Why is Amplified Bible missing from base packages?

I am willing to entertaing divergent views so that I may have mine published too. The scholarly works you value probably could not get published in Logos without other works subsidizing scanners, coders and keyers.

This is not about entertaining divergent views. The Amplified Bible is not a book on theology.

Many Logos users complain frequently in the forums about resources they deem unfaithful to their understanding of the Bible.

I'mnot one of them.

I am sure you and Robert don't agree with every resource Logos publishes. (How could you?) Why start with The Amplified Bible?

Because:

* It's not a translation which is sufficiently faithful to the Word to be more useful or even as useful as the majority of standard modern translations, including the paraphrases

* It's based on out of date textual criticism

* The way it is presented leads people to false conclusions about Scripture, and more importantly false conclusions about their ability to translate Scripture, which they fondly believe is more accurate than the ability of professional translators

Others actually like The Message and I should not impede their access to it, no matter how much I want to protect them from it! )

Leaving the Message out of all Logos collections would not make it inaccessible to people. It's actually sold in bookstores. You can buy a copy just about anywhere. It's also available in a range of electronic formats. We should not confuse the choice not to provide a particular service or product, with censorship of that service or product. These are two completely separate issues. Similarly, when you come into my house and I expect you to mind your language, I am not in any way impeding your free speech; you're perfectly at liberty to walk out of my house and say what you like.

Whilst the Amplified Bible may enable a certain type of abuse I think it is wrong to associate this with any form of intent to encourage abuse. There are a whole range of Bibles, Language Tools, Commentaries, Theologies, etc. that can be used to abuse God's word.

I don't think there was any intent to encourage abuse, it's just the result of the way the tool was put together.

The problem is not the tool but the way we train people to use the tool and also the way we keep people away from tools that could damage them. I know many well educated so called "lay" people who use the Amplified Version, knowing its limitations, to help them get a deeper insight into God's Word.

If there wasn't any problem with the tool, we wouldn't have to train people to use it properly and we wouldn't have to keep people away from tools that could damage them. If people are getting a deeper insight into God's word with the Amplified Bible, I have to wonder how they know that's what they're getting, and I can't help thinking there are more efficient ways of doing it. I can get a good picture of myself by squinting into a dirty and broken mirror and moving around so I can see small parts of my face revealed imperfectly in those parts of the mirror which are sufficiently clear to see with, or I can just use a clean and unbroken mirror.

There  have beeen several comments to the effect that the Amplified Bible is not a translation, I am not sure I agree with that statement.  I would point you to the Lockman site for information on this http://www.lockman.org/amplified/

It's clearly a translation; it's in English.

In either case it is important to read the preface in both bibles in order to understand how it is to be used.  I find that most believers fail to do this before reading their bible, which often leads to misunderstandings.

I would also like to point out this is true no matter if I like the translation or dislike it, I need to understand what the purpose of the translation was.

These points are well made.

 

If there wasn't any problem with the tool, we wouldn't have to train people to use it properly and we wouldn't have to keep people away from tools that could damage them.

Jonathan, Are 747 jumbo jets a bad tool? Do we have to train pilots how to fly them? Do we owe it to the 350 passengers on board to keep you out of the cockpit?  Paul would not have warned Timothy to rightly divide the word unless it is possible to wrongly divide it. 2 Timothy 2:15 .Training is a good thing.

It's clearly a translation; it's in English.

Just because it is in English does not mean it originated in another language. (A certain Book of Mormon is in English but lacks original manuscripts.) We have had a similar discussion before regarding The Message (a paraphrase.)  The Amplified Bible is a verbose expansion of the original. It contains an inflated translation.

I would also like to point out this is true no matter if I like the translation or dislike it, I need to understand what the purpose of the translation was.

Like Jonathan said, your points are well stated Jim.

So the final responsibility for our own study rests on our own shoulders.  All the more reason to double-check the scholars who have gone before us. Paul admonished Timothy to study, not do rote memorization of doctrinal dogma. If I have to account for my own study efforts, I want to be able to choose my tools.

Back to the question that was asked, I seriously doubt the Amplified bible is not in any of the base prices because it is a resource that is easy to abuse, it is most likely due to some publishing deal, but only Logos can tell us for sure.

To be honest with everyone I have abused every language tool that I own at some period of my life including the Amplified bible, Strongs, BDAG, and anything else I can think of, and yes, I have studied Greek and I find out almost every year how I have abused another tool! I am currently working on a DTH degree and I am still finding out new ways that I abuse language tools, education helps but so does an attitude of constantly learning and a willingness to look at our own mistakes.

One quick question, the fellowship I belong to does not have a distinction between layman and clergy, where do we get the idea of layman being different from the clergy???

In Christ,

Jim VanSchoonhoven

My personal approach, in this order, is this:

1. Read the New English Translation: it has a massive number of footnotes which provide so much text critical and lexical information (including quotations from lexicons such as BDAG), that there's rarely a need for me to consult a lexicon, and I'm

2. Read standard scholarly commentaries: this is where I typically find much more useful information on the text, and especially the words in the text, than I could get from my own personal reading of the text in English or the original language

3. Do a word search to see where else a particular word is used in the Scriptures: this helps me see which other passages may be related to the one I'm reading, and how the word is used in a range of contexts; however, it doesn't provide me with an authoritative range of meaning for the word

4. Look up the word in a lexicon: this is where I typically find any information I may not have found up to this point

I would say that 80% of the time I don't need to go further than step one, and 90% of the time I don't need to go further than step two. Step three is typically for the sake of interest, and to detect uses of the word which may not be detectable in an English translation (this helps prevent me committing the exegetical error of 'exegeting the English' in other texts). I may or may not skip step three, but 95% of the time I don't even get to step four. I hope this helps.

Thanks Jonathan for the help. i also use the ESV and the notes that go with it. If you don't mind would you explain to me what a Standard scholarly commentary is and maybe suggest some of the commentaries that are scholarly in my platinum library.

Again Thanks for the help

Thanks Jonathan for the help. i also use the ESV and the notes that go with it. If you don't mind would you explain to me what a Standard scholarly commentary is and maybe suggest some of the commentaries that are scholarly in my platinum library.

Again Thanks for the help

You're welcome Sam. As for your question on commentaries, I can hardly do better than recommend this article on the Logos site. Another very useful article is the Logos guide to multi-volume commentaries, which can be found here. As another resource, this scholarly site reviews commentaries and recommends which commentaries are best for which kind of uses.

In Platinum, I would recommend:

* Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (8 vols.)

* Baker New Testament Commentary (12 vols.)

* The New International Greek Testament Commentary (13 vols.); an excellent scholarly commentary

* The United Bible Societies’ New Testament Handbook Series (20 vols.); a scholarly commentary intended to help professional Bible translators

* The United Bible Societies’ Old Testament Handbook Series (21 vols.); a scholarly commentary intended to help professional Bible translators

But then we would have to "dumb down" every tool so that it can be used by anybody and that is unrealistic and restrictive.

I'm not suggesting dumbing down good tools to prevent people misusing them. I'm suggesting:

* Guiding them away from bad tools

* Helping them understand how to use good tools well

Hey Jonathan, what translation is this your are referencing? I have tried an Amazon and Logos search for the 'New English Translation' but no joy. Could you please point me to this translation? Blessings.

http://net.bible.org (AKA NET Bible)

Graham, thanks for making this comment. The term in this context simply differentiates professionals from non-professionals, which is the common use of the term. I included myself in this category, and certainly had no intention of being derogatory. Nor was it in any way a reference to priests and laity.

I did understand your use of the "lay person" in context and personally feel that it is one of those "loaded" phrases that we need to be careful about using a lot like "fundamentalist" and "liberal". I genuinely appreciate that you were not trying to be derogatory in using that phrase but it is so open ended in its meaning that it can cause unnecesary conflict. Sorry if I cam across a bit harsh in my earlier comment on this.

For me this thread is important because it is opening up issues that need to be discussed and that more Christians need to be aware of. The denomination that I belong to proudly says that "we believe In the verbal inspiration of the Bible" yet many of our ministers and members have never taken the time to think about the implications of this. The very way that this is worded to me implies that we affirm the inspiration of the original manuscripts and therefore should have an interest in Textual Criticism, know which text we prefer and why. We still have a lot of people who remain loyal to the KJV, and I understand why, but most of them do not then understand that this makes an implicit statement about the preferred text being Textus Receptus!

I does seem odd that if you type new english translation into your library the Net Bible is about sixth in rank and is lost in a long list of other resources.

I did understand your use of the "lay person" in context and personally feel that it is one of those "loaded" phrases that we need to be careful about

I understood Jonathan's use of the word also. And I don't believe he meant anything derogatory by using it. The point raised is a valid concern; students of the Bible need to know how to properly use the study tools available. But I would hope their pastor, family and trusted friends would be the ones they look to when they go weeding out the "dangerous" stumbling blocks. Logos provides a wide array of study tools. A student cannot reconcile all viewpoints included within the Logos program resources. God has provided for our instruction in things doctrinal. It is our own responsibility to study and recognize correct doctrine.

My father, brother, son, and soon-to-be son-in-law are all clergy. They are trained for full-time, paid ministry and missionary work. I have many friends who have the specialized training but minister without compensation and feed their families working as a "lay" persons. I also know many  who never had the chance for formal training yet they work tirelessly serving in their local congregations. Logos is not an absolute requirement for successful ministry for any of these individuals any more than a college degree is. But we probably are in agreement, formal education is helpful to ministry. I would extend that argument to say Logos is helpful to ministry. Even with the lesser helpful resources included.

"Laity" & "Clergy" can mean so many different things in different circles. Usually the distinction lies only in the fact of whether or not the people a pastor serves recognize it and reward accordingly. If a flock doesn't recognize, appreciate or reward a pastor it does not lessen the value of the ministry performed. The world has millions of uncompensated and under-compensated clergy. It is a sad distinction created by men that has barred many willing from serving God and excused many selfish from the same. Of all the Apostles, Paul is apparently the only one with formal religious training. The rest were all "lay" men equipped with nothing more than Jesus' teachings and the in-dwelling Holy Spirit.  sarcasm alert  [A]  Just imagine what they could have accomplished with good Bible software! [6]

But I would hope their pastor, family and trusted friends would be the ones they look to when they go weeding out the "dangerous" stumbling blocks.

Speaking as a Pastor Logos introduces a new level of challenge because the material being read is basically "invisible". The great thing about "real books" is that when you visit someone in their own home you can learn quite a lot from their book shelves and the books that are lying around. Unfortunately many Christians, even well educated ones, assume that any book in a Christian book store will be useful. It can also take time to develop the type of relationship with people required for them to discuss what they are reading openly.

Same with Bible Versions, I have a collection called Bibles Used In Church that contains all of the Bibles that I know are used regularly by members of the Church. Interesting omission in the context of this thread is the Amplified but I have that covered off in a hardcopy KJV, Amplified, NIV and NASB parallel. I use the collection to check for variations in the translation that might cause confusion.

Paul is apparently the only one with formal religious training. The rest were all "lay" men equipped with nothing more than Jesus' teachings and the in-dwelling Holy Spirit.

...and they turned the world upside down! This is of course the paradox and it does seem that there is a danger that we are so busy learning more that w have no time to fulfil the mission that God has given us. Unfortunately it seems that the more we think we know, the more we realise we don't know so the more we study to know.

Another challenge is that not everyone is equipped to study, I know someone who took a theology degree after he retired. He now has a memory full of information, theories and facts that he has no idea how to use and does not really understand that he throws in to discussions. He simply does not have the mental capacity to manage the range and depth of information that the degree covered. His Pastor has tried to address the issues this causes but he remains convinced that the others do not understand because they do not have his theological and intellectual capacity when the reality is that they can't understand because he does not understand and therefore can not explain!

I would rather people had and used the tools to stretch them, even if they do not use them correctly than work with people who are happy to do nothing. As a sweeping and unsubstantiated observation most people that I have known that used the Amplified did so because they had a real desire to develop a better understanding of God's Word as a result the look for other resources to help them and do not rely solely on the Amplified version to improve their knowledge.

The most common misuse that I see of the Amplified, is the one that is common to all versions and that is when the writer or speaker uses it because it better expresses what they want scripture to say. I appreciate that all of the "extra" words makes this easier with the Amplified but in this case the problem is not the uninformed user but actually someone who should know better. The most common occurrence of this seems to be in the daily devotionals where the Amplified and Message are often used to support the daily "wisdom" they deliver.

My pastor may also be concerned to know I have things in my library he would rather I not expose myself to

Matthew, you seem to be able to take care of yourself and I would hope that your Pastor knows that...

I know a lot of people in my denomination would be shocked at some of the material I not only read but actively seek out because I feel that it is as important to read stuff that challenges what I believe as it is to read stuff that affirms what I believe. For me this is the process that ensures that I understand what I believe and better equips me to explain what I believe. 

"is there free will in heaven"

There's a lady in my Church who you must have been talking to, she asks this sort of question all the time. Many times I have really thanked God for Logos' search capabilities and I have been able to print a few pages with information to help her (and me!!!).

instead of "what's wrong with allowing my daughter's boyfriend to move in to her bedroom in my home?"

You're kidding, right?

much more productive using Logos as a too

This is the crux of why and how I use Logos, I simply get more quality study per minute and can access a wider range of material more quickly. I do however have to control my addiction to fascinating information when I use it, my library is close to 3,000 books (and growing) and that's a lot of pages of information. 

I not only encourage people to use Bible Software but I buy it for them, I started when Logos had the starter library and now tend to get one of the Nelson Essential Packages. My plan is simple, "teach a man (or woman) to fish". The logic is clear, give people the tools to dig deeper for themselves and you have stronger Christians. 

I know a lot of people in my denomination would be shocked at some of the material I not only read but actively seek out because I feel that it is as important to read stuff that challenges what I believe as it is to read stuff that affirms what I believe. For me this is the process that ensures that I understand what I believe and better equips me to explain what I believe. 

Amen - You are not alone. We 'have' to read what every book in our library says on a subject [It then takes a month to study each verse in all 300 plus commentaries] But do we learn

[The fun part is figuring out where THEY went 'astray' (define ASTRAY as a belief other then MINE) [And the only way to do that is to study how THEY got to THEIR stand] But some one of these days some of US (define US as all LOGOS users who use all of their books and not just the ones 'that affirms what [they] believe') are going to find out that they are in the wrong Church [which is why 'lot of people in my denomination' do not want US reading that 'JUNK' (define JUNK as anything not approved by your denomination)] ] [Which is why the Bible is baned in some middle east nations]