3

A question was added today involving the differences between various manuscript traditions of Deuteronomy - MT, LXX, DSS, etc... - and was tagged . I've since changed it to , but it made me think that with our current use of we are mislabeling a number of issues as textual, when most often they are not. So is this the right name for the category of questions we're trying to label - questions about apparent contradictions?

1
4

That was a great retag, by the way. I agree with GoneQuiet: it was hard to understand in it's original form.

I chose because:

  1. It was already being used on one question.
  2. It's the target tag on Christianity.SE for .

Based on prior art, it seemed like a good idea at the time.


I agree the term is confusing. I don't want to introduce a tag since very few of these are real contradictions, but misinterpretations. On the other hand, would tip the scales the other way. We don't want to dismiss the questions out of hand.

Part of the problem is that many of our questions are "textual", so the prefix doesn't mean too much. Would or work better?

1
  • 3
    Even as someone who holds to a high view of Scripture, I do not mind tagging these questions as contradiction. I think people are more likely to search for that than discrepancy, and I think discrepancy has pretty much the same connotations. Either way is fine, though; my concern is just that "textual" in this field usually denotes working with manuscripts. – Soldarnal Mar 13 '12 at 21:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .