Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Jensen | 18057 | ||
It is a chat room in time delay mode. I am very new to this forum, and pretty new to Christianity as it is intended to be understood. I have spent a lot of forum time reading, what must be considered,personal notes, when I intended to search for an answer. I got caught up in it pretty quick myself and I apologize for not seeing the better use for this forum. Your limits on posting are intended to help people like myself. It is not confussion that reigns, it is the time wasting practices. The StudyBibleForum.com is for the layman and a limit of three(possibly wrong)ideas does not help. I enjoy reading the points of view. But as I scroll the thread I come across lots of wasted time so that your idea of staying focused would be a great help. There are lots of old friends at this site it seems and the StudyBibleForum.com is for them also. As it is stated by the Lockman Foundation "for teacher and scholar, it's an opportunity to freely share your knowledge." Perhaps someone could suggest to the Lockman Foundation to put a "chatroom" link together. That would permit "side issues" to be taken up and old friends can affirm scholarly pursuits. God Bless, Jensen |
||||||
2 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18058 | ||
Dear Bill Mc, Charis, and Jensen, Thank you for your responses to these suggestions so far. It sounds like we all agree that a much better job could be done of maintaining the relevancy of discussion to the original question in a post. (In fact, I noticed that Bill Mc did a good job of this in his most recent post on regarding where souls come from.) It also seems that there is agreement on the need for greater unity, which could be aided by having "consensus posts" at the end of threads. (I didn't catch your take on that idea though Jensen.) I think that this would help people who are searching for an answer to a question to be able to get an overall idea before wading through all the "personal notes". I appreciate Bill Mc and Charis support for the third idea of limiting our responses to 3 after a person initially asks a question. I understand your reservation, Jensen, that perhaps all of the first three responses could be completely incorrect. Although this is possible, I think that it is unlikely. There is a large number of very consistent members of this forum who seem to always look out for new questions and jump at the chance to answer them (Nolan Keck, Steve Butler and Tim Moran are three of many examples). I have observed enough of all of these people's posts to have confidence in their responses. Even if I don't completely agree with what they might say, I know that they will be at least based in scripture and pretty well thought out. In short, they would be sufficient for a starting point for the original questioner to respond to. The alternative is to keep doing what we're doing and have 10 responses to a question that are so overwhelming and many times contradictory (to the point of confusion after 10 of them), that the original person who asked the question never comes back. Finally, I would like to say that these are not absolute rules to be followed upon penalty of death. Instead they are "Unity Guidelines" which I hope many of us could agree to abide by as a pattern of behavior. Of course if there was a time that the first three responses to a question said that Jesus was not the Son of God, there would be just cause for an exception to be made. |
||||||