nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

New wiki page ... or at least finally completed.

MJ. Smith

The final draft of the wiki page on reading lists and topics is available at http://wiki.logos.com/Reading_Lists My apologies for its length but you should find a picture and description of everything you might need to know. With the blog page and Logos' effort to enter information on the Biblical books (the post-reformation Western protestant canon - PRWPC) it seemed like a good time to finish up.

PS. I still prefer NAP as an acronym to PRWPC. Wink

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

steve clark

Nice looking page!

Icarus38376

PS. I still prefer NAP as an acronym to PRWPC.

What is "NAP"?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154098#Comment_154098

What is "NAP"?

North American Protestant canon ... my usual way of describing the shortest Christian canon commonly in use in the West. I call it North American because the Lutherans use a larger canon officially but not in North American (see notes on why the new study Bible out of Fortress uses the shorter canon). Or I could call it the canon that is not used by: Anglicans, Lutherans, Catholic, Orthodox, Church of the East and various miscellaneous groups i.e. not used by 80% of world Christians. However, CNUALCOCEMG seems a bit long for an acronym [;)]

Seriously, I know no better name than NAP which I use as strictly a descriptive term. However, some forum members take it as derogatory so I keep trying to find alternatives since the critics have not offered one.

Icarus38376

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154112#Comment_154112

Thanks for the lesson, I simply call it God's Word Sans Uninspired Additions or GWSUA.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154184#Comment_154184

Thanks for the lesson, I simply call it God's Word Sans Uninspired Additions or GWSUA.

When I read the history of the canon, it seems to be a matter of subtraction rather than addition. We started off with the Epistle to the Laodiceans, Shepherd of Hermas ... lots of potential goodies that slowly dropped out of contention.GWSUA does have some wonderful ambiguity, however. It could also be used by the Samaritans, the Jews, and, perhaps, parts of the Syriac Church.

Rosie Perera

The final draft of the wiki page on reading lists and topics is available at http://wiki.logos.com/Reading_Lists My apologies for its length

Excellent!

Perhaps due to its length it should have a table of contents at the top like http://wiki.logos.com/Books_Missing_Pagination_and_Other_Indexes does, to help people navigate back to where they were if they can only handle reading it in chunks at a time.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154199#Comment_154199

it should have a table of contents at the top

Good idea. I'll try to get to it this evening.

Icarus38376

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154193#Comment_154193

When I read the history of the canon, it seems to be a matter of subtraction rather than addition. We started off with the Epistle to the Laodiceans, Shepherd of Hermas ... lots of potential goodies that slowly dropped out of contention.GWSUA does have some wonderful ambiguity, however. It could also be used by the Samaritans, the Jews, and, perhaps, parts of the Syriac Church.

Sure, it can even be used by the cults. But only the elect of Christ
with God given faith are able to distinguish the 66 books of GWSUA as
the true and only word of God. The others are left by God to "...turn away their ears from
the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" 2 Timothy
4:4

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154241#Comment_154241

Sure, it can even be used by the cults. But only the elect of Christ
with God given faith are able to distinguish the 66 books of GWSUA as
the true and only word of God. The others are left by God to "...turn away their ears from
the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" 2 Timothy
4:4

I'll drop out to ensure that I don't get drawn into a theological debate.

Dave Hooton

PS. I still prefer NAP as an acronym to PRWPC.

I prefer WPC - since you can't distinguish pre- from post- with PRWPC.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154283#Comment_154283

I prefer WPC

That's a good candidate ... and it is possible to use w as a vowel although the English word that does so escapes me at the moment. (No I'm not thinking of the diphthongs in which w serves as a vowel.) You know I'll wake up in the middle of the night having finally remembered it.

w as a Welch vowel as the oo sound of boo ... so WPC oop-c (oopsie) ... that has a nice ring to it.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154285#Comment_154285

it is possible to use w as a vowel although the English word that does so escapes me at the moment.

cwm - it's from a Welsh word, and it means "A round valley-head inclosed on all sides but one by steep slopes; a corrie; a cirque. The typical cwms of the Welsh mountains have been shaped by glacial erosion." (that's from the Century Dictionary, a wonderful resource in pre-pub now; go order it if you haven't already)

But who needs a vowel in a TLA? There are plenty of them that are pronounceable even without vowels in them. People just slip vowel sounds in between the letters to pronounce them. (I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but I know there are plenty.) Kind of like the way vowels crop up between Hebrew radicals to make the roots pronounceable. My favorite example of a word that came out of a vowelless acronym is MIcrosoft's Hotmail, which comes from HTML with vowels stuck in between the letters: HoTMaiL.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154288#Comment_154288

There are plenty of them that are pronounceable even without vowels in them. People just slip vowel sounds in between the letters to pronounce them.

Its pretty much a given that without vowels a word can't be pronounced (yes, there are exceptions). So yes, people make them pronounceable by the addition of vowels in rather standard manners. For example, WPPSS became "Whoops" when it failed. Certainly, it could remain an acronym like WTA. But 'oop-c' is so pronounceable it would be a shame to lose the most succinct pronunciation. I will grant that "weep-c" and "weproc" have valid claims to the title.

Lynden O. Williams

Good job MJ. Until the blog, I never knew of the potential, having dabbled with them a few times. This is something that I will be using more often. Your page on the wiki really breaks it down.

steve clark

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154307#Comment_154307

MJ,

would you please change this on the TOC to New, thanks. The content is so much more that i think it deserves a status of New.