, to a point I think that's true. But I think it actually applies to nearly every site in the SE network. For instance on cooking.SE: "What's a good substitution for red wine?" There is no "objective" right answer, but the top voted answer will be whatever answer most people think fits their palette.
@JackDouglas I thought we had, but I was confused about what you meant once so I'm asking for clarification in case I'm still confused.
@Soldarnal excellent analogy
I guess this is where I'm getting confused. So for clarification, it is acceptable to answer like this: "This represents an Eastern Orthodox perspective...."
@DanO'Day Most of us don't do that, but it might be a good idea.
5:27 PM
@JonEricson I know most don't do that. I've been changing my answer methodology as I've observed this
@JonEricson and I've noticed those who always answer from a certain (God knows what) perspective and I can't even follow their logic. I never vote those up.
I default to grammatical-historical, which also seems to be close to the default of the site itself. (I might have had something to do with that. ;-)
@MonicaCellio Can you take another look at the thread starting here and come back to me on where I'm not making sense (might well be more than on place ;)
@DanO'Day Yeah, same. Because I'm only going to agree in that case if I already agree with the presuppositions
@JonEricson I was formally trained in grammatical-historical in a Lutheran pre-seminary program, but I'm learning to value tradition and other works as an Orthodox Christian
But it seems like answering from one perspective belongs on C.SE, not here from what I've seen
@MonicaCellio answers that cover all methodologies are more like life works. nobody has the time to do that. it's not going to happen. for me what stinks is when i see a perfectly good opportunity to answer a question but the question has already has an accepted (or highly-voted) answer that notes that "Jesus is the answer ... always."
5:29 PM
But even a survey will only be a limited set of beliefs
it tells me that the community is not interested in the literary function of jacob's deceit, or the historical function of sennacherib's aborted invasion of jerusalem.
@swasheck I am with you 100%
@DanO'Day I'm exploring a Christocentric hermeneutic at the moment. I've even created a sock puppet so that people don't get confused by it:
@DanO'Day early church fathers is a perfectly viable method.
@swasheck yes but even that requires multiple perspectives. They didnt' all agree and Christian thought has evolved
5:31 PM
@JackDouglas I also vote for what is useful and well-argued, even if I disagree. I've cast a lot of votes for answers from Dan, Jon, and Frank, for instance, even though we have very different beliefs. And unless we've got a bunch of silent Jewish voters (not likely :-) ), I've received votes from people who disagree with me. It can still feel like a popularity contest, probably becasue it once was and change is slow.
I hate to do this but I have to run for a bit - that whole work thing
@DanO'Day right
@swasheck Do we have a lot of questions with accepted answers like that?
@DanO'Day I really appreciate other perspectives on the site as long as I can understand them
@swasheck you have my star but I'd like you to post a link
and learning to understand them is part of why I'm here
@MonicaCellio I vote for your stuff a lot. I vote for well-reasoned arguments, even if I disagree with them. Although to be honest I often have no opinion on many questions, I'm learning as I go. Many of the ideas are new to me
5:32 PM
@Soldarnal @JackDouglas i dont know. i've not done a tremendous amount of research into the site and i actually am not sure that it's something that would be a good use of my time.
gotta run
@DanO'Day I either comment or vote down bad logic (depending on whether I think the author will respond to comments). Bad is bad, even if it's from my tradition. (And in that case it's a prompt for me to provide a better answer...)
@MonicaCellio i can agree with this
@swasheck As for accepted answers, that's not a reason to not answer.
@DanO'Day See you later!
Bye @Dan
5:34 PM
@JonEricson conceptually i know that. pavlovianly (yeah, made it up) it's a deterrent.
@swasheck yeah, I agree. :-(
@swasheck I get that:
Q: Can we remove the preferential sorting of accepted answers?

Jon EricsonOn Stack Overflow, the "accepted" answer shows that the loop has been closed and the question has been answered to the satisfaction of the asker. That's true here too. But there's a big difference between accepting an answer on a practical and specific question as opposed to a general and broad...

@swasheck Here's a leg-up
My preference would be to go further: hide or eliminate the green tick mark. But that ain't gonna happen. :-(
@JackDouglas Did you mean for that to be answers with a score of 4+ that include the word "Jesus"?
@JonEricson yes, is that wrong?
@swasheck and a 5-minute scan of the the first couple of pages makes me think while it may be a problem with particular answers, it isn't a 'site-wide' problem.
@JonEricson I mean have I got the syntax wrong?
5:39 PM
@JackDouglas I wondered if something got mangled somehow. I was thinking you were intending to find "Jesus is the answer" in posts or something.
if that was a joke it was very witty btw :)
@Soldarnal @JackDouglas my sense is that most things answered by Mike would fit into this category.
and while we've agreed that his "rep" is the byproduct of mass-production, it's still a bit discouraging to me.
@swasheck you like some of his answers:
Good answer. I would, however, push back on the "original languages" section as it is substantially more important than is credited. I would, actually, swap 6 and 2 since there are fascinating grammatical nuances that may remain unrendered in English. — swasheck Jul 5 '12 at 18:16
but it could be more of a function of the questions
@JackDouglas Um... yeah. It was completely a joke. ;-)
5:43 PM
How far down the list do you have to go before you get to one you don't like? I'd be interested to know if his highest voted answers are the one's you like the best or not.
@JackDouglas sure. i liked that back in july.
you'll also notice that because i didn't proof-text a massive amount of scripture my answer got very little attention.
A: According to Scripture, how should we interpret Scripture?

swasheckEstablishing the most foundational rule of hermeneutics is a bit like choosing your favorite child. The reality is that exegesis is a combination of methods to arrive at the best exposition of the true meaning of a passage. These methods include a variety of principles or rules, some of which are...

@JackDouglas the first one
@JackDouglas the second one is ok (or i'm ambivalent on it). the third one has logical issues which i've identified, his "I am" answer was decent but then it devolved
@swasheck I know I'm really really weird for caring about this sort of thing, but the chat transcript is actually permanent, while the vote ordering on Mike's answers isn't. So when someone is rereading this in two years' time (and yes, I do that sort of thing), "the first one" will be ambiguous. Links help.
ok. i think that's enough of this nonsense. i'm just frustrating myself
@swasheck sorry, to be clear, I'm asking which ones you don't like because it 'notes that "Jesus is the answer ... always."'
I don't know why I care as much as I do about information permanency. It's one of my personal bugbears.
5:53 PM
@JackDouglas oh, so you're look for a specific example of that. apologies. i cant really find one but i have a vague sense of it occurring, though. perhaps it more of a genre along the lines of "you can only interpret the bible with faith and prayer."
@swasheck it certainly has occurred!
I just don't think many folk vote for them
@TRiG: I'm sure if the event were held downtown, they would have contacted the Scientologists and the Self-Realization Fellowship. ;-) (Re: your comment.)
For ref: First; Second; Third.
@TRiG i can appreciate that
@TRiG (thanks, too late to edit)
@JonEricson I realise I may regret asking this question ... . What is the Self-Realization Fellowship?
5:56 PM
ok folks. thanks for the chat. i believe that it's been helpful and insightful. i am just winded.
@TRiG I'm not 100% sure, but I think it was the fake religion celebrities gave money to before Scientology. Both are directly across the street from the hospital where my twins were born.
@swasheck Understandable. I hope we are making progress.
@swasheck yup, this is hard work for all concerned I think :/
6:13 PM
@JonEricson I hope we are but I can't tell. I'm winded too. And about that "I may regret this"? Still not sure. I feel like we're going in circles and I'm not helping.
@MonicaCellio Yeah. I wonder if it would help to take this conversation offline somewhere? (Private chat, email, etc.)
6:29 PM
@JonEricson possibly the asynchronicity and long-form nature of email would work better. The comment length and intertwiwed threads here can get a little chaotic, especially with the real-time nature. I'd rather we all take the time to form our thoughts without worrying about buffer size.
@MonicaCellio Sounds good to me. ;-)
6:54 PM
@JonEricson @MonicaCellio can I also be included on this/these email/s?
@DanO'Day Hmm... I really don't want to move our site policy discussions offline. I just want to see if we can get unstuck from the bind we seem to be in. I'd be willing to post a summary on meta if emails do the trick.
A couple folks carrying on their own conversation is one thing, but that's between them and if it comes to any conclusion that will affect the site it needs to be aired out on meta anyway.
@Caleb agreed. This is just some of us trying to work together on what might become a proposal. It can't actually be the discussion if it doesn't include everybody.
A good candidate for migration here: christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/13868/…
Ok, people who wanted questions, how's this?
Q: Is there something significant about Avram's tactics in rescuing Lot?

Monica CellioGenesis 14 describes the war of four kings against five kings and the capture of Lot, and then describes how Avram mounted a rescue mission: וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָם, כִּי נִשְׁבָּה אָחִיו; וַיָּרֶק אֶת-חֲנִיכָיו יְלִידֵי בֵיתוֹ, שְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת, וַיִּרְדֹּף, עַד-דָּן. וַיֵּ...

@DanO'Day agreed. The poster also asks questions here, so I wonder what informed his decision to ask there.
7:09 PM
That looks to me like a church history thing more than an c.se thing.
@Caleb oh hmm, good point.
Correct me if my quick look is wrong, but isn't that asking for some historic figures views rather than asking for an actual analysis of the text?
"how to translate X" is different than "how did Y handle X text and why".
@Caleb yes, good point
I'm happy to migrate if it really is a better fit on BH, but I'm having a hard time seeing it (in spite of 4 community VTC's!)
BTW, markdown was giving me no end of trouble with formatting on the quoted passages (RTL was being weirder than usual). If anyone can improve the formatting there, go for it!
@Caleb maybe ask OP to clarify intent?
7:12 PM
@MonicaCellio I have a lot of issues with RTL on SE
@MonicaCellio Done.
@DanO'Day usually I can get it to do what I want eventually, at least for blockquotes. This time it renders ok but the actual source came out wonky, e.g. when I typed a '>' for the second blockquote it showed a '<' instead and put it between a verse number and the text. Weird!
@MonicaCellio that is weird. I have some issues copying and pasting from certain e-works
7:52 PM
@MonicaCellio Thanks, I think these are three great questions you've asked
@Soldarnal thanks. I just made a quick pass through my unanswered-on-Mi-Yodeya questions. I'll stop with the four I've posted for now. Besides, this approach only works if other people also ask tanakh questions.
@MonicaCellio Yep, I'm working on a couple too; though probably won't have time to post them until tonight
@Soldarnal looking forward to it.
1 hour later…
9:17 PM
I don't think I can answer this question without asking it in a different way on C.SE:
Q: Based on recent manuscript discoveries, is the LXX more reliable than the MT?

theosisBased on recent manuscript discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, is the text of the LXX more reliable than the MT?

I still think that answering strictly from an EO perspective belongs on C.SE, not on BH.SE for whatever reason
It is similar to
A: Can we trust the Septuagint?

Bruce AldermanThe Masoretic (Hebrew) text is closer to the Bible Jesus used, but Septuagint (LXX) was the one used by the New Testament writers. In most of the Old Testament, the differences are not very significant. However, in a few places the Masoretic and LXX have sharp differences. For example: Isaia...

Sorry, just vocalizing my own dissonance ;)
9:35 PM
@DanO'Day I agree with your comment there. I, too, would like the poster to source that claim...
how does one make small text in a post?
<sub> tags or <sup> tags (html)
@swasheck don't know, but if the markdown help doesn't cover it, I'd go look at the source for a post that does that.
Or just wait for Dan. :-)
@DanO'Day word. thanks.
That's how I do it for footnotes, not sure how others do it
9:44 PM
@swasheck please not Word... markdown isn't great, but it's better than that. :-)
I only started recently to emulate some of the answers I saw like that, I think @JonEricson has a few like that that I used as a model
@MonicaCellio apologies. LaTeX
@swasheck that's fine too. My professional work is in DocBook XML, but I used to do LaTeX.
@swasheck P.S. my intellect is not allowing me to post on the LXX/MT debate. I keep finding conflicting sources - neither give any raw primary source data. Looks like I'm gonna have to read some books. But I think the best answer is - neither is more reliable. Give up the notion of a carefully transmitted set of scriptures. They were fluid and changed a lot, and no one cared.
these subjective questions are frustrating to me.

q: which is better?
a: for what?
9:52 PM
@swasheck it looks like quite a few Rabbis had no problems changing things for various reasons (it might look bad if Moses' grandson fell into idolatry, let's change the name in the geneology so it looks like he's someone elses family), and Christians did the same (this will support Jesus as Messiah better, let's run with it)
@DanO'Day well that's if you subscribe to the documentary hypothesis, right?
@swasheck I dunno
@DanO'Day the big difference is that there are extant sources that we can critically evaluate (now, if the method is flawed then whoopsie)
@DanO'Day when you say "change", you mean...? (that an earlier source had a different name, for example?)
@swasheck yeah, that's "bad subjective"...
(@DanO'Day, the text itself sometimes seems inconsident about names, e.g. Yitro also has a different name somewhere. I gather that's not what you mean, though?)
'“There is a son born to Naomi”? But it's a grandson — what's up with that?' that's pretty funny, @MonicaCellio
10:02 PM
@swasheck @MonicaCellio for instance, Judges 18:30-31. Moses or Manasseh? It is my understanding that Moses is correct. But some rabbis changed it to Manasseh in some copies to avoid bringing embarassment to Moses
@MonicaCellio do you have answers to your questions?
@swasheck my "what's up with that?" phrasing, or the question itself?
@MonicaCellio well, the "what's up with that?" but the question itself is kinda funny too. that section has always struck me as odd
unless "Ruth" is really a story about Naomi ;)
@swasheck no. These are ones I've previously asked on Mi Yodeya without success. On one I got a kabbalistic answer, but otherwise no luck.
@swasheck the whole business with Rut lying at Boaz's feet (and the inuendo you can read into that) is pretty puzzling. I think we have a question about that, though.
@swasheck that would require some, uh, creative text-reading, I think. :-)
@MonicaCellio you say creative ... i say literary
10:09 PM
@DanO'Day they'd also have to change tribe, then. Odd; I didn't know about that difference. Thanks.
@swasheck well, I'm thinking of the conversation where Naomi instructs Rut on getting Boaz. Would you just flip those, having Rut (the outsider) advising Naomi on how to get Boaz? Or am I misunderstanding you?
Several ancient textual witnesses, including some LXX mss and the Vulgate, support the reading “Moses” (מֹשֶׁה, mosheh) here. Many Hebrew mss have a nun (נ) suspended above the name between the first two letters (מנשׁה), suggesting the name Manasseh (מְנַשֶּׁה, mÿnasheh). This is probably a scribal attempt to protect Moses’ reputation. For discussion, see G. F. Moore, Judges (ICC), 401-2.
@MonicaCellio It's a bit more than innuendo, isn't it? Innuendo should be less overt than that.
@MonicaCellio nonononono. not literally, but literarily ... such that the story actually charts the development of Naomi. Rut seems somewhat static throughout. She's good. She stays good. She acts consistent with what you'd expect.
@swasheck oh! I see what you're saying now, and yeah I agree -- Rut is significant because she's an outsider who joins Israel (and is the prototypical convert), but Naomi is the one with the complex character arc.
@TRiG its not so much innuendo as it is coming down on connotative vs. denotative meaning of "feet"
@MonicaCellio exactly. additionally, Naomi had the most to lose. her line and heritage risked termination.
10:15 PM
@DanO'Day thanks for the elaboration. I see what you mean (and this copy of the masoretic text has the style you describe). And on closer reading v30 isn't saying this person is of the tribe of Dan but is a "priest to the tribe of Dan", which a Levite can be.
@TRiG "uncovered his feet" is inuendo. "Uncovered him" would be more blatant.
@MonicaCellio good point
@swasheck so anyway, if you can answer any of these, I'd much appreciate it!
@MonicaCellio i have to be honest that my Tanakh experience is severely limited to literary methods and historical context. but i'll monitor them for decent answers.
@MonicaCellio Fairy nuff.
i also have to be honest in that i just copied a pasted a significant portion of a thesis chapter to an answer and hope that the OP can take the information and come to a conclusion
10:39 PM
@swasheck the Avram question is all about historical context, for what that's worth. (I'm hoping I don't have to go to History.SE for an answer to that one.)
@MonicaCellio yeah. i see that now
10:52 PM
A: Does Theophilus of Antioch's statement have any bearing on interpreting Mathew 5:28?

user2014Lets analyze The Greek Text to find out the Original meaning and then analyze theophlius, Matthew 5:27-28: 27 Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη· Οὐ μοιχεύσεις. 28 ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτὴν ἤδη ἐμοίχευσεν αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ. Transliteration and Definition of Each...

11:05 PM
@MonicaCellio I'm interested in answering it where ever it ends up.
@JonEricson i so desperately want to tell user372890987042096 to remove the God(paren) in his answer and to truncate the whole salutation at the end.
@JonEricson yay!
@JonEricson please leave it here
@swasheck Good [deity]! Um... it looks like it's time to comment and (if not removed) downvote.
@swasheck I would prefer it stay here too.
11:12 PM
@JonEricson thanks. i tried with my initial comments to address some initial reactions, but i tend to post a string of wordy comments that sound like i'm blasting someone
@swasheck ow.
@MonicaCellio @JonEricson it also reads as an invective against the NIV which is unfortunate. loses credibility in my eyes. not because i'm an NIV fanboy but because it seems singularly-focused on this task.
@swasheck it does, yes. The comment about "but even with the Greek I know this is obviously wrong" (not an exact quote) was where my rant-detectors started firing.
I'm also being distracted by the random Acts Of capitalization...
@MonicaCellio i know. i shall give 24 hours and then i will ruthlessly downvote
i invite both of you to comment with other objections. i hate always looking like the overbearing butthead
@swasheck Hey, that's why you make the big bucks! ;-)
11:21 PM
@JonEricson i'd just prefer he stick with God. it's implicit in Christian (and associated cult) theology and extraneous in other theologies
@swasheck same here. I was about to comment with what Jon said (thanks @JonEricson!).
@MonicaCellio you could address the "rant" nature of the answer :) with your observation. you can even take full credit for my observations :)
@swasheck I would also prefer that he reduce all his "Jesus Christ"s to just "Jesus"s since he's attributing quotes and stuff, but I fear he'd take that suggestion the wrong way.
@swasheck working on it.
@MonicaCellio right. "Christ" was not Jesus' last name
@swasheck I'd like to see that answer say "Trinity Bless" is all. ;-)
11:23 PM
@JonEricson but what about Neo?
@swasheck Heh! Many of my Christian friends thought that movie was soooo profound. I bet if the writers had used less Biblical imagery, it wouldn't have come off so well.
@JonEricson meh. western christianity is ... odd.
@MonicaCellio todah!
@swasheck I hope we aren't coming across as too much of a pile-on, but were I the poster I'd rather hear all the problems up front before I start to edit. No way to know about an anonymous guy on the net, though.
@MonicaCellio yeah. well, the answer does come across as somewhat arrogant in that he recommended that Thomas learn Greek and Hebrew. i mean, who does that sort of thing?
there's part of me that wants to say, "good start. i'd recommend that you also pick up Mounce's Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics, Black's It's Still Greek To Me, and a couple of other intermediate grammars that may help you in your BH.SE answering endevors."

« first day (483 days earlier)      last day (4130 days later) »