« first day (793 days earlier)      last day (3582 days later) » 

1:32 AM
@Dan-I don't want to 'crawl' through all this again, but since my question was mis-represented, and somehow folks just don't 'get' what I was attempting to post, I will take tiny little baby steps to explain what I mean. GIVEN:(As in given in proving a theorum-one can consult any number of math books to understand what 'given' means) = God's Everlasting Covenant with Abraham's decendants. I DID NOT ask "Is Israel Abraham's decendant"; such a question is insulting (cont.)
1:44 AM
@Dan-(Cont.) and slaps the face of anyone who has ever opened the Bible. Even Covenant Theology 'agrees' that Israel, and the Nation of Israel(before 70AD) was Abraham's 'seed'/decendant. So Please, quit making the inference that the question was about whether or not Israel was Abraham's seed. I could have chosen Ps.105:8-10 which plainly, clearly, in context state that fact God's Covenant w/ Abraham extended to Isaac, and Jacob, and consequently ISRAEL as a nation. I chose Gen. 17:7(con't.)
hey finally caught you in here at same time :)
thanks for spelling it out
I still think the existing question answers the main textual question
I guess what I'm trying to understand (sincerely) is that aside from the meaning of 'olam' what is your question?
If it is "Does God make an Everlasting Covenant to Israel(Abraham's decendants) through this verse?" - then I still think the other question answers the question based on the meaning of 'olam' (even if not directly)
But, I think there is still room to ask your question if you think the other does not answer - I'm just not understanding how (I can vote to reopen the question, which is why I am trying to understand)
But based on what you've been saying, it seems you already know the answer to your question (why ask it) and are only looking for one answer.
But again, I may be misunderstanding you
@Dan(con't.) because that was where the Covenant was made. TO PROVE: THIS was my question: Was in fact this an "Everlasting Covenant"? To answer this question correctly, one must 1st explain the meaning of "everlasting", and then explain if this "everlasting' applies to Israel. The answerer explained the meaning of everlasting, but FAILED TO EXPLAIN whether or not this "everlasting" applied to Israel.
@user2479 if this everlasting applied to Israel in the context of a specific passage is on topic
if it applies to Israel (today) is not
@Dan-I learned typing on my grandmother's Smith Corolla- I'll finish my response and then I'll chat...
may I attempt to edit the question (if you dislike it, you may roll back the edit) to illustrate this?
1:53 AM
@Dan-Please let me finish...
@user2479 ahh yes the good 'ol Smith Corona's, very good. I will let you finish :)
@Dan(con't) So the process is 1) We establish the meaning of the word(text), 2) We establish if that meaning can be applied to the text. Then-I got hijacked. Because although the respondant 'translated' the meaning of the word(to myself and other's satisfaction), he FAILED to establish that meaning in the text; and 'hinted' at another possible explanation.
@Dan-That's when the referee's stepped in and said,"Wait a minute, this is a duplicate question", and removed it. No , it isn't. I was asking Interpretation AND Context-I can buy a dictionary or look on line for simple interpretation. There, I'm finished.
2:15 AM
sorry, I stepped away for a minute (I didn't know how much more you had to write)
@user2479 I agree that there was a misunderstanding - part of that misunderstanding occurred when you brought the New Testament into play for a Hebrew Bible question - which is not off limits here, but you need to 'show your work' to do so
@Dan-I'm still here...
By doing so, you exclude Jewish perspectives that don't believe the NT has any bearing on the Hebrew Bible
so we are sensitive to ensure those perspectives are welcomed
that doesn't mean one cannot bring the NT into play, it just requires more than just citing it in many cases if the main question is actually about the Hebrew Bible text
(you'll also notice we try not to refer to it as the 'Old Testament' as this carries the connotation that it is outdated or superceded
but that is not a requirement to use that term, it's just preferred
also please do note that in our chat, I am merely one community member expressing his opinion, and not everyone here agrees
and that's OK
@Dan-I was attempting to stay 'within' the OT; Jack wouldn't permit the question without more 'context'.
@user2479 may I propose an edit? You can roll it back (or I will) if you are not satisfied with it
@Dan-That was one of my 'tweaks', to allow the quesation to procede.
Go ahead
@Dan-Imagine yourself driving your car backwards during road contruction and you'll know how fast I type...
2:26 AM
@user2479 haha not a problem
@user2479 I actually think there are three questions buried in here
three good questions
@Dan-Say on..
still typing, one minute....
although I think one of the questions could be made into one and asked on Christianity.SE rather than here - which may give you a better answer you are looking for
OK so here is my recommendation
Review this:
Q: Everlasting Covenant in Genesis 17:7?

user2479In Genesis 17:7 (KJV), God told Abraham, "I will establish My covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." My question is, how would early readers have understood God's promi...

I know it is not the full question - bare with me
That's how it works here
This way you get an answer just about the use of 'olam' in this passage
Then to connect the dots, you ask some additional questions, but not here. I have written it up so it can be asked at Christianity.SE
I will even post the question for you if you want me to
But first may I post it here to make sure I understand correctly?
Unfortunately, asking whether the covenant was made with Israel as defined in the Hebrew Bible or whether it was redefined in the NT is off topic here
But it is not off topic at C.SE
but first, let me know if this will be acceptable as a starting point - I know it is not your whole question
It is just one step in answering your question
2:41 AM
the way I rewrote it makes this question distinct from the 'duplicate' question
Rather than asking about the general meaning of the word, you are looking for its meaning in this specific context
Are you aware that Stack Exchange is an entire network of sites, and there is a site dedicated to questions and answers exclusively from a Christian perspective? You can even specify which Christian perspective you want to hear from.
This particular site is dedicated to studying the Bible as a collection of texts without doctrinal/religious speculation or application
I'll stop typing so you can let me know if you're following
@Dan-Why isn't understanding "covenant" and it's usage in the Bible "off limits"? If we bring a discernable Hermeneutic...sorry, I gotta go-duty calls...
it's not - but there is already another question that asks that, so we don't want a duplicate
Imagine SE (Stack Exchange) sites working like this:
To illustrate how this works, let's use an abstract concept: pretend this was a site dedicated to working on cars. The site seeks expert mechanics to question and answer
The question you may have when you come to the site is "My car is making a noise. How do I fix it?"
But this would be closed as too broad
But you could ask these separate questions:
- What components make a whining noise in the front right of a 1999 Ford Windstar?
Based on the answer(s) to that question, you might then ask:
- What symptoms will exist for a faulty AC pump?
Once you have determined the AC pump is the issue (which may take several questions about other possible faulty parts to narrow down), you could then ask:
- How do I replace an AC pump in a 1999 Ford Windstar?
But based on the site guidelines, that may be too broad as well - since the site targets expert answers
Perhaps that question is too basic (reference question) and those asking are expected to know how to do that already
In which case you may need to teach yourself as best you can to change an AC pump on YouTube and then only ask specific questions you are having about actual problems you face in the process, such as:
- Here is a picture of a screw I cannot seem to reach. What tools or methodologies will help me reach this screw on my AC pump - or is there a better way to change this part?
You can see that you came to the site with a big overarching question, but had to narrow it down and ask multiple questions to get where you wanted to go
All SE sites are like this
This becomes even trickier, to continue my example, if there was one site for Vehicle Repairs, and another for Vehicle Racing
Perhaps you want to make your car faster
You may be told to replace certain parts at the vehicle racing site, but you will have to ask about how to do that at the vehicle repair site
So to answer your question, you have to ask at two sites
And you may still only get closer to the right answer and have to synthesize the answers to your various questions to arrive at 'truth'
But our goal is not truth here - and that's important to note
We are a postmodern, pluralist environment
The community is free to vote for any questions and answers they like, and the person asking the question is free to mark any as the accepted answer he or she likes
So you may find five good answers to a question, but you disagree with all of them and consider them all to be false
But by site standards, they may be upvoted as good answers if they 'show their work' and work from the text
So for instance, you could get a scholarly response to your question that makes the case that the nation of Israel ceased to exist due to intermarriage with the Egyptians and came to correspond with a people group archaeologists refer to as the 'Hyksos', so there is no longer a people group of pure blood that the promise in the text could correspond to.
They would have to cite many good reliable sources to make this case, but hypothetically they could and it would be a good answer by site standards. But you may vehemently disagree with the answer and choose not to accept it. You are free to do so.
just so you know, I also asked this question on C.SE for you since you had to leave before I could get more feedback
Q: Was the Covenant made with the Church or does 'Everlasting' mean something other than 'eternal?'

DanI am posting this question on behalf of another user, and it corresponds to a related textual question. Galatians 3:16 (KJV) says, "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." This appear...

3:24 AM
@Dan-Questions that are appropriate for BH:Interpretation of a specific Bible passage
Hermeneutical approaches
Translation of Biblical texts
Historical context (with regards to a particular text)
@Dan-I left out source criticism since it wasn't part of my question.
@Dan-1) Interpretation of a specific Bible passage * 2) Translation of Biblical texts *, 3) HISTORICAL CONTEXT(in regards to a particular text) ***, 3) Hermeneutical approaches *( stands for complied with)
@Dan-At what point do you simply say, "I don't like this question-period." My question complied with every criteria established in the guidelines. My answer, had it been allowed, would have also complied w/same guidelines.
3:43 AM
@user2479 and again, my reason for voting to close your question was that it was a duplicate of an existing question.
I cannot speak to John's comments and those of others
But I do think you can break the question up to get an answer
But it might be easier to just ask the language question here and the rest at C.SE as I did for you
which, by the way, its being well received there
here, we don't mean the historical context of a religion in most cases, we mean how the original readers/hearers would have understood the text using history, archaeology, etc. to help us understand this
@Dan-I'm not asking a 'doctrinal' question-I'm asking a 'hermeneutical question; and yes, how the original 'reader(s)' would have understood the text figures very much into the response.
then I am likely misunderstanding the question
How did I do with the post at C.SE? I am curious to hear if it expresses your actual question? It is almost verbatim copied-and-pasted from what you wrote
because my understanding is that the language question you have has already been answered (hence the duplicate close reason) - and the underlying theological question can be asked at C.SE
@Dan-You talked about 'bias'. I'm not accusing you of such-but I see a great deal of bias in the answers currently receiving the majority of 'up' votes in BH. Do people know they are 'up' voting the bias-even though it's not being explained?
3:59 AM
@user2479 This is a symptom of a pluralistic system - and I completely agree with you
I am also not happy with the current site biases
But there is no such thing as a 'freedom from bias'
We are all biased
So my unhappiness with the current site bias is merely a wish for a bias I prefer
as is yours
that's the truth
But I'd like to see the site fall in line with mainline academia
There are many here who disagree
I currently believe there is a strong mainstream evangelical Protestant bias here
And I'd like to see a site that is truly welcoming to Christian, Jewish, atheist, and other perspectives who take seriously the process of examining the Biblical texts
And if you read meta (a place to discuss the site itself), I have made my opinion well known
FYI, someone offered an answer to your question at C.SE -- see christianity.stackexchange.com/a/23486/1304
But the beauty of SE is that your voice matters
You are free to disagree with me and anyone else here and have your voice heard on meta
And the community is free to upvote or downvote your perspective to show their support or disapproval
I recommend checking out these posts (I am about to onebox a bunch of stuff, if this is problematic, mods please cleanup and let me know for future reference):
Q: Is editing out theology the thrust of the site's new direction?

Jon EricsonRecently an answer was edited with only a revision history of "per http://meta.hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/777/208". The link is to the top-voted answer to What kind of site do we ultimately want to have? The revision replaced: This is the essence of sin. The mourning in the passage is ...

Q: Assumptions in Questions: 'Showing Your Work' Revisited

DanWhat assumptions can be brought to a text? When does work need to be shown when it comes to assumptions inherent in various hermeneutical approaches? I am primarily asking about questions. Feel free to comment on any options you agree with if you'd like to see such standards required for answer...

Q: What does "show your work" mean in the context of exegesis?

CalebAs a result of recent debate over whether certain answers would be considered acceptable on this site, we posed the question "What are we looking for in answers?". In my foray into the issue, I noted that of the two main classes of questions we field (questions about the field of hermeneutics and...

Q: Pseudo-neutrality & its enforcement

DanFrom the perspective of a postmodern/pluralist worldview, there is no such thing as 'pure' objectivity / true neutrality (nor objective truth, for that matter). In effect, all assertions of neutrality are biases/assumptions in and of themselves. I get this. But I also believe that allowing biases...

Q: What kind of site do we ultimately want to have?

Jon EricsonThere have been a lot of discussions on meta about different aspects of site direction, but none directly focused on the fundamental question: What kind of site do we want to have? What should our culture be? In particular, what style of answers are we looking for? This question is fundamentally...

Q: Studying the Bible vs. Bible Study

DanI've previously highlighted the distinction between Biblical Studies and Scriptural Studies, of which this is a postscript seeking community feedback on future direction. While there is a similar post seeking future direction, I wanted to frame this question a little differently and offer another...

And my magnum opus:
Which represents only my opinion:
Q: Site Viability and the Distinction Between Scriptural and Biblical Studies

DanMike recently posted an answer to another meta question that got me thinking about this distinction and the impact this has on BH.SE's viability (I'm beginning to wonder if ScottS was really onto something in this post). The reality is that the lines are still blurred - even in secular academia. ...

@Dan-The question you posted at CE was not my question: my question regarded Israel. Anyway, when I get to where my references are, I'll start responding to questions again.
Feel free to read any or none of these, but if you only read one, the last one I posted is the best summary of my position ;)
@user2479 sounds good
my apologies then, I apologize that I do not yet understand how your question is distinct from the existing questions
For now, do you want me to roll back my edit to your question to your last version and leave it closed, or leave it as I edited it and vote to reopen it as I have edited it?
@Dan- I have responded to the 'bias' issues as well as some of the other ones. I think Monica said it best"....if there is a will to." The problem with self policing is that all laws are made for everyone else-except me. Yes, there does need to be 'bias' acknowledgement; in academia either people 'know' your frame of reference, or you state it in your opening discussion.
@Dan-Not so, here. We have blatant 'bias'-which is fine, if it is part of your hermeneutical approach and stated as such-but it isn't.
@Dan-That's not my question-feel free to delete it. My original question(perhaps without the NT reference-I did that to 'appease' Jack,) is my question.
4:47 AM
@user2479 in which case, I believe the question is already sufficiently answered in the duplicate
@user2479 this is very true
Most academic papers begin by defining their hermeneutics
But this would be too time-consuming and laborious here
The key thing is that we are not a Christian site, nor Jewish
But there also is no such thing as a truly 'neutral' point of view
hereafter abbreviated as NPOV
please note that pseudo-neutrality is only my opinion, and is not widely received here
although my argument is that the site is actually doomed to having a bias, so we might as well pick one more in accord with top-tier scholarship (which happens to be liberal scholarship)
but again, this is tantamount to me saying, "I don't like the current bias. Let's use mine instead."
I recognize this, but I argue for it because it actually seems to be the direction I've seen many bright minds go in
folks who contribute here
But again, it is my opinion, not site policy
Q: A look at BH.SE's moderation team

Jas 3.1Let me first say that I have no specific complaints with any of the moderators, and this is not in any way a criticism of any particular user. However, I believe we have a problem on BH.SE, and here it is, as I see it: I know of one active moderator on the site To my knowledge, there is virtua...

5:27 AM
@user2479 I found a quote on C.SE that I think also applies here. I found it helpful for understanding how SE sites work in regards to this topic:
"We want to know how things are and have been - what they should be is your concern.
Imagine being observed by a bunch of professors who know the Bible, but don't necessarily believe it.
That is your audience- even if many of us are [adherents to a religion]. In seminary, "Truth" is often less important than how you arrive at it. That is not to say that Truth isn't important (indeed, those of us who are believers are very concerned about Truth in our lives!)- it just is secondary to scholarship in this context. We make the Internet a better place by bringing rigorous scholarship to bear on the real questions people have about the Bible"
5 hours later…
10:49 AM
@Dan-I don't 'buy' into the 'post-modern' idea that 'everything is relative', therefore the truth itself is subjective, based on an ever-changing, evolving frame of reference. I was taught that "good hermeneutics" was a means of arriving at objective truth, and a basis for 'rightly dividing the word of truth.
6 hours later…
4:35 PM
@user2479 I'm not sure anyone actually buys 'post-modernism' entirely: from my understanding of the philosophy it isn't actually possible to wholeheartedly hold to it without contradicting yourself.
Of course the term isn't precisely defined but I hope you know what I mean!
Good morning...or I should say good afternoon, Jack.
As I look at the recent library conversations, I'm learning quite a bit regarding how to & how not to ask questions.
hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/7532/2873 I asked this question to gather others' answers.
At the same time, I have what I think might be a good answer to my own question.
Actually I'm not "fretting" about something being written 3 times, but for now I'll just old back from giving my own answer for others to consider.
Anyway, thanks for re-opening that since it had been closed.
4:59 PM
@JohnMartin You're doing great, thanks for persevering :)
And of course it's fine for you to post your own answer at any time:
Jeff Atwood on July 01, 2011

The FAQ has contained one key bit of advice from the very beginning:

It’s also perfectly fine to ask and answer your own question, as long as you pretend you’re on Jeopardy! — phrase it in the form of a question.

So …

if you have a question that you already know the answer to

if you’d like to document it in public so others (including yourself) can find it later

it is OK to ask, and answer, your own question on a relevant Stack Exchange site.

To be crystal clear, it is not merely OK to ask and answer your own question, it is explicitly encouraged. …

Joel Spolsky on May 21, 2012

Remember this old picture?

What’s that “Blog” circle supposed to be about, you ask? WHERE’S THE BLOGGING?

Since Stack Overflow launched, we’ve been trying to explain that it’s not just a Q&A platform: it’s also a place where you can publish things that you’ve learned: recipes, FAQs, HOWTOs, walkthroughs, and even bits of product documentation, as long you format it as a question and answer.

As Jeff wrote:

if you have a question that you already know the answer to …

both of these ^^^ are worth a read...
4 hours later…
8:50 PM
@JackDouglas exactly
@user2479 and the beauty is that yoiu don't have to in order to participate here - but it doesn't change how this site works
@JackDouglas yes, good reads indeed
A: A look at BH.SE's moderation team

Jon EricsonI'm in a little bit on an odd place to answer this, but having been on both sides of the process, I have some insight. First, when this site graduates, you'll have a chance to elect your own moderators from the people who step up. That means you'll be free to use whatever criteria you please to...

1 hour later…
9:57 PM
Q: 'Does [this passage] mean [what it says]?' Questions

DanWhat should we do about questions that subtly seek application beyond the text itself by asking about the meaning of something that has a plain meaning? For instance: Does Mark 11:26 mean that those who do not forgive others are not forgiven by God? I think the distinction between a textual ...

10:18 PM
I've never seen this before, what's the purpose of the restriction (doesn't bother me, I'm just curious)?

« first day (793 days earlier)      last day (3582 days later) »