cellio

**Avoid truth assertions**

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.

One of our core tenets is that hermeneutical process is (or ought to be) open to examination
from all sides. Religious claims are often not open to examination. Not only that, but

cellio

**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 is to be 'expert' in the context of the internet. This will not be the best 
home for those who do not think deeply about the texts or those who cannot communicate 
clearly and effectively. It is not our aim to be home only to academics or full-time 

cellio

Some notes about my BH answers

* Answers of mine that I think are under-valued (either directly or relatively);
  didn't start tracking this right away so incomplete. (31)


Accepted + only answer (16) (so nothing to compare to)

12 - stoning 
12 - Aaron avoid Paro 

cellio

Site direction: ok, now what?

We asked [what kind of a site do we want to have?](http://meta.hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/735/208) and
the results were inconclusive.  The most-voted answers have the following vote breakdowns (as of this writing):

- Avoid truth assertions (use qualified language): +12 / -7  (5)
- Bring your own framework: +10 / -6  (4)
- Good answers respect their questions: +8 / -4  (4)
- Specify your framework: +6 / -5  (1)

cellio

Jack and Monica jointly propose the following path forward:

The results of this question have been somewhat inconclusive so far.  The most-voted 
answers have the following vote breakdowns (as of this writing):
 
- Avoid truth assertions (use qualified language): +12 / -7 (5)
- Bring your own framework: +10 / -6 (4)
- Good answers respect their questions: +8 / -4 (4)
- Specify your framework: +6 / -5 (1)
 

cellio

Question:

Would there be a halachic reason to stone Jesus for saying what JWs believe he said?

[According to Jehovah's Witnesses][1] (a small offshoot of Christianity), Jesus' identity is as follows:

> He was God's first creation, and he helped in the creation of all other things. He is the only one created directly by Jehovah and is therefore appropriately called God's "only-begotten" Son.

According to the New Testament book of John, there was an incident when Jesus said something very offensive to some fellow Jews, and they decided to stone him for it. According to the [JW translation of the John 8][2], here's how it went down: