I struggle with 'opinion-based questions' being closed too often IMO. Hermeneutics necessarily involves interpretation so it seems to me that this particular site needs more flexibility than, for example, sites dealing with board games or computer programming. Case in point:
This question was closed as opinion-based. It asks about how to reconcile two seemingly contradictory verses of scripture. I voted to re-open it because I don't see how we can have a meaningful forum about the interpretation of scripture if we are forbidden to pose questions that are open to more than one viewpoint or hermeneutical method. I find this problem cropping up again and again.
Here is another example It asks if Rev. 2 is criticizing Paul, and if not Paul, then who? I want to keep this open because the identity of the false teachers in Rev. 2 is important, and the chapter's abhorrence of food sacrificed to idols is at odds with Paul's more liberal attitude. It's a great question for biblical hermeneutics and IMO we should welcome various views about it as long as sound hermeneutical principles are applied.
As the overflow blog says
Insisting on objectivity is fine for computing and mathematics. But once you get past the hard(ish) sciences, you veer towards the much softer social sciences. There are experts in these fields, but they are by definition, not exact. In fact, most academic fields don’t have objective answers. Topics like economics, engineering, the arts, literature, and social sciences don’t exactly have correct and incorrect answers.
So much more so with biblical hermeneutics! Am I missing something, or are people confusing the rule about opinion-based questions (which are tendentious and may be rightly closed) vs the more flexible guideline about questions that invite responses which may involve a degree of subjectivity?
Two more examples.
This question addresses the issue of free will in relation to tribes that were annihilated by Joshua. Yes, it calls for subjective answers in the sense that much biblical interpretation involves a person making theological and moral judgments. But I submit that this is exactly the kind of "good subjectivity" we should welcome. I worked hard to provide such an answer and I object to the topic being closed before others had a chance to offer their take on the subject, even if it differs from mine. It's also unfair to the creator of the OP, who IMO does not deserve to have his question shut down.
The final example asks: Should Old Testament Prophecies Concerning YHWH and His Messiah be collapsed into Yahweh?. I don't like this question and I don't intend to answer it. But I see no reason why people who say "yes" shouldn't offer their reasons and people who say "no" should offer theirs. I don't feel as strongly about this one as the other examples, but I favor an open approach to hermeneutics. This is not a hard science and it would be absurd to take a "letter of the law" approach to the idea that questions involving "opinion-based" answers must be shut down.
So why not welcome more questions that invite subjective answers, as long as the answers are hermeneutically sound?