Help with Precept Inductive Bible Study

Hey Folks -

I just found these forums and would love to get help from people using Logos 4 for Precept like Inductive Bible Study here. I have Logos 4 on my Macbook Pro.

Where do I start? Are there any tutorials anywhere?

Any help is greatly appreciated!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Rick

Where do I start? Are there any tutorials anywhere?

Hi Tal, welcome! The folks here are more than generous in helping us. There are some pretty good threads concerning precept study, one of my favorites is here: http://community.logos.com/forums/p/20767/155861.aspx#155861 The thread is three pages long. Also, in the upper right hand corner, you can search by entering the word "precept" and come up with numerous others. I looked in the wiki and did not come across anything.

You can always start a new thread or revive an old one if it is on topic. Enjoy.

NetworkGeek

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/194166#Comment_194166

Morris Proctor has a manual on Inductive Bible Study that I enjoyed very much and learned a lot about Logos from!

Floyd Johnson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/194166#Comment_194166

Also, in the upper right hand corner, you can search by entering the word "precept" and come up with numerous others.

A more helpful way to search is to use Google. The Google term should have this format:

<search subjects> site:community.logos.com

for example, a search for "precept"s might look like this:

precept site:community.logos.com

We have found that Google does a better job of indexing this site than the forum does itself.

Floyd Johnson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/194310#Comment_194310

Morris Proctor has a manual on Inductive Bible Study that I enjoyed very much and learned a lot about Logos from!

The description says that the manual is tied to Logos version 3 - how closely is it tied to the software rather than providing general guidelines for inductive Bible Study?

Tal Prince

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/194166#Comment_194166

Thanks, Rick. I'm checking all of those posts out, and looking for others. Really like the Precept stuff, so hoping to find some great tools here for that. Really want to maximize my Library while doing so.

Thanks!!

Tal Prince

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/194311#Comment_194311

Thanks Floyd! I'll definitely check that out!

Tal Prince

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/194310#Comment_194310

Thanks Dominic. I'll take a look. There is a version for Logos 4, I've seen. Does anybody know the difference between that method and the precept method?

Rick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/194341#Comment_194341

Does anybody know the difference between that method and the precept method?

I may very well get corrected here but I think that they are the same thing.

jwsheets

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/194341#Comment_194341

The Precept method utilizes their own "brand" of marking in inductive study. Mo's course will lay out the inductive method and many useful ways to incorporate Logos 4 into your study, but he does not use their proprietary marking system. Hope that helps!

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/194410#Comment_194410

What I have never understood, and I am being serious here, is why the inductive method is called "inductive" rather than "deductive".

Roger King

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/194461#Comment_194461

What I have never understood, and I am being serious here, is why the inductive method is called "inductive" rather than "deductive".

Going from Moris Proctor's 'Inductive Guide', it clarifies the two terms. Deduction brings preconceived ideas to the facts, whereas inductive bases opinions solely on the facts. ie. impartial.

Hope that helps a little

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/194533#Comment_194533

Going from Moris Proctor's 'Inductive Guide', it clarifies the two terms. Deduction brings preconceived ideas to the facts, whereas inductive bases opinions solely on the facts. ie. impartial.

But what I don't understand is that in logic deduction derives information from data in a way that is demonstratively true. Induction is taking the data and creating the more generalized statement from it. Here you can speak of probability but not certainty The only preconceived ideas that deduction brings are the rules of logic; induction is what is influenced by one's experiences and biases. See why I don't get it?.

Jim L. West

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/194747#Comment_194747

This by Grant Osborne, "There are two basic approaches to theological reasoning: deduction, which proceeds from general assumptions or evidence to particular conclusions and involves a degree of probability as to the logic of the argument; and induction, which proceeds from particular or specific data to general conclusions and therefore arrives at possible rather than probable answers."

(Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral : A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Rev. and expanded, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 385. (Available in L4))

I think this describes the two methods of logic somewhat (though not completely) accurately, and is possibly more of a help in defining "inductive" Bible study.

I don't think that the two logical methods and the two Bible study methods are 100% analogous, yet maybe helpful.

My own description would be something like this:

1. "Inductive" Bible study is the process of observing the text (particular or specific data), and from these observations come to general conclusions as to what the Bible is teaching.

2. "Deductive" Bible study would be more along the lines of starting with a hypothesis, possibly a doctrinal statement, or a conclusion you have derived from your "inductive" study of a particular passage, and searching other passages to determine whether the statement or conclusion is consistent with the rest of Scripture. And sometimes used to help clarify or even determine the interpretation of an obscure passage.

As I said, these two methods are not completely analogous with logical methods (especially the "deductive" method) but, I believe that this is, in my experience, a fairly accurate description of the two Bible study methods.

Jim W

Roger King

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/194816#Comment_194816

My own description would be something like this:

1. "Inductive" Bible study is the process of observing the text (particular or specific data), and from these observations come to general conclusions as to what the Bible is teaching.

2. "Deductive" Bible study would be more along the lines of starting with a hypothesis, possibly a doctrinal statement, or a conclusion you have derived from your "inductive" study of a particular passage, and searching other passages to determine whether the statement or conclusion is consistent with the rest of Scripture. And sometimes used to help clarify or even determine the interpretation of an obscure passage.

Pretty much what Morris says. (Sorry I think I summarized it too briefly on my last post). Beyond this, I am not sure how else to help.

Juanita

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/194747#Comment_194747

Going from Moris Proctor's 'Inductive Guide', it clarifies the two terms. Deduction brings preconceived ideas to the facts, whereas inductive bases opinions solely on the facts. ie. impartial.

But what I don't understand is that in logic deduction derives information from data in a way that is demonstratively true. Induction is taking the data and creating the more generalized statement from it. Here you can speak of probability but not certainty The only preconceived ideas that deduction brings are the rules of logic; induction is what is influenced by one's experiences and biases. See why I don't get it?.

MJ, I really see why you don't get it because for years, I haven't gotten it. [:)] You come from a perspective of logic and have most always presented yourself as consistently logical and what I am unsure of is how tight the correspondence is of deductive and inductive reasoning as to deductive and inductive Bible study methods. And I hope not to be getting off topic here.

Jim L. West

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/194891#Comment_194891

Joan, I think you are right. I have spent many hours trying to fit "inductive logic" and "inductive Bible study" together, without success. I think that there are some surface similarities, but they are not the same thing.

Jim W

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/194891#Comment_194891

what I am unsure of is how tight the correspondence is of deductive and inductive reasoning as to deductive and inductive Bible study methods.

Thanks - its reassuring to know I'm not the only one confused. I'll file it in the same memory slot as "why do flammable and inflammable mean the same thing?"

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/194895#Comment_194895

Peace to all! And Joy in the Lord!

Inductive Bible Study is when one starts with verses and eventually draws conclusions.

Deductive Bible Study is when one starts with a principle or a doctrine or a teaching , for example. and then looks at the details that formulated that doctrine of conclusion.

Inductive Bible Study is looking at the Trees first.

Deductive Bible Study is looking at the Forest first.

(In case one cannot tell the Forest from the Trees!) *smile*

From Consise Oxford Dictionary:
induction
■ noun
1 the action or process of inducting someone to a post, organization, etc.
2 the action or process of inducing something.
3 Logic the inference of a general law from particular instances. Often contrasted with deduction.
▶ the production of facts to prove a general statement.

deduction
■ noun
1 the action of deducting.
▶ an amount that is or may be deducted.
2 the inference of particular instances by reference to a general law or principle. Often contrasted with induction.
▶ a conclusion that has been deduced.

Happy Thanksgiving to our American Friends! *smile*

TCBlack

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/194895#Comment_194895

"why do flammable and inflammable mean the same thing?"

Great. Now how am I supposed to sleep tonight?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/195322#Comment_195322

Inductive Bible Study is looking at the Trees first.

Deductive Bible Study is looking at the Forest first.

You are probably right ... but to me both methods have to start from the text from which they build either a forest or a tree.

inductive Bible study starts with the text and builds a forest ... a step in which reasoning is always couched in probability
deductive Bible study starts with the text and identifies the trees ... a step in which (from the Western perspective) each statement may be shown to be either true or false

I understand what you are trying to say ... but to me it makes no sense - the text is between the forest and the trees and everyone has to start with the text. (Even those of us who also value tradition[:)])

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/195356#Comment_195356

"why do flammable and inflammable mean the same thing?"
Great. Now how am I supposed to sleep tonight?

You think that's a problem? I can give you a list of words that have a negative prefix ... but the positive word doesn't exist. Why do we need negatives for words that don't exist? That's worth loosing a night's sleep over [:D]

debunk
defenestrate
dejected
disconsolate
disdain
disgruntled
disheveled
dismayed
disrupt
feckless
gormless
impetuous
impromptu
inane

incessant
inchoate
incognito
incommunicado
indomitable
ineffable
inept
inert
infernal
inhibited
insidious
insipid
insouciant
intact

invert
misgivings
misnomer
nonchalant
noncommittal
nondescript
nonpareil
nonplussed
unbeknownst
ungainly
unswerving
untold
untoward

Bill Cook

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/195369#Comment_195369

Very interesting discussion... I hope this interjection will help.

I think in Inductive Bible study we must use both inductive and deductive reasoning. Induction involves making observations and then subsequently drawing conclusions. Deduction begins with a conclusion or a general principle of some kind and then observes to see whether the conclusion is true or false. In order for Bible study to be efficient and efficacious - for it to progress, the benefits of deduction must be supplemental to induction along each step.

The aim of inductive study is to be able to approach Scripture with a purity - a fearlessness in the hopes of seeing things as they truly are...

This is often very difficult. Often one may be tempted, when confounded for a moment to a apply a template of preconception to a particular passage. Perhaps this is the danger of a purely deductive approach, and hopefully a thing to be avoided.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/195402#Comment_195402

I think in Inductive Bible study we must use both inductive and deductive reasoning.

I do agree. However, I also know:

"Since induction is a contingent
method—even good inductions may lead from truths to
falsehoods—there can be no deductive justification for
induction. Any inductive justification of induction would, on the
other hand, be circular."

It was Hume, a major influence on the leader of the Campbellite movement who noted the "inductive problem" as it is called in logic. The quote is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Even understanding that, for many using the inductive method the meaning of induction/deduction seems to be flipped, I can't see why one would want to reverse them. It's got to make evangelization more difficult and make it easier to convince a believer that they've been misled. But I shall drop the subject as I have gotten the answer to my original question: there is a specific meaning to the word "inductive" when used to describe Bible study. It's a meaning that gets it's own number in a dictionary as a separate meaning of the word.

Often one may be tempted, when confounded for a moment to a apply a template of preconception to a particular passage. Perhaps this is the danger of a purely deductive approach, and hopefully a thing to be avoided.

Note that to me, this is the danger of the inductive approach not of the deductive approach. The other reason I find this confusing is to me, both the inductive and the deductive approach start with the text. It appears that one gives deduction a bad name by changing the starting point. And that certainly does make a difference. [:D]

Bohuslav Wojnar

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/195487#Comment_195487

Very interesting thread. Thank you guys. [Y]