5

I agree the close reason is sometimes miss-used, and would be incorrect applied to that question, but that doesn't mean it's actually an invalid close reason. Questions "about Biblical topics" is meant to cover abstract doctrinal questions. Questions about the application of hermeneutics itself as a field are of course on topic and should not have this ...


5

Moderator note: It seems like discussion on this issue has run its course and this proposal had the best support and the most fine tuning. The site's close reasons have been duly updated. Any further discussion should probably happen in a new meta post. — Caleb Background Incorporating ideas from Davïd's answer here, as well as his answer elsewhere, ...


5

In the last 90 days, here are the close reason statistics: Name Closed Closed->Edited Closed->Reopened Cl->Ed->Re ------------------------------------------ ---------- -------------- ---------------- ---------- duplicate 17 3 2 ...


5

I don't see any need for this. First of all, "appeals to doctrine" is a more common problem for answers than it is for questions. Close reasons apply to questions, they are not for handling answers. Second, we already have appropriate messages covering off topic reasons when questions are not about a specific text. Third, I would argue that several of ...


4

Looking for the the gloss of a word is not a type that particularly requires expertise to handle. A lexicon would serve the purpose. The question as posted basically just asks for somebody else to do a lookup in a lexicon. An appropriate question for this site would be something not answered by a basic lexicon, that required combining with other sources of ...


4

I'd love to see it go away altogether and be replaced with the following: Exegetical questions that don't start from the text, but rather from a preconceived idea or framework, are off topic. I don't care if the question starts from systematic theology, physics, or theoretical underwater basket-weaving — it's off topic if it doesn't essentially ...


4

I understand what kind of question you're talking about, and yes we do need to close them. But besides the underlying motivation of the asked (which you have described) these posts are almost always directly symptomatic of one of our other close reasons. Some of them are too broad, some don't start from the text, others and unclear. I haven't seen an ...


4

Conceptually the point you've made in this meta question makes sense, but the specific instance cited doesn't match your argument. First let me point out that you've accepted an answer that's basically nothing but a logical fallacy. Your question asks for whether something was justifiable based on their situation at the time, then accepted an answer that ...


4

As someone who voted to close, I might be able to explain some of the poor reception for the question. The original question asked: What was the volume of oil in the flask, the 5 wise bridesmaids took with them? My reasoning for closing was that the text mentions flasks of oil, but doesn't give any hint at the volume. The fact that the text doesn't ...


4

Questions about hermeneutical approaches are unambiguously allowed by the help center even when not based on biblical passages. Questions that do not arise from a Biblical text are off-topic unless they are about hermeneutical approaches. Not sure? You can find much more detail and all the nuances on our meta site. It seems to me that the enforcement of ...


3

I voted to reopen (though that was after editing). But frankly, your statement above is right on and totally relevant for an answer on this site: Personally, I think that more insight on meaning can be gained by examining this archaeologically and culturally than linguistically (though questions about those topics are explicitly in scope, see the tour or ...


3

I wonder if people simply seized on the word "volume" and thought of the question in terms of mathematical precision. I think that is the driver behind objections 1, 2, and 4. I've edited this particular question to try and make it more obviously suited to the site. Hopefully people will vote to re-open it. In general this sort of question is on-topic. ...


2

Yet another option: ̶Q̶u̶e̶s̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶f̶a̶i̶l̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶f̶o̶c̶u̶s̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶b̶i̶b̶l̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶t̶e̶x̶t̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶h̶e̶r̶m̶e̶n̶e̶u̶t̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶a̶p̶p̶r̶o̶a̶c̶h̶e̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶f̶ ̶t̶o̶p̶i̶c̶.̶ Tweak: Questions which fail to focus on the interpretation of the biblical text or hermeneutical approaches to it are off topic. I ...


2

The verse is tacked on at the end, looking like you've only included it in order to satisfy the site rules, rather than something you're actually interested in. Simply listing examples, whether from scripture or other texts, won't actually bring much clarity to what the phrase means. Firstly is the problem of the opinionated nature of it - examples will be ...


2

Biblical Hermeneutics, the study of the Biblical texts, is only one discipline and both depends upon and informs the disciplines of theology. This has been called the Hermeneutical Circle, as illustrated by Don Carson: Our reading and interpretation of the Bible informs the theology that we develop from it. And although we might like to think that we can ...


2

Agreed with observations by others that there is significant overlap between the first two existing reasons: Questions about biblical topics but without a specific Bible passage are off-topic as hermeneutical methods cannot be applied when no text is referenced. Questions including a biblical text but that are not seeking an answer about ① the history of ...


1

There's definitely scope for changing the close reasons. Because actually we have two close reasons for the one single problem: Questions about biblical topics but without a specific Bible passage are off-topic as hermeneutical methods cannot be applied when no text is referenced. Questions including a biblical text but that are not seeking an answer about ...


1

I believe the way this has been worded in the past is that questions ought to "start from a text." In this flowchart, I worded this question as "Does your question arise from and focus on the text (and not primarily on those things to which the text applies)?" It also asks, "Does your question include and/or properly cite the ...


1

They do not get deleted, unless the question and its answers aren't worth keeping since none of them have a positive score. See The Community user deleted my question! What gives? for some explanation about this automatic process.


1

I apologize if I’m backpedaling here. I agree with the ideas about site scope offered in ScottS's answer and in our current close reasons. I harbor lingering doubts, though, about whether our panel of close reasons really needs to present a comprehensive thesis on site scope, or even a balanced abstract. We have aptly demonstrated in many meta posts our ...


1

I propose the following wording be adopted. This wording attempts to matches the current close reasons, except for close reason #3 is wrapped into close reason #1 here, and a new #3 noted that deals with questions about language itself. While such could be considered to overlap with close reason #4, it seems to me that a reason specifically targeting these ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible