« first day (460 days earlier)      last day (1741 days later) » 

12:46 AM
Q: Bible hermeneutics migration to christianity?

Camil StapsShouldn't http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ be migrated to http://christianity.stackexchange.com/?

1:08 AM
@StackExchange I was starting to feel very alone until this came along. (To be clear, I have no idea who this user is.)
@JackDouglas Have you heard anything more on this? (I realize it hasn't been a week yet.)
2 hours later…
2:57 AM
Debating if this is a doctrinal or textual question. Seems doctrinal to me: hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/2912/…
Q: Does Matthew 24:36 imply a lack of omniscience?

jQwierdyAfter reading Matthew 24:36, But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. and other verses such as Jesus' prayer to God in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:39), where he also asks God for "this cup" to pass from him if there is any other ...

2 hours later…
4:29 AM
@DanO'Day The assumption that Jesus must be omniscient is doctrinal. That said, it seems like there's a legitimate text question here, though the wording could be better, in a way that doesn't presuppose the "right" answer.
3 hours later…
7:33 AM
@MonicaCellio and @DanO'Day: I've closed it pending some sort of edit to refocus on the text itself. I think there's little problem with the text itself. You need to introduce something else (which might come from Matthew or another New Testament source) for there to be a problem.
@MonicaCellio I wonder if you'd seen:
A: Time to end Biblical Hermeneutics?

bmarguliesResponse from recent visitor: If you want this site to take off, I think you need to attract the attention of people like my Hebrew teacher, who is a PhD candidate in one of the relevant fields. He's a committed Christian, and yet teaches Hebrew Bible at my synagogue, where he and his students ...

2 hours later…
9:18 AM
@MonicaCellio I agree with Dan and Jon, this is superficially a 'starts with the text' question, but the intent is starting with the doctrine. It is far from certain that the OP has a real text-based question to ask and I don't think we need to 'rescue' the question unless it sparks a genuine question in one of us! The priority is to close it.
This is always a judgement call of course...
@MonicaCellio Yes, sorry I should have mentioned we have been in touch with the team and GraceNote is planning to respond in some way on meta.
4 hours later…
1:08 PM
Q: How different is Biblical Hebrew from modern Hebrew?

Jack DouglasIt's been variously suggested on this site that the difference between Biblical Hebrew and modern Hebrew is like either the difference between: Old English and modern English Shakespeare's English (Early modern English) and modern English. Which of these is the better analogy, and if it is th...

Q: What are the differences between Hebrew and Aramaic?

brilliantCan anyone give a review on the main differences between Hebrew and Aramaic? Of course, I am asking in the context of the Bible, but if there are some other known ones that lay outside of the biblical linguistics, they are also welcome. I guess the writing system of these two was just the same, n...

The earlier question includes the latter to a degree: "is it also fair to suggest that Old English versus modern English is like Aramaic versus modern Hebrew?"
should we close the new question?
2 hours later…
3:14 PM
@JackDouglas I think the answer to that question (your chat question) IS part of the answer to the new question and hence needs a separate answer from the other one. The answer may turn out to be drawing an equivalence between Aramaic and something else, but that's an equivalence that isn't relevant to the original question. Also there may not be such a parallel to draw at all, hence deserving a separate answer.
@JonEricson ah, gotcha. Thanks, and I stand corrected. (I don't know the later texts as well as the rest of you. :-) )
@JonEricson yes, sorry for being unclear -- that answer and the followup question are the first times I've noticed this user. I just meant he's not someone I brought here, is all. :-)
@JackDouglas I wouldn't, at least yet. I think "can I use my modern-language skills to understand text?" seems different from "how do these two ancient languages relate to each other?", though they're obviously related. If the answers don't bring any additional enlightenment maybe merge later?
3:44 PM
Q: Let's have a second opinion!

Jon EricsonIt's been a while since I issued a challenge and now that hats are over, it's about time for something new. In the past, I've focused on generating new questions, but this time I'd like to focus on generating new answers. Right at the moment, our answer ratio stands at 1.9, that's "Okay" (offic...

:7558137, @Monica, ok, lets leave it. Caleb I'm not sure if I was clear that "is it also fair to suggest that Old English versus modern English is like Aramaic versus modern Hebrew?" is part of the text of the older question?
4:03 PM
@StackExchange I'd like to see more second (and third and fourth) opinions too. The challenge to implementing the challenge is being able to find those questions (as already noted in @JonEricson 's feature request on MSO.)
What an interesting intersection of hermeneutics and doctrine, as evident by the apparent ambiguity of the text at hand. — Joseph 10 hours ago
5:04 PM
@MonicaCellio As one-sided Q&A turn up, we can note them here.
@JonEricson Sounds good. (And perhaps on the question for more visibility -- or are the meta audience and chat audience pretty much the same people?)
@swasheck I can't make heads or tails out of that comment.
@JonEricson seems he's trying to prove a point
@MonicaCellio That would be fine too. (My guess is that chat has a touch more visibility since people are less likely to look back a the meta question (or answers) after they've seen it once.)
@swasheck I'm not sure I understand where he's coming from. (I'm afraid I've been avoiding his answers. I might need to fix that.)
@JonEricson I'm assuming he's frustrated about the feedback on his opinion/theology answers so he found this to be "interesting" (meaning, "hey look!!!!! there's theology in THIS answer, right???")
5:20 PM
@swasheck Ah. Makes sense now. Thanks for the insight.
@JonEricson it's speculation
5:40 PM
@swasheck that's what I'm assuming too. It's really hard to read his posts/comments.
@DanO'Day ... i'm still working up an answer to your question.
6:39 PM
@DanO'Day ultimately i came to the same conclusion that the first answer did, i just walked through it personally
7:27 PM
@swasheck no problem, at least it was a good learning experience I'm sure
@DanO'Day well, it was a good refreshed. part of seminary was text crit:)
hey there :)
I'd like to introduce y'all to my low-reputation alter ego:
A: What's the difference between "sensus plenior" and "inspired sensus plenior"?

IchthydionUsing Google, I find that "inspired sensus plenior" is most closely associated with Robert L. Thomas out of The Master's Seminary. More accurately, he coined the term "inspired sensus plenior applications (ISPA)" to describe a subset of the hermeneutical principles used by New Testament authors:...

@JonEricson so you're saying you have a sock puppet account?
@itamar hello
7:33 PM
@swasheck Yes. But he is not allowed to vote and all of his excess reputation will be donated via bounties. I decided to use him so that I can provide answers that use a Christological Hermeneutic, which I don't normally express in my own posts.
@JonEricson ಠ_ಠ
I've already learned one useful thing: new users can't post 10 hyperlinks!
@swasheck I can't tell: is that a symbol for "You're crazy!" ;-)
@JonEricson dunno. it's just part of my chrome extension :)
@swasheck Nice. FYI: From what I understand, we can have multiple users as long as they aren't attempts to cheat the system. (I don't plan to use mine very often.)
@JonEricson yeah.
7:53 PM
@JonEricson but it swells our user base ;)
I won't lie, I've asked a few questions lately that I have sufficient resources to answer on my own just to raise the daily question average :)
@DanO'Day the horror
1 hour later…
9:15 PM
Well, it took longer than I had planned, but I've given a second (and third!) opinion on:
Q: What's the difference between "sensus plenior" and "inspired sensus plenior"?

Bob JonesWhat's the difference between "sensus plenior" and "inspired sensus plenior"? Are the terms interchangeable? If "the deeper meaning intended by God but not intended by the human author" (sensus plenior) exists wouldn't it be inspired?

1 hour later…
10:21 PM
@JonEricson Your answer (with your name rather than your sock's, I mean) is a good example of an answer that explains a doctrinal perspective without being one. We can talk about doctrinal context without asserting it.
@MonicaCellio That's a good way of putting it. Our job, after all, is to explain.
@MonicaCellio On the other hand, I'm curious what you thought of the sock's answer. Quite a bit of it (as it turns out) could be incorporated into my own answer without causing me discomfort.
@MonicaCellio Thanks to Nick Craver, I think we are going to get what we need.
10:42 PM
@JonEricson yay! Thanks Nick!
Anyone have any suggestions on how to focus this question to a reasonable scope?:
Q: Are there any rules on which things in Revelation must be interpreted literally and which symbolically?

brilliantAre there any rules on which things in Revelation must be interpreted literally and which symbolically? The one that comes from the back of my mind is whether or not a certain thing or a character is already given an interpretation in the book itself, e.g. the martyrs in white robes in Revelation...

@JonEricson It's quite thorough and looks solid (I haven't followed all the links), but I'm left with one question: are you saying that the apostles get to exegete however they want because they're inspired? If that's not what you meant, I'm still unclear on the difference. In particular, at least one person here seem to use SP (without the "inspired" label) to say whatever he wants it to say; is that bad application or within the bounds of SP?
@JonEricson I was actually planning on responding tonight by applying the hermeneutics specific to apocalyptic literature
Otherwise the response would be too exhaustive
so I was going to lay down some principles based on that
@DanO'Day Ok. I won't touch it for now, then.
presuming I find time....
10:45 PM
@DanO'Day @JonEricson i think that Jas31 has it correct. it really depends on your approach. liguistic and verbal aspect theory adds some very interesting perspective on Revelation
@MonicaCellio Hmm... Not exactly. The idea is that within a Christian context, it's ok find Jesus everywhere. I'll have to revisit that answer.
@swasheck Do you think there's a way we can edit the question without invalidating one or more of the answers?
well ... so far each of the answers read like an opinion piece so my response would be to edit away
so far yours is my favorite answer but i'd like a bit of objective evidence to support it. — swasheck 18 secs ago
@swasheck Yeah. I'm curious where the "13 or 14 real symbolic things" statement comes from.
11:04 PM
@JonEricson Maybe I need to stare at it more. It looks like Thomas is saying that ISPA doesn't grant people other than the Christian-testament authors license to interpret freely, which seems to imply that they can? If there's a difference between ISP and SP it seems to be that those authors used one of them and everyone else uses the other, right?
@MonicaCellio I think you're right. That seems to be how Bob understands him too.
@MonicaCellio Now I see what you mean and I do need to edit the answer somewhat. According to the Christological approach, the early Christian authors were playing within the limits of the text not because they were inspired, but because they were finding the right things.
11:21 PM
@JonEricson So who is inspired in that case? (I kind of assumed that if anybody got to be inspired it was them.) Gotta run, so I'll check for your update later. Thanks!
11:46 PM
@MonicaCellio I guess you'd have to say... Jesus! But I'm getting all muddled myself and have asked a separate question:
Q: What are the limits to the Christological hermeneutic?

Jon EricsonAccording to Wikipedia: The Christo-Centric Principle: "The mind of deity is eternally centered in Christ. All angelic thought and ministry are centered in Christ. All Satanic hatred and subtlety are centered at Christ. All human hopes are, and human occupations should be, centered in Chri...


« first day (460 days earlier)      last day (1741 days later) »