The post In Gen. 4, Seth is “appointed” as another seed “instead of Abel.” What is the ancient interpretation of this appointment? was quickly put on hold with the reason:
"Questions about biblical topics but without a specific Bible passage are off-topic as hermeneutical methods cannot be applied when no text is referenced."
However, in What texts are open for examination? (meta) (also linked to in comments for explanation) I currently fail to read the the original question was indeed 'in violation' of these site rules. This is not to challenge the site rules or moderator decisions. This is just a request for clarification to help me understand better how this site is supposed to work.
In my eyes the original post might have been a little tad on the periphery of the subject, which should have been fine according to e.g.
If there are related texts which experts in this field tend to study because the texts are so closely tied to the subject, I would include them as "on topic" for this site.
Annotate those texts here, if you must, but err towards being inclusive if the experts here can authoritatively answer the questions posed.
Since I do not know what to make of that: are the close reason given and the meta-post in conflict with one another or have I misread the meta-post?