Hot answers tagged

8

I would recommend posting a second answer (which is allowed) if the thought has significantly changed. Then going in and editing at the top of the old answer a notice that your thought has significantly changed, with a link to that second answer. This does the least damage in affecting voter opinions, while also allowing for you to express the major change ...


5

I can concur much with what Dɑvïd said in his answer to your question here. However, while the close reason may have been "too broad," that may have been just what the "majority" of those voting to close picked. But I believe you have a more fundamental problem with your "main question": Do you think it is an accurate use of the biblical example of ...


5

No, this is not currently possible. And this is by design. The SE system is designed around the concept of peer review, collaborative editing, and the community being the ultimate judge of useful vs. not useful content. This is a paradigm shift that takes some getting used to, but the concept is worth striving towards. Adding features that encourage the ...


5

Here is a suggestion. You can use a Markdown1 editor (installed locally on your computer). There are many options available for Windows2, Linux3 or Mac4. On Windows, I have used MarkdownPad 2 and Haroopad. On Linux (Ubuntu), I have used Remarkable. Since the good answers will require much time, you could save your answer as a file with extension .md to ...


4

I think you are right to be concerned about the possible impact of a major change, including on those who upvoted or referenced your original answer or even those who refrained from posting a similar answer because you covered the ground they would have covered. Concerned but not too concerned. You post here seems to my mind to carry exactly the degree of ...


4

After some thought that I've come to this conclusion: It's basically a good edit but a bit insensitive in execution. By 'good' I mean in keeping with the tougher enforcement of 'show your work' envisaged in the other meta post. The emotive question is this: was the edit motivated by the desire to edit out the Christian aspect of a post or was it motivated ...


3

There is plenty of interest in the area you want to probe. My own sense is that your intention for the "supporting questions" backfired. I look at this and think: "This Q is basically = Everything I Ever Wanted to Know About Immigration in Ancient Israel -- And I'm Not Afraid to Ask!!" Either blow away your "supporting Qs", or rewrite them as background ...


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

Even 'showing your work' requires a set of assumptions about a common starting point. Without common ground, there is no foundation to build work upon. This is why I've repeatedly argued for a pseudo-neutrality that is a well-defined starting point - assumed common ground, if you will. Without this, who's to say whose assumptions don't need to be defended/...


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