2:18 AM
11 hours later…
1:28 PM
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). — ScottS 1 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:
@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
1:48 PM
@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).
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'
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
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
1 hour later…
3:24 PM
3:59 PM
« first day (1317 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3279 days later) »
Transcript for
May13
May '1514
May15
The Library
General discussion for hermeneutics.stackexchange.com