It appears this is one of the free books: https://www.logos.com/product/46579/creation-un-creation-re-creation-a-discursive-commentary-on-genesis-1-11
Thanks, Ken.
Thank you, Ken. A nice pairing to Mark Smith's new volume that downloaded.
That’s the Verbum FBOTM, the Logos one will appear at 10am PDT
Since ther is no PDT currently, I suspect it will be at 10am PST instead.
https://verbum.com/monthly-sale
Great to see this. Thanks.
https://www.logos.com/monthly-sale
Turns out this months fee book is actually a video. personally, I find courseware a bit ‘meh’ so will be passing this month. I’m sure others will benefit though and in that I rejoice.
Liam
Turns out this months fee book is actually a video. personally, I find courseware a bit ‘meh’ so will be passing this month. I’m sure others will benefit though and in that I rejoice. Liam
[Y] +1
Ugh, the infamous NT Wright again... can we get solid Christians for the FBOM?
Yeah NT Wright again... This is the first month I snagged all the Verbum stuff and only the 1 free Logos item.
Times are different for sure... definitely not a fan but Logos has a lot of customers so I'm sure someone is freaking out right now (if they could get to the website that is)
Bonus: Check out Wright's article in Time on how Christianity offers no answers about the coronavirus
[Y]
Yeah NT Wright again... This is the first month I snagged all the Verbum stuff and only the 1 free Logos item. Times are different for sure... definitely not a fan but Logos has a lot of customers so I'm sure someone is freaking out right now (if they could get to the website that is) Bonus: Check out Wright's article in Time on how Christianity offers no answers about the coronavirus
Amen to that. I'll pass.
Can Logos do transcripts for these courses? There is nothing different from what Udemy offers and what Logos offers.
Ugh, the infamous NT Wright again... can we get solid Christians for the FBOM? Amen to that. I'll pass.
This, too, I will pass up.
I look at his material and judge the things he says in each it on its merits rather than taking a blanket attitude towards his writings but would not purchase these course from FL without transcripts being included. Udemy also has review quizes. FL have the techonology to do that and if they don't need to include that also with these sort of offerings.
The descriptions of all the courses say that they include quizzes. Are these somehow different from the quizzes on Udemy? I presume everything is created by Wright and his team so they should be the same although I see on Udemy there is a TA who I presume facilitates the class. I've never taken a course there so I'm not familiar with how they work.
"Resource Type: Courseware, including quizzes, and video resources"
Eye roll ...if you don't like it don't push your theology on me. We all put up with a great deal that we consider "false, junk, trash, misleading, uninformed, ignorant, biased, heretical, schismatic, dangerously unChristian, . . ."
I'm going through it right now. It's actually pretty decent. However, as others have said, Logos should have included a transcript, otherwise it's not much use after you watch the videos. He's saying a lot of good stuff, sure would have been nice to have it in writing, tagged, and searchable.
Ugh, the infamous NT Wright again... can we get solid Christians for the FBOM? Eye roll ...if you don't like it don't push your theology on me. We all put up with a great deal that we consider "false, junk, trash, misleading, uninformed, ignorant, biased, heretical, schismatic, dangerously unChristian, . . ."
👍😁👌
don't push your theology on me
MJ, for someone as intelligent as you are, I'm a bit stunned by your irrational response to his statement. There was absolutely *nothing* in his comment pushing any theology on anyone. He simply doesn't like Wright. He stated so in a vernacular way.
He should be free to say he doesn't care for this or that author without pushback from (particularly) any of the MVPs.
C'mon, man!! You're better than that!
don't push your theology on me MJ, for someone as intelligent as you are, I'm a bit stunned by your irrational response to his statement. There was absolutely *nothing* in his comment pushing any theology on anyone. He simply doesn't like Wright. He stated so in a vernacular way. He should be free to say he doesn't care for this or that author without pushback from (particularly) any of the MVPs. C'mon, man!! You're better than that!
In all fairness, he did imply that Wright isn't a Christian, or a "solid Christian," as it was put. Several people said that they would pass without casting aspersions on Wright's salvation. I think the original comment was unnecessary.
I think the original comment was unnecessary.
[Y] Except for my Bibles, you just described my entire $40K+ Logos library.
To paraphrase Woody Allen, "The food here is terrible...and such small portions, too."
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
don't push your theology on me MJ, for someone as intelligent as you are, I'm a bit stunned by your irrational response to his statement. There was absolutely *nothing* in his comment pushing any theology on anyone. He simply doesn't like Wright. He stated so in a vernacular way. He should be free to say he doesn't care for this or that author without pushback from (particularly) any of the MVPs. C'mon, man!! You're better than that! In all fairness, he did imply that Wright isn't a Christian, or a "solid Christian," as it was put. Several people said that they would pass without casting aspersions on Wright's salvation. I think the original comment was unnecessary.
Exactly! And two can play the “heretical” insinuation. 👍
As has been noted by others, many said that they did not care for the author; only one was chosen for pushback. I honestly don't care whether some one likes or dislikes Wright - I have no problem with people stating that they like or dislike him. But I don't need the "infamous" or the implication of "not solid Christian". And I should be free to say I dislike people telling me who is or is not Christian/solid Christian/true Christian ... I trust no human's opinion on that matter.
I trust no human's opinion on that matter.
And I wonder how many who make such comments have done significant reading of Wright. (As my profile picture suggests, I have done a lot of reading in Barth. I have found through systematic study that a huge percentage of people who condemn his theology have never actually read him, instead relying on the reviews of "solid" people they trust. Unfortunately, I have also found that many such reviews are 180 degrees from what Barth actually said.)
I'm not really interested in the Pauline debates, but Wright's book on the resurrection is one of the best things I've ever read; "solid" is a particularly apt word for it. I humbly recommend it to anyone looking for a new perspective on Wright.
A few months ago people didn't believe that Logos was pushing more and more NT Wright. I'll do a hard pass. Love Logos, discouraged by the trend.
By the way, this deal is much better than the +1.
https://www.logos.com/product/37659/dictionary-of-scripture-and-ethics
By the way, this deal is much better than the +1. https://www.logos.com/product/37659/dictionary-of-scripture-and-ethics
Great find, Jan! Looks interesting but I'm really having to be careful with my spending these days.
Does anyone have this? How are articles--how much interaction with contemporary theology and ethics? How does it compare to the older IVP Dictionary Christian Ethics & Pastoral Care,(if anyone knows that work)?
I Didn't Know God Made Honky Tonk Angels
Don't forget Kitty Wells' response that God Didn't Make Honky Tonk Angels [:P]
[Y], I never had a professor with whom I agreed 100%. In fact, I don't agree with many things I believed just a few years ago. But, at the same time we all can chew the meat and spit out the bones.
By the way, this deal is much better than the +1. https://www.logos.com/product/37659/dictionary-of-scripture-and-ethics Great find, Jan! Looks interesting but I'm really having to be careful with my spending these days. Does anyone have this? How are articles--how much interaction with contemporary theology and ethics? How does it compare to the older IVP Dictionary Christian Ethics & Pastoral Care,(if anyone knows that work)?
I cannot answer how it compares to the other volume you mention but this book is good as an overview. They are short articles on certain topics and like any dictionary all the articles are written by different people so you are bound to love/hate some. My only contention with this dictionary is that it doesn't take any sides (in at least the few articles I have read). I would personally prefer a book on Ethics that picks a side and defends it rather than one that just gives an overview... but for $10 I don't think you can go wrong on this one. My personal favorites in this area are Grudem and Geisler.
Here is a hot-button topic article for your sampling pleasure:
Homosexuality
The term homosexuality refers to a primary relational and sexual orientation toward a member of the same sex, in contrast to heterosexuality (primary orientation toward a member of the opposite sex).
Since the late 1960s the status of persons with a homosexual orientation within religion and society has been one of the most debated and divisive issues to arise, whether for Christian ethicists, biblical scholars, mental health professionals, biologists, advocates of ballot initiatives, legislative bodies, or denominational deliberations (both in the United States and abroad). The use of the term homosexuality itself has been much debated in public discourse, and many individuals who identify themselves as having an orientation to the same sex prefer the designation LGBT (lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgendered), particularly because it includes a broader and more nuanced range of orientations than simply homosexuality. The modern debate and discord over homosexuality has often been identified as beginning with the rise of the gay rights movement in the aftermath of the Stonewall Riots in New York City in 1969, a movement that has slowly but surely resulted in increased civil rights and legal protections for LGBT individuals, including marriage in some states. A fundamental question within the church has been whether the full inclusion of LGBT persons of faith represents a prophetic movement of God’s Spirit parallel to the full inclusion of women and racial/ethnic minorities in the church, or whether it represents a movement away from fidelity to a normative understanding of human sexuality as revealed in Scripture and tradition. The place of reason and experience as sources of authority and revelation that both contextualize and relativize understandings of Scripture and tradition on homosexuality has also been an issue of much debate and disagreement among ethicists and biblical scholars alike.
Translating Words and Cultures
Six texts in the Bible deal directly with homosexual sex: the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen. 19:1–10; the Holiness Code in Lev. 18:20; 20:13; Paul’s statements in Rom. 1:26–27, and his passing remarks in 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10 (though some question Pauline authorship of the latter book). The interpretive challenge in each text has to do with the translation of Hebrew words from the OT and Greek words from the NT, as well as with the translation of ancient cultures for modern times.
The translation issue in Gen. 19 revolves around the desire of the Sodomites to “know” (yādaʿ) the visitors whom Lot is hosting (v. 5). The Hebrew term yādaʿ can also have overtones of sexual intercourse, which seems to be the intention in this passage. While the NRSV translates the Hebrew phrase as “that we may know them,” the NAB translates it as “that we may have intimacies with them,” and the NIV as “that we can have sex with them.” The passage clearly suggests sexual violence, indeed homosexual rape, as a way for the Sodomites to dominate the foreign men visiting their town. Lot correctly sees their desire as a wicked thing and offers his two daughters to the mob as a lesser evil than violating his duty of offering hospitality to his guests. Little do the Sodomites know that these guests are angels sent by God to destroy the city. The Sodomites’ wicked desires only confirm God’s judgment. But does the passage indicate that all forms of same-sex relations or desires are evil in the sight of God? Certainly, homosexual rape is condemned, but it seems quite a step to condemn all forms of homosexual expression on the basis of this passage about sexual violence. This would be tantamount to condemning all forms of heterosexual expression because King David was guilty of adultery with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah. For this reason, many ethicists and biblical scholars do not view Gen. 19 as having probative value for the debate over homosexuality in the modern world.
The issue in Lev. 18:20; 20:13 has less to do with translation and more to do with the larger context of the Holiness Code, which sets forth strict rules for the Israelites as they are about to take possession of the promised land. They must not engage in any of the idolatrous activities of the Canaanites, the former occupants of the land. The difficulty here is translating cultures, since Leviticus also bars practices such as cross-breeding animals, sowing two kinds of seed in one field, wearing garments made of two different materials, rounding the hair on one’s temples, marring the edges of one’s beard, or receiving a tattoo (19:19, 27–28; 21:5), cultural practices that today Christians see as having no particular significance for religious faith, even though the prohibitions are in the Bible. In addition, Leviticus provides a rationale for neither the prohibition in general (18:20) nor the extreme punishment in particular (20:13). Are modern people of faith to pick and choose among the various Levitical prohibitions and punishments? If so, on what basis? Thus, although the Levitical codes clearly condemn same-sex relations, the larger context of these prohibitions, as well as the penalty of death, have complicated how such condemnation should be understood or enacted today within the Christian community.
The most significant biblical passage to address the question about same-sex relations is Rom. 1:24–27. This is the only biblical passage that discusses both male and female same-sex activity. The passage emphasizes individuals with “degrading passions,” “burning with lust,” and engaging in “unnatural” activities that are shameful and perverse. The presumptions about excessive lust and the violation of natural law are important to highlight in this context. In what ways are homosexual desires more lustful than heterosexual desires? Paul’s understanding appears to be that only male-female relations are natural. In the twenty-first century, however, the question about what is “natural” or “unnatural” in regard to human sexuality has become rather controversial. Some argue that individuals are born with a sexual orientation of which they become aware as they mature, and that both heterosexual and homosexual orientations are natural, even though the vast majority of individuals are heterosexual. Others would argue that God’s intention was for all humankind to be heterosexual, and that homosexuality is a result of human sin that affects even our DNA. In this view, homosexual persons cannot be blamed for their orientation, but nonetheless they must refrain from acting on it. In the Roman Catholic tradition this view is clearly expressed in the papal encyclical The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (1986). A related difficulty is that neither Paul nor his contemporaries within the patriarchal context of antiquity had any concept of sexual orientation as a way of understanding human sexuality.
In 1 Cor. 6:9–10 we again come upon a crucial translation issue. The passage occurs in the context of a vice list that includes behaviors contrary to God’s will. Paul states that “wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God,” referring to “fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers.” The translation issue arises with the Greek terms malakoi and arsenokoitai, which the NRSV renders as “male prostitutes” and “sodomites.” A literal translation would be something like “soft people” and “men who go to bed,” though clearly something far more colloquial is meant—perhaps “male prostitutes and the men who hire their services”? The range of standard translations indicates how difficult the passage is: “boy prostitutes nor sodomites” (NAB), “male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders” (NIV), “both participants in same-sex intercourse” (CEB), “male prostitutes, homosexuals” (NLT), “passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals” (NET), “homosexual perverts” (TEV), and “nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV). The use of “sodomites” by the NRSV is unfortunate because it presumes a connection between the story of Gen. 19 and 1 Cor. 6 (1 Tim. 1:10 involves similar issues). Similarly, the use of “homosexual” is problematic because it suggests that the biblical authors had an understanding of homosexuality that parallels our contemporary understanding, resulting in potentially anachronistic readings of Scripture.
The cultural question has to do with what forms of homoerotic activity Paul knew about in his day. Like most Jews of his day, he seems to presume heterosexual expression as the norm, though his own preference is for celibacy (1 Cor. 7:7). As best we can tell, Paul would have known about pederasty and prostitution. Does his condemnation of these forms of same-sex relations in the first century indicate a blanket condemnation of all forms of same-sex relations in our time with our understanding of human sexuality? This question points to a larger debate in modern Christianity for which the issue of homosexuality has become a litmus test. The debate is between different groups of Christians who line up on different sides of a range of issues. What is the authority of Scripture, and how should it be interpreted? To what degree has God created humans with normative and essential standards of sexual ethics that transcend time and space? What role do human experience and reason play in discerning the leading of God’s Spirit? Are same-sex relations to be condemned as a violation of God’s revealed will, or are they to be celebrated as another expression of God’s revealed will for human sexuality?
Those with a high view of Scripture and the continuity of tradition tend toward a more conservative approach to these questions. In this view, a homosexual orientation is not itself a sin, but it is a cross to bear and a desire that must be resisted. This approach emphasizes that the Bible makes no room for a positive evaluation of same-sex relations, and that the constant teaching of the church has been to condemn all forms of homosexual expression. Homosexuality is seen as a disordered condition that can, in some cases, be changed and corrected through various forms of therapy and counseling. For some who hold this view, homosexuality is not necessarily an orientation but rather a chosen set of behaviors contrary to God’s will.
Those who value human reason and experience as interpretive guides for a contextual understanding of Scripture tend toward a more liberal or progressive approach to such questions. In this view, a same-sex orientation is simply a different orientation from heterosexuality and is intrinsically no better or worse, and certainly not sinful. Those advocating a more inclusive approach to LGBT individuals often appeal to the disciplines of psychiatry and biology as important resources for aiding our developing understanding of human sexuality in contrast to the biblical prohibitions of same-sex relations. The term homosexuality itself was coined in the late nineteenth century in German psychological literature. Definition and understanding of the term have evolved and changed over the last century. The first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-I, published in 1952 by the American Psychiatric Association [APA]) identified “homosexuality” as a sociopathic personality disorder, while DSM-II (1968) defined it as a sexual deviation. In 1973 the APA revised DSM-II so that the general category of “homosexuality” was eliminated and replaced by “sexual orientation disturbance.” This was a controversial change because it indicated a clear shift within the psychiatric community, which increasingly viewed a homosexual orientation as nonpathological, whereas the individual’s struggle to accept his or her homosexual identity became the psychiatric problem to be addressed. This change was codified in DSM-III (1980, revised 1987), and in DSM-IV (1994, revised 2000) “homosexuality” was removed and replaced with the more generic and relatively vague “gender identity disorder,” referring to individuals with significant anxiety about their sexual or gender identity.
Other questions have to do with whether it is important that Jesus said nothing directly about same-sex relations in any of his recorded teaching. Did he simply presume the cultural norms of his day, even though apparently he was celibate? Is Jesus’ reference in Mark 10:1–12 to Gen. 1:27; 2:24 a tacit endorsement of heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman? Do the different approaches to marriage sanctioned in the Bible (multiple wives, concubines, levirate marriage) suggest openness to changing understandings of marriage and sexuality?
Homosexuality and Ecclesial Communities
Both the Roman Catholic Church and most Protestant denominations have conducted multiyear studies on homosexuality and have issued lengthy findings that often encourage more understanding and acceptance of LGBT persons within the church but stop short of endorsing anything other than heterosexual marriage as God’s intention for appropriate human sexual expression. Significantly, within the Roman Catholic Church the primary issue revolves around procreation, to which all human sexual expressions must be open. In this view, then, by definition sexual relations between people of the same gender are immoral because they cannot create new life. By contrast, within most Protestant denominations the primary issue revolves around ordination and the question of whether ordained LGBT individuals can appropriately model Christian marriage. Thus far, most denominations have answered this question in the negative. The primary exception to this is the United Church of Christ and the Episcopal Church in America and in Canada. The Metropolitan Community Church (founded in 1968) is the most open denomination toward the full inclusion of LGBT persons. Within the Roman Catholic Church the question of ordination has nothing to do with marriage, since priests are by definition celibate.
And so the debates over homosexuality continue in one Christian community after another, with people of good faith holding firmly to their respective views on both sides of this clear divide. The debate over the status of homosexual persons within the church has a corollary with the larger societal debates over issues such as same-sex marriage, the constitutionality of laws limiting the rights of homosexual persons, and the call from various constituencies for full acceptance of LGBT individuals within society at large. The Bible serves as a key touchstone for this conversation within the church, though its interpretation, relevance, and application in relation to homosexuality remain points of significant contention, especially as interpreters seek to correlate and integrate the biblical witness with other sources of authority—tradition, reason, and experience.
See also Sexual Ethics
Bibliography
Alison, J. Faith Beyond Resentment: Fragments Catholic and Gay. Crossroad, 2001; Grenz, S. Welcoming but Not Affirming: An Evangelical Response to Homosexuality. Westminster John Knox, 1998; Jones, S., and M. Yarhouse. Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church’s Moral Debate. IVP Academic, 2000; Nissinen, M. Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective. Fortress, 1998; Rogers, J. Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church. Rev. ed. Westminster John Knox, 2009; Siker, J., ed. Homosexuality and Religion: An Encyclopedia. Greenwood Press, 2007; idem, ed. Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate. Westminster John Knox, 1994; Sullivan, A. Virtually Normal: An Argument about Homosexuality. Vintage Books, 1996; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message to Parents of Homosexual Children and Suggestions for Pastoral Ministers. United States Catholic Conference, 1997; Via, D., and R. Gagnon. Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views. Fortress, 2003; White, M. Stranger Beyond the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America. Plume, 1995.
Jeffrey S. Siker
Here is a hot-button topic article for your sampling pleasure: Homosexuality
Impressively balanced presentation in my opinion. IIRC, I heard good things about this reference work when it came out, and so also noticed it at a great price on the sale page. That said, I was hemming and hawing over getting it. I did purchase https://www.logos.com/product/144129/dictionary-of-luther-and-the-lutheran-traditions however. In a brief examination, I have been impressed with its articles on the background of the Reformation, as well as short biographies of many Lutheran figures over the ages.
Agreed. I love logos, but I am really sick of the push for NT Wright. There are a lot more other authors that should be promoted or highlighted.
There are a lot more other authors that should be promoted or highlighted.
You're welcome to come on over to Verbum which hasn't had a spate of Wright.
I want to speculate - I suspect that the ability to give a book away or at steep discounts is a matter of contracts at least I would expect that Faithlife isn't paying full royalty costs on books that are given away. Is it possible that the spat of Wright reflects a marketing strategy of the publisher not of Faithlife? or that certain publishers are off-limits for the promotion just as they are for discounts based on partial ownership?
Having looked over the book some, here are my thoughts:
The article on virtue ethics is good and what I would want in a resource like this. The article on utilitarianism is okay, but it leaves out some distinctions people should probably be aware of and the article is short enough that this could have been added. There are no articles on some ethical systems or issues one might expect in a dictionary of ethics: ethical egoism, error theory, cultural relativism, naturalistic fallacy, etc... And because the dictionary does not dedicate articles to important figures in ethics, one won't find independent discussion of figures like Kant, Hume, G. E. Moore, Ayer, Mackie, MacIntyre etc.
From a search, it appears that some of the issues and people mentioned above are mentioned in various articles. But because, for example, discussion of Kant is embedded in the article on Deontology the thinkers or the ideas aren't discussed with as much nuance as I would like. For instance, no mention is made of the debate surrounding how Kant's three versions of CI are related or the three ways in which violations might be said to "contradict" (logical, teleological, practical) and one of the most common objections to Kant's CI isn't mentioned (maybe because the author thinks it can be answered?).
It may be that what I'm expecting isn't suited to the peculiar focus of this work. Perhaps these issues are owing to the fact that this is a dictionary of Scripture and ethics? Maybe the dictionary is a better representative of the issues and angles of approach that are more common in contemporary circles of Christian ethics? I'm not as familiar with the narrower circle of Christian ethical thought. But where I am familiar with some of the thinkers and issues I still have some criticism:
Some of the articles are written by authors sympathetic to the idea being considered (e.g., Rae and Moreland on Dualism and Corcoran on Monism (Corcoran is a Christian Materialist)). Others are written by authors who are antagonistic or unsympathetic to the topics being discussed (e.g., the capitalism and death penalty articles). This gives the work an appearance of editorial bias, since competent Christian scholars who are sympathetic to these positions could have easily been found (e.g., Feser on death penalty). The dualism and monism articles are sparse and could do more to indicate their ethical relevance significance.
The entry on the Golden Rule makes no mention of Gensler's GR consistency work (he's not even mentioned in the bibliography)! Seems like a big oversight, imo.
I prefer "The Great Speckled Bird" [;)]
Jeremiah 12:9 (KJV 1900)
9 Mine heritage is unto me as a speckled bird, the birds round about are against her; come ye, assemble all the beasts of the field, come to devour.
If you hadn't said this, I was about to pretty much parrot these musings. I do suspect that these offers have more to do with Wright's "people" than it does FL's people. That's probably true of the majority of deals FL offers.
So, that said, if you customers have any authors whose works you would either like to see in Logos (or Verbum), or authors whose works you would like to see discounted in L/V, then might I suggest you contact their "people" and express your desire directly. Making people aware of the L/V markets can't hurt and especially now with sales being affected across the board, it may be an opportunity that publishers would be interested in pursuing.
It may also reflect to some extent who and what actually sells.
If a lot of people want books by someone Faithlife carries, Faithlife is going to try harder to get those people to buy them from Faithlife. A lot of Wright's work is popular among widely diverse crowds--including many folks who disagree strongly with many of his beliefs and interpretations of Scripture.
At any rate, I happily acquire all free books and videos of the month that I can, even if only because one day I might get a dynamic discount on some collection I want that it happens to be in. It's happened before. Also, if there's some work that I myself would never spend money on... all the more reason to make sure I never have to spend money it (i.e., by getting it for free). Of course, I also voluntarily and intentionally read and consult many authors and works with which I have strong theological and/or other disagreements, and not everyone wants or needs to do so.
Thank you, Ken. A nice pairing to Mark Smith's new volume that downloaded. Which of Mark Smith's volume is this?
Hey Rick, I don't think you ever got an answer to this. Denise was referencing The Genesis of Good and Evil: The Fall(out) and Original Sin in the Bible, which was released in the last few weeks.
Thank you, Ken. A nice pairing to Mark Smith's new volume that downloaded. Which of Mark Smith's volume is this? Hey Rick, I don't think you ever got an answer to this. Denise was referencing The Genesis of Good and Evil: The Fall(out) and Original Sin in the Bible, which was released in the last few weeks.
I did purchase https://www.logos.com/product/144129/dictionary-of-luther-and-the-lutheran-traditions however. In a brief examination, I have been impressed with its articles on the background of the Reformation, as well as short biographies of many Lutheran figures over the ages.
I almost missed it. I guess that was a last minute purchase, since it's already May.
By the way there's another dictionary for $9.99, now part of the May sale:
https://www.logos.com/product/10293/augustine-through-the-ages-an-encyclopedia
April 2020, a month that could wear out even Solomon and Phil Connors, is mercifully over.
