Bible reading plan--RESOURCE reading plan

I'd like to support you ... however, I find the current reading plan useless.

1) I object to the definition of Scripture being limited to the post 18th century definition of certain Western protestant groups

2) I object to the assumption of sequential reading

3) I object to the destruction of any hand-built reading plan by actual reading ... rather than invoking an instance of a template ...

4) I object to the lack of coordination with the lectionary [to which I also have a list of objections]

5) I object to having to have so many objections ...

But actually, I agree with you that the inclusion of non-Scriptural items in the reading plan has great value. I would very much like to have Logos support items such as Missio Dei (http://thebreviary.com/) or Volume 1 of Take Our Moments and Our Days: An Anabaptist Prayer Book etc.

And, yes, there are Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Jewish, Celtic... similar material sitting on my book shelf. They are a very major source of Scripture in one's life for a significant number of customers/potential customers. ... And yes, I am having trouble convincing the forum software I don't need to be using italics. It's not letting me turn it off when it was brought in by a copy and paste.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1845#Comment_1845

Martha,

I appreciate your candid feedback. Thank you for your perspective.

My only response is this--there are too many false assumptions in your reply to even begin.

It's clear you've composed a self-constructed, present-day, culture-bound view of what you think the history of God's Word is and how to approach it dutifully.

I can only encourage you to study the facts about scripture's origins, scripture's historical treatment of the church fathers dating all the way back to the disciples of Christ himself, and the most profitable hermeneutic by which to study scripture's contents.

I am sorry you have developed such a pessimism toward God's Word. Your words make it obvious that you have been hurt by someone along the way and I know God has the ability to heal those wounds with your submission to his grace.

I ask that you not broadcast your unsubstantiated pessimism in that fashion again. There are cordial ways to address issues without sounding directly disrespectful and offensive and if you cannot see fit to engage your responses in that manner, kindly keep it to yourself.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1858#Comment_1858

Martha,

I appreciate your candid feedback. Thank you for your perspective.

My only response is this--there are too many false assumptions in your reply to even begin.

It's clear you've composed a self-constructed, present-day, culture-bound view of what you think the history of God's Word is and how to approach it dutifully.

I can only encourage you to study the facts about scripture's origins, scripture's historical treatment of the church fathers dating all the way back to the disciples of Christ himself, and the most profitable hermeneutic by which to study scripture's contents.

I am sorry you have developed such a pessimism toward God's Word. Your words make it obvious that you have been hurt by someone along the way and I know God has the ability to heal those wounds with your submission to his grace.

I ask that you not broadcast your unsubstantiated pessimism in that fashion again. There are cordial ways to address issues without sounding directly disrespectful and offensive and if you cannot see fit to engage your responses in that manner, kindly keep it to yourself.

Justin,

I don't believe you have even gotten to first base in understanding what Martha is saying. Please refrain from making such statements when you have no understanding. Martha is Roman Catholic so she objects to the Protestant definition of scripture which does not include the apocryphal or deuterocanonical books. After this learn what it is you are responding to before opening mouth and inserting foot.

Bohuslav Wojnar

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1858#Comment_1858

Martha,

I appreciate your candid feedback. Thank you for your perspective.

My only response is this--there are too many false assumptions in your reply to even begin.

It's clear you've composed a self-constructed, present-day, culture-bound view of what you think the history of God's Word is and how to approach it dutifully.

I can only encourage you to study the facts about scripture's origins, scripture's historical treatment of the church fathers dating all the way back to the disciples of Christ himself, and the most profitable hermeneutic by which to study scripture's contents.

I am sorry you have developed such a pessimism toward God's Word. Your words make it obvious that you have been hurt by someone along the way and I know God has the ability to heal those wounds with your submission to his grace.

I ask that you not broadcast your unsubstantiated pessimism in that fashion again. There are cordial ways to address issues without sounding directly disrespectful and offensive and if you cannot see fit to engage your responses in that manner, kindly keep it to yourself.

After reading your response to Martha I started to doubt the level of my knowlede of English (it is my third language). I realized I have to learn it much better. I read the same post writen by Martha and haven't seen anything of what you were able to read there [:O]

Bob Pritchett

Our plan is to support all versified texts next. (Versified books are more fine-grained and easier to divide up than regular books of prose broken by chapters.) Eventually we want to support reading plans for any content.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1862#Comment_1862

If youre looking for an arguement, dont bother, its not profitable here

Whether she is catholic, protestant, jewish, muslim makes little difference in my statements to her. My suggestions eleviate some of what I saw as issues regarding treatment of scripture in general (talking about successive reading, and calling the reading plan "useless" and such) I dont know why you feel the need to defend her because it was not designed to be an attack. No one is attacking anybody here and if you feel the need to talk to people like that (ie "foot in mouth") then we have no reason to speak. I am on this thing to provoke others to good works and refining our understanding of Holy Scripture, whether protestant or catholic, that is always a good work. You on the other hand, did nothing but insult me in your last comment. I did not do that with her.

You dont think a roman catholic (or anyone) could use a good lesson in hermeneutics? You dont think a roman catholic could use a lesson in the origins of scripture? Well, if that's the case, then I can see why you want to tell me to take my foot out of my mouth. You can't get condescending with any one here, bub. Especially those whose life is designed around God's Word. If you cant write for the good of others--Spare me your sarcastic comments.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1888#Comment_1888

If youre looking for an arguement, dont bother, its not profitable here

Whether she is catholic, protestant, jewish, muslim makes little difference in my statements to her. My suggestions eleviate some of what I saw as issues regarding treatment of scripture in general (talking about successive reading, and calling the reading plan "useless" and such) I dont know why you feel the need to defend her because it was not designed to be an attack. No one is attacking anybody here and if you feel the need to talk to people like that (ie "foot in mouth") then we have no reason to speak. I am on this thing to provoke others to good works and refining our understanding of Holy Scripture, whether protestant or catholic, that is always a good work. You on the other hand, did nothing but insult me in your last comment. I did not do that with her.

You dont think a roman catholic (or anyone) could use a good lesson in hermeneutics? You dont think a roman catholic could use a lesson in the origins of scripture? Well, if that's the case, then I can see why you want to tell me to take my foot out of my mouth. You can't get condescending with any one here, bub. Especially those whose life is designed around God's Word. If you cant write for the good of others--Spare me your sarcastic comments.

I will spare you nothing. You are extremely rude. It's time to grow up, little boy.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1890#Comment_1890

Good, now that we've gotten through the insulting, condescending, ego-filled, non-edifying earthly, sensual and devilish comments out of the way...

God bless you sir, I pray the best for you and your family. I truly do.

God has a great plan for all of us. I believe that. Lets just try to make the best we can out of this side of heaven, shall we? Life's too short.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1864#Comment_1864

Martha,

I appreciate your candid feedback. Thank you for your perspective.

My only response is this--there are too many false assumptions in your reply to even begin.

It's clear you've composed a self-constructed, present-day, culture-bound view of what you think the history of God's Word is and how to approach it dutifully.

I can only encourage you to study the facts about scripture's origins, scripture's historical treatment of the church fathers dating all the way back to the disciples of Christ himself, and the most profitable hermeneutic by which to study scripture's contents.

I am sorry you have developed such a pessimism toward God's Word. Your words make it obvious that you have been hurt by someone along the way and I know God has the ability to heal those wounds with your submission to his grace.

I ask that you not broadcast your unsubstantiated pessimism in that fashion again. There are cordial ways to address issues without sounding directly disrespectful and offensive and if you cannot see fit to engage your responses in that manner, kindly keep it to yourself.

After reading your response to Martha I started to doubt the level of my knowlede of English (it is my third language). I realized I have to learn it much better. I read the same post writen by Martha and haven't seen anything of what you were able to read there

English is my first language, and has been for more than 70 years, and I did not see anything in Martha's post that justified Justin's attack.

I am Baptist, and I would appreciate a reading plan for the Apocrypha.

Jack

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1888#Comment_1888

…I dont know why you feel the need to defend her because it was not designed to be an attack. No one is attacking anybody here and if you feel the need to talk to people like that (ie "foot in mouth") then we have no reason to speak.…

If you cant write for the good of others--Spare me your sarcastic comments.

Frankly, Justin, I don't see how you could call your response to Martha anything other than an attack. I thought George was being very gentle with you. Your attack on Martha, and your subsequent remarks, who a serious lack of spiritual maturity.

Jack

Bohuslav Wojnar

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1891#Comment_1891

Good, now that we've gotten through the insulting, condescending, ego-filled, non-edifying earthly, sensual and devilish comments out of the way...

God bless you sir, I pray the best for you and your family. I truly do.

God has a great plan for all of us. I believe that. Lets just try to make the best we can out of this side of heaven, shall we? Life's too short.

Not this way my brother. Not this way. There is nothing good possible to come out of that kind of tone here. I try to believe you did not plan it to end up this way, but if it happend, sorry would be much better conclusion.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1914#Comment_1914

It wasn't an attack. I can say that again.

I see people are quick to side here. So obviously anything I have to say at this point will be tainted with a negative interpretation in defense. Her response started immediatly negative, her term "useless", and asserted that comment against certain methods of studying scripture. I saw these as symptoms. I dont tell people to stop sneezing, I give them medicine.

Whether we agree or not, or whether people side with you or not, is not the point. I may have come off harsh but introducing a comment with the absolute judgment of "this is useless" put me on the defense as well. While I stand on the admonitions I gave, I do submit that my tone could have been refined. I do have a record of that "bull in the china shop" mentality. I'm working on it.

Spiritual maturity? Maybe a bit. But anyone who says they have arrived in this regard decieves himself, I'm sure you can agree with that.

Bohuslav Wojnar

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1925#Comment_1925

It wasn't an attack. I can say that again.

I see people are quick to side here. So obviously anything I have to say at this point will be tainted with a negative interpretation in defense. Her response started immediatly negative, her term "useless", and asserted that comment against certain methods of studying scripture. I saw these as symptoms. I dont tell people to stop sneezing, I give them medicine.

Whether we agree or not, or whether people side with you or not, is not the point. I may have come off harsh but introducing a comment with the absolute judgment of "this is useless" put me on the defense as well. While I stand on the admonitions I gave, I do submit that my tone could have been refined. I do have a record of that "bull in the china shop" mentality. I'm working on it.

Spiritual maturity? Maybe a bit. But anyone who says they have arrived in this regard decieves himself, I'm sure you can agree with that.

Thank you Justin for your explanation. I appreciate it. I know exactly what you mean when you speak about the "bull in the China shop". I am working on my temper also quite a lot. Have a good and blessed day.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1925#Comment_1925

It wasn't an attack. I can say that again.

I see people are quick to side here. So obviously anything I have to say at this point will be tainted with a negative interpretation in defense. Her response started immediatly negative, her term "useless", and asserted that comment against certain methods of studying scripture. I saw these as symptoms. I dont tell people to stop sneezing, I give them medicine.

Whether we agree or not, or whether people side with you or not, is not the point. I may have come off harsh but introducing a comment with the absolute judgment of "this is useless" put me on the defense as well. While I stand on the admonitions I gave, I do submit that my tone could have been refined. I do have a record of that "bull in the china shop" mentality. I'm working on it.

Spiritual maturity? Maybe a bit. But anyone who says they have arrived in this regard decieves himself, I'm sure you can agree with that.

Justin

I believe you misinterpreted Martha's comment. She did not direct her comment "against certain methods of interpreting Scripture". She stated that the present implementation of "Bible Reading Plans" in Logos is useless. She then stated her reasons for that opening statement.

I don't know that anything you say in the future will be tainted with a negative interpretation. Many of us in this community have offended others at various times, but we still remain a big family.

If you are like that "bull in a china shop," you should get along well with George [6]. BTW, The Discovery Channel's program Mythbusters disproved the old "bull in a china shop" legend.

Jack

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1947#Comment_1947

If you are like that "bull in a china shop," you should get along well with George . BTW, The Discovery Channel's program Mythbusters disproved the old "bull in a china shop" legend.

Jack

Are you implying that I am so pacific that I manage to get along with even the most difficult of persons -- even bulls in china shops? [:D]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1953#Comment_1953

Are you implying that I am so pacific that I manage to get along with even the most difficult of persons -- even bulls in china shops?

Oh yes, we can all believe that![;)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1967#Comment_1967

Are you implying that I am so pacific that I manage to get along with even the most difficult of persons -- even bulls in china shops?

Oh yes, we can all believe that!

That's what I thought. After all, I'm just a harmless, loveable little fuzz-ball Wink .

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1925#Comment_1925

we agree or not, or whether people side with you or not, is not the point. I may have come off harsh but introducing a comment with the absolute judgment of "this is useless" put me on the defense as well. While I stand on the admonitions I gave, I do submit that my tone could have been refined. I do have a record of that "bull in the china shop" mentality. I'm working on it.

Spiritual maturity? Maybe a bit. But anyone who says they have arrived in this regard decieves himself, I'm sure you can agree with that.

Dear Brother! *smile* Peace to you!

Please try to "listen" a bit more ... Martha has a fantastic sense of humour - often quite subtle - sometimes a bit oblique - but it's a very, very good sense of humour

*smile*

Over a period of time ........ Over a number of posts ............. If one listens and thinks and prays ... then one can begin to understand the other - his/her personality - character - feelings - hurts - prides - whatever! *smile*

A small example -- Brother George often annoys me with his comments .... and then the next day delights me .... Dear Brother, I, indeed, need to listen and to think and to pray ... and when I do I respect myself a little better .............. *smile* and the other a lot more!

Yours in Christ,

Mel

Milford Charles Murray

Whitby, Ontario, Canada

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1975#Comment_1975

I'm just a harmless, loveable little fuzz-ball

Now, where have I heard that expression before?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1845#Comment_1845

I'd like to support you ... however, I find the current reading plan useless.

1) I object to the definition of Scripture being limited to the post 18th century definition of certain Western protestant groups

2) I object to the assumption of sequential reading

3) I object to the destruction of any hand-built reading plan by actual reading ... rather than invoking an instance of a template ...

4) I object to the lack of coordination with the lectionary [to which I also have a list of objections]

5) I object to having to have so many objections ...

But actually, I agree with you that the inclusion of non-Scriptural items in the reading plan has great value. I would very much like to have Logos support items such as Missio Dei (http://thebreviary.com/) or Volume 1 of Take Our Moments and Our Days: An Anabaptist Prayer Book etc.

And, yes, there are Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Jewish, Celtic... similar material sitting on my book shelf. They are a very major source of Scripture in one's life for a significant number of customers/potential customers. ... And yes, I am having trouble convincing the forum software I don't need to be using italics. It's not letting me turn it off when it was brought in by a copy and paste.

When I read the first two posts on this thread it seems both are pushing for expanded customizing features. The desired content may differ but we all would like to have the ability to apply this tool as we choose. If we gain this feature it would eliminate your objections #1, #2, #4 & #5?

Objection #3 is the tough one. I know you are not against templates per se. (I really like your forum post on a template for studying creeds.) There are fleeting moments where I wonder if I should turn off the computer and push aside all the wonderful "tools" at my disposal in favor of my "manual" system. But then I ask why can't we have BOTH?

The old argument "there are too many great books to waste time reading good books" doesn't seem to hold water anymore. Soon we will be able to search many at once gleaning the best of all of them. The exponential growth of the titles in the Libronix pipeline is staggering. I will have to raise the dowry on my 5 unmarried daughters to pay for my pre-pubs.

But the broader the umbrella we stand under, the more "useless" things we may find under there with us. You might not like the reading plan in it's current state, I might find paraphrases masquerading as translations to be of little value & George despises Reverse Interlinears. The people who buy Newman's writings won't buy Hayford's.

Rob Suggs

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1947#Comment_1947

This kind of thread is inevitable, I feel. And will probably become only more prevalent. I've been reading newsgroups and forums for a number of years, and it's impossible to discuss the blandest of topics without nuclear war escalating. (Original sin, you know.) The written word loses the nuances of physical conversation, and for whatever reason, we all tend to take the most negative construction of remarks that we read. Sarcasm is as prevalent as oxygen in this world, and we learn to see it even where it is not. Discussing the Bible, of course, is a ticking time bomb in any setting. We're all going to need to build in some disclaimers that people are required to read before posting, including being quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger; counting others more important than ourselves; and, when we want to brand someone as a heretic, remembering Paul's exhortations on the gentleness with which we should handle things. We all need to recognize that Logos is a tool for anyone interested in studying the Bible, from the thousands of world denominations to those strictly interested in scholarship. We need to drop our weapons when we enter here, because there will never be anything close to uniformity of belief. Those who struggle with that will make themselves unhappy. The rest will benefit from viewpoints we're not usually exposed to--a good thing, in my opinion.

Even so, as I say, as time goes on, the flame wars will come. This subject is too precious to us to ever let us be casual in attitude. Even though we're people of the Book, we struggle to live by the grace it describes. It's always been that way, and always will be--even with Logos users.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/2051#Comment_2051

This kind of thread is inevitable, I feel. And will probably become only more prevalent. I've been reading newsgroups and forums for a number of years, and it's impossible to discuss the blandest of topics without nuclear war escalating. (Original sin, you know.) The written word loses the nuances of physical conversation, and for whatever reason, we all tend to take the most negative construction of remarks that we read. Sarcasm is as prevalent as oxygen in this world, and we learn to see it even where it is not. Discussing the Bible, of course, is a ticking time bomb in any setting. We're all going to need to build in some disclaimers that people are required to read before posting, including being quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger; counting others more important than ourselves; and, when we want to brand someone as a heretic, remembering Paul's exhortations on the gentleness with which we should handle things. We all need to recognize that Logos is a tool for anyone interested in studying the Bible, from the thousands of world denominations to those strictly interested in scholarship. We need to drop our weapons when we enter here, because there will never be anything close to uniformity of belief. Those who struggle with that will make themselves unhappy. The rest will benefit from viewpoints we're not usually exposed to--a good thing, in my opinion.

Even so, as I say, as time goes on, the flame wars will come. This subject is too precious to us to ever let us be casual in attitude. Even though we're people of the Book, we struggle to live by the grace it describes. It's always been that way, and always will be--even with Logos users.

Well Spoken, Rob! *smile*

.... Mel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/2051#Comment_2051

This kind of thread is inevitable, I feel. And will probably become only more prevalent. I've been reading newsgroups and forums for a number of years, and it's impossible to discuss the blandest of topics without nuclear war escalating. (Original sin, you know.) The written word loses the nuances of physical conversation, and for whatever reason, we all tend to take the most negative construction of remarks that we read. Sarcasm is as prevalent as oxygen in this world, and we learn to see it even where it is not. Discussing the Bible, of course, is a ticking time bomb in any setting. We're all going to need to build in some disclaimers that people are required to read before posting, including being quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger; counting others more important than ourselves; and, when we want to brand someone as a heretic, remembering Paul's exhortations on the gentleness with which we should handle things. We all need to recognize that Logos is a tool for anyone interested in studying the Bible, from the thousands of world denominations to those strictly interested in scholarship. We need to drop our weapons when we enter here, because there will never be anything close to uniformity of belief. Those who struggle with that will make themselves unhappy. The rest will benefit from viewpoints we're not usually exposed to--a good thing, in my opinion.

Even so, as I say, as time goes on, the flame wars will come. This subject is too precious to us to ever let us be casual in attitude. Even though we're people of the Book, we struggle to live by the grace it describes. It's always been that way, and always will be--even with Logos users.

Rob

I agree with the spirit of your post, but remember that Paul himself was not always gentle with his readers, as a quick look at Galatians or the Corinthian epistles will reveal. [:)] (that is a gentle smile, BTW)

Jack

Ronald Quick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1908#Comment_1908

Logos does have a reading plan for the apocrypha.

http://blog.logos.com/archives/2009/01/free_book_apocrypha_reading_plan.html

Ron

Chris Ease

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/2063#Comment_2063

I like the idea of a resource reading planner. If it's possible, I say do it. If it's not possible, well I didn't have it before and can say I won't miss it.[Y]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/2063#Comment_2063

Logos does have a reading plan for the apocrypha.

http://blog.logos.com/archives/2009/01/free_book_apocrypha_reading_plan.html

Ron

Ron

Thank you for the information.

Jack

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1866#Comment_1866

Our plan is to support all versified texts next. (Versified books are more fine-grained and easier to divide up than regular books of prose broken by chapters.) Eventually we want to support reading plans for any content.

That's completely understandable to do versified first.

It would really be nifty to be able to add study guides (MacArthur) and other lesson style formats (Biblical School of Evangelism) on a reading schedule like attending class. Then all the homeschooling moms out there might let us buy more titles. [co][}][Z][Z][Z][Z][Z][Z]

Would that require the introduction of a site license if one were allowing their kids to study on the computer?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1845#Comment_1845

Martha,

Did you know that ST Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica is one pre pub? I have all five volumes of his work at home and I love it!

Wouldnt it be great to have a reading plan for the Summa?! I would LOVE that! Man. I have never had greater theological insight that after reading that work. Aquinas is an unbelievable theologan. I don't think there is a systematic theology in existence that doesnt quote him.

I hope you are as excited about it as I am! I order that as soon it came out on pre pub! Its under contract now and I am sitting on the edge of my seat!

blessings,

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/2327#Comment_2327

Justin,

There are two other works by Thomas Aquinas in the pipeline.

Summa Contra Gentiles (4 Vols.) is on Pre-Pub.

Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels (8 Vols.) is on Community Pricing.

Jonathon David Riopel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1866#Comment_1866

I was wondering if there was a time frame on this. Or is it coming in the next version of the software? Or will it be something one can download into their program? Thanks?

Jonathon David Riopel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1866#Comment_1866

I was wondering if there was a time frame on this? Or will it be in the next version of the software? Or will it be something one can download? THankyou for your hard work!

TCBlack

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/11904#Comment_11904

I was wondering if there was a time frame on this? Or will it be in the next version of the software? Or will it be something one can download? THankyou for your hard work!

By "this" do you mean a resource reading plan? If so we can only hope and lobby that such a creature will manifest itself Either in the current version of Logos or the next. I've been wanting such a resource reading ability every since I acquired the early church fathers. (Not to mention the journals!)

If by "this" you mean Aquinas' works, they are available:

Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas, English Only (22 Vols.)

Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas, English and Latin Bundle (30 Vols.)

Aquinas on Doctrine: A Critical Introduction [DOWNLOAD]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/2046#Comment_2046

If we gain this feature it would eliminate your objections #1, #2, #4 & #5?

Objection #3 is the tough one. I know you are not against templates per se. (I really like your forum post on a template for studying creeds.) There are fleeting moments where I wonder if I should turn off the computer and push aside all the wonderful "tools" at my disposal in favor of my "manual" system. But then I ask why can't we have BOTH?

Yes, all my objections are easily solvable with additional feature. What I was thinking of in objection 3 was an Orthodox plan that repeats monthly. I would like to be able to repeat it each month simply by giving it a new start date. All this requires from Logos is that when one builds a custom plan, that plan is saved. Each time you invoke that plan by giving it a start date, a copy of that plan is moved into the active reading plan process where the Logos software has you mark off items as read and shows was is to be read today.

But the broader the umbrella we stand under, the more "useless" things we may find under there with us.

I find the current reading plan useless for myself. As a computer nerd, I also find it based on poor analysis (professional opinion) for the following reasons:

1) Using Wikipedia numbers, the canon supported is less than the accepted canon for 1,654,000,000 Christians world wide i.e. about 79% of the Christians

2) The canon supported represents a common canon for less than 25% of church history

3) People using Logos are apt to be using reading plans for purposes in addition to personal Bible Study.

4) The current configuration does not easily accept a number of common readings plans - Zondervan, Chronological, International Standard Lesson readings etc. for which Logos users may wish to plan OR read

5) The current configuration does not link easily to reading cycles of the liturgical traditions - for example, the 2 year reading cycle of scripture in the Office of Readings [readings essentially continuous through a book, books not in order]

6) The current straight through configuration assumes a single sequence while the real world has multiple sequences - the most obvious being the Tanahk vs. "standard American Protestant"

7) I have no objection with people who need only its current functionality continuing to use it as they do now.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/2063#Comment_2063

Logos does have a reading plan for the apocrypha.

http://blog.logos.com/archives/2009/01/free_book_apocrypha_reading_plan.html

Yes, sort of ... note even Logos had to resort to a cludge to "create" one.

Debra W Bouey

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1925#Comment_1925

...I see people are quick to side here. ...

With all due respect, Justin, has it not occurred to you that perhaps when everyone commenting here did not see Martha's post as you did that perhaps there might be some merit in their subsequent comments? I would hope so.

It is quite interesting that you immediately label opinions of others who do not concur with yours as "taking sides". Perhaps they are merely calling it as they read Martha's post and haven't any intent of "taking sides"?

I have the inclination, to which I probably shouldn't indulge, to end on a "For crying out loud..." note for some peculiar reason.

Debra

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/14917#Comment_14917

Debra,

With due respect, we are light years beyond that thread. For you to dig up old skeletons and apply your opinion on a topic that has been dead for a while is impetuously unnecessary. Does that sound pushy? Maybe. I am just tired of dealing with the same issues that have been dead a while. Lets talk about something of substance, and I am whole heartedly into it. I understand that certain threads will cause a band wagon effect, that doesn't make them right. I am done with that issue and so was everyone else. Kindly drop it.

All I wanted to point out in this thread was to have a resource reading plan the same way we have a bible reading plan. Lets talk about that, which is why I formed this forum to start with. My favorite resource is St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica, which is finally in my library now, thank God, and I would love to have a software program to split it up over the next year. What resource would you like to have in a program like that?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/14973#Comment_14973

With due respect, we are light years beyond that thread. For you to dig up old skeletons and apply your opinion on a topic that has been dead for a while is impetuously unnecessary. Does that sound pushy? Maybe.

Yes, it does sound pushy. Who are you to determine what opinions shall or shall not be brought forward? You are certainly free to express your opinion, so please allow others the same privilege.

which is why I formed this forum to start with.

You formed this forum? Here all along I was under the impression that Logos formed the forum.

My favorite resource is St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica, which is finally in my library now, thank God, and I would love to have a software program to split it up over the next year. What resource would you like to have in a program like that?

I can think of quite a few such as Barth's Church Dogmatics. I suppose it wouldn't kill me to read Aquinas either. After all, why else did I buy it? Also one could do worse than to become familiar with the Church Fathers. Calvin is probably a bit brief to spend an entire year reading -- especially since his Institute was the text for a course in Calvinism I took in college (one semester).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/14975#Comment_14975

And I thought I had waited long enough to be able to respond to JR Wood's second post on this thread for the flames to be mere embers. My apologies for reawakening the thread. Next time I'll wait for water to be thrown on the embers and the fire pit turned over with a shovel.

Note that in my original response to JR's original post I did agree that scheduling non-scriptural resources was a good idea. My first choice would be scheduling the Catena of Aquinas parallel to the Gospels.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/14975#Comment_14975

listen George, this is getting rediculous with your drag-me-down posts.

Yes, I did create this, there's a link called, "create a new post" at the top left, thats what I did and you have determined to turn this in a rediculous direction. I started this post with wonderful intentions of sharing an idea for a product that I knew would be helpful. All I have asked is for this to be an enjoyable post. Nobody appointed you the post police, from now on, if you got a problem, I'll give you my number and we can sort it out over the phone. but quit bogging down my post with you trying to drag down my day with your tough guy routine. I put up with enough "tough guy" stuff from my unsaved family, no one needs it from you.

Don't waste more space with negativity. Call me with your negativity 417 569 4429 so I can douse it in person, you obviously have all day to react or you wouldn't be monitoring my every post like a police wire tap. If your trying to create fear, you have succeeded in creating quite the opposite my friend. I have faced monstors in the past far more dangerous than you, fluff comments like yours dont faze me.

Honestly, can we actually talk about the proposed post subject, RESOURCE READING PLAN. I would like to seek encouragement on this post. That's why I created it. If there's more about the RESOURCE READING PLAN, I would love to hear it. I love to bounce ideas.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/15024#Comment_15024

listen George, this is getting rediculous with your drag-me-down posts.

Yes, I did create this, there's a link called, "create a new post" at the top left, thats what I did and you have determined to turn this in a rediculous direction. I started this post with wonderful intentions of sharing an idea for a product that I knew would be helpful. All I have asked is for this to be an enjoyable post. Nobody appointed you the post police, from now on, if you got a problem, I'll give you my number and we can sort it out over the phone. but quit bogging down my post with you trying to drag down my day with your tough guy routine. I put up with enough "tough guy" stuff from my unsaved family, no one needs it from you.

Don't waste more space with negativity. Call me with your negativity 417 569 4429 so I can douse it in person, you obviously have all day to react or you wouldn't be monitoring my every post like a police wire tap. If your trying to create fear, you have succeeded in creating quite the opposite my friend. I have faced monstors in the past far more dangerous than you, fluff comments like yours dont faze me.

Honestly, can we actually talk about the proposed post subject, RESOURCE READING PLAN. I would like to seek encouragement on this post. That's why I created it. If there's more about the RESOURCE READING PLAN, I would love to hear it. I love to bounce ideas.

Apparently you think that you own any thread which you start. That is not the case. Once you post anyone is free to post whatever they desire. If I (or anyone else) wishes to post "Mary had a little lamb", that is their privilege. So far as I am aware Logos has very few rules regarding what is posted here -- foul language and the advertising of competitors being exceptions. If you wish to control what is posted, I suggest that you should start your own Yahoo group so that you can determine who is allowed to post and what the posts may contain.

If this is the way you are with your unsaved family, I have little doubt that you are not presenting a very favorable view of the faith. I pity them.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/15026#Comment_15026

You completely missed the mark George,

My aim is not to control the content, but to see who wants to submit comments that are actually conducive to the topic.

And no, this is not the way I treat my unsaved family. I dont hold them to a high standard like I do with so called "believers" like you. For you to even talk about my family is again, rediculous. You know nothing of me, nor my family. My ten year old nephew has more productive conversation.

From now on, personal comments about me can be directed to my phone, if you have the decency to keep your personal dislikes from being publically aired. You sound like your just doing all this for attention.

Are you Opposed to talking about the subject, or is this your ONLY means of trying to make conversation?

Like I said, lets get back to the actual subject. Get off the personal comments, George. Do I need to say it again? Get off the personal comments, George. You have my number there is now no need to publish them on this forum. Get off the personal comments George.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/14995#Comment_14995

MJ Smith,

My intention was to direct the conversation away from the starter comments altogether and on to the actual subject.

I love Aquinas' Summa Theologica. I can only imagine what he would have been able to do with it if he were able to finish it. I must say, though it is a difficult read in places. That's why I love it, its a challenge. What kind of other resources would you like to include?

My current reading plan has the interlinear greek new testament, that has been wonderful to keep me fresh on my Greek. I have been such a big fan of Logos since I've had it. It made studying such an easier and more productive task. What has your experience been with it?

Oh, btw, Assembly of God Seminary in Springfield, MO has just now made Logos Bible software MANDATORY for everyone in the expository preaching track! I was rejoicing and leaping to the sky when I heard that! Nothing will prepare up coming ministers better in God's Word than that, in my opinion! (That's why its a standard issue item in the army for chaplains)

Praise God!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/15039#Comment_15039

(That's why its a standard issue item in the army for chaplains)

It is? That's an interesting tidbit to store away in my brain. If it is true, that gives Logos all the more incentive to be truly ecumenical and interfaith in their core software was well as book offerings. Only makes me more anxious for the release of the next version.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/15024#Comment_15024

I'll give you my number and we can sort it out over the phone.

Hi JR,

First, You might ought to consider editing out your phone number. There probably are some real crazies who don't ever post but might not hesitate calling you. Seriously Brother, delete at least the numer. (Edit feature disappears soon.)

I see you met George.[:D] As for the brassy verbal exchange, If you read George's comments carefully you will see some humor and lots of new perspectives. Don't feel like you are special because George engages everybody sooner or later. Although I am still convinced he is fallible (Interlinears are one such example) he frequently has a point. Go back and read his nitpicking again and you will see he is technically correct on most of it. He just needs to work on his tactful presentation. [6] (And, No, George is not the forum patrol or the special child who is exempt from accepted behavior. )

Back to the original topic: YES, I would just love to have a customizable reading plan that could potentially handle all of my Libronix library

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/14797#Comment_14797

I also find it based on poor analysis (professional opinion) for the following reasons:
1) Using Wikipedia numbers, the canon supported is less than the accepted canon for 1,654,000,000 Christians world wide i.e. about 79% of the Christians
2) The canon supported represents a common canon for less than 25% of church history
3) People using Logos are apt to be using reading plans for purposes in addition to personal Bible Study.
4) The current configuration does not easily accept a number of common readings plans - Zondervan, Chronological, International Standard Lesson readings etc. for which Logos users may wish to plan OR read
5) The current configuration does not link easily to reading cycles of the liturgical traditions - for example, the 2 year reading cycle of scripture in the Office of Readings [readings essentially continuous through a book, books not in order]
6) The current straight through configuration assumes a single sequence while the real world has multiple sequences - the most obvious being the Tanahk vs. "standard American Protestant"
7) I have no objection with people who need only its current functionality continuing to use it as they do now.

MJ, my thoughts on your latest list:
1) Using Wikipedia numbers, many of the 1,654,000,000 Christians cited don't use Bible software or own computers.
2) Logo Bible software has only been around for the last 1.25% of that church history. Give them a chance to get rolling.
3) Touché!
4) I wish it did. Reese Chronological Bible would be another to add.
5) Not being a lectionary user I have no comment. You probably know what you're talking about.
6) My son read the World Book Encyclopedia straight through A~Z and he survived. He did annoy the rest of the family with his discoveries.
7) Me neither.

I envision Logos being my centralized master reading management system, even for books outside of my Libronix resources. Britannica's Great Books of the Western World is still under copyright but if I could create a custom reading plan on the order of Mortimer J Adler's Paideia Proposal, I could use it to track my progress through the hardback versions. One last addition would be a comprehensive scripture memorization program. (I am aware of the Memlok program in Logos format. Memlok takes 10 yrs for 700 verses.) My son memorizes whole books of the Bible. We need broader choices. As time goes on I am sure we will see some of them.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/15044#Comment_15044

Oh, it's true alright, I am in chaplaincy in the Army and I know about this tidbit first hand. Yea, funny story about my experience with that, I went ahead and bought the Logos Gold, and not soon after I finished paying for the whole system, the Army mailed me a scholar's Library. I wanted to thank them and slat them at the same time. That is why I am really focusing on getting our Candidates to become proficient with the software now so it will become a great resource for themselves and those soldiers they serve.

There is so much good that can be accomplished here.

I have also donated a desktop computer to my church with the intention of getting them to purchase Logos for the congregation. If we can have single books at the church library there should be a Logos system available for people to come in and use. I can picture now how well versed our congregation would be when they are able to use the system and skyrocket their learning from it!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/15063#Comment_15063

Matthew,

I appreciate your concern sir, about my number, I'll just leave that up there so he has no excuse to put personal slights on this post. I have no problem with crazies, I deal with them everyday.

Anyway, I am elated to see that people are responding to the RESOURCE READING PLAN, I am praying they will make it happen.

One of the commentary sets that have just come out that I would love to have a Resource Reading plan for that I just placed on prepub is the wonderful NICOT/NICNT! I can't tell you how many times my professors at Assembly of God seminary, when I was there, told our classes, "we only prefer you to use this commentary (besides Word Biblical commentary) for our assignments" I was gritting my teeth and pounding my desk that I couldn't have that in my library at the time, but, God is on the move, AMEN!

And yes, I did pick up on George's good info when he passed it along, I just won't allow him, or anyone, to think they can slap someone in the face without repercussions. I created this post so people can enjoy themselves and be encouraged. I hope we continue in that direction.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/15068#Comment_15068

1) Using Wikipedia numbers, many of the 1,654,000,000 Christians cited don't use Bible software or own computers.

Quite true - although it is surprising who does. About 10 years ago I was visiting the web site of a Nepalese high school four hours uphill from the nearest road. Their teacher had carried (in pieces) both computers and a generator up to the school so that his rural students would have a chance to make a go of it in an urban setting. They maintained a very well built website and offered web design services to support the project.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1845#Comment_1845

1) I object to the definition of Scripture being limited to the post 18th century definition of certain Western protestant groups

2) I object to the assumption of sequential reading

3) I object to the destruction of any hand-built reading plan by actual reading ... rather than invoking an instance of a template ...

4) I object to the lack of coordination with the lectionary [to which I also have a list of objections]

5) I object to having to have so many objections ...

Okay, I have discovered that objection 3 is not (or is no longer) valid. When one builds a string manually you CAN save it for repeating. I will now test it out on the "worst case" - a plan that skips days. However, if my hardest case doesn't work there is a "simple" work-around that I don't mind.

I have discovered that objection 1 is not (or is no longer) valid. The reading plan defaults to the sequence of books in the Bible that one selects. Not perfect but quite acceptable.

The manual building of a string is a pain in that a long string is not user friendly for proofreading but it's acceptable, especially if people share their strings.

Obviously, I have to back off on objection 5.

Which leaves only one objection - one that has little impact on the general user. So okay, Logos, I promise to eat my words if you provide me with a copy of them written on a German chocolate cake.[:)]