« first day (631 days earlier)      last day (3031 days later) » 

12:06 AM
@FrankLuke There is poetry in the Torah (all of it, in fact, was written to be sung) and prophecy in the Psalms. So it's not that cut-and-dried. The Bible was written "organically," so the answers to earlier texts are in later texts which expand upon them, the greatest example being the New Testament, where the "veil of Moses" is lifted and the dark sayings explained. The Covenant pattern in Gen 1-3 is expanded upon right up to the Revelation, which has Adam (false prophet), Eve (harlot) and serpent (beast). — Mike Bull 8 mins ago
Dark sayings? False prophet? Harlot? Do we really want to host that?
 
12:19 AM
(Never mind -- another case of the only citation being in the title, while the body talks about other passages. Grr.)
 
12:32 AM
.
Hey all, that Google Maps question introduced a new tag, . I don't think we want that, but do we want something in the agriculture/life-back-then/etc space? Is appropriate there?
 
 
2 hours later…
2:22 AM
Sorry about the front page. I was cleaning up some newly-created singleton tags.
 
2:49 AM
@MonicaCellio I think history works on that question. I like the idea of a backgrounds tag, too.
 
3:10 AM
@FrankLuke I'll go ahead and add . Thanks.
Oh hey, we also have .
 
 
6 hours later…
9:03 AM
@JonEricson I think it was you I once had a conversation with about how to deep link to HCSB's study bible site. Now I can't figure it out (or find the conversion). You don't happen to remember do you?
 
9:17 AM
Nevermind apparently it was Richard, and I found my solution. Again.
in The Upper Room, Oct 24 '11 at 7:42, by Caleb
@Richard was it you I was talking to in complaint of not being able to link to verses on mystudybible.com? It turns out they aren't actually trying to restrict access so much as just failed at usability. You can link directly to a verse if you know what to click. I was trying to find a link on a <a> item somewhere on the page. It turns out you can get a link if you select a block of text and get a popup.
 
 
6 hours later…
3:39 PM
But hey, at least the above answer brought that question to my attention again so I could answer it. :-) @JonEricson, it's an old question and we didn't have site norms worked out yet, but is there any value in trying to make it more "what does this mean?" and less "is this Jesus?"? Or would that invalidate answers?
 
4:32 PM
Is sensus plenior a technique of eisegesis? (Prompted most immediately by this comment.)
 
4:49 PM
@MonicaCellio I was thinking that as well. I wonder what other people think? (My first reaction is that I'm not sure my question has much bite if it were made general.) The voting does not bode well either that question or the other I wrote on the same passage.
 
@JonEricson I downvoted (a long time ago) because of the Jesus presumption, but then I answered it today. If the question didn't presume an interpretation I would have upvoted. FWIW.
I am amused by the comments on this answer. Yeah, they're off-topic and should probably be cleaned up later, but in the meantime...
 
@MonicaCellio I would say yes as a rule. I'd also say there's nothing wrong with eisegesis in principle. But it fails often in practice.
 
(See? We can do fun! We're not all stodgy!)
@JonEricson but eisegesis shouldn't masquerade as exegesis, which it seems often happens. Have we as a site made a determination about the appropriateness of eisegesis here?
 
@MonicaCellio Our rule is that answers begin with the text, I believe. So that does seem to indicate we don't want answers read into the text, but out of it. Hmmmm...
 
@JonEricson yeah, and contrast with our longstanding semi-tolerance of Bob's answers -- they don't tend to score well but they aren't removed as non-answers either. Hence my confusion. We've seen some new users do eisegesis and told them not to; do we need to be more consistent?
 
5:42 PM
@MonicaCellio I guess the issue is that it's hard to draw the line and even harder to draw it if you don't know the method behind the madness. Bob's best answers did add to my understanding of the text wherever they came from. Same with the best of Rashi's commentary. (Well, one is more consistently helpful than the other.)
 
5:57 PM
@JonEricson yeah, I'm not trying to argue that we should nuke all Bob's answers (maybe some of them...). I'm just trying to resolve the incongruity so we can guide new users who also do eisegesis. It's a hard problem. Everybody probablly does it to some extent; none of us are doing this in a vacuum. But how much is too much?
 
6:11 PM
@MonicaCellio Here's a question I'm rolling over regarding typology and sensus plenior. Bob's answers sometimes make me roll my eyes, but rarely do I vote them down. This contrasts with another, newer poster whom I vote down frequently. Trying to figure out the difference between them.
 
@FrankLuke I have the impression that my vote distribution between the two is similar. I may be more willing to follow eye-rolling with DVs (I wouldn't say I "rarely" DV Bob), but there is a qualitative difference there and I'm not sure I can articulate it.
 
@FrankLuke Sometimes typology can be awfully "one note". Not sure if that's a factor for anyone else, but I prefer a "richer" interpretation to a straightforward framework that is just flexible enough to fit everything in.
 
@JonEricson Well, SP is "one note" too; it's all about Jesus. But you're right that Mike's "one note" is more annoying. Also less comprehensible, in my experience; both of them often strike me as just making stuff up, but maybe Bob gives the impression that he actually tried? Or maybe I've just gotten used to Bob's brand of incomprehensible because he's been here longer?
 
 
2 hours later…
8:37 PM
@Jack, I thought of you when I proposed this:
0
A: Propose a privilege to sit in the 500 reputation mark

Monica CellioGrant chat privs. Currently a user needs 20 rep to chat, but on some sites we often see a problem where a new user shows potential (worth investing in) but doesn't "get it" yet. I'd like to be able to get a user like that into chat, because the alternative is a conversation in comments -- an an...

 

« first day (631 days earlier)      last day (3031 days later) »