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 deleted your answer as part of the migration from Christianity to Biblical Hermeneutics. I realize the target moved on you as the question was originally on a site where you answer might have been appropriate. However the question was not appropriate on that site (it should not have even been answered there). Your answer would have been fine in the ...


4

Why is the Question Protected? Though not all users are able to see all activity on this question, there are actually fifteen submitted answers which have been proposed, including six deleted and one with a large number of downvotes. Questions with this level of continued activity should be protected, to protect against low-quality contributions. It's ...


4

While I cannot answer for Caleb, I suspect that it was deleted because you do not specifically address the question about the meaning of 2 John 7. That is, you presented a good argument that Jesus will return in the flesh, but you did not continue with that to answer the question about whether 2 John 7 should be taken that way or not (which is the question). ...


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 ...


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/...


1

I wouldn't call your example "application". In fact, I've upvoted the answer and find it useful to understanding the text. I don't even know what portion of the answer you consider to be application. I reject "what the text means" as application, off-topic, or not-an-answer. It either fails to explain a text to a modern reader or makes the unwarranted ...


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