The Library - 2013-04-05

« first day (548 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (4032 days later) »

12:00 AM

@MonicaCellio This is my best shot:

2

A: Upon whom do we call? Reconciling OT & NT

I'm currently reading Edmund P. Clowney's Preaching Christ in All of Scripture. In it he quotes C. H. Dodd: Wherever the term Kyrios, Lord, is applied to Jehovah in the OT, Paul seems to hold that it points forward to the coming revelation of God in the Lord Jesus Christ.—The Epistle of Paul...

@Caleb by "welcoming other viewpoints" do we mean "welcome anybody to write them, but if we give avoidable offense to them, well, that's your problem"? I don't think that's what we mean. I wouldn't have come here at all if I'd thought that was what I was signing up for.

@MonicaCellio Skeptics is actually the Wikipedia philosophy on SE in my experience. In some ways, it does a better job.

@MonicaCellio I think you're doing them a disservice if you think of Skeptics as a bogeyman. And yourself a disservice if you don't look at what they've done and think about how it could be applied here.

12:15 AM

I don't know if I'm really sleepy and hearing you wrong, but it sounds kind of like you are flailing.
We're working on this. Mods are going to respond to flags based on the community norms we can settle on meta. Those norms are a work in progress. Even your denied flag today accomplished a lot of clarity we were missing. I don't think going on about how "mods do nothing anyway" is going to get us there any quicker. Same for editing rules. "but we can't" -- we CAN if we settle on that being our course of action. Please be patient with this process -- take a deep breathe and read XKCD for goo…

FWIW: I think what Skeptics does would be much easier to implement here than what Wikipedia does.

@MonicaCellio I do think we can be a lot more generous with downvotes. Look at my voting record on C.SE if you don't believe me. That will help. But don't underestimate the distinction having just a couple downvotes has in saying "this isn't what we are after". Not everything needs to be voted into oblivion before letting it go.

@MonicaCellio I just filed my proposal. Please keep in mind that I did not read the other answers there yet, my reaction against NPOV was based on several comments here in chat.

0

A: What are we looking for in answers?

SE sites are primarily places for experts. Non experts are welcome in so far as they have an interest in becoming experts. Each site is scoped to a specific field of interest. Our field is Biblical Hermeneutics: the field of study covering textual criticism of the Biblical canon1, the understand...

@Caleb for being written at 3AM, I think this is the clearest answer there yet

12:34 AM

@Shog9 I hope its worth the paper it's (not) printed on. I see I am in good company, there are some other wordy entries.

I'm too tired to read straight though, so I'll pick this up again tomorrow. 'night all.

1:07 AM

> Answers will differ considerably based hermeneutical principles applied

You appear to be missing an on.

(Now someone tell me why I'm proofreading at 2 a.m.)

@Shog9 I meant that people here seemed to be doing the "ack, no, not Skeptics!" thing and I don't think anybody here has actually looked at it -- and I was saying that wasn't the basis of my proposal. I'll take a look based on your recommendation.

@Caleb I think you're sleepy. Thanks for writing your answer, which I will now go look at. Good night and see you tomorrow (I trust).

1:51 AM

@Caleb This wasn't wordy Caleb. It was sharp.

2:15 AM

@Caleb @JackDouglas, @FrankLuke, I agree with Caleb's statement, "SE sites are primarily places for experts." This is exactly why I prefer to place my thoughts in the comments right now. I mostly approach the questions with inductive Bible Study methods and basic linguistic tools (Strong's and Webster's Dictionary). This provides a refreshing step away from rehashed denominational doctrine. But it is elementary in the context of scholarly Hermeneutics.

Perhaps the sapling is a welcome addition to the scene of the giant redwood forest. But it is a very uncomfortable place for me as I feel unworthy, unproductive and . . . well . . . humble.

I prefer to observe, watch and learn, test my wings in the sidelines (comments) and let you tell me if you think something should be developed into an answer.

I love the direction Caleb proposes and that Shog9 is encouraging and think it would strengthen the site.

Meanwhile, I actually came in this morning to let you know that I would be ducking off the scene for a while to focus on other important areas of life. I just didn't want anyone to think something went wrong if you don't see me around. I appreciate the site and I am grateful for what the Lord has done in me through you. May YHWH bless you all and give you wisdom.

5 hours later…

7:14 AM

@Sarah Many thanks for letting us know so we don't get worried: I'm sure you are the wisest judge of how to spend your time, so in that sense I'm glad you are choosing to duck out for a while. otoh we'll miss you and be very pleased when you return! An aside: I highly appreciate your contribution to Monica's question: it really clearly communicates your ideas and is very persuasive.

3 hours later…

10:27 AM

I've made quite a major edit to my answer on @Monica's question: I don't think it has essentially changed much but if you voted for it you may wish to take another look in case you now disagree with it.

1 hour later…

11:27 AM

@TRiG because you care :)

2 hours later…

1:47 PM

@Sarah Blessings on you. Take care of the important things. The lights will be on when you come back.

2

2:39 PM

12

Q: What role does the Holy Spirit play in hermeneutics?

As Christians in the NT age of the Church it is understood that believers have an indwelling of the Holy Spirit who acts as a counselor and guide, enabling them to rightly understand God's word. How does the role of the Holy Spirit in understanding the Scriptures interact with hermeneutics as an ...

hermeneutical-approaches holy-spirit

is this more meta-y?

Can we put in a case for "remove" when the answer has such a high noise factor (i.e. has a -4) that it no longer fits the paradigm of "a severely downvoted answer serves as an example of what is not correct"? — swasheck 3 mins ago

@swasheck can you explain that a bit more, I can't parse it properly!

@JackDouglas maybe the problem isn't you and it is simply the fact that i'm woefully inarticulate at times :)

hey, look on the bright side, it could be both :)

@JackDouglas Shog mentioned yesterday that there are times when a poor answer should be removed because it's just that poor.

@JackDouglas i completely understand your perspective of "bad answers can be helpful" and i agree with it to an extent.

some, however, are such a "distraction" that it's hard to justify keeping them. i have no examples off the top of my head

@MonicaCellio you probably want to delete this comment now, I drastically shortened my answer and migrated most of the content over to your meta question.

2:48 PM

I think we should delete anything that is unsalvagable, eg one-liners, gobbledegook and so on

also I favour deletion (even deletion of the whole question on occasion) when all the answers are poor

if there is a contrasting good answer and the 'poor' answer isn't complete tosh, DVs are enough in my view (even just one or two)

@JackDouglas yeah I need to go back and wipe out some of my early answers or migrate them over to C.SE

@JackDouglas and those provisions are covered in your answer.

@JackDouglas in light of discovering the full name of this site is BH&E, I changed my meta post here

@DanO'Day can you wait until this is resolved: by my reckoning all your answers are welcome here. (it's up to you of course though!)

1

A: What are we looking for in answers?

A few points of consideration: As I've argued before, the worldview of this site is postmodern relativism. Perspectives here have "no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration."1 This may exclude some participants...

@JackDouglas I'm pretty sure early on when I started here I gave some purely doctrinal answers

@JackDouglas I can even recalls stating my hermeneutical principles in an answer, one of which was that all scripture points to Christ

2:53 PM

@DanO'Day ah, ok, even so I'd like us to get some sort of consensus before we rush into actually changing stuff!

@DanO'Day that's a positive in all the answers to Monica's question isn't it: part of showing your work?

@JackDouglas my fear is that once consensus is reached I will lose some of my responses, I want to back them up

(well, showing your logic)

@DanO'Day that won't happen

we'll work with authors

so what started this newest flare-up?

@JackDouglas I think it is OK if stated as a presupposition, even in my own stance, it just needs to be stated as opinion

@DanO'Day by your rules that would be necessary: I actually prefer folk to say things as fact if they believe them as fact

It helps me interpret their answer

2:55 PM

@JackDouglas so long as I say, "I believe that all scripture points to Christ and will be approaching this text from that perspective," that's OK. But if I just say, "All scripture points to Christ," Or "since all scripture points...," that's a no-no

3

@DanO'Day why?

@JackDouglas because this is not a Christian site

It includes Christian and other viewpoints

it doesn't exclude all except NPOV

(at least not yet)

@JackDouglas and if I were a non-Christian or even a professor of classics somewhere and read, "Since all scripture points to Christ, [add assertion here]", I'd probably move on

I think it needs to be part of the working through from text upwards to wherever you are going in some sense

@DanO'Day in isolation perhaps but in a discussion about Matthew 5:17, it is in context

and I don't want to mandate relativistic language

2:58 PM

i thought we were done with this

hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts/…

shoot ... wrong link. Ron's back and flaming people

@swasheck please flag that stuff if you think it deserves it :)

@JackDouglas Note that I do not fully advocate Wikipedia-style NPOV which pretty much requires authors to write from the passive voice (which is hard for many to understand), but my biggest beef is with the use of unreliable and unverifiable sources to make assertions of fact. Sources of questionable credibility need to be presented as the opinions of authors, not as the basis for factual assertions.

@JackDouglas Recent discussions of linguistic primacy in the NT come to mind....

@JackDouglas I'd say that the use of good sources is my main issue, more so than NPOV language

@JackDouglas anyone can create a website and spout off all sorts of nonsense about the bible

@JackDouglas and anyone can then cite that website

exactly: that is the flaw of insisting on sources

@DanO'Day THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS

@JackDouglas in fact, I could even compromise on NPOV if we made rules about the use of sources here

3:09 PM

personally I like to see sources, but I like to understand the logic of an answer even more

@JackDouglas @swasheck note that I am not saying every answer needs sources. I'm OK with 'showing your work' by merely explaining how you got from point A to B as well

@JackDouglas i shudder when i see crappy sources. i'd rather see good logic with no source than someone blindly following what some crappy source said

3

@JackDouglas but if sources are used, I think there needs to be some standards to set up apart from C.SE and Yahoo Answers

@DanO'Day :). you beat me too it

@swasheck YES

@JackDouglas I pretty much have gotten to the point where I DV crap sources or unsubstantiated claims.

3:12 PM

@DanO'Day @JackDouglas the honest truth is that when i end up answering here, it's typically based on my experience in school or some past research that i've done. so if i cite, i end up self-citing or citing some obscure greek grammar.

@DanO'Day unsubstantiated claims and unsolicited/misplaced theological "sunday school" answers are my pet peeves

@swasheck I also rely on things I've learned when I studied the languages, but I can show the reasoning in those cases

@swasheck the second set of bullet points in this answer show my idea on this. It is actually quite different from Wikipedia, since that seems to be everyone's fear

@DanO'Day the answer is "yes" and the justification is that i'm smarter than you :). is that what you're saying is your approach?

@DanO'Day hey - i've already upvoted that one :)

@swasheck no no, I mean that I can explain why I am translating an idiom a certain way, I'm not going to say, "because my teacher told me so." My teacher showed me 15 other places this is done in early literature, here are the references, now you can see why this is supported

@DanO'Day i know. sorry. it was a joke

@DanO'Day thanks for the heads-up!

3:19 PM

@DanO'Day I'm not sure that's officially the unofficial name, by the way. (I donvoted it.) But if it makes you feel better, I could accept that answer. ;)

@DanO'Day a "full name" that doesn't show up anywhere doesn't really seem to be a full name, does it? I mean, look at heading of any page on the site... so if we have an official name, what does that actually mean?

@JonEricson It's at the top of meta, so I thought that meant it is the offcial thing. I don't get this stuff yet. Who decided when something is a suggestion vs. something we actually carry out?

@MonicaCellio very true

@JonEricson @MonicaCellio edited

@DanO'Day I regret that i have but one star to give to this comment.

@MonicaCellio I wish I knew which comment, chat still gives me no way to see what is being replied to if it is farther up than I can see on my screen

@DanO'Day are you on a mobile?

3:27 PM

@JackDouglas no on a computer, it highlights stuff in gray on my screen, but when it is further up than I can scroll I can't find stuff being replied to. The gray goes away once I move my mouse to scroll up

@DanO'Day click on the little grey arrow on the left of the reply :)

@JackDouglas that give me option to reply, find permalink to that specific msg, star/flag it, no option to find msg it replied to

@DanO'Day the other arrow just to the right of that one!

@JackDouglas aha!!! I learned something new! Sweet!

33 mins ago, by Dan O'Day

@JackDouglas so long as I say, "I believe that all scripture points to Christ and will be approaching this text from that perspective," that's OK. But if I just say, "All scripture points to Christ," Or "since all scripture points...," that's a no-no

3:30 PM

@MonicaCellio I see now, also how do you cite chat like that?

@DanO'Day go to the post, use the drop-down menu on the left, and copy the URL for the permalink.

Then just post the permalink?

@DanO'Day yes

@DanO'Day yup. Chat will auto-format it, like for comments, posts, wikipedia pages, etc.

it works for a reply too (like Monica's) but if there is other text it'll just be a link, not 'boxed'

like so: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/8830959#8830959

3:32 PM

Since we're (almost) all talking about "show your work" in this meta discussion, I'd like to get more eyes on this formulation of the idea:

1

A: Should we require answers to cite sources?

I agree with Soldarnal and Jon but would like to spin it slightly differently. It's not about citing sources per se; it's about showing your work. Some sites have a "back it up" rule (not just Skeptics but also, for example, UX). We should have a "show your work" rule. Showing your work inclu...

(Eventually we're going to need to have a linkable explanation of the idea, which is why I bring this up. If this isn't it, what is? If this is but it's not what we mean, what needs to change? Focusing here on the definition, not the policy (rule vs. guideline).)

@Monica my preference would be for us to spend a while longer on your meta question before taking the next step.

@DanO'Day That's good to know. I'm starting to think "neutral" is my big problem with the NPOV suggestion. The fact is experts in our field are rarely neutral at all. Respectful, yes, neutral, no.

@JackDouglas I'm not talking about implementing that, but if we're all talking about "show your work", shouldn't we make sure we agree on what that means? It doesn't have to be on that post but we should do it somewhere more tractable than chat.

3:48 PM

@MonicaCellio As I mentioned in the comments, I think we really do agree on the basic shape of "show your work". The question before us now is should we enforce it.

@JonEricson or 'encourage' ;)

@JackDouglas Right. I don't see a lot of disagreement about what counts as a good answer and what's trash. But what do we do about the answers that don't show their work or don't use good sources? Is comment and downvote sufficient?

By the way, should the "what are good answers?" question be featured?

@MonicaCellio yes!

@JonEricson that was one of the discussions we were having when @Shog9 pointed out that we first needed to have the "what's good" discussion.

3:54 PM

@MonicaCellio Done.

@JackDouglas that's not an edit I can make, to be clear. :-)

@JonEricson thanks.

@JonEricson does Caleb's answer address this at all?

I think the question should perhaps be broadened to '…and what do we do to encourage them'

@JackDouglas I see we aren't all in agreement about his answer yet. ;)

:)

@MonicaCellio right... From the look of it so far, y'all are coming to some agreement on the "show your work" thing - so next you need to clearly state what that means (sources, logic based on your sources, etc.) and then you can start talking about what to do with answers that don't show how they arrive at their conclusions.

4:03 PM

@Shog9 ok, I've jumped the gun then :)

@JackDouglas I actually think the tithe question is a good case study. The top two answers more or less left application out. As you say, application is right near the surface, but the place to raise it up is on another site.

@JonEricson isn't "One might assume that all Christians are being referred to, but I believe this to be erroneous exegesis" application?

@Shog9 I'll happily delete my answer once swasheck has seen your comment to him…

@JackDouglas you don't need to delete it

Just don't let "what should be done" become a distraction just yet

@JackDouglas Nope. The question is "did Jesus intend the tithe for his followers". So this is the core of the answer. It tells us what the answerer thinks the passage means. It isn't saying whether or not Christians should tithe, just that Jesus wasn't extending the tithe to his followers.

Now if you accept the answer and you are a follower of Jesus, that might have some application for you. But only as a side-effect.

@Shog9 thanks for the feedback. i'm still pretty ignorant when it comes to the whole stackexchange tools and capabilities thing

4:12 PM

@JonEricson If 'application' is interpreted like that then I'm happy for it to be out of scope here: my worry was there would be those who drew the line very differently

@JackDouglas such as ...

@swasheck just to exclude the kind of answer on the tithe question

I may well be the only one with a fuzzy idea of what the word means :)

@JonEricson (reading now) The accepted answer has a lot of good info but doesn't seem to actually get around to answering the question, which was what Jesus taught. Paul and post-temple practice don't seem relevant to that (but are very relevant to Christians today).

@JackDouglas it's fine ... i'm just trying to get a sense of where you'd imagine "those who drew the line ... differently" to have drawn the line

tbh I'm not sure!

4:16 PM

@JackDouglas I am unclear on what you mean by it, hence my requests for clarification.

@JackDouglas ok, that's fine.

@MonicaCellio I would have thought the question was explicitly asking for what I would have called application, but I'm happy to be corrected!

@MonicaCellio It depends on how much information you think Paul had on the teaching of Jesus. Since his letters pre-date the gospels and he asserts agreement with Jesus' followers, there's an argument to be made that Paul's insight is very valuable.

I don't think it's productive to force people to make that argument each time they answer a question about Jesus using Paul as evidence.

@JonEricson that may well be, but the parts of Paul brought in this answer don't seem to be about that. The answer doesn't say "Paul says Jesus said" or even "Paul provides this contemporary context".

The top-voted answer, not the accepted one, is better. But it still has the problem of citing too many verses. ;)

4:21 PM

@JonEricson yeah, not trying to make the broader argument here; just saying that in this answer, this part of Paul doesn't seem to be relevant. (I have not voted in either direction.)

@JonEricson I up-voted that one (after the offensive passages were dealt with).

@MonicaCellio Good point. It strays from the text without really explaining why. Hmmm...

@MonicaCellio We agree on how to vote, it seems. ;)

@JonEricson right, that's all I was saying.

@JonEricson the other (top-voted) answer also strays from the question and, were I writing it, I would leave some of that stuff out. It's not egregious like the accepted answer.

@MonicaCellio I think the last answer is going too far down the application path. (And I suspect you do too.) What do others think?

@JonEricson It has +1 from me

it's the kind of thing I'd argue we allow: he works his way up to his conclusions

@JonEricson @MonicaCellio @JackDouglas which question?

4:29 PM

4

Q: Did Jesus endorse tithing for all when addressing the Pharisees?

Here's the text of Luke 11:42: “But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.” (ESV) And Matthew 23:23: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you t...

matthew jesus luke tithing

@JonEricson it got an upvote from me at the time (I disagree with him but he laid out a path), but I agree it's too far toward application and would rescind that vote if I could.

@JackDouglas If it were the only answer, it would make me uncomfortable. As it is, it has a do nothing from me.

@JonEricson Mike's?

@swasheck yes.

If HebrewHammer (I can't be bothered to type the name he uses) doesn't respond to my comment I intend to come back and downvote that answer.

@MonicaCellio Heh. That name bugs me too. See:

6

Q: tl;dr? omg that's just lazy and not "expert"

I am starting to see this more often then I think we should: Instant Message language and computer geek jargon that frankly the common person will just not get. Not only that problem, but it is just lazy on the poster's part and cheapens the experts feel we are going for, in my opinion. tl;dr. d...

I find it amusing that the C.SE meta-question about not using jargon comes from a fellow who has Fred Flintstone as his avatar.

(Not that I'm one to talk: "So you want to argue with a pair of cute babies?!?")

4:39 PM

@JonEricson heh. At least the Mi Yodeya jargon discussion was about, y'know, Jewish jargon. :-)

@JonEricson here at work you're just alt="Jon Ericson" to me, so I guess I can argue freely. :-)

@MonicaCellio Some whole questions over there are entirely impenetrable for me. But people are kind to translate when I ask.

@MonicaCellio Now I'm tempted to change my name...

@JonEricson we are trying to do better. We have blind spots. Please keep asking!

@MonicaCellio I think Christians on this site have an analogous problem.

10

Q: Should we have a jargon policy/guideline?

For mi.yodeya, I wrote up a jargon guideline (lightly adapted below) intended to make content on the site accessible to as many interested people as possible. It was not followed very closely on m.y, and I've had second thoughts about how far a site primarily for "experts/professionals" (as SE si...

discussion policy faq-content language

I like the way the policy is laid out and clear. Perhaps we need a similar guide for doctrinal presuppositions on this site.

(I like to steal good ideas from y'all. ;)

4:54 PM

@JonEricson Isaac did good work there. BTW, while it's far from perfect, complete, or as widely-used as it could be, we also have a glossary -- one entry per answer, to facilitate linking.

This could be a good answer but it needs to cool the invectives as @swasheck suggests.

@JonEricson I've been hoping that over time we'll accumulate posts explaining the various hermeneutic methods -- as main-site questions because that's on-topic. Maybe those could be collected into a meta post somewhere for easier reference. (This is in addition to your doctrinal-assumptions idea, I mean.)

@FrankLuke I agree, I upvoted it despite the tone but the tone is awful

@FrankLuke invective, yes. Not sure what weasel words @swasheck is referring to (but it was just a quick skim -- off to a class in a couple minutes).

@MonicaCellio That would be excellent.

5:04 PM

@JackDouglas I'm withholding my vote either way until it is cleaned up.

I've considered stealing his thinking and writing my own answer!

@JackDouglas Perfect. We need to do more fighting sub-par answers with great answers.

2

That's the model that I found to work when I was active on Philosophy.SE.

@MonicaCellio obviously, certainly, clearly, impeccable,

@JackDouglas I second Jon.

@JackDouglas. Your point about application is valid. For example, if the text says 'husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church' some sample applications of loving a wife based on high Christological doctrine would be just the right thing to open up the spirit of the text and provide the original mindset of the author. As the scripture puts weight on application some modern exegetical/critical commentaries obscure the meaning of scripture by forsaking it. I am guilty of this myself mostly because my sinful nature avoids the application. ;) — Mike 9 mins ago

@Jon ^^^^ FYI

5:59 PM

@Jon I agree up to a point, but from some texts the distance from the text to application is much shorter than others. "So, was Jesus implying that all his followers tithe?". Let's not allow application that isn't worked through starting from the text by all means. — Jack Douglas 3 hours ago

In the tithing question, the application is obvious. So obvious, in fact, that it doesn't need to be stated.

@FrankLuke done

I've undeleted this answer for you. It might benefit from some editing, however. For instance the Area 51 and meta-discussions you talk about probably should be linked to (if you can remember). — Jon Ericson 45 mins ago

@TRiG Yes. Exactly. (Well, assuming you understand what Jesus meant, that is.)

@JonEricson, thanks -- per the comment discussion I'm not sure it's legitimately an answer, but I wonder if it (and some associated comments) should become comments on the question. What do you think? (I would say: my post + chat link, and the latter duplicates the comments that preceed it.)

@MonicaCellio It seems a legitimate (if underdeveloped) answer. I think an edit would be a good idea before turning it into a comment in any case.

(By the way, I learned you can't directly convert a deleted answer into a comment. That's a feature not a bug now that I think about it.)

6:18 PM

@JonEricson ok, I'll work on that then. Thanks for the advice.

@JonEricson I agree it's a feature. Undelete, then immediately convert leaves such a small window for things to go wrong that we shouldn't worry about it, and adding complexity for the sake of such corner cases can mess other things up (implementation and UI design).

3 hours later…

9:23 PM

@JonEricson Done: hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/394/208 (so perhaps revisit the other part of the flag, about the comment thread?)

10:07 PM

am i just not communicating clearly????

Establishing the (source) text is always a primary step in Exegesis, which is integral to Hermeneutics. The textual basis is always an implicit part of doing Biblical Studies. If the Nestle-Aland text differs from both the UBS4 and the Textus Receptus, there are textual reasons (manuscript evidence) for it. Therefore, the textual study is a part of understanding the translation and theological issues that have branched from it. Good texts are Gold (even digital). For some purposes, such as combining texts into new Polyglots for study, digital texts make possible what used to take a lifetime. — Qoheleth-Tech 20 mins ago

@swasheck I don't think it's you, but I also think I get why he thinks the question is on-topic. (I don't, and had already voted to close.) It's a tools question, like asking on UX where to get Balsamiq, or asking about an online OED on English. It goes with the field, but not the main site, but that distinction isn't always clear.

If only there was a mod around to global ping Qoholeth tech ... @JackDouglas ... @JonEricson ... heck ... i'd even go for @Shog9 to pull @Qoholeth-Tech into chat

@swasheck Why don't you just reply to him with a link to the room?

@Shog9 i've tried :) oh well.

If he doesn't want to chat, then... Well, you can't make him.

10:17 PM

@Shog9 yes huh

Hello @Qoheleth-Tech!

@Qoheleth-Tech you made it! welcome!

Hi there

Just catching up. We were commenting concurrently on that q.

So kind regards. I'm not debating if you want to close it, that won't bother me personally. Finding that info is difficult- so I thought this site (and this field) would be the best place to ask and answer.

@Qoheleth-Tech on other sites, i've asked a similar question and it got closed because it was on topic for my profession but not what StackExchange was looking for

Sure.

10:25 PM

so at any rate ... are you a student?

I wonder if the question belongs on meta?

@MonicaCellio i could go for that

@swasheck it's an important question -- it just needs the right home.

I am a sem grad. pastored a while - tent making - fell into on the job learning for tech stuff. Have MDiv was working on ThM

@MonicaCellio indeed

@Qoheleth-Tech nice. where'd you do your MDiv?

10:27 PM

- Covenant Seminary (St. Louis)

So - are you all still at work too? I work from home and make up my time accordingly -

@Qoheleth-Tech cool. at any rate ... i'm currently familiarizing myself with corpus linguistics

whats corpus linguistics

and am calculating all sorts numbers using some fascinating geekery using the SBLGNT as my textual basis. i keep trying to drop subtle hints on twitter and facebook to NA or UBS that i'd like their texts gratis as a basis for research

but i keep getting ignored :S

@Qoheleth-Tech Corpus linguistics is the study of language as expressed in samples (corpora) of "real world" text.

Ok. High level and down-to-earth stuff. Is your sql project related to that?

@Qoheleth-Tech yes and no. the postgres thing was just simply calculating word counts vs. "density" (how many unique words per book) and trying to use those numbers (along with common hapaxes) to further justify Luke's authorship of Acts.

(for my thesis)

i've learned more since then and am pretty excited about it

but most of my current stuff is with SQL Server since that's my profession (sql server production dba)

@Qoheleth-Tech as an aside ... the SQL Server stuff is probably more reliable and i'd be happy to share it with you if you'd ever like.

10:36 PM

Ok. Great stuff. What base did you use to put the text into the database? Haven't done that yet. I use the Reader's Hebrew and Greek Bible regularly, and the eds are both phd from Bob Jones who now teach full time, but acquired the tech skills along the way too. -- I'd be interested in that. @qoheleth.tech[at]gmail[dot]com.

the sql server stuff you mention...

@Qoheleth-Tech what do you mean which base? sorry. i may be showing my ignorance here

By "base" I meant - did you start with text, or db files - that kind of thing -

ah. sure. hang on

so with the SBLGNT i started with XML and parsed it with a C# script

dumped that into sql server database

@monica - I just cognitively caught your statement - perhaps source text type questions - or similary new questions to a new cite could be asked on meta - but then you have to have privileges to participate in the meta(?).

@Qoheleth-Tech According to the privileges page you need 5 rep to participate in meta, so you should be good to go there!

10:44 PM

@Qoheleth-Tech i also was going to use the BHS from unbound ... but that's a secondary implementation that's not really going to help with my PhD application :)

@swashek. Ok, so you controlled the method of insertion into the db, that sounds like a good thing. You know what's in there.

so where'd you go to school swachek? and what phd are you thinking of?

@Qoheleth-Tech i went to Denver Seminary (i live in denver still). I'm not sure which PhD program I'd like to pursue and I don't know when. Classics/Linguistics are my interestests

Sounds good. I'm not sure what's hot right now. UW in Seattle has a classics program that looked interesting. I'm in Idaho now, so alot depends on location and flexibility. (I would still be doing the ThM myself - but we've moved to take care of aging family :) ).

@monica - where'd you learn your hebrew?

@Qoheleth-Tech i'm trying to push this stuff up to git

@swashek. That'd be great. (to get it at git)

11:01 PM

@Qoheleth-Tech combination of synagogue, individual study with my rabbis, a few sub-par classes (conversational isn't what I'm looking for), books... hit and miss, and I am not fluent (just in case that's not obvious). Oh, and every time I do the congregational torah reading, I start my preparations by seeing how far I can get doing my own translation of the passage before consulting a translation to see what it really says.

Unfortunately, when I was a full-time student I didn't know I should care, and now that I'm a full-time worker bee college classes don't fit (no evening classes).

github.com/swasheck/greek_import

i have a bunch of other junk out there ... and i'm not particularly adept at programming

i'm heading out. have a good evening/weekend.

and @MonicaCellio shabbat shalom :)

take care...

@swasheck thanks! Have a good weekend. I'll be dropping off soon too (Shabbat approaches).

11:16 PM

Oh hi @Caleb, you're up late. I'll be dropping off in 5-10 minutes; anything you need from me before then? (I don't have anything in mind, but we overlap rarely, so...)

Dropping off for Shabbat; talk to y'all tomorrow night (or whenever after that).

By Caleb, Monica. Best regards.

I'm gone too.

« first day (548 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (4032 days later) »

Transcript for

Apr '135

The Library

General discussion for hermeneutics.stackexchange.com

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile