Bible software fallacies

I am currently reading D.A.Carson's excellent book "Exegetical fallacies" on my Logos app. In this book Carson outlines several traps along the road of biblical exegesis. Some of the fallacies seem pretty straightforward and obvious to everyone with half a brain. Some may be difficult to see for those who speak only one language, but more obvious to those, who like myself, are bilingual. (Neither of those is English, as you can see :-). Some fallacies come sneaking up on you, and I must admit that many of my past mistakes become painfully obvious in light of this book. Being reminded that you have misinterpreted the bible from time to time, and even brought such errors to the pulpit, is by no means a pleasant experience – but it is a necessary one.

Now, I know that some people practically mourn the existence of the Strong's concordance (as well as interlinear bibles). The reason for this are quite obvious: Rather than opening up the greek and hebrew texts to those who are unfamiliar with those languages, it opens the door to an abundance of exegetical fallacies, such as those described in Carson's book. I myself have used this tool before I went to seminary, and I made exactly the kind of errors I would best have avoided.

But the Strong's concordance is getting old. New and more powerful methods have replaced it, namely bible software. If Strong's concordance could be used so carelessly, what then about bible software? Is is possible to abuse the tools provided in Logos and other bible software in order to reach unbiblical conclusions? Perhaps someone here in the forums who has done exactly that, or perhaps dodged the bullet before it hit. If so, perhaps you would like to share that experience?

What I want to find out is this: Is there anything that we should keep in mind when using Logos, or any other piece bible software for that matter, in order to stay clear of "bible software fallacies"?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Batman

Keep in mind, as being bilingual, you are more aware than unilinigualists (is that a word? Should be), that knowing the languages (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic) is your best bet.

Unfortunately, as my Hebrew professor stated, "No matter how well you master Hebrew, any 5 year old native speaker will be better than you". Such a humbling statement-- but true.. Humility when approaching the Bible is the most important step in reading the Bible. It's not a simple reading, it's a sort of culture shock. We are crossing hundreds of lines of cultures, over thousands of years, with who knows how many language changes over those years, and mans' understandings.
To give a quick pictorial here, look at how much society has changed since America was founded just a couple hundred years ago. Culture has changed. Music appreciation has changed. Types of clothing has changed. Ain't has become a word. What was outlawed even 20 years ago, is law. Imagine the scientific changes. Now, if these changes occurred within 200ish years in one country, imagine how many changes in language, and culture, perhaps even what they understood, taking place over thousands of years.

I say this, because we tend to think "Well, in the Hebrew, this word means _____. Therefore it always means ________". Says who?

So, to answer your question, we will make errors in our interpretations. We should attempt to avoid them as much as possible. Having something as powerful as Logos is a great tool. But, once again, just as if in print, it is only a tool. So, the basics of what DA Carson teaches is still applicable to software. But always keep in mind, it's software, made by people, with theological slants. So, use the tools, to help you do the work. Don't allow the tools to substitute the working.

And, step two, I would suggest when delving in a particular book, particularly the Old Testament, search the customs of the target audience. It may help us as the reader understand what their words meant to them, as opposed to how we interpret them as 21st century readers.

JT (alabama24)

With a large library and powerful searches, it is easier to find someone who agrees with your opinion on a passage or theology. Don't forget to read those with another opinion, and see where they come from.

Edwin Bowden

[quote]

[Y][Y]

Lynden O. Williams

With a large library and powerful searches, it is easier to find someone who agrees with your opinion on a passage or theology.

Totally agree. I have often said that if I proclaimed myself as God the Father or Jesus, I would attract some followers. Not that I have any special qualities, but people can be that easily duped.

Todd Phillips

What I want to find out is this: Is there anything that we should keep in mind when using Logos, or any other piece bible software for that matter, in order to stay clear of "bible software fallacies"?

Internal Bible tagging is subjective and liable to error. Morphology tags, syntax tags, clause tags, etc, are all assigned by a person. Just because they are in a "database" doesn't mean the data is correct. The algorithm to use those tags can also be buggy. Always verify your conclusions in multiple ways.

Orpheus Heyward

i would also caution that because information can at times be quite subjective, become very acquainted with the rules of interpretation recognizing that all research should be filtered through the context of a passage.

Doc B

Just because they are in a "database" doesn't mean the data is correct.

Todd hits the nail on the head with this one. It is a version of the old, "I know it is true because I read it on the internet" fallacy. Bible software doesn't solve any of the problems that were noted with Strong's, it simply shifts them around a bit.

I've posted elsewhere that buying Logos won't supernaturally change your Christian walk. This present discussion is one more reason why that's true.

(I also like what Bama said. That argument may be on of the only positive arguments for Bundles of which I can think. For example, Horton's For Calvinism and Olsen's Against Calvinism come to mind.)

Rich DeRuiter

What I want to find out is this: Is there anything that we should keep in mind when using Logos, or any other piece bible software for that matter, in order to stay clear of "bible software fallacies"?

Keep this in mind: if you have a preconceived idea of what a passage must mean, or must not mean, or wish it meant, Bible software will enable you to make an even better case for your mistakes than a copy of Strong's can. If an amateur mechanic can foul up an engine with a screw driver and a pair of pliers, an amateur mechanic with a professional set of tools can do even more damage.

Brother Mark

My subjective opinion is that investing the time and energy required to become proficient in the original languages is allegorically similar to Paul's assertion that physical training is of some value, but Godliness has value for all things. Anyone can get some value from original language study, but when contrasted with Logos Bible Software's powerful ability to almost instantly (or, in the case of Mac users: relatively quickly) report the finding and opinions of past/contemporary learned men and women who have dedicated their lives to mastering the original languages. Yes, along with their factual findings, we get their theological bias... and, from my perspective, that's a good thing.

So, again, my subjective opinion, since I'll never be a native speaker in any Biblical language.... and neither will you, by the way... I'm thrilled to have a tool that maximizes my efficiency in study and devotions while providing me with contrasting views/perspectives/opinions.

--Bro. Mark

CH Dave

"No matter how well you master Hebrew, any 5 year old native speaker will be better than you".

Biblical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew are not the same so if you find a 5 year old that speaks Biblical Hebrew will be the most odd thing.

Allen Browne

What I want to find out is this: Is there anything that we should keep in mind when using Logos, or any other piece bible software for that matter, in order to stay clear of "bible software fallacies"?

Good question. There are far too many possible mistakes we regularly do make to even list here.

The most obvious ones are some of the features in Logos 5. For example, the Biblical Sense Lexicon attempts to assign a particular sub-meaning to a particular instance in a text. That's an opinion. It may be an informed opinion, but it won't always be right. Louw-Nida isn't always correct in how it assigns domains either.

Similarly, Logos 5 provides speaker labels. Many of these are obvious, but some are not. For example, where do Jesus' spoken words end and John's commentary on them begin in John 5. That's the same problem many 'red-letter' translators face of course. Again, these are informed opinions. The danger is that readers use these opinions as if the software proved something (rather than as lending weight to a view, based on scholarly perspectives).

Others have commented how Bible Software makes it easy for someone to find what they are looking for. That's a major trap. At the same time, the diverse resources available from Logos make it possible to buy and study perspectives I don't agree with. This requires intentional awareness in how we use the software. For example, I've noticed that with the study I'm doing at present I am more likely to open a commentary from a perspective that I disagree with than a commentator who has the same perspective I do, since that's the only way I can consider possibilities outside of what I'm already thinking.

Another basic fallacy is to treat the Bible in ways that are inappropriate for treating an ancient text. When we think of reading the Bible in context, we tend to think of how the verse fits into the paragraph/chapter/book/canon, the language and culture of the time. But when I began to read some non-canonical texts from the second temple period, I became conscious of some fallacies in the way I was approaching the Biblical texts. I do want to argue that the Bible is inspired in ways that these other texts are not, but without reading culturally relevant but non-inspired texts, I was making some rather basic mistakes.

It all boils down to the mindset you bring to the text you are studying. With the wrong mindset, I can cause quite a lot of damage in how I use a tool, whether that tool is a garden spade or Bible software.

Rene Atchley

I think that software that predigests your data (the text) tends to produce vanilla conclusions that look very much "factual"...after all the pretty graphs shows it's true.

Sakarias Ingolfsson

Some very interesting thoughts are accumulating here, so let me just recap what I have understood so far (maybe I missed something):

Having access to a big library, and the powerful search tools offered by Logos, it will be easier to find support for a preconceived (possibly false) idea.
At the same time an overwhelming amount of different ideas and interpretations, which may contradict each other, may cause cause doubt and confusion rather than making a choice more informed. (Two-edged sword thing going on here)
The cultural and lingual gap between our modern worlds and the biblical world may seem smaller than it really is, with the wealth of information we have access to. In fact, the dangers associated with interlinear bibles and the Strong's concordance apply just as much to modern bible software.
Software in general may give the impression of being more precise than written or spoken resources. This is also true with bible software. Morphological and syntactical databases, as well as all tagging of biblical content is human work (e.g. literary typing in the passage guide), and therefore subject to error. Ultimately morphological and syntactical analysis is the result of certain language theories, that may be faulty as well.
Red letters were mentioned. I remember being very excited the first time I saw these. Then a few years later I had an experience which changed all that. I was talking with a pastor about a certain theological issue, and demonstrated my view with words from one of the epistles (I do not remember what the issue was about though). The pastor replied: "Yes, but those are not the word of Christ." I found that red letters help promoting this view, because what the pastor said is really the equivalent of: "Yeah, but those are black letters, not red".

Like Spider man always says: With great power comes great responsibility. I guess I should make it clear that I am certainly not arguing for skepticism. Neither am I trying to argue against any piece of Bible software – I use it myself on a regular basis, and with increasing frequency. I do believe, however, that all Bible software needs to be used with humility, a certain amount of critical thought, and an awareness of both your own theological position and the position of the content provided. I think one needs to be open to the fact that nothing will safeguard you against making wrong conclusions.

Matthew C Jones

I think one needs to be open to the fact that nothing will safeguard you against making wrong conclusions.

I will be the first to agree that reading the writings of mere men will not guarantee you reach the truth in your quest But we need not resign ourselves to a fatalistic outlook that all searches are therefore worthless. We have God the Holy Spirit looking out for us. With prayer, humility and honesty we can appeal to God to honour our search and open our eyes to spiritual truths. Hebrews 11:6

Of course, if one believes the Bible is nothing more than the writings of more mere men it turns into nothing more than a literary study.

DMB

Not to be flippant, but in Sedona, Holy Spirit prayer yeilds 27 versions of the truth along our two state highways. I very much doubt 26 (or maybe 27) of the supportive pastors is aware that either the Holy Spirit indeed has 27 versions or they're not teaching 'the truth'.

I guess I'm not that picky about Strongs, or even reading commentary that's in agreement with 'me'. Even BDAG assigns its own theological interpretation. And reading the NT, it's pretty obvious there were quite a bit of differences that still were 'ok' at the time.

And so I suspect Logos supports a behavior for slicing and dicing the text beyond what it can dutifully support.

Rene Atchley

Some very interesting thoughts are accumulating here, so let me just recap what I have understood so far (maybe I missed something):

Having access to a big library, and the powerful search tools offered by Logos, it will be easier to find support for a preconceived (possibly false) idea.

At the same time an overwhelming amount of different ideas and interpretations, which may contradict each other, may cause cause doubt and confusion rather than making a choice more informed. (Two-edged sword thing going on here)

The cultural and lingual gap between our modern worlds and the biblical world may seem smaller than it really is, with the wealth of information we have access to. In fact, the dangers associated with interlinear bibles and the Strong's concordance apply just as much to modern bible software.

Software in general may give the impression of being more precise than written or spoken resources. This is also true with bible software. Morphological and syntactical databases, as well as all tagging of biblical content is human work (e.g. literary typing in the passage guide), and therefore subject to error. Ultimately morphological and syntactical analysis is the result of certain language theories, that may be faulty as well.

Red letters were mentioned. I remember being very excited the first time I saw these. Then a few years later I had an experience which changed all that. I was talking with a pastor about a certain theological issue, and demonstrated my view with words from one of the epistles (I do not remember what the issue was about though). The pastor replied: "Yes, but those are not the word of Christ." I found that red letters help promoting this view, because what the pastor said is really the equivalent of: "Yeah, but those are black letters, not red".

Like Spider man always says: With great power comes great responsibility. I guess I should make it clear that I am certainly not arguing for skepticism. Neither am I trying to argue against any piece of Bible software – I use it myself on a regular basis, and with increasing frequency. I do believe, however, that all Bible software needs to be used with humility, a certain amount of critical thought, and an awareness of both your own theological position and the position of the content provided. I think one needs to be open to the fact that nothing will safeguard you against making wrong conclusions.

I agree with much of this as a general matter. The issue that underlies much of this, I would argue, is that technology opens the door to guided ways of understanding the accepted text. These paths seem very objective because of the way that the software builds data sets that are expressed in forms that mimic hard science like chemistry. The bias of those who write the software incorporate the underlying bias in such a way that those who use the software may not even be aware of how one's thinking is channeled. Of course, to save time, I am not saying this is some sort of willful conspiracy by Logos to take over our minds. Rather the difference between old ways of seeing data and new (thus bias) is simply minimized in our brains by the way the software works...i.e. compare Microsoft Word with WordPerfect.

David Thomas

I'm not sure that there is an intrinsic fallacy as much as a potential weakness. When I go to my physician he uses a laptop to access a database of pharmaceuticals in order to prescribe the correct dosage of the best possible drug for my malady. This is significantly different than a patient Googling his symptoms and presuming to diagnose an illness.

There is potential for misappropriation of the information, but the tool is valuable for what it was intended.

DAL

Like Spider man always says: With great power comes great responsibility.

See, this is where you are wrong; it was "Uncle Ben" who said it, not Spiderman...He only repeated what his uncle had already said [;)]

DAL

Batman

In the debut issue, the original, Amazing Fantasy #15, page 11, closing "frame". It's actually the "narrator" who said the lean figure walking in the dark, "at last in this world, with great power comes great responsibility" (Assumption is "last" was intended to be "least"),

Like Spider man always says: With great power comes great responsibility.

See, this is where you are wrong; it was "Uncle Ben" who said it, not Spiderman...He only repeated what his uncle had already said

DAL