@JonEricson - Many thanks for the close samples. I cloned & tweaked for easier consultation: is it acceptable to link in the meta discussion to this version?
I like the direction the edit took. I see at least two deficiencies still. (1) It should include a 3rd category relating to the "development" of the text (questions about authorship, transmission, preservation, text-criticism, etc., that relate directly to the physical texts we have), as they are on topic. (2) The word "interpretation" definitely needs a link to a meta post to clarify what we "mean" by it, not what it perhaps "means" to our visitors (who may hold that "interpretation" is referring to present day contextual application of the text; the 3-pronged test meta post would work). — ScottS1 min ago
^^^ For further thought on our close reason changes, I like the direction @Davïd is moving toward, with the meta post of his that @Dan linked to earlier in the comment trails.
@Davïd The problem with linking will be that these get deleted, and no one will be able to view the closed questions if their reputation is below 2000, so people need a warning about that if we do link to the listing.
I foresee unproductive arguments over whether questions like this are "focused on the interpretation of the biblical text" - the word 'interpretation' is too open to 'interpretation', and I don't think defining our own site-specific jargon will help either:
Can we define as a forum what it means to “apply the text”?
This is an interesting question and I'm going to suggest the answer is "No".
I'll explain my reasoning but first I'll list in general terms what I think we do have clearly defined and explain why I think what we have is superior t...
@Davïd Some of these questions could, in my opinion, have been made acceptable. For instance, this one, if the OP had at least given two specific verses to discuss in relation to his question about redemption in Scripture. Others, though, are by far more removed from being on topic.
My hope is that we'll stay accessible and not become elitist - and my concern is that 'big' words and theologically loaded terms become a barrier to entry and in the end reduce the value we offer
we shouldn't need to insist that new users read meta pages before they understand what they are allowed to ask here
we should be able to show by example and using plain English to keep the learning curve shallow
@JackDouglas I agree with the problematic side of the use of the term, hence why I felt at least we needed to define what we mean by "interpretation," which it seems to me if any terms need defining on this site, that one and "hermeneutics" are the two we should define, since we should know what we mean by them (and be able to let visitors know).
@JackDouglas Unfortunately, "plain English" became obscured long ago with post-modernism and the proliferation of language theories. All our discussions make it obvious that nothing is exactly "plain" to all of us.
3
I look forward to the day when believers will all be "like" Christ, such that communication is not hampered by sin, untruth, misunderstanding, etc.
Absolutely true but some language is still plainer and more widely understood than other language - people may debate whether a certain item of furniture is a chair or a stool, but there is a large pool of agreement where everyone will choose one or the other term. Words like 'doctrine' and even 'interpretation' are quite different I think (mostly from personal experience on this site!)
a case in point: all interpretation, all exegesis, indeed all answers on the site are really 'application'
in the sense I typically use the word
in that they suggest a change of thinking - otherwise what would be the point!
so they are application (to me) and more than that they are 'contemporary application'
this is why I'm loath to agree with anyone who says 'we dont want application on the site' (and many do), even though I'm voting to close the same questions they are
(1) Respect the text
(2) Start from the text
(3) Join your dots
^^^ not perfect, of course
but very easy to get the gist of what we want from those simple rules
and simultaneously (almost as a side-effect) prevents most of what we don't want - random musings, bizarre and untestable theories, stuff that isn't helpful to anyone never mind our average reader
Whatever 'rules' we have, the community will always have leeway interpreting them - they aren't and can't be a straight-jacket
@Davïd Could you tell me how you got that to render properly? Was it using the .md extension?
I don't see any problem with linking to those, though as @ScottS mentions, the list is less useful if the questions are deleted and you don't have the means to read them.
@Davïd If there are any deleted ones in particular that you want to discuss as examples I imagine we could temporarily un-delete. As long as they were deleted as a matter of routine by Community♦ (and not by the owner) I don't see a problem with that (unless you do, @Jon).
Although there aren't many <2k users involved in this discussion.
@JonEricson Thanks, Jon, and it was indeed the ".md" extension that did it. I've found markdown gists with gist.io, and now draft.sx, a very handy way of putting up one-page info "sites" (can even get a custom bit.ly link). Thanks again for fishing out the links.
@Susan I'd like to browse through them for some especially exemplary Q&As of various kinds, but not sure when I'll get the time. Maybe this evening -- we'll see. Perhaps we can liaise on whether an "undelete" is useful then. (Probably not, though, is my guess.)
Can we define as a forum what it means to “apply the text”?
This is an interesting question and I'm going to suggest the answer is "No".
I'll explain my reasoning but first I'll list in general terms what I think we do have clearly defined and explain why I think what we have is superior t...
The Library
The Library