@Caleb, are you able to take @John Martin 's Q&A out of community wicki?

hello!

@Amaterasu hello.

@Amaterasu I read you post, so sorry you felt bombarded. Well, I'm heading out. Sorry I did not get to chat with you. Maybe another time. I still am interested in hearing the rest of your story.

no worries :)

@Sarah Done.

@MarkEdward the mobile app has a lot to answer for :)

@Amaterasu hurray :)

(and thank you )

and thank you to @JonEricson for hearing me out as well

@JonEricson Thank you Jon!

Just saw this, and it reminded me of the meme meta:

Thought it would make a nice addition to the Library's furnishings... :)

@Davïd that'd be good as another one on meta :)

@Davïd I'd like to gold-plate that comment and hang it on my wall

It really sums up what I like about the site too

@Davïd awesome

@sarah you here?

@Daи Here, but on my way out in about 20 minutes.

@Sarah no prob, discussing this:

the title is still problematic due to first person language

but really this needs to pick one or the other verse

or justify how Romans has anything to do with Psalms, or vice versa

@Daи fixed

the reality is that what the OP is looking for isn't a good fit here

the OP can ask about the meaning of Romans, then another question about the meaning of psalms

and then the theological question can be asked elsewhere

I'm not sure it will work here

the OP is asking something about the text that the text doesn't say about itself, showing that the question does not arise from the text

@Daи got it. Given the present state of the question after my latest edits, could we see if it will fly. I was not aware that apparent contradiction between two separate passages was off topic. I think it presses folks toward the point of the site which is to begin with the text and let the text lead.

the OP is bringing a theological framework of 'original sin' and is asking when people are sinners, at birth or later in life? This is a theological question

they are using the text as a prooftext for the theological question, but still primarily theological

@Sarah it's not a contradiction

that's the issue

it's a theological question about what the OP is trying to make into two texts speaking about the same thing, but they may not be

@Daи I understand, but that is not all that was in her question. Her theological premise lead her to two passages which seem to her to be contradictory. May our forum not help her begin with the text to discover what the text itself means and then realize that there is no contradiction.

@Sarah if the OP found that earlier in Romans chapter 2 Paul said something to the effect that people are sinful from birth, that would be a contradiction

but the OP needs to defend why they quote Psalms to begin with in this instance

@Sarah sure, but one of the texts, putting them together requires work to be shown, and when you remove one of the texts, there is no longer a question in this case

I'm just trying to help you see that I doubt this one will be salvageable unless the OP asks a whole new question pretty much

which we can't do for him/her as we would be changing his/her voice/intent

"This may include an extra explanation when later texts are applied to earlier texts" (source)

@Sarah the issue is just that, she begins with her theological premise, not with the text

@Daи Is it possible to see if the edit flies with the present edit, especially in view of the fact that there is already someone attempting an answer beginning with the text.

@Daи PS. I understand and I hear you.

@Sarah I'm not going to delete it or anything, but it is still off topic

@Sarah I am all for you offering to fix it, but I just wanted to make sure you understand that this one is going to require the OP to make an edit and change things to be salvageable

we can only do so much before we begin to disrespect the OP's intent and voice

or the OP telling you it is OK to change it for him/her

either way though, I honestly don't see this flying here because of the nature of the question. It is a much better fit for C.SE

And I'm not alone in this one:

@Daи Of course. I was hoping the present would lead to an answer for her. And it would teach her to begin with the context. I am for encouraging the OP to divide this into two questions and perhaps she/he will see themselves how they do not contradict.

@Sarah two questions would be good, but they still need to begin from the text, and I'm pretty sure that won't help the OP in this case. I think this is a good example of a question that would really benefit from being asked at C.SE

@Sarah I was considering migrating it, but since you have done edits, I wanted to talk to you first. Because I would roll back to the OP's original before migrating

@Daи OK, I only tried to turn it around for here as @Caleb was uncertain if it would fly on C-SE and someone proposed an answer in an edit in hopes to reopen it.

@Daи OH sure!!! No problem!!!

@Sarah there are no complaints from me for trying to help out - I appreciate it

@Daи Great thanks! Got a go! Blessings!

@Sarah I just didn't want to do it without talking to you first because I felt it would be polite to let you know why I wanted to roll it back. You did nothing wrong

I just didn't want you to think that I was rolling your edits back because they were bad or anything

@Daи You are kind and thoughtful. Thank you.

@Sarah ok cool, I am gonna do that then and see how it goes.

@Daи ;)

@Sarah the user will have to specify a perspective they want to hear from on C.SE for it to fly, but I think that is a lot easier edit than what it will take to fly here

@Sarah God bless, have a great day :)