I purchase resources in Logos format based on their potential to edify my faith, deepen my understanding of and sharpen my interpretation and teaching of the Word of God as I minister to others.
Since seminary is behind me (a time during which I extensively interacted with people I disagreed with, realizing in the process that there is nothing new under the sun and it is mostly a matter of rehashing old arguments and theories with a new packaging), the Lord is refocusing my priorities and reminding me of the real goal of all those years of study: know him more and more and edify the church ans do so in the context and with the help of the community of believers.
I do not study the Bible and related topics for knowledge’s sake and as such I do not consider all resources to be equally useful, in truth, some are not useful at all and can even be toxic to your faith.
Despite the naïve claim of objectivity of some, our conclusions are determined by our presuppositions and worldview. If you know the assumptions adopted by an author, it is generally very easy to guess what conclusions will be adopted.
I now gravitate towards resources that embrace a historical view of the Faith, God, Jesus, and the Word of God when it matters and do so while pursuing scholarship and excellence (yes, some resources that agree with my worldview might be worthless if these two goals are not valued) and I also avoid purchasing books whose primary goal is to undermine the faith.
True, if I want to read a rebuttal of a particular book, I will also attempt to obtain the work in question to make sure that the author is represented fairly and that I understand his or her argument in context. However, these kinds of works are better borrowed than purchased since their usefulness to me is very limited. This is why I will not buy anything from Ehrman anytime soon. My focus is less and less on responding to critics and more and more on getting to know God better in the framework of an intimate and believing relationship with him.
This does not mean that all the books I purchase must share my worldview. While they might contribute little to spiritual edification for example, they might be useful for historical and cultural backgrounds, grammar and syntax, textual criticism, and so on.
This is a reason why I have the Anchor Bible Commentaries and Dictionary, hermeneia, ICC, and many others works whose worldviews I might not share.
However, my goal is not an equal and unbiased consideration of all possible views, rather I will use everything and anything but only these things that help me know Christ better and exalt him.
Does that make me less “scholarly”?, maybe (and I do not care), but my goal is not to be consider a scholar from a worldly standard (my presuppositions make it less and less likely in venues like SBL), I am satisfied with rightly dividing the Word of Truth and edifying those I teach.
Alain Maashe:However, my goal is not an equal and unbiased consideration of all possible views, rather I will use everything and anything but only these things that help me know Christ better and exalt him.
Amen, brother (to your whole post).
Mark Barnes: Who says Logos are "refusing to offer Ehrman's books"? What's your evidence for that claim?
Who says Logos are "refusing to offer Ehrman's books"? What's your evidence for that claim?
Uh, the years-long NOTHING that Logos has put forth on this front. I and others have been requesting (to put it lightly) Ehrman's books for years, in multiple threads. To my knowledge (which is all I have to go on), until Gabe's tepidly hopeful comment, there has been no indication that Logos had any intention of offering Bart's works. Fwiw, in our western economy, intentions may be worth a bird in the hand, but that isn't how YHWH's economy works. He's very much a "show me" type. I am not trying to make this a theological discussion...I'm just setting up the response to those below who have already chosen to make it one.
Robert: David Paul: Logos ought to feel ashamed and embarrassed I respectfully disagree. We cannot know the full circumstances (as Mark Barnes and Joseph Turner have pointed out), but even if we did, is FL morally and professionally responsible to offer every title that a Logos book refers or responds to? I submit that such an expectation is not realistic.
David Paul: Logos ought to feel ashamed and embarrassed
Logos ought to feel ashamed and embarrassed
I respectfully disagree. We cannot know the full circumstances (as Mark Barnes and Joseph Turner have pointed out), but even if we did, is FL morally and professionally responsible to offer every title that a Logos book refers or responds to? I submit that such an expectation is not realistic.
Here's the thing...there is nothing that requires us to sit on our hands waiting on "full knowledge" before we can act. Actually, Biblical evidence is to the contrary. Regarding FL's "moral" and professional responsibility, I will simply point out that Bart Ehrman, (not withstanding the Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris crowd), probably has done more than any other individual on the planet to erode a sense of trust in YHWH and the Bible. His activities are a significant attack on YHWH's credibility. Plain and simple, Bart Ehrman, for better or worse, is a force to be reckoned with, and since the Bible issues a demand to understand the wiles of the enemy, there is a responsibility to both carry and address Ehrman's place in the discussion, whether FL or Logos customers like it or not. His material should probably be in the top ten most needful acquisitions. This has been the case for years.
DAL: Thou shall not raise false testimony against your neighbor...Repent DP of your sinful and false accusations! Show proof and stop your evil surmising instead of spitting your venom out without concrete evidence. DAL
Thou shall not raise false testimony against your neighbor...Repent DP of your sinful and false accusations! Show proof and stop your evil surmising instead of spitting your venom out without concrete evidence.
DAL
Rick Carmickle: I have had issues about Faithlife/Logos in the past, but DAL is exactly right. David Paul's remarks are ugly and unfounded. If you don't want Bird's book without Bart's, then don't buy it. (I am sure that Logos would offer Bart's books if possible, anyway.)
I have had issues about Faithlife/Logos in the past, but DAL is exactly right. David Paul's remarks are ugly and unfounded. If you don't want Bird's book without Bart's, then don't buy it. (I am sure that Logos would offer Bart's books if possible, anyway.)
Rick, there is precious little that DAL is right about, and this concern doesn't buck the trend. In my estimation, the sense of "sin" you two share is twisted and off-the-mark. For my "accusation" and "remarks" to be "false" and "unfounded", evidence would need to be, well...evident, because evidence works both ways. There has been no such evidence for years. THAT is foundation, thus debunking your bunk remark. But, of course, there's more. With me, there always is.
You see, it stretches credulity drastically to suggest there is a publishing dispute for Bart's book when Bird's et al. book somehow breezed through the negotiations. Why, you ask? How can I "know"? BECAUSE THE TWO BOOKS ARE PUBLISHED BY THE SAME COMPANY!!!! Not only that, but the company actually was the impetus for the follow-up. This scenario was literally designed as an effective "two-fer package deal" prior to conception. This two-book "deal" is about as natural a combo as anything Logos ever offered...and yet...
...somehow, Bart got jilted. Is there an explanation? An excuse? Isn't there always? But whatever it is, I bet you anything it is real hard to stomach. And why? Because that's what the EVIDENCE suggests.
Just to be clear, evidence isn't always proof. That doesn't mean you get to ignore the evidence.
mab: Last time I checked Logos was still a business first. My guess is that most all of Bart's books aren't going to do well here. I wouldn't want them even if they were free. At least the print copies can always be used to prop up a sagging couch or something similar.
Last time I checked Logos was still a business first. My guess is that most all of Bart's books aren't going to do well here. I wouldn't want them even if they were free. At least the print copies can always be used to prop up a sagging couch or something similar.
I think George's response was well made and pertinent. As I said recently in another thread, some of my greatest insights came while reading things I know to be false. Often, it is the way something is false that sheds light on a deeper truth. But there is more, where Bart is concerned. As Denise hinted at, there is plenty of what Bart says that is uncomfortably true. Not accepting these things drives a wedge between the sandheads and the greater truth they supposedly are so fond of. There is usually a grain of truth in most false "isms", one which most other isms find annoying, disconcerting, or unacceptable. It is the rejection of this valued truth by the flood of otherness that causes an ism to ply layer upon layer of dubious protection to their precious grain of wisdom. The resulting pearl may only have "great price" to those who made it, but the core truth, if it can be gotten at, is still valuable to all who avail themselves of it.
I've only read one of Bart's books cover to cover, and I was able to glean a number of important insights in the process. Some because of true facts he brings out, but the more important ones were made apparent because he was wrong, but wrong in a more intelligent way than most Christians are capable of generating. Many of Bart's doubts are worthy of addressing, but the standard apologetic approach of "conclusion, therefore awkward proof" which is so intent on making him a "wrong bad guy", can't and won't ever see what's behind the curtain he's tugging at.
I don't know what is keeping the "sister tome" in this duplex from Logos's PrePub list, but whatever it is, it NEEDS to be made to go away...a little NASA "failure is not an option" required. I will accept Gabe's comment as a temporary palliative to my vituperative ire, but Logos does bear responsibility for making this demonstrably important material available to its customers, and the sooner the better.
ASROCK x570 Creator, AMD R9 3950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, Asus Strix RTX 2080 ti, 2tb m.2 Seagate Firecuda SSD (x2) ...and other mechano-digital happiness.
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not."
David Paul:there is nothing that requires us to sit on our hands waiting on "full knowledge" before we can act.
Better to act in "full ignorance?"
Got two witnesses?
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
Super.Tramp: Got two witnesses?
You mean besides HarperOne and Zondervan?
If you can't see the difference between Logos "refusing to offer Ehrman's books" (of which there is no evidence), and Logos simply not offering his works, or perhaps even not prioritising his works, then IMO you ought to feel ashamed and embarrassed.
Mark Barnes: David Paul: Logos ought to feel ashamed and embarrassed If you can't see the difference between Logos "refusing to offer Ehrman's books" (of which there is no evidence), and Logos simply not offering his works, or perhaps even not prioritising his works, then IMO you ought to feel ashamed and embarrassed.
Funny, I think your saying that should make you feel embarrassed. What's the difference between "refusing" and "not offering"? And what is the rationale for saying (without squirming at the awkward appearance of it all) that a designed set being deliberately truncated is the equivalent of "not prioritizing"?
David Paul:What's the difference between "refusing" and "not offering"?
Is that a serious question?
Let's imagine you wanted me to send you an email. It might be because I'm unwilling to do so (i.e. I'm refusing to), or it might be because I'm unable to do so at the moment (I'm travelling, I don't have internet access), or it might be because I'm not prioritising it (I am travelling and I don't have internet access. I could detour 50 miles to get on Wifi, but I don't think it's that important — but I will email you when it's convenient).
The result is the same in all cases (you don't get the email), but the motivation is entirely different, and that's just as important.
*eats popcorn*
I disagree with Bart's conclusions, but I would like his work in Logos. He is a credentialed Biblical scholar - even if he is quite fringe.
Here is a debate between Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk0bMzaIGas
Mark Barnes: Is that a serious question?
In the non-hypothetical world where I'm not entirely blind, deaf, and dumb to circumstances, of course it is. Sure, if in a bubble of complete ignorance, I might be forced to concede that anything is possible because I am unaware of all external stimuli, but that's not the case. There is plenty of evidence and lack of evidence, where one would expect them, to conclude Logos isn't pushing for Ehrman's inclusion in the way they should--particularly with reference to this set of specs that just so happens to be missing a lens...the Bart lens.
I'm embarrassed by the obvious lack of love and unity among those who claim the name of Christ. Why are we arguing and accusing one another over a book? Enough said.
Chris Miller: I'm embarrassed by the obvious lack of love and unity among those who claim the name of Christ. Why are we arguing and accusing one another over a book? Enough said.
I don't think you fully comprehend what either one of those concepts addresses. Neither of them really applies to this discussion. The reason we are arguing about a book/author is because we disagree and have different perspectives. There is no way to address those differences without disagreeing. Not addressing them also means that nothing will be done to resolve the issue, one way or the other. That is stagnation. Stagnation is death.
I was going to address this issue above, but decided not to, but I guess I will here, since it won't go away. Christians have a disturbing tendency to over-simplify nearly every issue, and they usually err on several fronts when they do. Take "love" for instance. Most Christians have no real clue what the Bible means by the concept. David said he despised the enemies of YHWH, and that YHWH's enemies were his enemies and he wished for their extirpation. Yeishuu`a said "love your enemies". Christians, with their feeble grasp of Scripture, nearly always assume that Yeishuu`a's words trumped David's words and rendered his sentiments defunct. The reason? Well, isn't is obvious that the two notions are wholly incompatible?
Hardly...and only someone who doesn't comprehend YHWH, His purpose, His word, or His prophetic intentions would think these ideas are incompatible. Anyone who doesn't wish the extirpation of YHWH's enemies IS one of those enemies. And, we should love them all.
For most, this is pure paradox and nonsense. This supposed paradox, however, kinda gets to the heart of Bart's dilemmas. He fundamentally misunderstands ':Elohhiym, but he actually understands certain things about YHWH much better than just about any Christian does. He just doesn't have the insight to reconcile the "paradox". He has also voiced ideas that indicate He might not be satisfied if the paradoxes were made clear. But who knows...perhaps the "aha" moment would shake his inner gyroscope into alignment. He probably has a better chance than many who think ill of his position today. People think the time when "love will grow cold" is soon to be upon us. It has actually been in place for a couple thousand years. Defining "love" unbiblically makes it a hollow sentiment, and if you think it is impossible to love and hate enemies simultaneously, you are cold and getting colder.
Fwiw, the typical Christian concept of "unity" is equally off the mark. Neither concept is being endangered by what is going on in this thread.
Thanks for the theological speech. It saved me a trip to ChristianDiscourse,com.
It seems that the theology is what is impeding this offering.
Didn't Ehrman apostate and became an agnostic or an atheist?
James Hiddle: Didn't Ehrman apostate and became an agnostic or an atheist?
Edit: But that makes Bart's books more interesting to many folks.
Temper tantrums are not Godly; Christ driving the moneychangers out of the temple notwithstanding.
Alain Maashe: I am satisfied with rightly dividing the Word of Truth and edifying those I teach.
That is all that matters.
I also think Logos should not offer a rebuttal resource without the the source. This one really chaps me. https://www.logos.com/product/9155/religion-of-the-force
Where is Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader's viewpoint? Maybe Obi Wan or Yoda's work should be sought first. Sounds like a conspiracy to me.
Kent: I also think Logos should not offer a rebuttal resource without the the source. This one really chaps me. https://www.logos.com/product/9155/religion-of-the-force Where is Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader's viewpoint? Maybe Obi Wan or Yoda's work should be sought first. Sounds like a conspiracy to me.
Conspiracy it is. Sense the dark side in Logos I do