« first day (1156 days earlier)      last day (1940 days later) » 

1:12 AM
@majnemɪzdæn I was seeking confirmation as it pertains to scripture. If it is off topic you can remove it. Par for my course lately. I would be happy to carry on conversation about it in a chat room instead.
Hello @Susan
@majnemɪzdæn Actually it is follow-up on this question.
 
1:30 AM
@majnemɪzdæn Can the whole thing be moved to a discussion room?
 
 
3 hours later…
4:24 AM
Is there any point to ?
We currently have 30 questions there. Seems to me that we either need to add that tag to about 1500 more or get rid of it.
 
 
4 hours later…
8:36 AM
@Susan maybe
Today I saw that this tag had reappeared on two questions. I removed it, but both questions were actually asking about exegesis the concept, not exegesis application. So maybe I shouldn't have, but since we burned it I did. — Gone Quiet Aug 6 '13 at 0:11
A quick scan shows that most if not all usages in the current list are unnecessary. Not sure about this one.
Perhaps Jon's original conclusion is best - for the all questions about exegesis the concept, and strip it off all the rest?
 
 
1 hour later…
9:57 AM
@JackDouglas Thanks for your input. I hadn't seen Monica's meta question. I guess this has been discussed before.
I thought burninated was supposed to mean it couldn't pop up again?
 
 
1 hour later…
11:25 AM
@Davïd Somehow you ended up with a magic wand that nobody gave me.
 
@Susan B-) Actually, I assumed that it could be escaped `\` but that didn't work, oddly. But the hard-space did the trick.
 
@Susan that's black-listed (which is an option, but it can be difficult to get it done as it's a manual thing for the devs I think)
"burninated" (I think) means getting the team to bulk-remove the tag from hundreds of questions rather than us doing it manually and having them clog the homepage
@Caleb is that right? ^^^^^
 
@JackDouglas Correct. Blacklist is the thing that makes tags not ever come back. Buninate is the thing we do with fire to kill off all instances of a tag (there are a couple methods employed all loosely referred to using the Trogdor meme) but does not stop people from re-creating them.
 
 
2 hours later…
Tau
1:05 PM
@Sarah Your question is very "On Topic" as it regards variations and nuances of the text in it's Original Languages. It does require a special set of skills to answer, which I don't possess.
 
 
1 hour later…
2:22 PM
@Caleb @JackDouglas OK, thanks. So what you think should be done with ?
I'm happy to go manually strip it off the 30 questions that carry it if people agree it should go away, but that has the disadvantage of bumping them all.
 
@Susan yes I think we should just do that every now and again
 
 
2 hours later…
4:05 PM
@Tau OK thanks.
 
4:17 PM
@Sarah I'm not sure, that's why I asked. By the looks of it, you got a great answer and since no one has VTC'd, it seems on topic to me :)
2
 
@majnemɪzdæn Hi, how have you been? By the way, how are you in the PhD?
 
4:46 PM
I was not able to discern from your inquiry if you were considering answering/tweeking/vtc. I did not realize the papri spoken of were non-Biblical when I posted the question.
I wanted to ask what variances there are in the name of God between extant Hebrew manuscripts. But, I realized it was too broad and not based in a particular passage. I knew I was pushing it with the question I asked, squeezing through the back door by including a relevant/core text. That is why I came in to see if the Q was OK.
 
 
3 hours later…
7:38 PM
-1
Q: Is Paul saying that Jews will be saved in Romans 4:15?

Zenon So the promise is received by faith. It is given as a free gift. And we are all certain to receive it, whether or not we live according to the law of Moses, if we have faith like Abraham's. For Abraham is the father of all who believe. Romans 4:16 NLT Does this passage in particular ...

▲ Is this question off-topic?
 
Tau
8:36 PM
@PaulVargas My days of 'secret missions' have been long since passed; but I did stand in the same spot about the same time when Tom Cruise said, "...I could tell you, but then I would have to shoot you..." ;>)
 
9:24 PM
@PaulVargas looks fine to me, what do you think?
I mean it's basically a non sequitur (there's another word for this that escapes me right now)
(ie 'Abrahamic faiths' means something today that Paul probably wouldn't have had an awareness of)
 
10:01 PM
@JackDouglas That question jumped to the review queue. Someone put a flag as off-topic.
 

« first day (1156 days earlier)      last day (1940 days later) »