Judaism respectfully has very little to say on most of the questions here. Is there a StackExchange for them too, or is it more pragmatic to just share this one?

  • 3
    Akiva, see judaism.stackexchange.com Comparing the questions there with this site may help you determine. Many people contribute to multiple StackExchange sites. The type of question determines which site you would post on.
    – DonJewett
    Commented Apr 11, 2014 at 1:53

3 Answers 3


The goal has been an inclusive site, in which one from the perspective of Judaism could participate (obviously primarily in questions related to the Tanakh, unless one wanted to chime in about the Christian New Testament questions... which is okay).

You will have to decide for yourself about participation. I have had my own misgivings even from a Christian perspective (and still question how well this experiment can work; some others are still questioning as well).


Yes! If it concerns textual interpretation, and/or textual analysis criticism, then questions and answers from a Jewish perspective are more than welcome! It is site policy to respect all religious beliefs; this even includes athiests. I personally have asked certain questions; one of them here,concerning traditional Jewish understanding.

Obviously, this isn't a site for asking questions about certain aspects of Jewish tradition and life; Mi Yodeya provides a better opportunity for that, just as Christianity does for Christians.

Bottom Line: If the question originates from the text or methodology concerning the text, than a Jewish Perspective is certainly welcome, in fact I have learned a great deal from this site on Jewish sources and their perspectives concerning the texts.

Do not feel intimidated or misunderstood concerning the preponderance of Evangelical Christians on this site; the way to get to know one another is by interacting, and you bring a unique perspective in pursuing Bible Hermeneutics.

  • @ScottS Anytime you openly discuss issues that are at the core of our beliefs you run the risk of misunderstanding the motives behind that discussion. There is a strong anti-proselytizing policy on this site; but when a Jew or Christian answers positively or negatively about a certain text-could it be infered 'you will go to heaven if you accept my answer, or hell if you don't'? I've learned it helps to know your audience, and address their concern-but don't go beyond what they've asked, unless they give you permission to do so. That's just being charitable.
    – Tau
    Commented Apr 16, 2014 at 5:48
  • 1
    @ScottS (Final Thought-really) One suggestion to enforce "site neutrality" was to post answers from a "pseudo-neutrality" position see here I vigorously objected to it, as to me it was patently dishonest, and virtually unenforceable. We ALL have our theological viewpoints, and our theology will 'leak' into our answers. That's just being honest. But I believe if we respect the viewpoints of others-whether or not we agree, we can have a fruitful exchange, and profit from the interaction.
    – Tau
    Commented Apr 16, 2014 at 5:55

My experience is that this site is populated by narrow-minded Christian fundamentalists. But I wish you best of luck.

  • PS. If you do not believe me,have a look at the current "seed" vs. "seeds" discussion.
    – fdb
    Commented Apr 13, 2014 at 1:01
  • That would be this one: hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/8835/… Commented Apr 16, 2014 at 5:13
  • Exactly. Especially this: "All who refuse Christ's offering of Himself for them will get what they want, to be their own eternal burnt offering to God. – ScottS Apr 13 "
    – fdb
    Commented Apr 16, 2014 at 8:12
  • 1
    You failed to mention that my comment was in the context of your question: "So where are all the rest of us supposed to live, for example the billions of non-Christians in China and India and the Near East?" So you asked me for an answer on that. Which answer you quote above was in context of my further comment "the Bible's answer to that--their final destination is the lake of fire." The fact that there was a miscommunication (apparently) on the fact that I was referring to eternal state and you were taking it as present reality I believe has been cleared up.
    – ScottS
    Commented Apr 16, 2014 at 17:48
  • 4
    Additionally, "narrow-minded Christian fundamentalists" (if you so choose to label me) are just as much allowed on an inclusive site as anyone else. So far, however, your comments have demonstrated a far more "narrow-minded" mindset and argumentative tone than mine. We are not all going to agree on this site, and I do not expect you to necessarily agree with my understanding of Scripture (you can down vote my answers if you do not agree), but I believe ad hominem attacks are not welcome, nor productive to discussion.
    – ScottS
    Commented Apr 16, 2014 at 17:55
  • 2
    @ScottS - The problem with this site is precisely the fact that people with warped views, hateful rhetoric, apologist agendas, and a total lack of understanding of the theory and practice of textual and historical criticism are allowed to dominate it and marginalize rational positions.
    – Wad Cheber
    Commented Aug 21, 2015 at 4:46

You must log in to answer this question.

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