AnswersBook.org publishes educational reference content about Bible questions, biblical texts, Christian beliefs, and related historical subjects. This policy sets the standards for selecting, researching, writing, checking, and updating that content. Its purpose is to help readers understand the basis of an explanation and assess its limits.
Topic selection considers reader questions, educational usefulness, available evidence, and the website’s scope. Articles should address a clear question or learning need. Titles, introductions, and short answers must accurately represent the material that follows. Claims of certainty, urgency, or scholarly agreement require support.
Sources must be appropriate to the claim. Biblical passages are central to explaining a text; historical arguments require relevant historical evidence and scholarship. Official denominational publications can establish what that denomination teaches. Their authority on that question does not automatically establish a historical claim or represent every Christian tradition.
References should identify the material used clearly enough for readers to locate it. Depending on the source, this may include an author, title, publication date, edition, page number, section, or link. Quotations must be checked against their source. A citation must support the statement attached to it, and sources must not be invented or cited as consulted when they have not been examined.
Biblical explanations should consider the surrounding passage, the structure of the book, literary genre, and relevant historical setting. Quoted translations should be identified. Differences between translations should be explained where they affect the question. Discussion of Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek must account for usage in context; a word’s possible meanings should not all be assigned to a single occurrence.
Articles must distinguish textual description, historical reconstruction, theological interpretation, and practical application. A narrative’s account of an event, a scholar’s reconstruction, and a religious community’s understanding should be attributed appropriately. Where authorship, dating, or interpretation is disputed, the explanation should identify the uncertainty and avoid presenting a contested conclusion as settled fact.
When Christian traditions differ, articles should name the perspectives relevant to the question and explain their reasoning fairly. Sources should represent the traditions being discussed. Coverage should reflect the relevance and evidential support of a position, without suggesting that every interpretation has equal acceptance. Jewish texts, practices, and interpretations should be described with attention to their own contexts.
The publication standard requires checks of central claims, biblical references, quotations, names, dates, and source attributions. The explanation should answer its stated question and make important qualifications visible. Unresolved claims should be narrowed, clearly qualified, or held back until adequate support is available. Publication speed does not justify avoidable inaccuracy. spj.org
Authorship and review information must describe actual involvement. Names, qualifications, and affiliations must be accurate. Where specialist review takes place, its scope should be stated appropriately. A claim of expert review or peer review must reflect a genuine process; routine editing alone does not establish either.
Where artificial intelligence or other automated tools assist with research organization, drafting, translation, or editing, responsibility remains with the person approving publication. Generated references, quotations, interpretations, and factual statements require verification against identifiable sources. Substantial AI assistance that materially shapes published content should be disclosed. Automated output must not be presented as a scholar’s independent judgment or used to fabricate expertise.
Visual material should clarify the subject and carry appropriate attribution. Maps, charts, and timelines need sources for their substantive information. Illustrations, reconstructions, and generated images should be identified when readers could mistake them for photographs, artifacts, or other historical evidence. Captions must accurately describe what an image shows.
Editorial conclusions must remain independent of commercial interests. Where advertising, sponsorship, affiliate relationships, or relevant conflicts of interest exist, they should be disclosed clearly with the affected content. Commercial relationships must not determine whether evidence is included, a criticism is suppressed, or a conclusion is presented as established.
Corrections should address verified errors promptly. A material correction affecting an article’s meaning, attribution, or conclusion should carry a dated explanation of the change. Minor spelling or formatting repairs may be made without a separate correction notice. If a serious concern cannot immediately be resolved, the affected material may require a notice or temporary withdrawal while it is assessed. Society of Professional Journalists
Updates should reflect meaningful additions, corrections, or reassessment. Publication and modification dates must be accurate; changing a date alone does not constitute a substantive update. New scholarship may justify revising an explanation, and the reason for a significant revision should be clear to readers.
Readers can raise concerns through the Contact Us page. Please identify the article, relevant passage, and supporting source where possible. Alternative interpretations and topic suggestions are welcome and should be assessed using the same standards of relevance, evidence, and fair presentation.
This policy may be revised as editorial practices develop. Its guiding commitments remain clear explanations, traceable sources, accurate attribution, and accountability for published work.