A new type of pre-pub - it isn't in print yet!
Comments
-
Scott Lumsden said:
The difference between publishing others work in digital form and publishing your own work means that you've made editorial decisions and are indeed promoting a position.
It is ludicrous to insist that Logos endorses every theological view of every author in this commentary series. In fact, that would be impossible because a commentary set of this scope (like the NICOT/NICNT) will have a variety of theological views among the authors. For example, there are Wesleyan as well as Calvinist authors in most such scholarly sets.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
Thanks Rosie for the information about the blog: Don't Eat the Fruit. "about the the role of technology in the redemptive movement from the Garden to the City." I hadn't known about that one. Sounds good.
JJ
0 -
I just went on SS and so this leap of faith is out of question.
0 -
Michael Childs said:
It is ludicrous to insist that Logos endorses every theological view of every author in this commentary series.
Why? why not have ALL views? That would mean that there would need to be about four or five times as many volumes [one for each view]
But NOT endorse - just see that all views get shelf space.
[If you have not personally read [imho] their works and their commentaries you have only seen a shadow of what they are]
And get the denominations that back each view to put up some of the funding for their view. Then we will welcome the four or five different views and at the same in depth level of scholarship and maybe then we could figure out if we are in the correct church. [if we can get past the thought that all others are heretics]
One poster asked Should I entertain theological viewpoints in my Logos resources that I do not agree with?" I say YES!!! That is the only way we learn!
0 -
David Ames said:
why not have ALL views?
ALL the views that present themselves as economically viable to produce. The Gospel According To Peanuts should take lower priority than The Chronicles Of Narnia imho.
David Ames said:But NOT endorse - just see that all views get shelf space.
Agreed. I do not endorse all 31 flavors of ice cream at BR. But I would not enjoy going there if they only offered the top three I always seen to settle on.
David Ames said:One poster asked Should I entertain theological viewpoints in my Logos resources that I do not agree with?" I say YES!!! That is the only way we learn!
I think that poster is a really smart guy! [:D]
A concern was raised that the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary author for Genesis is a creationist. There are even many differing perspectives among creationist. I was surprised to learn a few new perspectives held by Hugh Ross in the Reasons To Believe Collection. I do not agree with all of Hugh's views as of this date but I find them very worthwhile and will not call him crazy or ignorant. Logos does not need to endorse everyone they publish nor ban everyone they disagree with
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
David Ames said:
just see that all views get shelf space.
I'm not sure that is possible. From the forums, I'm beginning to believe there are 3 views for every two Christians - mine, yours and theirs - the final one is what we agree we don't believe ... and randomly assign to some mythical, dangerous other.
I am also horrified by the assumption that if you know someone's personal beliefs, you know what their writings will say. I'm use to people admitting that their scholarship does not necessarily support their belief ... and stating what direction further research must go to resolve the discrepancy.
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 -
Andrew McKenzie said:
Yes it is an interesting situation.... a big upfront commitment for something unseen.
Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων.
Optimistically Egalitarian (Galatians 3:28)
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
I'm beginning to believe there are 3 views for every two Christians - mine, yours and theirs - the final one is what we agree we don't believe ...
Once upon a time, many years ago, I had a Pastor who invited the men of the church to stand in the pulpit and give their own views of the book of the Revelation. There were 13 men who spoke and 15 views presented. Not much good came of the event but a lot of confusion certainly did .edit: If the 13 men had access to the EEC maybe they would have fared better. But then some of the wilder ideas about Revelation would not have been heard. [6]
Our doctrinal beliefs should not be developed with a cafeteria plan where we pick what appeals to us and discard what doesn't. My desire to have "ALL" views on my Logos shelf is more out of curiosity and a desire to understand others than to synthesize a new theology.
MJ. Smith said:the assumption that if you know someone's personal beliefs, you know what their writings will say.
I don't think withholding judgment is the same thing as endorsing a view. And tolerance of conflicting views is not a bad thing in academia.
LOGOS is a tool for Bible study. LOGOS is not the Church and I hope believers have more in their spiritual lives than just software.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Michael Aubrey said:Matthew C Jones said:
btw: I am not sure Logos made all the author choices for the EEC anyway. It really doesn't matter -- unless we are afraid we will be swayed off our dogma with a good scholarly argument presented by someone we disagree with.
Yes. In fact, I am sure that Logos did not make all the author choices. As it states on the EEC website in the history of the project. Logos came into this after many volumes were on their way to completion. Logos was connected with looking for a few scholars to contribute, but not many--not many at all.
What company started this project? Is that some big secret?
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:David Ames said:
why not have ALL views?
ALL the views that present themselves as economically viable to produce. The Gospel According To Peanuts should take lower priority than The Chronicles Of Narnia imho.
David Ames said:But NOT endorse - just see that all views get shelf space.
Agreed. I do not endorse all 31 flavors of ice cream at BR. But I would not enjoy going there if they only offered the top three I always seen to settle on.
David Ames said:One poster asked Should I entertain theological viewpoints in my Logos resources that I do not agree with?" I say YES!!! That is the only way we learn!
I think that poster is a really smart guy!
A concern was raised that the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary author for Genesis is a creationist. There are even many differing perspectives among creationist. I was surprised to learn a few new perspectives held by Hugh Ross in the Reasons To Believe Collection. I do not agree with all of Hugh's views as of this date but I find them very worthwhile and will not call him crazy or ignorant. Logos does not need to endorse everyone they publish nor ban everyone they disagree with
Concerning the part I have put in bold, italic, and underlined: I am not trying to throw a grenade in here, and surely not in the other thread that was linked to citing the concern, but I am close to being offended (LOL) at the following statement in this train of thought: "I'm just concerned about the scholarship. if they invite a literalist to write on Genesis, what does that say about the rest of the series." What is the author, Scott, trying to say about a literalist here? I am a very conservative evangelical and I have seen extremely scholarly work on both sides of this debate. I think he wants to define scholarly as being researched and concluded the way he believes; I conclude, probably too quickly, from his short statement that he feels like he is right and everybody else, especially a conservative, is wrong.
And to help Scott out, while I am a very conservative, fundamentalist evangelical, I still hold my jury sequestered for the Creationist debate, even after reading probably 20 books of varying opinion on the different ideas over 20 years of time. I do lean to a literal six day event, but quite frankly, neither spectrum bothers me.
All of this being said, and forgive me if I've missed it, are there authors in the ECC which maintain a moderate to liberal (liberal= over used, hacked word that should be abolished) view on the topic which they are writing for the ECC?
Wilson Hines
0 -
Wilson Hines said:
I am not trying to throw a grenade in here
OK, I'll do it.....[6] I have to echo MJ's earlier point:
MJ. Smith said:I am also horrified by the assumption that if you know someone's personal beliefs, you know what their writings will say.
Wilson Hines said:What is the author, Scott, trying to say about a literalist here?
I don't know. I am not trying to prevent the authors of the EEC from writing whatever their scholarship leads them to write. (To suggest the muzzling of a scholar is not liberal, it is fascist, is it not?) ~BOOM!~
Wilson Hines said:are there authors in the ECC which maintain a moderate to liberal
I think they are generally conservative compared to the authors of the Anchor Yale Bible. I already bought that one so I'm not too worried about getting my Logos library out of balance.
..............maybe not "fascist", just intolerant..... [*-)]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
So what if the guy's a creationist? I used to be an athiest, now I think the creationist arguments hold more merit than the evolutionist ones do. You can freethink/critique your way to creationism without fundamentalism... and I wouldn't hold that the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God as a fundamental, but merely voice the fact that I'm convinced it is. Just saying!
0 -
Thomas Yassine Bourega said:
So what if the guy's a creationist?
I hope you are just replying to the thread in general and don't think I am against creationists. I very much like creationist, especially the first Creationist.
I look forward to reading the Genesis volume of the EEC with anticipation ( to be written by William Barrick and released around August 1, 2016)
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Wasn't against you, was indeed generally directed. I just think how ironic how even confessing christians can be so closed minded against a belief that God literally created the world; between the fact that an arbitrary wavering on what's literal and what's not is logically incoherent, or the fact that a major factor in Christian persecution, past and present, is to have an "ignorant" belief in this creator God, which never fails to run against the consensus view.
/rant
0 -
It is so tempting to fall into an argument here. The reason that the guidelines ask us to refrain from this type of discussion is that "closed minded" "arbitrary wavering" "Logical incoherent" etc. are not terms of attempting to understand someone whose beliefs are well-formed but different from your own. Please don't lead me into temptation but rather, follow the guidelines.
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 -
So you straw-man me by saying i'm attacking when I'm not?
I was making a general statement about pick-and-choose what's literal/what's not. You need a consistent hermeneutic when approaching scripture - otherwise any attempt at systematic, logical understanding of the Bible is futile. You need logical coherence to build a world-view that isn't contradictory - there cannot be a contradiction in truth. That, by the way, is philosophy, not theology.
I understand evolutionary views perfectly, theistic and atheistic, as I have held them. My comments were from my own experience.
I was not insulting anybody, so please don't stereotype me, as that constitutes an insult in itself.
0 -
Thomas Yassine Bourega said:
so please don't stereotype me, as that constitutes an insult in itself.
My apologies - I was trying to question your language not your beliefs. And, of course, point out that the guidelines ask us not to discuss theology especially with language that can be seen as discourteous.
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 -
Thomas Yassine Bourega said:
Wasn't against you, was indeed generally directed. I just think how ironic how even confessing christians can be so closed minded against a belief that God literally created the world
Thank you for clarifying that. I have never had a problem believing God created everything and even did it in 6 days. He could have done it in 6 seconds if He so chose. I believe in the Resurrection too. [:D] I also believe someone can be saved without understanding everything about God (-that would encompass all humans in my estimation) and even if they have a different take on the Creation account than I hold.,
But just because I believe something does not in and of itself make it true. People die every day for things they believe in; religions, political systems, economic ideas, and just plain membership in something. Some of those beliefs don't make logical sense. And just because many do not believe God's account does not make God untrue. Romans 3:2-4
Lastly, I will not wait on the rest of the world to come in to agreement with me on the reliability of God's account. I won't fret or become angry. I do often wonder how God could be trusted in things important to me like my eternal future if He lied about things in the past of little consequence to me like the Creation process.
I hope I did not stray too far into the theological minefield.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Thomas Yassine Bourega said:
so please don't stereotype me, as that constitutes an insult in itself.
My apologies - I was trying to question your language not your beliefs. And, of course, point out that the guidelines ask us not to discuss theology especially with language that can be seen as discourteous.
And I apologise too for using language that may have been perceived as inflammatory - It's a shame that such terms are thrown around so often as nothing but a gigantic claim/attack, that one has to be wary of their employment.
Matthew C Jones said:Thomas Yassine Bourega said:Wasn't against you, was indeed generally directed. I just think how ironic how even confessing christians can be so closed minded against a belief that God literally created the world
Thank you for clarifying that. I have never had a problem believing God created everything and even did it in 6 days. He could have done it in 6 seconds if He so chose. I believe in the Resurrection too.
I also believe someone can be saved without understanding everything about God (-that would encompass all humans in my estimation) and even if they have a different take on the Creation account than I hold.,But just because I believe something does not in and of itself make it true. People die every day for things they believe in; religions, political systems, economic ideas, and just plain membership in something. Some of those beliefs don't make logical sense. And just because many do not believe God's account does not make God untrue. Romans 3:2-4
Lastly, I will not wait on the rest of the world to come in to agreement with me on the reliability of God's account. I won't fret or become angry. I do often wonder how God could be trusted in things important to me like my eternal future if He lied about things in the past of little consequence to me like the Creation process.
I hope I did not stray too far into the theological minefield.
Indeed, or he could have triggered a big bang and laid down a few physical base rules that led to life evolving from a floating body in space."Dodging the mines" here myself, and going into philosophy - Jesus Christ made the very big claim that he was "the truth". I don't think that one commits the logical fallacy of bifurcation when I say that he was either right or wrong. Therefore, if he was a constitution of "the truth", then, as mentioned before, a "truth" cannot hold a contradiction - and thus, if we are to believe him, then we owe it to ourselves to make sure our own faith and logical foundations were built on the "rock" rather than the "sand". After all, I don't think very few people wilfully hold a worldview that they believe is completely wrong!Indeed, many who hold a faith position may not be stand up to scrutiny when their views come under criticism and attack; and yet to judge one person as representative as an entire body of beliefs is to commit a hasty generalization. People still do this, so I guess that this is a major reason why Paul implores the audiences in his letters to be a good "witness". After all, if someone can't account for their beliefs, why should I accept them for myself?I'm going to shut up now, I could rabbit ten thousand words on this. lol.
0 -
While researching a book that William D. Barrick had contributed to, I came across a very thorough review of it. Barricks contribution was also reviewed, and I thought I would post it here since he's been mentioned a bit in this discussion.
The book is called "Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth."
[quote]
One more example deserves mention because it was by far the worst chapter of the volume, which is surprising considering the author is a professor of Old Testament at a well-known seminary. William D. Barrick's handling of Scripture in "Noah's Flood and Its Geological Implications" was the worst in the entire volume and actually meets or exceeds any offenses Hugh Ross commits in his works. (This is ironic considering Ross frequently stands in as a punching bag in Coming to Grips with Genesis due to his handling of Scripture at various points. At least Ross has the excuse of being an astrophysicist trying his hand at scriptural interpretation rather than an Old Testament seminary professor training future pastors how to handle Scripture.)
Barrick starts off by ranting about "so-called `scientific' studies," (p. 252) and indicating that true geologic theories and stratigraphic records should be "derived from the collective impact of the entire [Flood] narrative." (p. 254) He then launches into an assessment of the Flood narrative without any reference to the arguments of people who oppose a global Flood. Rather, he most frequently argues against the arguments of other YEC global Flood theories. He also spends pages (in his footnotes) arguing in great "scientific" detail for his specific understanding of plate tectonics, volcanic activity, and massive subterranean bodies of water. He does all of this insisting it is clearly taught in Scripture based upon a phrase like, "the fountains of the great deep burst open." (p. 261)
After concluding his interpretation of the Flood narrative, Barrick then breaks down the various stages of the Flood with the geologic impact each would have. For example, he concludes that Scripture clearly teaches (based entirely upon the statement in Genesis 8:3 that the Flood waters were "receding" or "going and returning") that the Flood was in a constant ebb and flow that would have completely wiped out and transformed all land masses, including mountain ranges, from the antediluvian landscape. He describes the "scouring and depositional effects" caused by "wave motion of grand proportions... crashing over and against [even the highest mountains], carving them and forming them into a totally new landscape from that which existed prior to the Flood." (p. 272) Again, Barrick asserts all of this is clearly taught by the phrase in Genesis 8:3 which mentions that the Flood waters were "receding" or "going and returning". Interestingly he also claims that the types of terrestrial fossils that were formed during this "scouring and depositional" period of the Flood "include (1) burial while still alive; (2) burial of dead carcasses; and (3) tracks or footprints." (p. 279) One who does not readily accept Barrick's rather freehanded treatment of Scripture would be prompted to ask how he arrives at such an extended interpretation given his starting point in Scripture. Furthermore, is should be asked how the bodies of animals, much less the footprints or tracks they left, would remain intact and be fossilized through a process that Barrick claims was powerful enough to completely scour, reshape, and transform entire mountain ranges and continents.
To make matters worse, Barrick ends by posing a whole series of difficult questions that arise from his very free interpretation of the Flood narrative, but he makes no effort to answer any of them. Instead, Barrick ridiculously concludes his chapter by indicating that there should be no expectations that his interpretation of the Flood narrative will match up with the evidence of the geologic record. Still yet, all differing theories or models (including other YEC ones) regarding the Flood should be revised to align with his model because he has properly interpreted the true meaning of the Flood narrative. Furthermore, someone with geological training needs to find some evidence to support his interpretation because it will then be the only biblically and scientifically correct geologic model.
It is disheartening that a theologically trained evangelical believer, particularly a seminary professor of Old Testament, can stretch and twist Scripture to the extent that Barrick does. Ultimately this chapter ends in utter failure, not due to any actual exegetical merits or difficulties with the global Flood or the Genesis narrative itself, but because Barrick takes such liberties with Scripture that his exegesis is completely called into question. Additionally, he ends the chapter with a number of difficult questions and contradictory ideas he fails to answer, thus defeating or at least calling into serious doubt his own interpretation of the Genesis Flood. This sort of scholarship and hermeneutic does not help inspire confidence in the YEC position as the editors originally intended, though they seem not to notice, as they allowed this chapter to remain.0 -
Greg Masone said:
While researching a book that William D. Barrick had contributed to, I came across a very thorough review of it. Barricks contribution was also reviewed, and I thought I would post it here since he's been mentioned a bit in this discussion.
It would be interesting to know the reviewer's qualifications. The Amazon profile told me nothing more than he is from Alaska.
0
