« first day (76 days earlier)      last day (2201 days later) » 

2:30 AM
So.... we can start posting New World Translation stuff on that? (Expect the RT translation to come next...)
12 hours later…
2:02 PM
OK... I'm back. Can someone please explain to me how the current form of this is different than the previous form?
Q: Does Jesus ever claim to be God, or the son of God?

kinofrostWhile I understand there are many potential passages in the Bible of Jesus claiming to be a messiah (which I understand to mean "anointed"), a king, or one through whom it is necessary to know God, I'm interested to know if there are any places where He literally claims to be God, God-like, or re...

4 hours later…
5:58 PM
Q: Is there an effort to rewrite the FAQ?

JustinYWax Eagle recently admitted that the FAQ is out of date. Is there any effort to update it after the recent policy changes? Or are we still waiting for the new policies to be accepted?

6:57 PM
@Richard It only asks for where Jesus literally says He's God instead of asking people to infer and interpret passages that generally are used as evidence of Jesus knowing His own divinity. In essence, every answer now there is incorrect because they don't address that at all.
I'm failing to see how this fits with our "quality standards". It seems like it belongs on BH.SE at this point.
I don't really think the question at this point is low quality, but it would perhaps be better suited for BH.SE, if "tell me where the Bible says this" is now solely on-topic on BH. That would rule out many of the questions being asked here as off-topic, though
The launch of BH.SE was silly: the Biblical basis for X is a popular line of questioning here and doesn't require a separate site for it
7:08 PM
I think this distinction boils down (as do all distinctions) to doctrine versus text. This question is, at this point, asking for a textual search. The answers are answering from a doctrinal interpretation.
There were two ways to save the question: 1) provide a specific doctrinal scope (ruled unacceptable) and 2) get rid of the call for open interpretation and make it about finding where in the text Jesus says He's God. This was considered an acceptable compromise
I don't think it's off-topic just because BH.SE exists. It's BH.SE's problem to figure out how to differentiate itself from C.SE
@MarkTrapp I think this is reasonable.
It becomes a "factual" question if you just looking for a literal text search...
@waxeagle Now I understand the confusion.
I don't think that this is a factual question.
@Richard curious, why is that?
7:12 PM
@Richard The answers are now incorrect: they answered to the part of the question that asked for people to infer why we know Jesus believed He was God, which was removed
There are too many translations (many of which have some doctrinal bias) to be factual.
@MarkTrapp Oh,I agree with that. I never liked the answers myself, but I've always thought the question was lacking.
@Richard Right, which means this should either A. go back to the greek, or B. ask for english translations where its clear.
or specify a specific translation.
Ok new proposal. We work out a way for literal bible question to be on topic.
@waxeagle I'm not a Biblical scholar, but I think it's going to be incredibly difficult to find Jesus literally saying "I am God" or "I am the Son of God" in any translation. If someone actually does find that, they would mention the translation.
7:14 PM
Honestly, I would love for this question to be on topic and constructive. The problem that I see is that this is the type of question that we've been attempting to remove...
@Richard as of now its not. I'm proposing we define a new type of question. "Where the bible says" there are few different mandates that must be fulfilled.
@Richard What's not constructive about the question as it is written now? It asks for a testable answer.
@waxeagle OK, I can get on board with that. All of our meta posts need updated, though (and commented)
It's not asking for open interpretation or anything else that would make every answer equally correct
Either you specify original language research, or you set a translation. And you set a canon. this way we don't give preference to a particular translation.
@Richard just a new meta post
7:16 PM
That's completely ridiculous, I'm sorry
@waxeagle I think our original "Focused question" topic needs updated.
A person not familar with Christianity asking for the Biblical basis of something isn't going to request the original translation of something or set a canon. It's completely unnecessary
@MarkTrapp why not? how do we do this without discriminating heavily against the JWs and the Mormons who adopt either A a radically different translation, or B a radically different canon?
Yes, open interpretation of passages is not constructive, but if they want to know if something literally was written in the Bible, the answers can specify what translation says that
7:18 PM
This is what it boils down to: Without some doctrinal stance, without some translation, then any whacko (primarily me) can come in with any translation and claim it's valid. Furthermore, because of our poor definition of "Christian", we really can't do anything about it.
@waxeagle It doesn't matter: if their translation says it, they'll cite their translation. You can test their answer by reading the translation themselves
There is no synthesis: it's reliance on a secondary source (a specific translation)
Q: What translations do we accept?

RichardI was half-considering answering a question by creating my own translation of the Bible. I decided against it (for the time being), but it brought up an interesting question in my mind: What translations do we accept? Let's follow the logical train: Clearly, we accept the original language (...

When any argument can come back with "This is what my faith believes" and have it be an actual, valid answer that stops argument, we are at a dead end.
@Richard That's a straw man. This is not the same issue as people coming up with doctrine by Biblical interpretation of passages. If you cite a translation that literally says something, it's going to be readily apparent if the translation you're citing has any notability
For example: My faith believes that the translation for this verse is X.
7:21 PM
@Richard right, but then you have to link to the translation...I think I see where Mark is coming from
it gives the answer testability at least
Notability really means nothing. SE has determined that everyone claiming Christianity is a Christian.
And there are some translations that cannot be linked (some Catholic translations, I believe), due to copyright violations.
@Richard then they will have to be cited like any other dead tree citation...
I can't tell if you're being willfully ignorant to prove a point, or if this is really how you think Christianity.SE should go. Open ended questions are bad yes, but questions asking for specific testable information is exactly what we want here.
Oh come on
Peter and I freely link to Catholic translations: there is no copyvio.
7:23 PM
@MarkTrapp Willfully ignorant? Wow.
Yes, you're being obtuse about this. Really? Worrying about not being able to give a Catholic answer because the translations are copyrighted? I assure you it's not a problem
Aah, I see. You're getting caught up on details...
We can't exclude any translation that comes in because we can't exclude any Christian. IF a person claims a Christian belief and claims that a translation is the basis for this belief, we have to accept it.
As long as they cite their translation so others can test it, yes, that's exactly right.
I'd go ahead and argue if its not published or purchasable its probably has a serious notability issue IMO...
But I could make up any translation I wanted and if my doctrine states that it's valid, we can't really argue it.
Just like we can't argue the New World Translation.
7:26 PM
@Richard So? If the answer is not useful, people will vote it down. We don't have to bar answers
@waxeagle And this excludes personal translation of the original language, which may be valid, actually.
@Richard Personal translation is testable too. You can translate it yourself to confirm what it says
So... the idea is that we expand the scope to include questions that are seeking text from any translation, provided it's a textual search?
I don't think there's a scope to expand: it comes as a surprise to me and I'm sure others that they aren't already on-topic here
It's an expansion of the new standards.... The new standards are basically: If it's not doctrine or doctrinally based, it's not on topic (more or less).
@Caleb This was your post and you were pretty integral in these discussions. Do you agree with this change?
One thought is that we'll have to be very specific about this: questions about searching the text for doctrine can't be on-topic. Searching the text for a specific word or phrase can.
"Where does the Bible say 'once-saved always saved'?" would be not constructive, for example. It would have to be "What is the biblical basis for X?", which is different (yet so subtle).
7:32 PM
No, it's exactly the opposite
You don't want people freely interpreting passages: then every answer is correct
At least "where does the Bible say X?" is verifiable
@MarkTrapp right he is saying that that is a different kind of question. You guys are on the same page here
so we have "where does the bible say X" which is on topic (answerer specifies translation) and we have "what is the biblical basis for X" which is also on topic, but questioner specifies some kind of doctrinal frame. Does that work?
That works; that's my understanding of it at least
@Richard @Caleb @ElendiaStarman does that seem reasonable to you guys?
7:42 PM
@waxeagle For what its worth, I agree.
Now that I'm thinking about it, we've been meaning to hash out this topic for a long time.
Q: Where does the Bible say X vs. What does the Bible say about X. How does this work?

wax eagleThere are two types of questions that have been asked here that are a bit contentious. I'd like to propose definitions for the question types and solicit comments, changes and additions to these suggestions. Where does the Bible say X? This type of question is asking for a text search of the ...

@Richard meta posted
@waxeagle This still needs added to the "Focused Question" post as well as the "Why was my question closed?" post.
@Richard absolutely.
I'm deleting all the answers to that post, by the way.
7:47 PM
we just need to hash out what these 2 things really mean before we go much farther.
@Richard I think thats ok, none of them fit as written, and if OPs want they can edit and flag for undeletion
It's actually a bit unfair because I then posted my own answer. But, so be it.
Richardonian translation.
> the NABRE is the only modern Catholic Bible that is even on the internet (although still copyrighted). The Ignatius Bible is used by lots of Catholic Scholars, but according to the internet it doesn't even exist.
Peter Turner's comment to this answer
> It is strongly preferred that you use a translation that is widely available, preferably online, but if not should be freely available in print and purchasable.
@Richard That's not accurate: it's just called the RSV Catholic Edition. EWTN has it online.
@MarkTrapp So, my source was wrong. It explains some wrong assumptions.
Even if an English translation wasn't online, I would hope that wouldn't preclude an answer. Like, I hope my answer here isn't unacceptable because there is no up to date English translation of the Sources of Catholic Dogma online
8:02 PM
@MarkTrapp nope, offline sources are ok. They just need to be acquirable glares at richard
even if its an OoP book we need a way to reference it...maybe Google Books would be handy here...
On a completely separate topic, is there a website where I can post my own Bible translation?
(totally unrelated)
@Richard There's also the New Jerusalem Bible online published in 1985, but that has some translation problems that was the impetus for the Holy See to issue new standards in 2001.
@Richard thats a great question
You can always create your own website...
Oh, blogspot, maybe.
@Richard lol, you just want to highlight just how silly all of this really is don't you?
8:07 PM
@waxeagle To a degree. If we're setting new rules, I push the limit of those rules. I've done that since day 1 so that there is a precedence.
That's why I've pushed the Mormon/JH/FLDS agenda.
@Richard fair enough...
I think its important to test our rules for edge and corner cases...
@djclayworth Are you confused by the comment?
I'll repost it here:
> Due to the substantial edits to the question (now asking for a place where Jesus literally claimed to be God or the Son of God), all of the answers no longer answer the question. If you feel that your answer is still sufficient or if you want to edit it, feel free. Once you are ready to have it undeleted, let us know by flagging the post for moderator attention
@Richard if you don't like the site's premise, fine: that's your prerogative. But this is ridiculous and you know it.
@waxeagle Do you think I should undelete those? I seem to be getting some heat for it.
@MarkTrapp Actually no. It's quite a valid translation.
Q: Where does the Bible say X vs. What does the Bible say about X. How does this work?

wax eagleThere are two types of questions that have been asked here that are a bit contentious. I'd like to propose definitions for the question types and solicit comments, changes and additions to these suggestions. Where does the Bible say X? This type of question is asking for a text search of the ...

8:16 PM
@Richard I don't know. They no longer answer the question and can easily be updated and flagged for undeletion. I'll handle the meta post.
OH holy...
The only thing I see wrong is probably posting your own answer so soon after deleting the others.
@Richard No, it's not. You're doing it to prove an absurd point about how you don't like the fact that everyone's considered Christian for the purposes of the site. It's just stupid to do be doing that as a moderator.
@waxeagle Yeah, that was a bit... tactless, maybe.
You don't like the site: fine, whatever. But don't pass off joke answers are being legitimate
8:18 PM
Not a joke answer.
You made up a translation to try and see how far you can bend the rules of the site.
True, but it's not a joke answer. I take God and the Bible far too seriously to do that. This is a very valid translation.
Great, well if that's how you want to approach the site, I'm not even going to bother with it anymore. This is just too bizarre and passive aggressive an approach to building a site
@MarkTrapp note that this is not the majority view here...
its certainly not mine
Personally, I think we need a site where only Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants can ask questions. I believe that we need to limit all Bibles to NIV/ESV/NASB or some other major translation.
However, we have have to work within the framework we have been given.
While I admit that I'm pushing the boundaries, I don't believe that I'm just making up quack answers.
Q: What does Jesus mean in Matthew 26:64 with "You have said so"?

RichardThere was a question recently about this verse and what Jesus actually meant here. So, I thought I'd post this question to see what you guys thought. In Matthew 26, Jesus is before the Sanhedrin. And he responds to questioning: Matthew 26:63b-64a (NASB) And the high priest said to Him, “...

8:40 PM
Q: Is it OK for the moderator to arbitrarily delete answers?

DJClayworthIn this question this question Richard deleted an existing answer and replaced it with his own. His argument is that edits to the question made the initial answer invalid. However that's a matter of opinion, and even if it wasn't we have ways of dealing with this, such as voting. Deleting answers...

9:01 PM
Q: How does the LDS doctrine of assurance compare to the Methodist doctrine of assurance?

JustinYThe LDS Bible Dictionary entry on faith states that one of the effects of true faith in Christ is "an assurance of personal salvation in the world to come." How does this assurance compare to the Methodist doctrine on assurance? What do they have in common and what is distinct?

Does anybody know why this question is getting close votes?
I even narrowed the scope, and then it got another close vote.
Is it a bad question?
I have no idea! That's really odd, to me.

« first day (76 days earlier)      last day (2201 days later) »