In Joshua 6:20, it states (from the King James version here):
So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up...
@Scrooge I've given it +1, though I have a slight misgiving about whether it is answerable. Otoh the text perhaps implies that it is the sound that causes the walls to collapse and that means it is answerable :) let's see what others think...
the good news is it's on-topic and springs naturally from the text, far better than a lot of questions we get here
@Scrooge Good, glad that works for you. (And I/we are not always so successful — always know you can revert or drop a comment or chat to discuss edits!)
Hey @MonicaCellio can we please not even pretend to fix things if they aren't actually fixable? I think it just confuses the issue. Editing is never going to make some things on topic and "fixing" things that are destined for deletion anyway doesn't get us anywhere. (re this edit)
@Caleb I think it's great you and I just had the comment exchange re: Mary. I hope others can see hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/6232/2873 and take more into consideration in learning from each other at BH.
Please, if you find it might make sense, you and the other moderators may want to consider using that exchange for the good of everyone.
I was thinking this year that poor Scrooge is doomed to be the character in the first stave. It's too bad since the story is a story of redemption, not despair.
@JohnMartin We don't really do negative examples here. The question is can/will it be fixed. If not we should just remove it. On the other hand if you want to go back and work on some sources it may be redeemable per my original comment.
@Caleb I don't understand the problem with removing inappropriate content from something that's live on the site. Deletion still takes a couple weeks without mod intervention and I had no particular reason to believe that would happen.
@MonicaCellio Would you fix spelling mistakes on a spam post that was clearly off topic and not going to have a home on the network? Would you re-format code according to local site preference for a question that was clearly off topic and it's only hope was migration to a site where it might be on topic that you knew followed a different style guide?
If anybody is interested, I've just made my first post on Skeptics not fueled by outrage over poor answers:
My social media stream lately has been awash with claims about items supposedly dissevered at a site discovered by Turkish army captain Llhan Durupınar in 1959 that is believed by some to be the final resting site of Noah's Ark.
As a resident in Turkey and interested in Biblical sites, I have be...
@Caleb I would spam-flag the spam and spread the word if needed and it would be gone in an hour or two. And anyway, we're not talking about mere typos. Let me return the question: would you bother to edit a (not-otherwise-offensive) post that said that Christianity is fraud or "we must follow our prophet Muhammad" or the like?
I realize that you probably have trouble seeing the trouble that things you consider to be true cause for a site that claims to welcome as equals those of us who don't. Please try to consider that you need to work extra-hard to see things through others' eyes.
@MonicaCellio No, if it is off topic I would let that mechanism take care of it. If something is said in an offensive manner then an offensive flag could be raised, but the case I am objecting to is a matter of our site style guide.
@Caleb and I am saying that the assertion is not a mere matter of brace style. As you know, the offensive-flag threshold is (rightly) high; that doesn't mean that smaller cases of unnecessary offense shouldn't be dealt with. Feel free to moot the entire issue by deleting the question, but I used the only tools available to me.
Is there any textual support for Jesus's claim that everybody else misunderstood the law and his interpretation that it's about the heart is the correct one? Does he just assert that or does he show his work? If he just says so, then it seems like this understanding of fulfillment depends on, and cannot be made independently of, that theological claim, right? — Gone Quiet1 min ago
@Monica are you asking if Jesus shows his work here ^^^^?
If so then I think the answer in general is that he doesn't feel the need to: he certainly made claims above and beyond what might be deduced from the Tanakh even to the most sympathetic ear
@JackDouglas yes, that's what I was asking. Somebody showing up and claiming to be divine should generally be looked on with suspicion, so while there's a large body of people who take that on faith now, I wondered if there was an earlier point where he actually supported his claims from text, to persuade his earlier followers -- and, if so, if there was anything relevant to this particular (fundamental) claim. Sorry if that was confusing.
@JackDouglas quote sure, but I'm asking about supporting his unusual interpretations of it. How did he convince his initial followers of his status? Just the described miracles?
John the Baptist in particular (to a lesser extent Jesus) self-consciously wore the uniform of a Hebrew prophet
It might be fair to say Jesus was not the first to make this kind of claim btw, eg David:
> For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. [ESV](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%2051:16-17&version=ESV)
or Hosea:
> For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hosea%206:6&version=ESV
David is pouring out his heart to God but doesn't (at least there) seem to be making a broader pronouncement for the people to change their ways. (As you might expect, there is commentary on this.) Hoshea (others too) certainly brings a message of comfort and (according to the text) speaks with God's authority. Note he doesn't actually say "so don't bring sacrifices"; he's making a claim about what God wants, perhaps at this point in time. But he's not legislating.
I've heard that John the Baptist was (is?) considered a prophet. Does something claim explicitly that God spoke through him, or is it a derived understanding? Just curious.
@Caleb I think you didn't understand my point earlier, so one more try: removing offense from a new post does no harm. If the affected post is destined for deletion, it costs a few bytes of database storage for the revision record and I wasted a little time -- but it's my time, not yours, so why do you care? If the post doesn't get deleted it needs to be fixed. Incremental improvement is still improvement. I'm not "pretending" anything.
In Joshua 6:20, it states (from the King James version here):
So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up...
The Library
The Library