13

BH already has a "show your work" guideline and this still applies. In essence we1 propose to firm up this guideline and begin to enforce it more vigorously. The other answers here illustrated a division in the community2 and we hope to be able to move forward together by focussing on what we agree on. Writing descriptively -- "such-and-such source says ...


9

Bring your own framework We want a site that allows contributors to speak from within their framework. Overall, this broadens the appeal of the site, and it preserves the richness of expression when answers are given in the natural context of the one giving the answer, even if this means expressing one's framework or opinions as unqualified facts. Our aim ...


8

The primary thing is that a source can be verified and consulted if others wish to do so. There are many conventions used for citing sources, but the common elements included are: title of work page number(s), direct URL, subtitles, chapters, verses, etc. that can be used to find the specific reference (i.e. not just the name of a book, help us find where ...


8

Avoid truth assertions (use qualified language) We want a site with broad appeal that welcomes diverse perspectives. This site focuses on the text and the process of interpreting it, using tools such as language, history, archaeology, and science. None of that is inherently religious, which is what distinguishes BH from other Internet sites about the Bible....


6

No. The views represented in individual answers are those of their authors (or at least whatever their authors choose them to represent). The site itself should be worldview agnostic, not even endorsing neutrality. Answers are certainly bounded by certain limitations, but these limitations are imposed by the scope of the question and the discipline of ...


5

1. Reason for VtC OP notes the "hold" reason provided by the system. Just to be clear, I did not point to that text with my VtC, but rather invoked the "bespoke" field, filled with this text: I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it concerns a specifically Christian and doctrinally-related understanding of inerrancy and inspiration, and ...


5

Why can those other questions pass, while this one cannot? With exegesis questions, we draw a distinction between those that arise from a text and those that do not, with the latter being off-topic. By analogy, it may make sense to do the same with hermeneutical-approaches questions: allow them when they are about a known, practised, hermeneutic but not ...


5

Good answers respect their questions If you have a few minutes to be philosophical, take a moment to read A Day at the Park. A key idea: My favorite kind of answers are those that my questions give birth to. Such answers begin with an honest curiosity and proceed to humbly address the concerns of the question, rather than wedging themselves where they ...


4

Specify Your Framework Everyone has presuppositions. I just want you to give me a rough idea of what yours are when you answer my questions. It doesn't help me if I ask a question about hermeneutics or exegesis and you just hand me the "right answer." I need to know why it is right. I need to know how you got there -- and I don't just mean "showing your ...


3

Yes... Our FAQ insists on pluralism: We welcome Jewish, Christian, Atheist and other viewpoints as long as they take seriously the process of understanding the Biblical texts. The state of the art way to implement a pluralistic society is to insist on relativist standards: Questions are required to be open to answers from all sides. Answers are judged ...


3

My £0.02 - "it depends" on what we have in mind as a "source" - the "primary" texts, as I understand them, would mainly be the codified Oral Law: Mishnah Tosefta Talmud (Bavli and Jerushalmi, and inclusive of Gemara) the old but "secondary" texts (not quite "ancient", IMO) would be commentaries like Rashi's, etc.   There is also, I suppose, The ...


2

The reason for my close vote is that I view this question as moving beyond the scope of hermeneutics and source/text criticism. This question is not asking about a framework a scholar uses for interpreting the text, but instead asks if any scholars holding a particular hermeneutic framework also adhere to a specific theology. How this question does not meet ...


2

To me, the other questions you mention inquire about an exegetical method that is influenced to varying degrees by doctrine. Although they involve doctrine, the endpoint is a method of interpreting the text. On the other hand, your question, in an (undoubtedly unfairly) simplified form:1 I observe that: Some OT scholars define the inspired ...


2

I made some comments in another forum, in which I said that Biblical Hermeneutics should not try to be just like the bigger, better resourced sites, because it is not possible for a small competitor to compete on an equal basis. I said that market successful 'Followers' find a niche where they can be successful because that niche is not served by the two (or ...


2

DISCLAIMER: I have completely changed my answer. Yes, I did make that assertion. I'm going to rescind part of it (relativism). But I still think we're postmodern. Allow me to elaborate. Postmodern relativism, pluralism, and diverse doctrinal absolutism, oh my! I think we're using different terms in various discussions to effectively say the same thing, ...


2

Since I've been rather active on this site for a while now, I thought I should answer my own questions, based on my own perspective (which is not to disparage the answers given, since they originally helped me decide to participate). "So why would one want to interact to any significant extent with another deemed to be so far off in error?" Because: There ...


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