« first day (1565 days earlier)      last day (2146 days later) » 

Tau
4:21 AM
@Davïd ScottS's question doesn't revolve around a specifically Hermeneutical Approach to NT(although we accept those here, and I can cite numerous examples). He is asking about a framework which applies to BOTH OT and NT, and in fact I quoted him a source in which the author applied his hermeneutic to the OT(not the NT). So if this question can't be discussed here, then where? It is "On Hermeneutic/On Topic".
 
Tau
4:31 AM
@ALL What I believe folks are having a difficult time with is 'wrapping your heads around' this question. My initial comment was "....there are many moving parts to this question" and I still agree. Scriptural Inerrancy, Canonocity, Textual Criticism and it's methodologies, Divine Preservation, to mention a few all play a role in answering it. My 1st attempt was with a 'fungo bat', which I deleted, as I believe this question deserves a more scholarly approach.
@ALL (con't) At it's roots is the fundamental question of Biblical Hermeneutics, and how we treat the text. We are not discussing the hermeneutics of Shakespeare or Chaucer, we are discussing the Bible, and how we regard the text has every bearing on how we interpret it. Let ScottS have his question, and let those who have an interest in the topic answer it. :)
 
 
5 hours later…
10:06 AM
@Davïd It isn't too hard to demonstrate that even within publishers and commentary series this one is inconsistent, regardless of then/now. (Ran across some thoughts on Ruth 3:16 while I was at it.) Is the problem unique to this word (presumably due to ʾatti)? At some point I was going to ask if non-bgdkpt letters could be in that spot, definitively doubled, but now I wonder if there are any other examples.
 
 
6 hours later…
3:42 PM
Re:
0
Q: Adam's first wife is Lilith

Maurious PaulI've recently watched a documentary about Adam's first wife. In that they referred to Alphabet of Ben Sirah(Genesis according to Ben Sirah) according to which God initially raised both Man(Adam) and Woman(Lilith) from clay at the same time. And there was no restrictions by to eat from the knowled...

@Davïd @Blessed Geek
This user is asking about an Apocrypal work, Ecclesiasticus. We decided that questions regarding Apocrypha are allowed.
26
Q: What texts are open for examination?

CalebI assume the baseline here is interpretation of and principles behind understanding the 66 book Protestant canon. What about the extra 7 Deuterocanonical books used by Catholics? What about the extra 12 used by the Eastern Orthodox church? What about other ancient Jewish literature considered o...

This text is even listed in one of the answers provided in the above.
 
4:00 PM
I guess it's not Ecclesiasticus, but related. Still - if Apocrypha are on-topic, then they are on-topic.
 
4:11 PM
@JamesShewey "Apocrypha" with a capital "A" is a closed set, in which I don't think "Alphabet..." is included.
Or if you prefer Dan's words:
> Note that the use of the term Apocrypha as a proper title is defined on this site as referring specifically (and exclusively) to the following listed texts (and the word should always be capitalized when used in this manner on this site). It is known that other works such as the Gnostic gospels are commonly referred to as "apocryphal" texts, but as per our site standards only the below-listed texts constitute the Apocrypha.
 
Fair enough. Part of the problem was that I was conflating this with Ecclesiasticus, but as I did some reading, I realized this was a separate work.
I assume what is meant by capital "A" Apocrypha is "Deuterocanonical"
 
@JamesShewey I don't think most Protestants would consider any of them any sort of canonical, but yes, various subsets of them are considered deuterocanonical by various groups.
 
 
5 hours later…
9:00 PM
@JamesShewey Correct - it is most definitely "off-topic". It's also worth noting that it's not good practice to answer off-topic qustions. I was already twitchy about supplying the Wikipedia link, but that at least conclusively showed the Q was not a good one, and that OP could have basically answered it by doing a teensy web search.
My own sense is that it would be worth deleting the answer -- otherwise the signal is that off-topic questions are welcome: Blessed Geek rightly draws exactly this conclusion.....
 

« first day (1565 days earlier)      last day (2146 days later) »