Skip to main content
Biblical Hermeneutics Meta

Return to Answer

updated dead link
Source Link
Dɑvïd
Dɑvïd
  • 25.1k
  • 22
  • 18

My own brief period of active participation on BH.SE prompts me to attempt a development of points 2) "... we study the Bible", and 4) "This is a university...” from another answer.

We desire consistency and clarity in our "mode of discourse"

Every interpretative approach, or means of analysis, or hermeneutical method, etc., brings with it its own set of criteria for (a) what it calls upon as evidence; (b) how that evidence is evaluated; and (c) how arguments/discussions about that evidence and its evaluation are framed and conducted. Each of (a), (b), and (c) needs to be consistent and commensurate.

Imagine you were shopping for a new vehicle, and you were interested in the performance characteristics of the thing. If you got replies about the colours it comes in, interior appointments (leather upholstery!), etc., you would get fed up pretty quickly. Likewise, if it was the aesthetic side of things you were curious about, but got engineering responses (dual overhead cams, fuel injected, 4WD, etc.) you would likewise get fed up! In this (banal) example, "aesthetic" and "engineering" modes of discourse have been confused.

BH.SE works best when there is self-conscious awareness and consistency in the language used in its Q&As:

(The links come from academic sites, and are simply intended to convey the sense that these disciplines each have their own language, set of assumptions, criteria for validity, etc.) These are, probably, the three main types of Q&A that work best at BH.SE. On the other hand:

  • religious
  • theological/doctrinal
  • ethical
  • liturgical

aspects need to be handled as facets of the biblical texts studied by participants of BH.SE in historical, linguistic, and literary terms, and not as aspects of personal conviction, or the belief and praxis of historic and contemporary faith communities (for which see the Mi Yodeya and Christianity Stack Exchange sites).

My own brief period of active participation on BH.SE prompts me to attempt a development of points 2) "... we study the Bible", and 4) "This is a university...” from another answer.

We desire consistency and clarity in our "mode of discourse"

Every interpretative approach, or means of analysis, or hermeneutical method, etc., brings with it its own set of criteria for (a) what it calls upon as evidence; (b) how that evidence is evaluated; and (c) how arguments/discussions about that evidence and its evaluation are framed and conducted. Each of (a), (b), and (c) needs to be consistent and commensurate.

Imagine you were shopping for a new vehicle, and you were interested in the performance characteristics of the thing. If you got replies about the colours it comes in, interior appointments (leather upholstery!), etc., you would get fed up pretty quickly. Likewise, if it was the aesthetic side of things you were curious about, but got engineering responses (dual overhead cams, fuel injected, 4WD, etc.) you would likewise get fed up! In this (banal) example, "aesthetic" and "engineering" modes of discourse have been confused.

BH.SE works best when there is self-conscious awareness and consistency in the language used in its Q&As:

  • historical questions require historical responses
  • linguistic questions require linguistic responses
  • literary questions require literary responses

(The links come from academic sites, and are simply intended to convey the sense that these disciplines each have their own language, set of assumptions, criteria for validity, etc.) These are, probably, the three main types of Q&A that work best at BH.SE. On the other hand:

  • religious
  • theological/doctrinal
  • ethical
  • liturgical

aspects need to be handled as facets of the biblical texts studied by participants of BH.SE in historical, linguistic, and literary terms, and not as aspects of personal conviction, or the belief and praxis of historic and contemporary faith communities (for which see the Mi Yodeya and Christianity Stack Exchange sites).

My own brief period of active participation on BH.SE prompts me to attempt a development of points 2) "... we study the Bible", and 4) "This is a university...” from another answer.

We desire consistency and clarity in our "mode of discourse"

Every interpretative approach, or means of analysis, or hermeneutical method, etc., brings with it its own set of criteria for (a) what it calls upon as evidence; (b) how that evidence is evaluated; and (c) how arguments/discussions about that evidence and its evaluation are framed and conducted. Each of (a), (b), and (c) needs to be consistent and commensurate.

Imagine you were shopping for a new vehicle, and you were interested in the performance characteristics of the thing. If you got replies about the colours it comes in, interior appointments (leather upholstery!), etc., you would get fed up pretty quickly. Likewise, if it was the aesthetic side of things you were curious about, but got engineering responses (dual overhead cams, fuel injected, 4WD, etc.) you would likewise get fed up! In this (banal) example, "aesthetic" and "engineering" modes of discourse have been confused.

BH.SE works best when there is self-conscious awareness and consistency in the language used in its Q&As:

  • historical questions require historical responses
  • linguistic questions require linguistic responses
  • literary questions require literary responses

(The links come from academic sites, and are simply intended to convey the sense that these disciplines each have their own language, set of assumptions, criteria for validity, etc.) These are, probably, the three main types of Q&A that work best at BH.SE. On the other hand:

  • religious
  • theological/doctrinal
  • ethical
  • liturgical

aspects need to be handled as facets of the biblical texts studied by participants of BH.SE in historical, linguistic, and literary terms, and not as aspects of personal conviction, or the belief and praxis of historic and contemporary faith communities (for which see the Mi Yodeya and Christianity Stack Exchange sites).

replaced http://christianity.stackexchange.com/ with https://christianity.stackexchange.com/
Source Link
Community Bot
Community Bot
  • 1

My own brief period of active participation on BH.SE prompts me to attempt a development of points 2) "... we study the Bible", and 4) "This is a university...” from another answer.

We desire consistency and clarity in our "mode of discourse"

Every interpretative approach, or means of analysis, or hermeneutical method, etc., brings with it its own set of criteria for (a) what it calls upon as evidence; (b) how that evidence is evaluated; and (c) how arguments/discussions about that evidence and its evaluation are framed and conducted. Each of (a), (b), and (c) needs to be consistent and commensurate.

Imagine you were shopping for a new vehicle, and you were interested in the performance characteristics of the thing. If you got replies about the colours it comes in, interior appointments (leather upholstery!), etc., you would get fed up pretty quickly. Likewise, if it was the aesthetic side of things you were curious about, but got engineering responses (dual overhead cams, fuel injected, 4WD, etc.) you would likewise get fed up! In this (banal) example, "aesthetic" and "engineering" modes of discourse have been confused.

BH.SE works best when there is self-conscious awareness and consistency in the language used in its Q&As:

  • historical questions require historical responses
  • linguistic questions require linguistic responses
  • literary questions require literary responses

(The links come from academic sites, and are simply intended to convey the sense that these disciplines each have their own language, set of assumptions, criteria for validity, etc.) These are, probably, the three main types of Q&A that work best at BH.SE. On the other hand:

  • religious
  • theological/doctrinal
  • ethical
  • liturgical

aspects need to be handled as facets of the biblical texts studied by participants of BH.SE in historical, linguistic, and literary terms, and not as aspects of personal conviction, or the belief and praxis of historic and contemporary faith communities (for which see the Mi Yodeya and ChristianityChristianity Stack Exchange sites).

My own brief period of active participation on BH.SE prompts me to attempt a development of points 2) "... we study the Bible", and 4) "This is a university...” from another answer.

We desire consistency and clarity in our "mode of discourse"

Every interpretative approach, or means of analysis, or hermeneutical method, etc., brings with it its own set of criteria for (a) what it calls upon as evidence; (b) how that evidence is evaluated; and (c) how arguments/discussions about that evidence and its evaluation are framed and conducted. Each of (a), (b), and (c) needs to be consistent and commensurate.

Imagine you were shopping for a new vehicle, and you were interested in the performance characteristics of the thing. If you got replies about the colours it comes in, interior appointments (leather upholstery!), etc., you would get fed up pretty quickly. Likewise, if it was the aesthetic side of things you were curious about, but got engineering responses (dual overhead cams, fuel injected, 4WD, etc.) you would likewise get fed up! In this (banal) example, "aesthetic" and "engineering" modes of discourse have been confused.

BH.SE works best when there is self-conscious awareness and consistency in the language used in its Q&As:

  • historical questions require historical responses
  • linguistic questions require linguistic responses
  • literary questions require literary responses

(The links come from academic sites, and are simply intended to convey the sense that these disciplines each have their own language, set of assumptions, criteria for validity, etc.) These are, probably, the three main types of Q&A that work best at BH.SE. On the other hand:

  • religious
  • theological/doctrinal
  • ethical
  • liturgical

aspects need to be handled as facets of the biblical texts studied by participants of BH.SE in historical, linguistic, and literary terms, and not as aspects of personal conviction, or the belief and praxis of historic and contemporary faith communities (for which see the Mi Yodeya and Christianity Stack Exchange sites).

My own brief period of active participation on BH.SE prompts me to attempt a development of points 2) "... we study the Bible", and 4) "This is a university...” from another answer.

We desire consistency and clarity in our "mode of discourse"

Every interpretative approach, or means of analysis, or hermeneutical method, etc., brings with it its own set of criteria for (a) what it calls upon as evidence; (b) how that evidence is evaluated; and (c) how arguments/discussions about that evidence and its evaluation are framed and conducted. Each of (a), (b), and (c) needs to be consistent and commensurate.

Imagine you were shopping for a new vehicle, and you were interested in the performance characteristics of the thing. If you got replies about the colours it comes in, interior appointments (leather upholstery!), etc., you would get fed up pretty quickly. Likewise, if it was the aesthetic side of things you were curious about, but got engineering responses (dual overhead cams, fuel injected, 4WD, etc.) you would likewise get fed up! In this (banal) example, "aesthetic" and "engineering" modes of discourse have been confused.

BH.SE works best when there is self-conscious awareness and consistency in the language used in its Q&As:

  • historical questions require historical responses
  • linguistic questions require linguistic responses
  • literary questions require literary responses

(The links come from academic sites, and are simply intended to convey the sense that these disciplines each have their own language, set of assumptions, criteria for validity, etc.) These are, probably, the three main types of Q&A that work best at BH.SE. On the other hand:

  • religious
  • theological/doctrinal
  • ethical
  • liturgical

aspects need to be handled as facets of the biblical texts studied by participants of BH.SE in historical, linguistic, and literary terms, and not as aspects of personal conviction, or the belief and praxis of historic and contemporary faith communities (for which see the Mi Yodeya and Christianity Stack Exchange sites).

replaced http://mi.yodeya.com/ with https://judaism.stackexchange.com/
Source Link
Community Bot
Community Bot
  • 1

My own brief period of active participation on BH.SE prompts me to attempt a development of points 2) "... we study the Bible", and 4) "This is a university...” from another answer.

We desire consistency and clarity in our "mode of discourse"

Every interpretative approach, or means of analysis, or hermeneutical method, etc., brings with it its own set of criteria for (a) what it calls upon as evidence; (b) how that evidence is evaluated; and (c) how arguments/discussions about that evidence and its evaluation are framed and conducted. Each of (a), (b), and (c) needs to be consistent and commensurate.

Imagine you were shopping for a new vehicle, and you were interested in the performance characteristics of the thing. If you got replies about the colours it comes in, interior appointments (leather upholstery!), etc., you would get fed up pretty quickly. Likewise, if it was the aesthetic side of things you were curious about, but got engineering responses (dual overhead cams, fuel injected, 4WD, etc.) you would likewise get fed up! In this (banal) example, "aesthetic" and "engineering" modes of discourse have been confused.

BH.SE works best when there is self-conscious awareness and consistency in the language used in its Q&As:

  • historical questions require historical responses
  • linguistic questions require linguistic responses
  • literary questions require literary responses

(The links come from academic sites, and are simply intended to convey the sense that these disciplines each have their own language, set of assumptions, criteria for validity, etc.) These are, probably, the three main types of Q&A that work best at BH.SE. On the other hand:

  • religious
  • theological/doctrinal
  • ethical
  • liturgical

aspects need to be handled as facets of the biblical texts studied by participants of BH.SE in historical, linguistic, and literary terms, and not as aspects of personal conviction, or the belief and praxis of historic and contemporary faith communities (for which see the Mi YodeyaMi Yodeya and Christianity Stack Exchange sites).

My own brief period of active participation on BH.SE prompts me to attempt a development of points 2) "... we study the Bible", and 4) "This is a university...” from another answer.

We desire consistency and clarity in our "mode of discourse"

Every interpretative approach, or means of analysis, or hermeneutical method, etc., brings with it its own set of criteria for (a) what it calls upon as evidence; (b) how that evidence is evaluated; and (c) how arguments/discussions about that evidence and its evaluation are framed and conducted. Each of (a), (b), and (c) needs to be consistent and commensurate.

Imagine you were shopping for a new vehicle, and you were interested in the performance characteristics of the thing. If you got replies about the colours it comes in, interior appointments (leather upholstery!), etc., you would get fed up pretty quickly. Likewise, if it was the aesthetic side of things you were curious about, but got engineering responses (dual overhead cams, fuel injected, 4WD, etc.) you would likewise get fed up! In this (banal) example, "aesthetic" and "engineering" modes of discourse have been confused.

BH.SE works best when there is self-conscious awareness and consistency in the language used in its Q&As:

  • historical questions require historical responses
  • linguistic questions require linguistic responses
  • literary questions require literary responses

(The links come from academic sites, and are simply intended to convey the sense that these disciplines each have their own language, set of assumptions, criteria for validity, etc.) These are, probably, the three main types of Q&A that work best at BH.SE. On the other hand:

  • religious
  • theological/doctrinal
  • ethical
  • liturgical

aspects need to be handled as facets of the biblical texts studied by participants of BH.SE in historical, linguistic, and literary terms, and not as aspects of personal conviction, or the belief and praxis of historic and contemporary faith communities (for which see the Mi Yodeya and Christianity Stack Exchange sites).

My own brief period of active participation on BH.SE prompts me to attempt a development of points 2) "... we study the Bible", and 4) "This is a university...” from another answer.

We desire consistency and clarity in our "mode of discourse"

Every interpretative approach, or means of analysis, or hermeneutical method, etc., brings with it its own set of criteria for (a) what it calls upon as evidence; (b) how that evidence is evaluated; and (c) how arguments/discussions about that evidence and its evaluation are framed and conducted. Each of (a), (b), and (c) needs to be consistent and commensurate.

Imagine you were shopping for a new vehicle, and you were interested in the performance characteristics of the thing. If you got replies about the colours it comes in, interior appointments (leather upholstery!), etc., you would get fed up pretty quickly. Likewise, if it was the aesthetic side of things you were curious about, but got engineering responses (dual overhead cams, fuel injected, 4WD, etc.) you would likewise get fed up! In this (banal) example, "aesthetic" and "engineering" modes of discourse have been confused.

BH.SE works best when there is self-conscious awareness and consistency in the language used in its Q&As:

  • historical questions require historical responses
  • linguistic questions require linguistic responses
  • literary questions require literary responses

(The links come from academic sites, and are simply intended to convey the sense that these disciplines each have their own language, set of assumptions, criteria for validity, etc.) These are, probably, the three main types of Q&A that work best at BH.SE. On the other hand:

  • religious
  • theological/doctrinal
  • ethical
  • liturgical

aspects need to be handled as facets of the biblical texts studied by participants of BH.SE in historical, linguistic, and literary terms, and not as aspects of personal conviction, or the belief and praxis of historic and contemporary faith communities (for which see the Mi Yodeya and Christianity Stack Exchange sites).

replaced http://meta.hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ with https://hermeneutics.meta.stackexchange.com/
Source Link
Community Bot
Community Bot
  • 1
positive reception has been established
Source Link
Susan Mod
Susan Mod
  • 27.2k
  • 12
  • 19
glossing "faith communities" with a more descriptive manner
Source Link
Dɑvïd
Dɑvïd
  • 25.1k
  • 22
  • 18
Source Link
Dɑvïd
Dɑvïd
  • 25.1k
  • 22
  • 18