« first day (2 days earlier)      last day (3702 days later) » 

Ray
2:30 AM
@jed and @jrdioko, I do like the idea of holding off until public beta, to give more people a chance to jump in. Even if their answers aren't better than the ones already provided, people become more attached to things they contribute to.
@Caleb, I left a comment on your meta question.. is that what you had in mind?
 
 
1 hour later…
Ray
3:31 AM
How are folks going about answering these questions? I would think just about every exegesis question deserves referring to a commentary; in some cases it seems like people aren't even Googling stuff first, really just making up whatever sounds right.
Please folks, it's not a contest to post the most answers. I'd rather see quality material.
 
Jed
3:45 AM
@Ray My go-to is e-sword where I search key words for passages that I think are relevant to the topic and, then, make an attempt to put it all together.
 
 
5 hours later…
8:30 AM
@Caleb, hi, I found your comment on this answer on C.SE that you may be working on a userscript. I'm willing to contribute if you still think it is a good idea
 
 
6 hours later…
2:35 PM
1
Q: Is Keller's view of the father in the Prodigal Son parable a reasonable interpretation?

hawkeyeIn Tim Keller's book "The Prodigal God", Keller points out a fairly incredible dichotomy between older and younger brothers - and the parallels between these categories and our society. In the final part of the book - he extends this to the father - and says the father is reckless like the young...

Is it possible to have an answer to this question that is not doctrine?
I started writing one and found that what I was writing was turning into a post about doctrine. Furthermore, while the question says "Is this a reasonable interpretation?" I suspect that it should really be worded "Is this sound doctrine?"
Am I off base here?
I think I made up my mind: VtC
 
Ray
2:59 PM
@Richard, have you read his work?
It's really not doctrinal at all
Really just an expositional commentary on the parable
 
@Ray Aah. You should post a comment in there about that. It just sounds doctrinal by the way it's worded. (Maybe some edit-love could help the question avoid that.)
I've already edited it to make it sound less like a question about the book itself.
 
Ray
3:18 PM
I think hawkeye is working on a reputation for bordeline questions!
 
4:00 PM
:) He does ask good questions, but I think his interests lie right on that border.
 
4:12 PM
Hi folks!
 
Ami
Hi Rebecca
 
@RebeccaChernoff Hey there!
 
I'm hoping y'all can help me out. (:
 
Welcome to our humble chat.
 
Ray
What can we do for you?
 
4:14 PM
Each site in our network has a twitter account, (see @StackBicycles for example)
 
Alright...
 
I'm working on creating the one for this site, but Twitter's max length restriction is causing me grief.
 
Ray
StackBiblicalHermeneutics is too long, eh?
 
@RebeccaChernoff Max length on the name?
 
all of our accounts start with "Stack" and then we have 10 characters to work with.
StackHermeneuti |:
@Richard yes
 
4:16 PM
SEHermeneutics?
@Richard I know that would break the pattern.
 
Ray
One things that's there's been a lot of discussion about is that the site is shaping up to be more about Exegesis than Hermeneutics
 
yeah we'd rather not break pattern
 
Ray
Though both seem to be on-topic, hermeneutics is actually the minority (~30% as of yesterday) of questions; the rest being exegetical
so, if that is the direction this is going, does it make sense to be StackExegesis?
 
Ami
how about StackBiblical?
 
I'm torn on this.
I just like the name "hermeneutics" better than "exegesis".
 
Ami
4:19 PM
Biblical keeps the "Biblical Hermeneutics" connotation
 
Ray
@Ami StackBible?
 
Ami
and leaves open the exegesis ambiguity
 
I'd prefer we avoid "StackBible" because SE is avoiding the "bible" URL.
 
@Ray not so much a fan of this one
 
Ray
True.. exegesis is not strictly biblical exegesis... I sometimes hear people speak of cultural exegesis
 
4:20 PM
I personally like StackBH. There are other examples of this.
 
Ami
CS for one
 
Ray
Ah, great point
 
but it isn't @StackCS, it is @StackCSTheory, that makes it less cryptic
 
Ray
+1 for StackBH
 
Right. The downside is that "BH" isn't a common acronym, compared to "DBA", "CS", etc.
"UX", "GIS", "DIY"...
 
4:21 PM
bounty hunter?
beverly hills?
behavioral health
 
Ami
StackHrmntcs
 
Right. I think "BH" seems to be and acronym that is specific to the stack exchange network (granted, I could be wrong).
 
lol, @StackButtHead
 
Ray
SQA doesn't mean anything to me either... I see that is software QA
 
4:23 PM
Still... I prefer StackBH over StackExegesis.
Right. "SQA" is a good example of using an uncommon acronym. So there is a precedence
 
Ray
@RebeccaChernoff Not sure if that is representative of our community ;)
 
haha I wasn't saying that, on the acronym page I linked to it lists Butt Head. q:
 
So, given that StackSQA exists, I still vote for StackBH.
at least it's not "BM"
 
Ray
@RebeccaChernoff Just teasing
Yeah I'm with @Richard
 
Ami
Maybe we should send the guys at twitter a letter
 
Ray
4:25 PM
@Richard Although maybe we should change the site to "Bible Masters" just to make that one work..
 
Ami
asking to extend their char limit
 
the limit totally sucks
Theoretical Physics was tough too
 
Ray
@Ami But we'd have to keep the under 140 characters
*the letter
 
@Ray That'd be a pretty strong slam against both C.SE and J.SE.
@Ray LOL
@Ami I doubt they'd completely modify their architecture for us.
@Ray Oh I get it. (little slow this morning... cutting down on coffee)
 
Ray
@Richard </attemptAtHumor>
 
4:28 PM
@RebeccaChernoff Did you go with StackPhysics? (That'd be a hard sell, I would think.)
 
no, because there's also the Physics site, heh
 
Ami
so what did you do?
 
@StackTheoPhys, The Stack Exchange network
14 tweets, 0 followers, following 0 users
 
Ooh. TheoPhys. LOL Yeah, that's better than StackTP Nice!
 
Ami
StackBibHerm
 
4:30 PM
I love the little "TP" icon. That's great..
 
Ami
StackBibHermen
doesn't have the same ring to it
 
they suggested tp.stackexchange.com. I'd never be able to stop calling it the toilet paper site. q:
 
Ray
It's no worse than TheoPhys
 
@Ami The problem was that "TP" is a very common reference to "toilet paper", so they had to avoid the acronym.
 
Ray
@RebeccaChernoff Save that one for PlumbingEmeregencies.SE
 
4:32 PM
Hey @Soldarnal! We're discussing our twitter account.
So... All in favor of StackBH? And all opposed?
 
someone suggested @StackHerm to me yesterday, but I totally read it as @StackHermit, heh.
 
When trying to shorten it, I kept getting stuck on the idea of StackHermes... we'd get a few mythology followers, I would suspect.
 
Ray
@RebeccaChernoff I would strongly advice against a reference to hermeneutics without specifying Biblical somewhere in there.. hermeneutics is a huge academic field relating to communication and intrepretation of any text
StackBibHermen isn't the worst... StackBH still is the best I see
 
So if Ray is with me going for StackBH, it seems we have a quorum. ;)
I wish we had onebox for badges: [badge:quorum]
 
@StackBibleHerm maybe?
 
Ray
4:37 PM
@RebeccaChernoff At least you can see pretty easily that it's about the Bible
 
@RebeccaChernoff personally, I prefer StackBH, myself. We seem to refer to ourselves a lot as "BH.SE" (plus it's thrown around in TL a lot)
@Ray That is true.
But now that I think about it, StackBibleHerm isn't terrible. Is that over the character limit?
 
BibleHerm = 9, we've got 10.
 
Sweet.
 
I'm thinking BibleHerm is the best option I've seen so far if Bible is out.
 
@Soldarnal Sounds good. Is anyone opposed to this?
 
Ray
4:38 PM
I'd be happy with BibleHerm
Thanks @RebeccaChernoff
 
@Ami Sound good to you?
 
Ami
yes
 
Sweet! Five people agree with it (Good enough to close/reopen a question, so it must be good enough to decide on a name)! ;)
 
4:58 PM
@StackBibleHerm, The Stack Exchange network
0 tweets, 0 followers, following 0 users
it won't start tweeting until y'all are public beta though, but it exists (:
 
5:52 PM
@RebeccaChernoff awesome! Many thanks! : )
 
 
2 hours later…
7:25 PM
chirp, chirp
 
 
2 hours later…
9:22 PM
chirp, chirp
 

« first day (2 days earlier)      last day (3702 days later) »