How many misrepresentation of facts do you allow before calling a resource garbage?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1202111#Comment_1202111

It's the nature of almost any discipline. (Religion, history, philosophy, literary criticism, art, nutrition, law, medicine,

In medicine, there are standard texts that establish accepted "facts" against which all other texts must argue. If a "fact" is to be proven false or a revision is accepted, research which is deemed "evidence based" is offered and often the experiment is confirmed independently in order for the new information is to be adopted as a verified standard. It was of interest to me that a paper MJ cited in a previous post that the author asserted that the Roman Catholic Church is advantaged in doing "speculative" theology as it is unencumbered by having to call "balls and strikes" over the Protestant Church as it has a "teaching Church" whereas the Protestant Church evidently has none. I include the material of interest below:

Historians and analysts of the baseball book of rules may certainly depict, analyze, and offer speculative suggestions about the definitions of "ball" and "strike," but they have no power to rule on the field of play that some pitch is one or the other. That power is reserved to umpires, and it is a performative power: when the umpire calls a strike, that act suffices to make it one; when the Church's bishops assembled define doctrine, that act suffices to make it such, and it does so because of the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

There are, of course, complications here on questions of detail: it is not always clear just when the Church's bishops have defined doctrine; and the category "doctrine" itself is internally complex - there are kinds and degrees. But the schema given remains valid and important even if it is not always easy to see just how to apply it. Clarifying its application is among the tasks of theologians.

And he continues:

This picture of the theologian's work is, or ought to be, productive of speculative work of a daring and radical kind. If it is incumbent upon theologians to get as clear as they can about the difference between Church doctrine, on the one hand, and speculative proposals about and elaborations of doctrine, on the other hand, then theologians are freed from anxiety about whether their speculative proposals are right. It is not up to them - to us - to decide this; whether any element of a particular theologian's speculative proposal is incorporated into Church doctrine is a decision made by the teaching Church over time, with the college of bishops playing an essential role in arriving at that decision. And usually the time taken is so much that the theologian is safely dead and (perhaps) enjoying a preliminary version of the beatific vision before it is clear how his work has been appropriated and used by the Church.

In this way, the theologian is relieved of anxiety about her own rightness and her own influence, at least if she is Catholic; the picture is very different for Protestant theologians, on whose shoulders a heavy weight is placed, one that cannot be borne and that hampers and constrains the properly speculative aspect of theological work. The same weight bears down upon Catholic theologians when they forget, or avert their gaze from, the nature of their task. What we have as Catholic theologians is the deep freedom that comes from the recognition of the authority under which we work; I wish that more of us saw this clearly, and worked in the light of such clarity.

David Paul

Roy

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1202123#Comment_1202123

42

Mr. Ford Prefect I presume? [Y]

Don’t forget your towel! [;)]

Roy

MJ,

What I “think” I have convinced myself to do is highlight the offending text with a strike-thru and attach a note to myself stating why I disagree. I need to try and argue my point, so later I can re-evaluate my position to see if I still hold the same.

I don,t think I will hide the resource as I might need to reference it later to again defend against said position later on.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1202122#Comment_1202122

It's the nature of almost any discipline. (Religion, history, philosophy, literary criticism, art, nutrition, law, medicine,
In medicine, there are standard texts that establish accepted "facts" against which all other texts must argue.

deleted as it was leading to an inappropriate discussion.

Dave Hooton

How many such misrepresentations do you allow before considering the resource garbage? Do you create notes that tag the error as faux fact?

In studying Revelation a couple of years ago I came across some bible commentaries whose interpretation was plainly illogical or based upon a premise that was dubious e.g. "the doctrine of the...". I downgraded their Rating so it was unlikely I would consult them again. I was surprised that theologians could be so illogical, but Revelation has a way of promoting such in defense of, or proposing, a view.

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1202137#Comment_1202137

Another thing I would want to know is are these scholarly resources or popular resources?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1202138#Comment_1202138

are these scholarly resources

Good thought ... in my case they claim to be scholarly. I am noticing that some publishers seem to have fewer errors than others.

SineNomine

Sometimes one error might be sufficient.

I tend to treat theologians' treatments of the ideas of people they disagree with as fundamentally unreliable until proven otherwise. Likewise their treatment of potentially inconvenient historical events.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1202134#Comment_1202134

The misrepresentations that are driving me nuts are for example, saying that Athanasius defined the Christian Old Testament as the shorter Jewish canon -- then you check the reference to see that Athanasius explicitly stated that the list was what the "Hebrews" use.

I'm no expert in this field, but from my cursory investigation into this question it appears evident that Athanasius viewed as Canon the scripture that Protestants would recognize as canonical for the NT.

As far as the OT he states, "There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews;" he goes on to put forth the books Protestants would recognize as scripture. He speaks of "four books of Kings, the first and second ¹ being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth ² as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book." otherwise all is quite familiar. This information is found apparently in his 39th Festal Epistle A.D. 367. My source is online here:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html

Edit:ooh I found it in Logos

There are, then, of the Old Testament, in all twenty-two books in number: for, as I have heard, they are handed down the same in number as the letters among the Hebrews, their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following them, we have Joshua, the son of Nun, and Judges, then Ruth. And again next, four books of Kings, and of them the first and second are reckoned one book, and so likewise the third and fourth, one. And again, after these, the first and second of the Chronicles are similarly reckoned as one book. Esdra again, the first and second as one. After these there is the book of Psalms, then Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaias, Jeremias, and with him Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

But we must not look upon it as a task to speak of the books of the New Testament. These then are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Catholic Epistles, called of the Apostles, seven in number, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; and then, one of Jude. Besides these, there are fourteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians and to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. To these, the Revelation of John.

Athanasius of Alexandria. (1854). The Festal Epistles of S. Athanasius (H. Burgess, Trans.; pp. 138–139). John Henry Parker; F. and J. Rivington.

Edit: Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah are not accepted by Protestants. 1,2 Esdra is of course Ezra and Nehemiah.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1202161#Comment_1202161

I own and have checked the resource you mention in its fuller context as well as the Biblical books used by Athanasius in his other works. I had not described my issues until I saw that the thread was not getting into debates. I will remove my post rather than argue the point here but I will respond in a direct message on Faithlife in case you want to see the broader case.

BTW:Esdras is Ezra-Nehemiah ...

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1202163#Comment_1202163

BTW:Esdras is Ezra-Nehemiah

Yes, I found that out by exploring further. Origen's input apparently.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1202164#Comment_1202164

Origen's input apparently.

? Standard Hebrew scrolls for the Tanakh IIRC.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1202161#Comment_1202161

Edit: Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah are not accepted by Protestants.

And Esther, which is not listed and later counted as deuterocanonical, is. So in my opinion Athanasius does not give the 66-books canon that is often referred to as "the Protestant canon", just something near to it. Canon is a complex topic.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1202167#Comment_1202167

Origen's input apparently.

? Standard Hebrew scrolls for the Tanakh IIRC.

A. Name

The books of Ezra and Nehemiah were originally considered a single literary work called Ezra. Although this work was separated into two books by Origen (3d century c.e.) and Jerome (4th century c.e.), the division does not appear in Hebrew Bibles before the 15th century, and even in modern Hebrew Bibles the masora finalis occurs only at the end of the twenty-three chapters of Ezra-Nehemiah. In addition to the canonical book, the following writings carry the name of Ezra (Esdras):

1. 1 Esdras. A Greek translation of 2 Chronicles 35–36; Ezra 1–10, and Neh 8:1–13, plus a major addition that is located at 1 Esdr 3:1–5:6 and lacks a counterpart in the Hebrew Bible, dealing with three royal pages, among whom is Zerubbabel, who debated before Darius to determine what is the strongest thing in the world. Zerubbabel won the contest by defending his nomination of “truth.” In 1 Esdras the equivalent for Ezra 4:7–24 (1 Esdr 2:15–25) is placed before the supplementary wisdom tale (1 Esdr 3:1–5:6) and before the translation of Ezra 2:1–70 (1 Esdr 5:7–45). The work is also known as 3 Esdras in the Vg, where it appears in an appendix to the NT. The title 1 Esdras is used in the Vg for the canonical Ezra.

2. 2 Esdras. The translation of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah in the LXX; a few Greek manuscripts distinguish between Ezra and Nehemiah and call the latter III Esdras. The term 2 Esdras is used in the Vg for the canonical Nehemiah.

3. 3 Esdras. The name for 1 Esdras in the Vg.

4. 4 Esdras. The name in the Vg for the work called 2 Esdras in English bibles. Chaps. 3–14 are a Jewish apocalyptic work from late in the 1st century of the common era. Chapters 1–2 and 15–16, both Christian additions, are sometimes identified as 2 and 5 Esdras in late Latin manuscripts. Modern scholars usually designate chaps. 1–2 as 5 Ezra, chaps. 3–14 as 4 Ezra, and chaps. 15–16 as 6 Ezra.

Klein, R. W. (1992). Ezra-Nehemiah, Books of. In D. N. Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (Vol. 2, pp. 731–732). Doubleday.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1202186#Comment_1202186

Canon is a complex topic.

Agree. Above my pay grade and patience.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1202186#Comment_1202186

If one reads carefully one will see the Athanasius provides a three-part canon:

1. First, he lists the books that are read both in the synagogue and in the church. "among the Hebrews" alerts one that this is a synagogue list; the omission of Esther reinforces the fact that this is a list of the books read as it is not read in church, and the inclusion of Baruch signals the use of the LXX;

[quote]There are, then, of the Old Testament, in all twenty-two books in number: for, as I have heard, they are handed down the same in number as the letters among the Hebrews, their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following them, we have Joshua, the son of Nun, and Judges, then Ruth. And again next, four books of Kings, and of them the first and second are reckoned one book, and so likewise the third and fourth, one. And again, after these, the first and second of the Chronicles are similarly reckoned as one book. Esdra again, the first and second as one. After these there is the book of Psalms, then Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaias, Jeremias, and with him Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

Athanasius of Alexandria, The Festal Epistles of S. Athanasius, trans. Henry Burgess (Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; F. and J. Rivington, 1854), 138.

2. Second, he lists the books that are read in the church but not the synagogue:

[quote]But we must not look upon it as a task to speak of the books of the New Testament. These then are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Catholic Epistles, called of the Apostles, seven in number, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; and then, one of Jude. Besides these, there are fourteen Epistles of the Apostle Paule, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians and to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. To these, the Revelation of John.

Athanasius of Alexandria, The Festal Epistles of S. Athanasius, trans. Henry Burgess (Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; F. and J. Rivington, 1854), 138–139.

3. Finally, he lists the books that are used for catechesis, mystagogia, supporting doctrine ... Note that elsewhere Athanasius uses Baruch and Wisdom in support of doctrine.

[quote]

But for greater exactness, I add this also, considering it necessary so to write; that there are other books besides these, not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who are come of late, wishing for admonition and instruction in godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Doctrine of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there any mention of apocryphal writings. But this is an invention of heretics, writing them to favour their own views, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, and producing them as ancient writings, that thereby they might find occasion to lead astray the simple.

Athanasius of Alexandria, The Festal Epistles of S. Athanasius, trans. Henry Burgess (Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; F. and J. Rivington, 1854), 139.

I am not saying I'm 100% right. I am saying that a cursory look at the treatment of Baruch and Esther shows that he does not attest to the standard 66-book canon and that his use of the word "canon" requires careful reading. I am also saying that one needs to look at how Athanasius uses the third group to understand what he means by the group. You will quickly find Baruch and Wisdom used to support doctrine. I doubt that the author who claimed Athanasius supported the current 66-book canon actually read Athanasius.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1202210#Comment_1202210

It is a little odd (and disappointing) to me that it seems that no one has translated St. Athanasius' Festal Letters into English since the 19th century... or in full, ever.

https://www.amazon.com/-/es/Jennifer-Guetta-ebook/dp/B08X18PKRV/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2DZTT3DDZI403&keywords=awestruck+by+glory&qid=1649179923&s=digital-text&sprefix=awestruck+%2Cdigital-text%2C124&sr=1-1

MJ:

Very sensitive issue. Very complex also.

Beyond a flawed resource, we have to really deal with the originators and the group involved (directly or indirectly) in its conception.

In oversight committees, there is an understanding that most problems may be due to honest mistakes: people misinformed, carelessness, not double checking, doing sloppy work, or plain ignoring things.

Now there is also perception problems, you may think you know what the explicit stance of a tradition or group is, and not really know what they are really about. So one may be defending something that is not really the north of the group. Some people may be writing out of their own experience, that differs from stated dogma in the group that supposedly is being misrepresented.

Certain people at times are not shown what the group is about unless, they get to certain level.

Definitively, the worst type of problem, is the one in which there is malicious intent, and they hide it from the people at large, and even from the in-members in "lower pay grade" to put it in some manner what really is going on.

So what can be done? Easy answer from the more gift of the Spirit point of view is to pray and ask for the Holy Spirit to clarify the situation.

There is an interesting article on tacit knowledge. Sometimes what people in a group are really about is not about the explicit docs, creeds, etc. but maybe the result of the indwelling spirit in them through rituals, exposure to certain instructors, etc.

Can someone that experiences first hand the consequences of implicit and hidden knowledge, be wrong and be misrepresenting a group?

Or does God allow sometimes hidden agenda to be unmasked?

A possible example:

So the main question is: what should we do with persons that seem to have it all ok in the explicit level, but implicitly are caught in what seems to be an evil hit and run scheme?

Can a persons that produces a resource all out of whack be ok with God if there is no malicious intent?, how about one that has it all explicitly cool, but seems to be part of an ungodly hidden agenda?

The deal here goes beyond resources, and seems to point for the need of discernment to understand what kind of vessel is producing the info: vessel for God's glory, or reproved by God vessel?

Not easy. Maybe the above book is propaganda, but a closer investigation is warranted to see if some of the things stated could have some validity.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1202357#Comment_1202357

Very sensitive issue. Very complex also.

I am not, in this context, interested in why the author made the error; only that they made similar errors multiple times -- errors that in undergraduate papers I would not have gotten away with. Yes, I can give examples where I got caught having not read the entire context or trying to get by with second-hand information without checking the original source. I learned it was unacceptable. Note I am not speaking of differences in interpretation or hermeneutics or cultural context... I am speaking of misrepresenting the basic data.

Can a persons that produces a resource all out of whack be ok with God if there is no malicious intent?

I doubt it. Why? For the very simple reason that they push people away from the truth and, often, away from religion. Why would one want to be part of a religion that has to lie to support their position? I would rather read Velikovsky for amusement, knowing he is idiosyncratic than read books that don't bother to get their facts/data straight.

https://www.amazon.com/-/es/Jennifer-Guetta-ebook/dp/B08X18PKRV/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2DZTT3DDZI403&keywords=awestruck+by+glory&qid=1649179923&s=digital-text&sprefix=awestruck+,digital-text,124&sr=1-1

This is not a scholarly book. I would expect no more from it than I do from Velikovsky. I am talking of authors whose works are considered standard reference works or textbooks -- whose sloppiness makes me mistrust both the college/seminary in which they trained and the denomination which they represent.

So the main question is: what should we do with persons that seem to have it all ok in the explicit level, but implicitly are caught in what seems to be an evil hit and run scheme?

That is not my main question. It is easy to read a book with discernment -- following their presentation of their position and determining if they have made their case. Admittedly, it is not easy to ferret out your own confirmation bias in doing so. What is not easy to discover is the equivalent of false data in a scientific paper -- most readers don't have access to a large library - electronic or physical. Most readers don't have the broad knowledge to recognize when they should question the data. I know that even with a large FL library and half a century of exploring religious topics there are only two narrow topics where I might catch false data - liturgy and canon. Outside that I am as vulnerable as everyone else.

Having worked in a university environment for most of my career, I have seen first-hand the damage sloppy theology can do -- young adults losing their faith and their bearings as they discover they can't rely on what they have been taught or what is offered them as support. Some find their way into churches with higher standards; some don't -- so the question is not simply theoretical - it affects real people in real lives.

My question remains - how much misrepresentation/erroneous facts/sloppiness should I allow before treating the resource/author/publisher as trash? Do others find it useful to document the problem? As for popular titles, I feel perfectly comfortable simply to stop reading without finishing a book.

Your concerns are also useful; they simply are not my current concern.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1202373#Comment_1202373

This is not a scholarly book. I would expect no more from it than I do from Velikovsky. I am talking of authors whose works are considered standard reference works or textbooks -- whose sloppiness makes me mistrust both the college/seminary in which they trained and the denomination which they represent.

I would think that a trained archeologist should have some form of basic understanding on proper way to present the lived experience and a decent interpretation of what was experienced.

Having worked in a university environment for most of my career, I have seen first-hand the damage sloppy theology can do -- young adults losing their faith and their bearings as they discover they can't rely on what they have been taught or what is offered them as support. Some find their way into churches with higher standards; some don't -- so the question is not simply theoretical - it affects real people in real lives.

This is kind of the heart of the matter of most of your post, the focus of each tradition is so different, that presuppositions, and lived experience is not a rule:

From some resource somewhere:

"Biblical Christianity" focused on a deep study of the Bible is characteristic of most Protestants as opposed to

"Church Christianity", focused on performing rituals and good works, represented by Catholic and Orthodox traditions

However Quakers and Pentecostalists, emphasize the Holy Spirit and personal closeness to God"

If persons in the first group are not taught to think for themselves, and take their inherited protestant theology as the correct interpretation, and then someone contends it and argues that it was not like that, then yes the confused sheep will move away.

The persons in the second group, even though think they are doing good by doing the rituals and good works, of course will move away when leaders stop being a living epistle and do the kind of sins that the long list says the lay sheep should not do.

But notice the 3rd group, if they stick to what is understandable of the Bible, and that is God's prerequisites for entering the New Pact, asses their leaders and peer from the fruit perspective ( a bad giving fruit could not be a legit leader), and somehow in the different ways that revelation in a personal way can be achieved, when that persons encounters God, it is almost impossible for that persons to leave God, they may leave church, but not God, because deep down they know He is real and even though the persons may stumble all over the place, the highway God made will surely take them to destination: eternal life.

Many times God's presence is manifested in latria, and taking care of the least, last and lost, but cannot base the belief part in something that clearly goes against the Revealed will of God in Scriptures. Real deal has all 3:

God's truth (propositional and other types),

communal assembly of saints to worship, doing good as required,

But the most important is to be close to our creator, be in presence of Holy Spirit, actual visit by Jesus Christ, or audible voice or mental imprint commo from God Himself.

That is why I do not understand persons that discourage exploring other traditions, and retaining what is good. That is the heart of the matter.

If a persons gives bad theology, maybe in some area they really have it together (must believe that the Holy Spirit communicated something important to them for the edification of the Body, even if the other stuff is out of whack).

So it does seem that the real problem is not the perceived misrepresentation in a resource but whether or not the person or group deliberately is trying to push a hidden ungodly agenda.

And the story of Jennifer Guetta illustrates that, a witch was actually trying to push an evil agenda in the lives of powerful people, but disguised as a knowledgeable, good person, with the best intentions in the world, when it was all a lie, and a con.

Does that happen in religious groups? how about it happening in groups that seemingly have the tacit stuff pat down in order and appearing as orthodox, when in reality implicitly, they are pushing hidden ungodly agenda.

Every person's responsibility is to check if things are so (using the Scriptures, sent by God for all, not a few chosen ones), and they are to retain what is good, salvation in Christianity is personal, not communal like in Israel, and God does not have grand children, so every generation has to search if things are so also.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1202387#Comment_1202387

Hamilton, you pretty much aced terrible logic, generalizing beyond humanly possible, and then for some icing, potentially insulted the person who is trying to have a supportable conversation with you.

You outdid Ms Guetta with complete ease.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1202387#Comment_1202387

This is not a scholarly book. I would expect no more from it than I do from Velikovsky. I am talking of authors whose works are considered standard reference works or textbooks -- whose sloppiness makes me mistrust both the college/seminary in which they trained and the denomination which they represent.

I would think that a trained archeologist should have some form of basic understanding on proper way to present the lived experience and a decent interpretation of what was experienced.

Hmm ,,, check out Rev. Stephen Denison Peet, a Congregational/Presbyterian minister -- better known as the author of the first archeological books on the Mound Indians of Wisconsin/Illinois; also editor of the first anthropological journal in America, out of the University of Chicago working with Boas. Then ask what are the tells (in the professional poker player sense) of a potentially unreliable book - cover, publisher, blurbs, generic qualifications ... Yes, I have a niece who together with her husband are retired from the professional poker circuit. Yes, Stephen Peet is my mother's grandfather. I do not speak on subjects I know little or nothing about, although I've reached an age where sometimes my knowledge is woefully out of date. I appreciate people who disagree with me who read what I expressed carefully especially when they send me in a direction I've not previously considered - but . . . my life experience has taught me that training does not always equal competence.

So it does seem that the real problem is not the perceived misrepresentation in a resource but whether or not the person or group deliberately is trying to push a hidden ungodly agenda.

The problem that I am addressing is strictly the case where a resource makes a reference or claim that is patently against the facts. I try very hard not to violate the guidelines by telling groups what I think of what they believe. Whether I perceive what is presented in the forums as true, incomplete, misinformed, gullible ... is totally off-limits in my understanding of the forums. The only exception is when someone misrepresents what I believe - I can offer a reference to correct the error but not argue the point. Please quit misrepresenting what I asked.

"Biblical Christianity" focused . . .

"Church Christianity", focused . . .

However Quakers and Pentecostalists,. . .

P.S. This comment is inappropriate in the forums to the point I am unwilling to even quote it. Plus it is easily proven an over-simplification to the point it is false. The guidelines apply to everyone.

mab

Christians are supposed to rejoice with the truth out of love and hate what is evil. I am not sure one would rightly consider redeeming the time in imputing the basis of misrepresentation. Misrepresentation of historical sources is a common issue in scholarship. If this man was exiled multiple times in his lifetime by people who should have known better, it's not likely that wisdom has grown much in the centuries since.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1202402#Comment_1202402

[Y]

xnman

In my research, I've run into many misrepresentations of others' stances -- some simply careless, some oversimplifications, some downright errors either by bias or ignorance. But my patience has been tested by complete misrepresentation of the position of Athanasius and other early church fathers. How many such misrepresentations do you allow before considering the resource garbage? Do you create notes that tag the error as faux fact?

How far from the truth can one stray and still be called truthful?

If one says... 2+2=5... is he not false? If he believes such, doesn't he believe a falsehood? If he teaches such, isn't he a false teacher?

Can not the same be said about Biblical truth? Remember, a false prophet was known for his false prophecies.

I find it amazing that "we all" feel we must have numerical truth and medical truth and scientific truth to be able to live and do... but only (and only) do we want to give false teachings of Biblical truth... latitude ... as if the false Biblical truth should be tolerated.

If a man believes Jesus was only an angel... that's one thing.... but when he teaches Jesus was only an angel... that's a whole different story. I generally mark his teachings and am Leary of anything else he writes. When it comes to eternal salvation.... . one is either right or wrong.

INMHO..... [8-|]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1202440#Comment_1202440

How far from the truth can one stray and still be called truthful?

That is not a question for the forums nor is it the topic of this thread.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1202440#Comment_1202440

How many such misrepresentations do you allow before considering the resource garbage? Do you create notes that tag the error as faux fact?

My apologies.... I guess I misunderstood.

Mike Childs

As Athanasius is one of my heroes, it wouldn't take much misrepresentation of Athanasius for me to label the book as trash.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1202400#Comment_1202400

- but . . . my life experience has taught me that training does not always equal competence.

Best statememt ever. The spooky part is that we all ought to check if it applies to each one of us. We may think that we are flying, and in real life, all we are doing is misrepresenting what God is really trying to convey, and getting Him upset about it.

About misrepresentation, it is a big issue with me because is a loaded word that sometimes just hides plain ignorance.

Bad examples:

A scientist talks about the possibility of antigravity propulsion, and suspect element to do it is element no 115. Experts jump right away to say that the man was out of whack, that was a fraud, that did not know what he was talking about, etc, etc. Lo and behold 10 years later or so, element 115 was produced in a European country, and it seems to have very particular attributes that makes it useful for certain applications.

Was the original scientist misrepresenting physics, or was he aware of something that the whole other bunch of experts ignored?

Then we have the thousand of experts that misrepresented persons that thought had some form of encounter with very particular flying objects that did not seem to be the ones known to operate here on Earth.

Lo an behold, F-18 jets filmed very weird object flying that did all kind of crazy maneuvers, impossible to do with modern human technology.

So you take the above bad examples and turn them around, and maybe some misrepresenting is but the attack on something that is actually not what is perceived to be.

Not attacking anyone, or any particular argument, but I find that humbleness and the guidance of the Holy Spirit is better than pure human based logic, reason, etc.

Since we have a very limited understanding that is 100 percent contextual to our particular situation, I think that more investigation is needed, and what does not seem to jibe, just discard, and retain what is good.

One of the suggested reading in the mobile ed course about Hebraic Thought we see:

"Paul’s letters warn against relying on human knowledge and reasoning over faith in Christ. For example, he states, “If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing” (1 Cor 13:2 NIV). For Paul, faith, hope, and love reflect Christian maturity, whereas intellect and reasoning reflect only a temporary and childish understanding of the world (1 Cor 13:8–13)."

Garrett, J. K. (2016). Knowledge. In J. D. Barry, D. Bomar, D. R. Brown, R. Klippenstein, D. Mangum, C. Sinclair Wolcott, … W. Widder (Eds.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

Is love patient, looking for the good, trying to help when someone seems confused, etc. or is it kill it, heretic garbage? Just a different thought.

David Wanat

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1202537#Comment_1202537

🎶The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind
The answer is blowin' in the wind🎶

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1202394#Comment_1202394

Hamilton, you pretty much aced terrible logic, generalizing beyond humanly possible

most likely so, and not ashamed of not being extra awesome like many think they are.

potentially insulted the person who is trying to have a supportable conversation with you.

over my head, potentially insult? I am just pointing to a different angle about a touchy issue: misrepresentation.

Think of it, if God was to wipe misrepresenting groups on Earth, probably only a few would remain.

Humblenes, tolerance, love, if Jesus was not such, most of the persons would be wiped out.

How can a call to be more Christlike be an insult?