« first day (865 days earlier)      last day (2797 days later) » 

1:28 AM
@JLB not yet, but am looking forward to settling in and watching it. My question I believe fits the purpose of the site, where I am asking for an interpretation of a portion of Biblical text, from a scientific and historical viewpoint
 
JLB
@Amaterasu I am all for the question being allowed. I love it! My question is for clarity because it seems to me a little bit of applying the screws to certain issues/questions but not to others. Maybe a little inconsistency? I want one of the moderators to clarify for me so I learn better what is acceptable and what is not.
To me your question is more based on scientific astronomical proof to validate the scripture, not the text validating itself. Maybe I am confused and need to be tuned in a little more by the moderators - probably! You know I am a pup on this site and am seeking for understanding so I can operate within the guidelines with more precision.
 
Oh yes,I am a pup here also!
@JLB this is pretty much spot on - a scientific interpretation of the text
@JLB I wrote a meta post similar to what you're asking meta.hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/915/… the comment from Dan is qute pertinent
 
JLB
You are doing a great job. I was pretty amazed at the author of the videos findings in the sky +-2000 yrs ago. Make sure you take a look at it, I think you will find it interesting. Don't forget to let me know your thoughts regarding the video.
 
I will definitely give my feedback - thank you for the kind words too, I think you're doing great also
 
JLB
@Amaterasu I will check out the meta post - thanks for the link.
 
1:41 AM
no worries
 
JLB
2:14 AM
@Sarah I am working on my answer to my "falling away" question. I should be done tomorrow. I wanted to make sure someone didn't scrap the question before I posted my answer. Talk soon
 
2:54 AM
@JLB it is fine to me, because it starts from the text, which is our requirement. It starts from the text and then asks for evidence for the astronomical event in the text
we don't have issues with questions intersecting with (historical) astronomy, archaeology, history, linguistics, literary criticism, etc.
we just don't want a question to start from a theological/premise and use a text as a springboard for doctrine
which isn't the case here
but based on this, it starts from the text and is focused primarily on the text, i.e. evidence for the event that occurred within it
@JLB we don't require the text to validate itself, you don't even need to begin with the premise that the text is true, often questions require additional historical, linguistic, and literary sources to answer effectively
in fact, almost always additional historical, linguistic, or literary data is needed to provide a good answer
the issue is the initial premise - is it primarily to understand the text or another issue to which the text applies?
we don't say solely the text, but primarily the text
@JLB had @Amaterasu made it clear that his beginning premise was some form of astrology (as opposed to astronomy), such as trying to apply the text to a prediction of a future event or a modern religious idea, then it would be off topic because it would not begin from the text but from another idea, controversy, or concept
but in this case, it starts from the text and focuses primarily on it by asking for evidence of the events described therein - a good question here
 
JLB
@Daи Thanks that clarifies things for me. I think it is a good question also.
 
3:12 AM
@JLB in fact, we are best equipped to help with the historical, linguistic, and literary aspects of texts rather than their theological aspects, although when you ask for the former you may also get the latter
I DV when someone asks for the former and only gets the latter, which happens as well
part of this is the worldview of Protestantism where everyone's opinion on the text is generally welcome and valid and no other sources are needed other than the Bible
here, on the other hand, you should generally use extrabiblical sources (even if original language lexicons and grammars) and we don't take it for granted that the Bible is a continuous book (although users are of course free to believe this)
so for example, @JLB - and I am here speaking only my opinion as one user, so this is not to be confused as site standards or anything - but I will usually DV any post that uses other books of the Bible to back up things said in another that doesn't also defend the use of the other book
if they are written by the same author in a similar context, that is fine
but if someone cites Paul to back up John or James and gives no explanation that they believe they agreed with one another and back up why they think so, they will earn my DV
in theology, folks are used to 'proof-texting' all the time, but here we don't take for granted that Paul and James agreed, for instance
@JLB most of us don't even agree on what constitutes 'the Bible' - we all mean different things when we refer to it, which is why it is helpful to think of it as a collection of texts shared by various religious traditions rather than as one big book
 
 
17 hours later…
8:21 PM
@Daи - that was scary!
The SE network must have been down for about 1/2 hour! =/
 
8:33 PM
@Davïd yes:
Our network provider is experiencing a bit of increased traffic. We and they are investigating.
We have partially mitigated a DDoS attack against our network. We are continuing to watch traffic.
 
8:47 PM
@Davïd that was a good DDoS attack
 
@Daи There is such a thing as "a good DDoS attack"?! B-)
I've been watching on Twitter - there were some pretty good tweets of lament!
The day productivity died #stackOverflow #apocalypse2014
How do the #stackoverflow developers fix #stackoverflow without #stackoverflow?
2
@StackOverflow is down? Does this mean I have to read actual documentation?
And this one for nostalgia:
 
9:07 PM
@Davïd haha awesome
@Davïd that's all a matter of perspective - not good for the target - but from an objective standpoint, it was a decent attack considering how long SE was down
 
@Daи Hard to comprehend for a non-techhie - I wonder if they'll blog about it
it was a down about 1/2 hour?
 
@Davïd I think almost 45 minutes, but it was likely patchy (worked for some but not for all)
 
@Daи I had an eye on ycombinator, too - one of the devs was posting updates
or maybe you were watching that too?
 
@Davïd nope, but nice
 
 
1 hour later…
10:31 PM
42
Q: What just happened to StackOverflow?

tylerStackOverflow was down for a long time here, probably about an hour. Anybody know what the cause was?

 

« first day (865 days earlier)      last day (2797 days later) »