What are the March Madness "must haves?"
Comments
-
I don't think Ross has Walton's familiarity and expertise with the ancient world and cultural context of Genesis.
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."- G.K. Chesterton
0 -
Ben said:
I don't think Ross has Walton's familiarity and expertise with the ancient world and cultural context of Genesis.
ok. So what? I was just pointing out that if this is one of your favorite Walton quotes you can find the same sort of generic preforatory remarks all across the spectrum. I'm sure a YEC like Ken Ham would say the same.
Potato resting atop 2020 Mac Pro stand.
0 -
The point being, if you want to understand Genesis in its ancient, historical, literal, context, talk to someone whose expertise is in Hebrew Bible, Semitics, ancient Near East, etc. That's the kind of expertise necessary to provide real exegesis. Neither Ken Ham nor Hugh Ross have the equivalent "understanding of the Hebrew language and the Israelite culture." One is an astrophysicist and the other has a degree in education.
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."- G.K. Chesterton
0 -
The point of your favorite quote was that? Didn't seem like it. Anyway, sure, having an understanding of those things is great for exegesis. Lots of people have those things and don't come to Waltons conclusions. The problem with Walton isn't his understanding of Hebrew, it's that his conceptual categories are confused.
In the end even an expert Semitic languages can make mistakes in his reasoning process and it doesn't take an expert in Semitic languages to spot a conceptual confusion.
Potato resting atop 2020 Mac Pro stand.
0 -
J. Remington Bowling said:
The point of your favorite quote was that? Didn't seem like it. Anyway, sure, having an understanding of those things is great for exegesis. Lots of people have those things and don't come to Waltons conclusions. The problem with Walton isn't his understanding of Hebrew, it's that his conceptual categories are confused.
Give me a break - I already said I was grumpy today. If you provide your opinion, you have no grounds to complain if someone else provides an opinion ... and I did appreciate the effort to support the opinion from the resource. I detest threads of the sort because many posters assume "we" and "best" means "me" and "support my view". And by page 3 someone has nearly always succeeded in dragging someone else into an argument. There are (church) mice of many colors in the forums.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Give me a break - I already said I was grumpy today. If you provide your opinion, you have no grounds to complain if someone else provides an opinion
I didn't complain about anyone sharing their opinion.
MJ. Smith said:I detest threads of the sort because many posters assume "we" and "best" means "me" and "support my view".
I haven't noticed anyone do that in this thread. I recommended several resources that don't support my view, John Walton was one of them.
[quote]And by page 3 someone has nearly always succeeded in dragging someone else into an argument. There are (church) mice of many colors in the forums.
Seems to be most threads these days.
Potato resting atop 2020 Mac Pro stand.
0 -
J. Remington Bowling said:
In the end even an expert Semitic languages can make mistakes in his reasoning process and it doesn't take an expert in Semitic languages to spot a conceptual confusion.
By your own logic so could Ken Ham, et al. In fact, one could argue that the one who is not an expert is more likely to make a mistake in reasoning or conception than the one who is an expert. Mastery of a subject or area of expertise is by definition what makes them an expert.
By way of analogy, who is more likely to make a mistake identifying an illness in a patient: a diagnostician or a first-year medical student?
The tone of replies here in these discussions sometimes imply (unintentionally, perhaps) that one's view of creation is a test of one's biblical fidelity. Yet at the end of the day, none of us knows how an ANE Israelite would read Genesis 1 because we have none to ask. Therefore, we must all proceed with an extreme measure of intellectual humility and charitableness to the views of those who disagree with us.
Carpe verbum.
0 -
Liam Maguire said:
By your own logic so could Ken Ham, et al.
This is a bizarre response. As if anything in my comment indicated that Ham et all couldn't or wouldn't make mistakes in reasoning.
Liam Maguire said:In fact, one could argue that the one who is not an expert is more likely to make a mistake in reasoning or conception than the one who is an expert. Mastery of a subject or area of expertise is by definition what makes them an expert.
By way of analogy, who is more likely to make a mistake identifying an illness in a patient: a diagnostician or a first-year medical student?
This only applies in the very narrow field of one's expertise. So while Walton is far less likely to make a mistake as it relates to some point of Semitic languages, there is no presumption that he is less likely to make mistakes than, say, Ken Ham when it comes to a syllogism or the reasoning process generally.
Potato resting atop 2020 Mac Pro stand.
0 -
Umm, I retract the question 🤓!
Seriuosly, every (well, actually I should say “most”) comment has been helpful.
Thanks much JRB & others for your input 👍.
0 -
Liam Maguire said:
Therefore, we must all proceed with an extreme measure of intellectual humility and charitableness to the views of those who disagree with us
Excellent!
0 -
Michael S. said:Liam Maguire said:
Therefore, we must all proceed with an extreme measure of intellectual humility and charitableness to the views of those who disagree with us
Excellent!
Agreed! I noticed this quote also & nodded my head in agreement as I read it.
0 -
J. Remington Bowling said:
This only applies in the very narrow field of one's expertise. So while Walton is far less likely to make a mistake as it relates to some point of Semitic languages, there is no presumption that he is less likely to make mistakes than, say, Ken Ham when it comes to a syllogism or the reasoning process generally.
Oh the temptation! How could you be so cruel? Syllogisms, as you know, relate only to categorical reasoning - the absence or presence of traits in a collection of entities. This is something that a linguist is especially well trained in -- the presence/absence of traits used to define meaning of words, the presence/absence of traits used to identify historical changes, the present/absence of traits used to identify semantic and grammatical forms ...why, oh why, did you have to word your point in such a tempting manner for refutation? Poor little puppy did need a run ...
Or put far more appropriately for the forums, you have crossed the line into arguing a position rather than sharing resources and information - something you admitted to above:
J. Remington Bowling said:MJ. Smith said:And by page 3 someone has nearly always succeeded in dragging someone else into an argument. There are (church) mice of many colors in the forums.
Seems to be most threads these days.
Better to listen e.g.
Liam Maguire said:Therefore, we must all proceed with an extreme measure of intellectual humility and charitableness to the views of those who disagree with us
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Gary Osborne said:
This article seemed timely so I figured I'd post it and everyone can give it whatever worth they see fit but in short, this is why a 6-day creationist might disagree with Walton and his hermeneutic. https://creation.com/lost-world-walton
0 -
Mattillo said:Gary Osborne said:
This article seemed timely so I figured I'd post it and everyone can give it whatever worth they see fit but in short, this is why a 6-day creationist might disagree with Walton and his hermeneutic. https://creation.com/lost-world-walton
Thank you for posting the article, Mattillo.
Thank you, JRB and Doc B for posting your opinions.
0 -
Mattillo said:Gary Osborne said:
This article seemed timely so I figured I'd post it and everyone can give it whatever worth they see fit but in short, this is why a 6-day creationist might disagree with Walton and his hermeneutic. https://creation.com/lost-world-walton
No offense but the quality of this article seems low. It's too defensive and subjective.
0 -
Kolen Cheung said:Mattillo said:Gary Osborne said:
This article seemed timely so I figured I'd post it and everyone can give it whatever worth they see fit but in short, this is why a 6-day creationist might disagree with Walton and his hermeneutic. https://creation.com/lost-world-walton
No offense but the quality of this article seems low. It's too defensive and subjective.
I take Walton's books and these reviews and comments as data collection opportunities: I say ''Hmmm,'' then look further.
0 -
Paul Caneparo said:
Anyone have thoughts on these 2 volumes by Sidney Greidanus
https://www.logos.com/product/50179/preaching-christ-from-genesis-foundations-for-expository-sermons
https://www.logos.com/product/50181/preaching-christ-from-daniel-foundations-for-expository-sermons
I own them but have not read them in detail. I read The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text way back and had a favourable impression. I took a look at the introduction to the Genesis volume and the first chapter thereafter on creation and it looked like a more intelligent way to relate OT texts to the post-Easter situation than is usually the case. He proposes several criteria to determine how an OT text may be related to Christ and does not hesitate to say it when some do not apply to specific texts. I looked for how he handles Dinah and found that he subsumed her story very very succinctly under the Jacob-Esau story. So there seems to be some very broad swipes as is often the case when Christians preach from longer OT books.
0 -
Paul Caneparo said:
Anyone have thoughts on these 2 volumes by Sidney Greidanus
https://www.logos.com/product/50179/preaching-christ-from-genesis-foundations-for-expository-sermons
https://www.logos.com/product/50181/preaching-christ-from-daniel-foundations-for-expository-sermons
I own them but have not read them in detail. I read The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text way back and had a favourable impression. I took a look at the introduction to the Genesis volume and the first chapter thereafter on creation and it looked like a more intelligent way to relate OT texts to the post-Easter situation than is usually the case. He proposes several criteria to determine how an OT text may be related to Christ and does not hesitate to say it when some do not apply to specific texts. I looked for how he handles Dinah and found that he subsumed her story very very succinctly under the Jacob-Esau story. So there seems to be some very broad swipes as is often the case when Christians preach from longer OT books.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Syllogisms, as you know, relate only to categorical reasoning - the absence or presence of traits in a collection of entities. This is something that a linguist is especially well trained in
I've never seen any evidence that being trained in, say, Hebrew or Mandarin, makes one better at logic (syllogistic or otherwise). You might as well argue that English teachers are better logicians. Yes, logic relates to language, but in a very specific way where there isn't much assumption of transference. The fact seems to be that training in English grammar narrowly improves you ability in English grammar, not in your rational faculties generally. In fact, as John Heil points out in First-Order Logic: "The empirical evidence casts doubts on the notion that training in logic leads to improvement in ordinary reasoning tasks of the sort we encounter outside the classroom. . . . Formal logic, like most other learned disciplines, resists 'transference' across problem domains" (p 4). (For more on this transference problem in education, Paul Kirschner has some interesting work.)
MJ. Smith said:Or put far more appropriately for the forums, you have crossed the line into arguing a position rather than sharing resources and information
Well I'm responding to you at this point . . . so. As far as resources and information sharing. . . on other occasions I have pointed to resources which critique Walton. The philosopher Lydia McGrew wrote a few posts critiquing specifically the Lost World of Genesis 1 and The Lost World of Adam and Eve. David T. Tsumura is someone closer to Walton's credentials who has also been critical of him. I didn't mention these things because I assume most people here are capable of finding or being aware of opposing views already.
MJ. Smith said:Better to listen e.g.
Liam Maguire said:Therefore, we must all proceed with an extreme measure of intellectual humility and charitableness to the views of those who disagree with us
Right. Of course we can all agree to have intellectual humility and charitableness. I'm a bit confused how that relates to this specific thread though. If I point out that I disagree with Walton or think that he has some conceptual confusion does that necessarily entail that I lack intellectual humility? That would be odd. Did someone else say something which clearly lacked intellectual humility or charitableness? I don't know, though perhaps dismissing Walton out of hand simply because of his view on the creation v. evolution debate might lean in that direction, but not necessarily.
It just came off as a bit platitudinous. A way to get a few amens, but not really applicable to the conversation unless we assume that disagreeing with Walton is prideful and the like.
P.S. Anyway, I'll drop this now and let the thread get back on track. I was originally just answering someone's question about what Walton's view was and then Ben came in with that odd "favorite" quote of his. I blame Ben! [:P]
Potato resting atop 2020 Mac Pro stand.
0 -
Purportedly, perception is not rooted in reality (our senses being easily deceived) whereas logic is rooted in reason. While truth exists outside our perceptions, we cannot reason logically about things we cannot perceive. So in the end we can only line up one subjectivity against another (E.G. Walton vs. Ham) and end up back at faith.
I appreciate having resources that broaden both logical reasoning and perceptions of things about which we may be logical. Yet in the end, to appeal to logic as final authority is a wobbly self-deception because we can only apply logic to what we can perceive (rooted in our nasty, deceptive senses) we end up back at faith in the authority of God.
I remember the shock I felt one day when I learned that one of my Philosophy prof's (whose name I shall not mention), a brilliant man, steeped in what seemed to me to be perfect logic, existed day to day on Prozac. I have grace for him, but was startled back to the reality from mistaking logic for God. God is logical. Logical is not God. There is a syllogism for that.0 -
J. Remington Bowling said:
Right. Of course we can all agree to have intellectual humility and charitableness. I'm a bit confused how that relates to this specific thread though. If I point out that I disagree with Walton or think that he has some conceptual confusion does that necessarily entail that I lack intellectual humility? That would be odd. Did someone else say something which clearly lacked intellectual humility or charitableness? I don't know, though perhaps dismissing Walton out of hand simply because of his view on the creation v. evolution debate might lean in that direction, but not necessarily.
It just came off as a bit platitudinous. A way to get a few amens, but not really applicable to the conversation unless we assume that disagreeing with Walton is prideful and the like.
As my dear ol' mum used to say, JRB, it's not just what you said, but how you said it (Or in this case, typed it). The tone of your comments came across dismissive of the author in question and the responses of posters who disagreed with you.
You're clearly very bright and articulate (more so on both counts than I, I'd wager)., it just seems that sometimes you use them more like a stun-stick than the lantern. Both create light, but only one benefit more than the wielder.
That said, if my comments came across platitudinous, than I apologise, that was not my intention.
Carpe verbum.
0 -
For some reason, I keep clicking on this thread assuming that resource recommendations are being provided from the current sale...only to be disappointed again and again. [B]
For book reviews and more visit sojotheo.com
0 -
John Kight said:For some reason, I keep clicking on this thread assuming that resource recommendations are being provided from the current sale...only to be disappointed again and again.
Apologies on that. To that end:
I noticed that the March Madness sale is no longer showing on the logos.com homepage (it's now Tim Keller and general March sales), but if you go to the resources that were in the March Madness brackets you can still get the deals.
Here is the link to the March Madness sale page: https://www.logos.com/march-matchups?utm_source=brackets.logos.com&utm_medium=link&utm_content=getdeals&utm_campaign=promo-lmm2019
Potato resting atop 2020 Mac Pro stand.
0 -
John Kight said:
For some reason, I keep clicking on this thread assuming that resource recommendations are being provided from the current sale...only to be disappointed again and again.
Here is what I bought. Not sure any are must haves, but you can decide. I have found them interesting and helpful:
All 3 Lexham Discourse Commentaries. If you have Faithlife Connect and buy through Lexhampress.com you should qualify for and additional 25% discount on at least one of them. Not sure if it applies to one or all, so purchase all of the Lexham at one time to see.
EEC Exodus. Ditto on the 25% discount.
Hebrews Through Hebrew Eyes
Reformed Expository Commentary Galatians - highly rated at Bestcommentaries.com
OTL Exodus - also highly rated.
I actually did not think I would purchase anything until they broke up the bundles. Glad they did.
Hope this helps.
0 -
I figured it was relevant to post a passage from the resource inquired about, which directly responded to the dismissive question about its position. You took it from there.
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."- G.K. Chesterton
0 -
Unfortunately the Galaxy Journal Bundle destroyed my wallet this month so I only elected to get two titles.
1) https://www.logos.com/product/49491/on-the-reliability-of-the-old-testament
- I've seen this book quoted a lot and I enjoy apologetics. Its been on my wishlist for quite some time.
2) https://www.logos.com/product/166094/apollos-old-testament-commentary-hosea
- I really like the Apollos series thus far. They are newer and have some great, fresh info that I haven't seen in others. When I was doing a study on Exodus, I found the EEC Exodus and AOTC Exodus to be wonderful additions to the NAC Exodus I was using.
Otherwise, as others have suggested if you don't have them New International Commentaries, New American Commentaries, NIVAC, Reformed Expository Commentary etc are all nice to have IMO.
0 -
Another gem that I'm enjoying reading right now is Davis' commentary on Joshua. https://www.logos.com/product/18455/joshua-no-falling-words
They are short, to the point, and have some great preaching points. He has several in that series though I don't know which ones are on sale. Highly recommended as well.
https://www.logos.com/products/search?Author=2886%7cDale+Ralph+Davis
0 -
Any resource that can start a debate is worth owning. [:)]
It is important to understand other positions from those who actually believe in them. I would never think about learning about young earth creationism from Hugh Ross, for example. Likewise, if you want to be able to understand John Walton's position, you have to read his books. Why would you expect a biased source to provide the best (and most convincing) argument?
0 -
GaoLu said:
Yet in the end, to appeal to logic as final authority is a wobbly self-deception because we can only apply logic to what we can perceive (rooted in our nasty, deceptive senses) we end up back at faith in the authority of God.
While I don't necessarily agree with all the points, you might find James C. McGlothlin's The Logiphro Dilemma: An Examination of the Relationship between God and Logic a interesting read.
[quote]Is God above logic? If so, is he irrational? Is God subservient to logic? If so, is he really omnipotent? These questions are similar to Socrates' infamous challenge to explaining God's relation to morality, the so-called Euthyphro dilemma. In this book McGlothlin argues that the Euthyphro challenge can be extended to help explain the relationship between God and logic, what he call the Logiphro dilemma. Logic, on this account, depends on aspects of God's mind other than God's will. This is a nonstandard form of theistic logical dependence. It contrasts both with the standard form of theistic logical dependence, according to which logic depends on God's will, and with theistic logical independence, according to which logic is independent of God. These rival views can be seen as the horns of the Logiphro dilemma: either logic depends on God's will, in which case special revelation would no longer be communicable; or logic is independent of God, in which case core claims of classical theism--for example, that God is the only independent being--would be violated. The best way to escape both of these horns, according to McGlothlin, is to adopt the nonstandard form of theistic logical dependence.
The better known but in my mind the lesser logician is Vern Poythress's Logic: A God-Centered Approach to the Foundation of Western Thought
Another marginally related book comes to mind; Michael Durrant's The Logical Status of "God"
And I just found an interesting book hidden among the ebooks Scientific Models for Religious Knowledge: Are the Scientific Study of Religion and a Religious Epistemology Compatible? by Ralls
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Josh said:
Any resource that can start a debate is worth owning.
Logos should give you a big reward - that's the best promo for their products I've ever seen.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
[H]MJ. Smith said:Logos should give you a big reward - that's the best promo for their products I've ever seen.
And related to the original topic, I bought:
https://www.logos.com/product/15515/social-science-commentary-on-the-book-of-acts
It was in my wish list. I think it is "nice to have" giving additional perspective for me (tunnel view crypto-biblicist Lutheran)
Gold package, and original language material and ancient text material, SIL and UBS books, discourse Hebrew OT and Greek NT. PC with Windows 11
0 -
John Fidel said:
Here is what I bought. Not sure any are must haves, but you can decide. I have found them interesting and helpful:
All 3 Lexham Discourse Commentaries. If you have Faithlife Connect and buy through Lexhampress.com you should qualify for and additional 25% discount on at least one of them. Not sure if it applies to one or all, so purchase all of the Lexham at one time to see.
I also purchased the 3 Lexham Discourse Commentaries. I'm preaching through 1 Th now and am finding the Lexham discourse commentary quite helpful. Other items I purchased are:
- Hebrews through a Hebrew's Eyes
- The Evangelical Press Study Commentaries (I owned most of them and getting the remaining 3 for $31 seemed like a good deal)
- SIL Exegetical Summary on Acts 14-28 (this and the one on John 10-21 completes my set)
- The Theology of the Book of Isaiah by Goldingay
- John's Use of Ezekiel
Not sure if I would consider any of these as "must have's" but they fill a hole in my library. I serve as a part-time chaplain at a retirement home and have had an unusually large number of funerals lately. I save my honorariums for books otherwise I wouldn't have been able to afford anything this year. Breaking up the bundles is what did it for me.
Thank you Logos:)
0 -
Mattillo said:
Another gem that I'm enjoying reading right now is Davis' commentary on Joshua. https://www.logos.com/product/18455/joshua-no-falling-words
They are short, to the point, and have some great preaching points. He has several in that series though I don't know which ones are on sale. Highly recommended as well.
https://www.logos.com/products/search?Author=2886%7cDale+Ralph+Davis
Yes! These get a hearty recommendation from me. Dale's commentaries are one of the few that can be enjoyable read cover to cover with a cup of coffee. I have nearly all of his commentaries from the Focus of the Bible series. They are worth every penny of the full price, let alone on sale!
Carpe verbum.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:GaoLu said:
Yet in the end, to appeal to logic as final authority is a wobbly self-deception because we can only apply logic to what we can perceive (rooted in our nasty, deceptive senses) we end up back at faith in the authority of God.
While I don't necessarily agree with all the points, you might find James C. McGlothlin's The Logiphro Dilemma: An Examination of the Relationship between God and Logic a interesting read.
[quote]Is God above logic? If so, is he irrational? Is God subservient to logic? If so, is he really omnipotent? These questions are similar to Socrates' infamous challenge to explaining God's relation to morality, the so-called Euthyphro dilemma. In this book McGlothlin argues that the Euthyphro challenge can be extended to help explain the relationship between God and logic, what he call the Logiphro dilemma. Logic, on this account, depends on aspects of God's mind other than God's will. This is a nonstandard form of theistic logical dependence. It contrasts both with the standard form of theistic logical dependence, according to which logic depends on God's will, and with theistic logical independence, according to which logic is independent of God. These rival views can be seen as the horns of the Logiphro dilemma: either logic depends on God's will, in which case special revelation would no longer be communicable; or logic is independent of God, in which case core claims of classical theism--for example, that God is the only independent being--would be violated. The best way to escape both of these horns, according to McGlothlin, is to adopt the nonstandard form of theistic logical dependence.
The better known but in my mind the lesser logician is Vern Poythress's Logic: A God-Centered Approach to the Foundation of Western Thought
Another marginally related book comes to mind; Michael Durrant's The Logical Status of "God"
And I just found an interesting book hidden among the ebooks Scientific Models for Religious Knowledge: Are the Scientific Study of Religion and a Religious Epistemology Compatible? by Ralls
Thanks. Good suggestions, all added to my wish/hope-to-read-soon list.
0 -
I wonder if the first resource here is in line with the second resource. Is it just more focused, but not adding anything new?:
https://www.logos.com/product/29465/jesus-as-the-fulfillment-of-the-temple-in-the-gospel-of-john
With
0 -
Mattillo said:DAL said:Steven New said:
I tried this and it didn't work. I don't know if my coupon code didn't work, or not, but the 25% Lexham Book Coupon did not add to the discount.
Where’s the coupon? I’ve been looking for it in my Connect account and nothing. The email they sent me at the beginning of the month didn’t have the coupon code for the 25% off either.
DAL
https://connect.faithlife.com/get-started
Click on ebooks
The code is below above the fleb code I believe... It's on there somewhere sir
Bummed...can't seem to get the code to work. (MAR19LEXHAM25 ??)
I tried with the Keown book too for good measure, but nada.
Am I doin somethin wrong?
Thanks!
0 -
Ruben, I am sending you an email about this.
0 -
Joe McCune (Faithlife) said:
Ruben, I am sending you an email about this.
i'm curious too...could we just have a simple post about it? I'm trying to search for it on the forums....
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
Joe McCune (Faithlife) said:
Ruben, I am sending you an email about this.
i'm curious too...could we just have a simple post about it? I'm trying to search for it on the forums....
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
Friedrich said:
i'm curious too...could we just have a simple post about it? I'm trying to search for it on the forums....
Hi Friedrich- Sorry I was not trying to be secretive, its just that Ruben had a unique situation with a unique solution.
Are you still having difficulty using coupon code MAR19LEXHAM25?
0 -
Joe McCune (Faithlife) said:
Are you still having difficulty using coupon code MAR19LEXHAM25?
Good April's Fool joke!
0
