« first day (1155 days earlier)      last day (1951 days later) » 

Tau
1:58 AM
@JackDouglas Forever stretching the boundaries of BHSE again, I see...;>) I posted my answer to your question in comment, it didn't seem 'cricket' to copy & paste it as an answer again, even though the question is due to be closed-unlike yours.
 
 
7 hours later…
8:41 AM
@Tau :)
I'm hoping we can get your answer migrated too...
@FrankLuke I'm looking forward to another epic answer!
 
 
7 hours later…
3:52 PM
@JackDouglas My question for the community would be why ask "the core question anew" rather than editing the original question to make it better? By doing as Jack has done, our "newbie" question by Bloch gets shut down (and he gets little reputation) because he did not quite follow what we want for format.
But the core of what he asked is essentially hi-jacked to another question by a regular contributor (no offense Jack; I like your contributions, but this seemed wrong to me, and not very inviting for newbies).
Thoughts? Is it wrong for me to consider this solution to the issue wrong? @Davïd @majnemɪzdæn @Susan @Tau @Soldarnal @PaulVargas @FrankLuke @anyoneElseWhoMightWantToComment
 
@ScottS I don't think it matters who gets the internet points, I certainly don't care, but it does matter that we are reasonably consistent about what is on-topic. "Can hermeneutics cast light on how this book overcame these barriers to admission to the canon?" isn't an intelligible so I'm not at all sorry that one was shut down. The original from back in 2011 asks the wrong question according to this on meta:
3
Q: Questions about canonicity

maj nem ɪz dænSomeone brought up a question that had been closed as being off topic (correctly, in my judgment) that had the canonicity tag. The canonicity tag wiki says: The study of how a text came to be placed in a Canon of Scripture. Questions about whether a text should be included in the canon are ...

basically, "Why is Revelation included..." needs to be "Why was Revelation included..."
My motivation in asking the question on Revelation was to see how the community would receive another clear question on canonicity (since 1-Enoch question was well-received and Soldarnal was asking "why one and not the other?")
yesterday, by Soldarnal
Can't figure out where we quite landed on the question of canonicity.
having said all that editing Bloch's question probably would have been the best option :)
OK, major edit on Bloch's question:
2
Q: What historical reasons resulted in Revelation being included in most Christian canons?

BlochAs a source, the book of Revelation is something of an outlier for a book of the Bible that got accepted into the canonical New Testament of most branches of Christianity: it is the only explicitly eschatological work in the New Testament, its date of composition is generally taken to be far late...

If we can get mine closed as a duplicate then mods can merge and bring Dick's answer across
And we can still benefit from Frank's upcoming epic contribution :)
@JackDouglas - Thank you for the edit. I do need to work on my undiplomatic tone... — Bloch 20 secs ago
You are welcome, credit is due to ScottS though as he brought this up in chat. It's good to have you active on the site. — Jack Douglas 25 secs ago
 
4:25 PM
@JackDouglas Thank you for giving me the opportunity to try my first merge. Have a look and see if I did it correctly.
 
thanks @Susan :)
@Susan looks great - I had just noticed...
 
@JackDouglas Sure thing!
 
@Susan do you get a badge for that?
@PaulVargas I expect it will be a lot of work getting it edited and formatted for here though, right @Frank?
 
@JackDouglas It's only impressive because of all the hype that MERGING IS IRREVERSIBLE. Despite that....no badge. :(
 
@Susan I think they are not given instantly. I think so.
 
4:32 PM
@PaulVargas I was joking (and thought Jack was too). Surely you can't get badges for mod-only actions? That would seem unfair. I'm pretty sure either of you could've managed that one. ;-)
 
4:42 PM
@JackDouglas Just got the deleted question merged into there for Richard's answer, too.
 
@Susan Did that merge as the "accepted" answer or did the OP of the later question just accept it?
 
@ScottS Oh, thanks for pointing that out - I think it must've merged that way. I can't change that, unfortunately. I'll drop a note to the OP asking him to un-accept it and decide for himself.
 
5:30 PM
@JackDouglas Enoch took a couple of hours. This one is about the same length. I'm putting this high priority but I don't see it happening today. Tonight, I might be able to start on it. I think my flash drive is going out because new files are getting corrupted. I haven't tried modifying old files on it. They open fine (and are backed up), but I'll just hold until I'm working from the new flash drive.
At work I'm rolling out a major update to a program today, and that needs to go flawlessly.
BTW, I found out you can do things with Oracle ApEx that you really shouldn't. For example, my pred was not allowed to use an existing CMS, so he wrote one in ApEx. I congratulate him for his cleverness. However, the required changes with the app this year were more than content. I had to be cleverer than I like in the reprogramming.
Clever programming never works out well in the long run.
 
 
2 hours later…
7:42 PM
@JackDouglas I think this was a good call. Some people like "internet points" more than others, but I have noticed that new people to SE sites tend to want them more, if for no other reason than to get some of the privileges that come with a moderate level of rep. Mainly, for me it was more about "clutter" (why have two questions essentially asking the same thing) and helping new contributors feel valued (even if there are bumps along the way to get them used to requirements).
 
 
1 hour later…
9:02 PM
Hey @Tau At first glance, I didn't realize it was you. :)
You changed your name, picture and profile.
 
Tau
9:30 PM
@ScottS I agree with you on this one, Scott. Every effort should be made to help "newbies" who are eager to participate to adjust to our directives-even 's t r e t c h i n g' a little to help them. I think your query had the desired effect, and it appears this all worked out. Credit you for your 'indignation' and Jack for his relentlessly pioneering to enable a good outcome(and Susan for her key-punching..;)
@PaulVargas Yes, I thought you were aware. I've dropped some of the "cloak and dagger" and have allowed bits of my identity to emerge. There are certain things I can't tell you(while you're alive), but I can divulge a few previously classified items..;>)
 
@ScottS yes, thanks for bringing this up in here - with hindsight I had single issue tunnel vision and should have thought about the personal angle too, I'm grateful now to have had the chance to get it sorted out the right way.
@FrankLuke never a truer word
 
 
1 hour later…
10:42 PM
@Tau Okay ... are you on some secret mission now?
 
0
Q: The name of God in ancient manuscripts

SarahI came across the following from an unofficial/unverified source: Yahu An alternative spelling and pronunciation of Yahweh, found (spelled YHW) on a circa 800 B.C.E. ostracon from Kuntillet Ajrud and (spelled YHW and YHH) in the documents written by Aramaic-speaking fifth-century B.C.E....

^^ is this searching for a text?
I'm not sure, I'd like to have some other input
 

« first day (1155 days earlier)      last day (1951 days later) »