Questionable "Bible Study Magazine" Ad

Why is this ad in "Bible Study" Magazine?

I just received my May / June 2012 copy of Bible Study. I typically like the ads. However, I found it odd that Logos would run the advertisement on page 39 - it's just plain ridiculous and contends that all other English translations are wrong. It also wasn't proof read properly - on the bottom of the ad it states that "Psychology Today" readers get a discount. I'm pretty sure that's supposed to say "Bible Study" readers.

I did some more research on this bible and here is just some of its claims. This translation says
it “is the only complete Bible ever published that accurately follows the
original God-inspired manuscript order of all the books of the Old And New
Testaments.”

"God-inspired" manuscript order? Really? God-inspired the exact order of the books and all modern translations are in blasphemous error?

On it's Amazon page description it adds:

"Why another Bible? After the publication of the King James Version
in 1611, the English Bible remained virtually unchanged. Beginning in
the late 1800s, however, inferior Greek texts began to gain in
popularity among scholars, from which sprang several corrupt
translations. Over the decades, scores of such revised translations have
been produced, collectively documenting the insidious corruption of the
Word of God."

After reading the reviews I was even more shocked...apparently this translation is heavily altered to fit the theology of some guy named Fred Coulter and his ministries.

Thoughts?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ted Weis

Looks like a "King James Bible only" advocate.

The serious question it raises is whether the text was inspired when the original authors wrote, or whether the text is inspired at a later time, when Theodore Beza's "received text" became the basis for the 1611 KJV. Clearly, the text as we know it in the 2nd-5th centuries is different than later centuries.

Dean J

If you google Fred Coulter and go to his site, it's clearly cultic - some kind of offshoot of armstrongism. I wouldn't think that it should be getting advertising space.

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361315#Comment_361315

Looks like a "King James Bible only" advocate.

The serious question it raises is whether the text was inspired when the original authors wrote, or whether the text is inspired at a later time, when Theodore Beza's "received text" became the basis for the 1611 KJV. Clearly, the text as we know it in the 2nd-5th centuries is different than later centuries.

I was just surprised that Logos would include such an ad within their Magazine. In a way, it contrasts what Logos stands for.

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361340#Comment_361340

If you google Fred Coulter and go to his site, it's clearly cultic - some kind of offshoot of armstrongism. I wouldn't think that it should be getting advertising space.

Agreed. I wonder who approved this ad and whether they even did any research on it.

Ward Walker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361343#Comment_361343

It's for exactly this reason that I only use the KJV 1610--written at least a year before the serious errors began [*-)]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361341#Comment_361341

In a way, it contrasts what Logos stands for.

Logos, in my mind, stands for resources of interest to the serious Bible student - Bible being defined loosely as within the Judo-Christian tradition. As long as the advertizement relates to Bible study and is not slanderous, libelous or otherwise outside the norms of good taste, I would expect Logos to accept the ad.

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361358#Comment_361358

In a way, it contrasts what Logos stands for.

Logos, in my mind, stands for resources of interest to the serious Bible student - Bible being defined loosely as within the Judo-Christian tradition. As long as the advertizement relates to Bible study and is not slanderous, libelous or otherwise outside the norms of good taste, I would expect Logos to accept the ad.

The key word in your whole comment is "serious". The advertisement is practically anti-bible study. The advertisement (and especially its product) explicitly state that my modern translations (NASB, NET, NIV, even NKJV) are unreliable and that they are arranged in an anti-God inspired manner. Hmmm....I would say that rests squarely outside any "norms of good tatse". The company is also openly, but indirectly, degrading Logos default Bible of choice: the ESV.

Rosie Perera

Josh, yours is a reasonable critique. You might want to email John Barry, Editor-in-Chief of Bible Study Magazine, about it. His email address is john@biblestudymagazine.com. He could explain the reasoning behind their choice, or correct it in the future if he agrees that it was in poor judgment to run the ad. At the very least, he can make sure they fix the "Psychology Today" glitch in it next time. My goodness!

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361370#Comment_361370

At the very least, he can make sure they fix the "Psychology Today" glitch in it next time. My goodness!

Perhaps it is a "translation" for psychologists [^o)]

Agree with Josh. This is not for serious Bible students.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361408#Comment_361408

So, he puts the Pauline Epistles after the other ones? Well, that certainly changes everything! I now have to reconsider my entire theology. [:P]

Did you see about "Appendix L - A Summary of Proofs That God Is Not a Trinity"? [:S]

But with supporters like this, who needs critics? [:#]

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361425#Comment_361425

On the Amazon reviews cited above by fgh, I especially appreciated the comment 'It should be advertised as the propaganda arm of the [name of a denomination]'. (I removed the name just to avoid accidentally knocking someone here). Well, there you go with the advertising.

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361425#Comment_361425

So, he puts the Pauline Epistles after the other ones? Well, that certainly changes everything! I now have to reconsider my entire theology.

Did you see about "Appendix L - A Summary of Proofs That God Is Not a Trinity"?

But with supporters like this, who needs critics?

That review is too funny scary!

Reviewer's quote: "The earth was originally created for Lucifer and the angels. When
Lucifer rebelled, became Satan and took a third of the demons with him,
he created ever more monstrous creatures--Tyrannosaurus Rexes, & the
rest."

Satan created dinosaurs? lol

Paul-C

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361580#Comment_361580

Reviewer's quote: "The earth was originally created for Lucifer and the angels. When
Lucifer rebelled, became Satan and took a third of the demons with him,
he created ever more monstrous creatures--Tyrannosaurus Rexes, & the
rest."

Satan created dinosaurs? lol

I wonder if this will make it into Jurassic Park IV?

Dennis Miller

$$$$$, the only thing that really matters in business.

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361621#Comment_361621

I remember running into a White Supremacist a while back who just adored this bible.

Seems like Logos is just trying to increase its demographic...[:P]

Graham Owen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361472#Comment_361472

'It should be advertised as the propaganda arm of the [name of a denomination]'. (I removed the name just to avoid accidentally knocking someone here).

Good call, especially for me as I belong to one of the denominations using that name and we would not go near this...

John D. Barry

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361641#Comment_361641

Thank you for your feedback regarding the ad on page 38 of Bible Study Magazine May-June 2012. I'm glad to see you all discussing its contents and the publication it's advertising. It's our hope that all advertisements, and all content in our magazine for that matter, is discussed and debated. We encourage honest engagement with the Bible (and content about the Bible).

As far as our ad review process goes, it's probably best described as: "We don't agree with everything advertised in Bible Study Magazine." However, I don't let my views stand in the way of someone that wants to advertise their product--unless I, or our team, deems an ad to have the type of problems Rosie described. If you want to see our particular (editorial) views on subjects like this, check out our KJV 400 issue of Bible Study Magazine, which illustrates our understanding of translation process: http://www.logos.com/product/9405/bible-study-magazine-jan-feb-2011-issue

Thanks again for your feedback and engagement.

Dennis Miller

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361621#Comment_361621

$$$, the only thing that really matters in business.

Like I said!!!! They'll print any ad that brings in the revenue. Can't wait to see the first biblical condom ads, the ones the with bible verses printed on them. I wonder if they would include Genesis 9:7 - "As for you, be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it."

Jesse Blevins

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361938#Comment_361938

Maybe it will take some people cancelling their subscription to the magazine.

I have thought about ordering it but not now or as long as thesetypes of ads are bein g placed in it.

Jesse Blevins

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361955#Comment_361955

Frankly, I am tired of having to remove it from my cart every time that I make a purchase.

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361955#Comment_361955

I subscribe, and I pay for a gift subscription as well. Coming from Logos, I've always had a feeling of "trust" in the magazine, and while I don't agree completely with all that is written, I've always felt that the editorial staff held to a Biblical worldview.

But if the advertising policy is one of "anything goes" (from what I read in John's words), I'm afraid it may not be the magazine I thought it was...[:(]

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361961#Comment_361961

Frankly, I am tired of having to remove it from my cart every time that I make a purchase.

I think you will find that it doesn't go into your cart unless you add it. It appears as something that you can "add to cart" when you check out, but you can safely ignore it. See screen shot below.

Jesse Blevins

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361965#Comment_361965

I should not have to ignore it. I am sick of seeing it. It is an annoying marketing scheme in my humble opinion.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361978#Comment_361978

I should not have to ignore it. I am sick of seeing it. It is an annoying marketing scheme in my humble opinion.

That may be the case. I was just pointing out that if you don't click the "add to cart" button, you won't have to delete it (hence ignore it).

John D. Barry

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361666#Comment_361666

As far as our ad review process goes, it's probably best described as: "We don't agree with everything advertised in Bible Study Magazine." However, I don't let my views stand in the way of someone that wants to advertise their product--unless I, or our team, deems an ad to have the type of problems Rosie described.

I should add that the qualifications MJ Smith mentioned also apply to our ad review process; I meant to note that in my earlier post.

As long as the advertizement relates to Bible study and is not slanderous, libelous or otherwise outside the norms of good taste, I would expect Logos to accept the ad.

Thanks again for all of your feedback.

Jesse Blevins

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361985#Comment_361985

Alabama

If I am not mistaken, others could probably remember better than I, the magazine was automatically added to the cart at check when it was first released.

Barry

Among both Protestant and Catholic circles the churchthat posted the add is classified as a cult.

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361985#Comment_361985

John,

This is getting interesting, could you post a screen shot of this so-called ‘questionable’ add. I am not a subscriber to the mag, but would still like to see this add. that is if it dosn't violate any copyright issues....

Thanks.

John D. Barry

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361989#Comment_361989

I greatly appreciate the debate about this topic, but this isn't the best place for it, since that's not the intent of the Logos forums. Please feel free to email me directly at john@biblestudymagazine.com.

A quick reminder about our forum guidelines for these types of discussions: http://community.logos.com/forums/t/10072.aspx

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361996#Comment_361996

Where's 'Sam' when we need him?

David Carter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/362000#Comment_362000

Where's 'Sam' when we need him?

Silent [:#]

Ron

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361358#Comment_361358

the Judo-Christian tradition

I've always been leery of the martial arts arm of Christianity [:p]

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/362006#Comment_362006

[:D]

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/362013#Comment_362013

There are many (yes, many) Logos software users who study the Bible and have not come to the same conclusions "everyone else" has come to. If the "majority" of Logos users are "correct" in their conclusions on what the Bible says and means, we, the "majority," should not attempt to stop those "erroneous minorities" from using Logos Bible software for deeper studies.

The ad in question is certainly not the only occasion of possible disagreement that has been published in Bible Study Magazine. So long as the ads and articles address Bible study nothing seems out of place.

just my 2 cents

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/362018#Comment_362018

So long as the ads and articles address Bible study nothing seems out of place.

Logic then dictates that The Watchtower Society should be allowed to buy an ad showing that the Bible cannot possibly be interpreted without their guidance.

As well, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should be allowed to run an ad that shows that our Bible is incomplete without the other testament of Jesus Christ.

Doesn't it?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/362034#Comment_362034

We struggled with this same issue in building a site to encourage our visitors to attend one of our churches here on Sunday. Our pastor's suggested guidance was any group that viewed the Bible as intact (e.g. no cutting / pasting; not referring to how the words were translated/interpreted etc). That worked pretty well. Even the most conservative of our churches was comfortable with that and participated.

John D. Barry

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/362035#Comment_362035

We've said no to ads before on the basis of the criteria I articulated above. Thanks for the further questions and allowing me to clarify.

Bill Coley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/362018#Comment_362018

It's a magazine ad, not a contagious disease!!

In the opinion of at least some readers, every issue ever printed of every magazine open to advertising has contained marketing material of questionable content and, likely, intent. In our utopian visions of a principled marketplace, we expect advertisers to uphold the highest standards of truth-telling; but our expectations are naive. Advertising exists to create customers, not to win good citizenship awards. Need additional incentive to lose your naivete? Consider the current political season, in which every new slew of ads creates overtime work for fact checking organizations.

If you don't like the Bible advertised in Bible Study Magazine, then don't buy that Bible. And as you refuse to buy that Bible, remember that someone somewhere is likely responding with similar disdain to an ad pushing your favorite translation.

Blessings,

Bill Coley

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361985#Comment_361985

As far as our ad review process goes, it's probably best described as: "We don't agree with everything advertised in Bible Study Magazine." However, I don't let my views stand in the way of someone that wants to advertise their product--unless I, or our team, deems an ad to have the type of problems Rosie described.

I should add that the qualifications MJ Smith mentioned also apply to our ad review process; I meant to note that in my earlier post.

As long as the advertizement relates to Bible study and is not slanderous, libelous or otherwise outside the norms of good taste, I would expect Logos to accept the ad.

Thanks again for all of your feedback.

So, John...does this mean that Logos thought it was in "good taste" to run an ad that states our modern Bibles are unreliable and that these same bibles have their books arranged in a non-inspired blasphemous way?

Frank Sauer

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361996#Comment_361996

I greatly appreciate the debate about this topic, but this isn't the best place for it, since that's not the intent of the Logos forums. Please feel free to email me directly at john@biblestudymagazine.com.

A quick reminder about our forum guidelines for these types of discussions: http://community.logos.com/forums/t/10072.aspx

Not the intent of Logos forums leaves me a bit puzzled. Is that in regard to item 2 and not getting into controversial topics? I ask because clearly it fits the intent of item 1 discussion of Logos products. IMHO this is exactly the place for this discussion as it allows those who may subscribe information on something they may not choose to purchase.

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/362049#Comment_362049

I greatly appreciate the debate about this topic, but this isn't the best place for it, since that's not the intent of the Logos forums. Please feel free to email me directly at john@biblestudymagazine.com.

A quick reminder about our forum guidelines for these types of discussions: http://community.logos.com/forums/t/10072.aspx

Not the intent of Logos forums leaves me a bit puzzled. Is that in regard to item 2 and not getting into controversial topics? I ask because clearly it fits the intent of item 1 discussion of Logos products. IMHO this is exactly the place for this discussion as it allows those who may subscribe information on something they may not choose to purchase.

I think ‘4.2’ is better applied…

Matt Hamrick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361996#Comment_361996

I greatly appreciate the debate about this topic, but this isn't the best place for it, since that's not the intent of the Logos forums.

Hi John,

Ok, now I'm confused. Bible Study Magazine is a Logos Published Product correct? If that is the case, then isn't the Logos forums the place for this debate? The ad does not bother me in any way. But the comment from you for a Logos published product in a Logos forum saying it "isn't the best place for it" bothers me.

In Christ,
Matt Hamrick

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/362052#Comment_362052

I think we're leaning towards socialistic censorship, they should be allowed some lee-way after all it is a paid to the provider advertisment, falling under promotional funded revenue--? [great, now I have guilt...]

Brother Mark

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/362049#Comment_362049

IMHO this is exactly the place for this discussion as it allows those who may subscribe information on something they may not choose to purchase.

I agree Frank. It IS a Logos product. It's very name characterizes it as a Bible Study tool published by Logos. And, there is obvious concern over this specific advertisement as well as the policy that opens the door to any slick "Bible" product with the scratch to pay regardless of doctrinal/heretical stance.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/361362#Comment_361362

The advertisement (and especially its product) explicitly state that my modern translations (NASB, NET, NIV, even NKJV) are unreliable

Why? See the footnotes from the NET on Mark 9:29 He told them, “This kind can come out only by prayer.”^{38 1}
³⁸³⁸tc Most witnesses, even early and excellent ones (P^45vidא² A C D L W Θ Ψ f^{1, 13}33 M lat co), have “and fasting” (καὶ νηστείᾳ, kai nēsteia) after “prayer” here. But this seems to be a motivated reading, due to the early church’s emphasis on fasting (TCGNT 85; cf., e.g., 2 Clem. 16:4; Pol. Phil 7:2; Did. 1:3; 7:4). That the most important witnesses (א* , as well as a few others (0274 2427 k), lack καὶ νηστείᾳ, when a good reason for the omission is difficult to find, argues strongly for the shorter reading.
^{^[1]} Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible, Mk 9:29 (Biblical Studies Press, 2006; 2006). Also see the footnotes on Mat 17:21

So the early church changed Scripture to match what they were doing!
Or did the early church fast because Jesus told them to?
Why the KJV Only Group (and the ad in question)?
Because there are some that see Textual Criticism just as some see Evolution – Junk Science.
If Textual Criticism is wrong then that ad is correct. If Textual Criticism is correct than that ad is wrong.

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/362056#Comment_362056

So the early church changed Scripture to match what they were doing!
Or did the early church fast because Jesus told them to?
Why the KJV Only Group (and the ad in question)?
Because there are some that see Textual Criticism just as some see Evolution – Junk Science.
If Textual Criticism is wrong then that ad is correct. If Textual Criticism is correct than that ad is wrong.

Great!! Now I have even more guilt...

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/362056#Comment_362056

Way against the rules, but I can't resist, I apologize in advance for my indulgence...

Because there are some that see Textual Criticism just as some see Evolution – Junk Science.

I guess it doesn't matter to them that the KJV was translated from a critically derived text[:D]

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/362056#Comment_362056

The advertisement (and especially its product) explicitly state that my modern translations (NASB, NET, NIV, even NKJV) are unreliable

Why? See the footnotes from the NET on Mark 9:29 He told them, “This kind can come out only by prayer.”^{38 1}
³⁸³⁸tc Most witnesses, even early and excellent ones (P^45vidא² A C D L W Θ Ψ f^{1, 13}33 M lat co), have “and fasting” (καὶ νηστείᾳ, kai nēsteia) after “prayer” here. But this seems to be a motivated reading, due to the early church’s emphasis on fasting (TCGNT 85; cf., e.g., 2 Clem. 16:4; Pol. Phil 7:2; Did. 1:3; 7:4). That the most important witnesses (א* , as well as a few others (0274 2427 k), lack καὶ νηστείᾳ, when a good reason for the omission is difficult to find, argues strongly for the shorter reading.
^{^[1]} Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible, Mk 9:29 (Biblical Studies Press, 2006; 2006). Also see the footnotes on Mat 17:21

So the early church changed Scripture to match what they were doing!
Or did the early church fast because Jesus told them to?
Why the KJV Only Group (and the ad in question)?
Because there are some that see Textual Criticism just as some see Evolution – Junk Science.
If Textual Criticism is wrong then that ad is correct. If Textual Criticism is correct than that ad is wrong.

The ad promotes an "edited" Bible that - in of itself - promotes Fred Coulter's (the Bible's editor) beliefs and ministry - Christian Biblical Church of God. This ministry is non-trinitarian - and thus heretical.

Quote from the beliefs page:

The Holy Spirit is not a person or a third member of a so-called
trinity. The Holy Spirit is the power by which God the Father and God
the Son accomplish Their will.

EDIT: Should Logos be running ads that promote resources from a non-trinitarian ministry?

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/362106#Comment_362106

Peace to all! and .......... Always Triumphant Joy in the Risen Lord!

Logos, John, Bible Study Magazine! I treasure this publication. Wish I could have it online; however, still happy with the print copy that I can share more easily.

I will support whatever decision you make in this regard! I know it is difficult; and I have (and will!) pray for you. (For Wisdom, for Insight, for Divine Guidance)

Meanwhile, please let me note that I truly appreciate your printing the Apostles' Creed in Bible Study Magazine.

That means you do indeed stand for Primary Traditional Christianity. I'm sure that's a tad mispoken; however, perhaps you get my drift.

Deny the Trinity? Well, I will support you; however, again, that's a pretty heinous thing to me.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/362106#Comment_362106

The last thing I want to see happen to Logos is to cow-tow to censorship from forum posters. There are truly more posters in this very thread that hold to what may indeed be "heretical" views of scripture than I have seen in Bible Study Magazine.

To prove my point just imagine what everyone's answers would be if they had to name the most correct Bible version. (Please, imagine it, don't go saying it out loud!)

I find it sad so many shake in their boots to discover there may be others who "got it wrong" and have not yet been burned at the stake. It is no exaggeration 95% of Logos resources are in direct contradiction with all other resources.

People can be (and are) wrong about many things. If they are truly seeking to know the truth, there is still a chance they will stumble across it, especially with a little help from God.

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/362112#Comment_362112

.

yuppers, what ST said. [8-|] had to find my spectacles. Thanks.