Why I don't use Faithlife Biblical and Theological Lists - an appeal for votes on suggestions

MJ. Smith
MJ. Smith MVP Posts: 53,105
edited November 21 in English Forum

Okay, the truth of the matter is that with their labels integrated into the Context Menu and the Search it is nearly impossible to not use the Faithlife Biblical and Theological Lists series. But they represent a serious issue with Logos/Verbum software. I come at the problem with assumptions you may not share:

  1. I believe that any approach that makes one engage in detail with scripture as a religious text is a reasonable approach. In small groups I have seen an auto mechanic and a drama voice coach bring great insights into scripture by using what they knew.
  2. I believe that many formal approaches to scripture if used exclusively for years become a means to spend time "studying" scripture while assuring that one doesn't accidentally see anything that might require a change in beliefs and actions.
  3. I believe that some formal approaches to scripture actually require background knowledge that the people using the approaches do not have. Instead, the "student" specializes in nodding their heads in wise affirmation of what others say, and the actual text fades into the background.

One of the promises of Bible study software is to allow each user to find a presentation of scripture that allows them to interact with scripture in ways that word for them - textual, visual, aural, big picture down, small picture up ... How does this relate to Faithlife Biblical and Theological Lists? Historically these started as interactives. Consider the popular Psalms Explorer which features a bubble chart filtered by seven facets -- a visual guide into the overall structure of the psalms which is not available through text or fixed charts. Less visual is New Testament Manuscript explorer which is a textual chart but the ability to filter by eight facets to compare and contrast the manuscripts listed.

Now consider Thompson, Jeremy. All the Altars in the Bible. Faithlife Biblical and Theological Lists. Bellingham, WA: Faithlife, 2020.  We are presented with fixed text, not even a chart to easily compare. There is no way to get an overall sense of the data.  There is nothing to encourage us to actually read the definitions to know what is actually being said. It is a perfect example of encouraging "the "student" specializes in nodding their heads in wise affirmation of what others say, and the actual text fades into the background." There certainly are a number of users who want more of these. Some examples:

I believe in computer software Bible study because it can move beyond the limitations of a printed text. I am not interested in paying for feature sets that convert Willmington's Book of Lists into a database/eBook. I realize that the interactives approach required separate coding for each interactive and the code was not platform independent. However, there must be a limited number of appropriate visual presentations to which a generic table with a limited number of facets can be fed ... less efficient but more cost effective.

See:

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."

Tagged:

Categories