FSB should be called the FaithLESS Study Bible

Don't get me started on what is wrong with all the different Bible versions.

I thought that study Bibles were intended to AID the faith of believers, but the so-called "FaithLife Study Bible" seems to have the explicit goal of destroying it. I have been perusing the Context Studies, and according to every article I've read so far in this FaithLESS Study Bible, the scripture itself seems to be all wrong.

Shame on you, Logos!

Mark 9:42

There is a group where you can discuss your suggestions to make it better. https://faithlife.com/fsb-users/activity

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510522#Comment_510522

There is a group where you can discuss your suggestions to make it better. https://faithlife.com/fsb-users/activity

That is one benefit to a digital Bible. It can be corrected more easily. I do recall Logos has already edited the Fathlife Study Bible.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510522#Comment_510522

There is a group where you can discuss your suggestions to make it better. https://faithlife.com/fsb-users/activity

Good suggestion. I looked through it, and one of the users mentioned emailing the editor. So I did. [:)] Thanks!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510542#Comment_510542

It seems to me that the Faithlife Study Bible does a good job of reflecting the perspective that it claims to reflect. If you disagree with that perspective, you will at times disagree with some of its statements. However, the forums are not the place to debate personal agreement or disagreement. Nor is it the place to rile up the fans of the product.

My personal opinion on the FSB? I think it does a good job of meeting its stated goals. I also think that it is unlike to ever get much use from me ... a statement I make for most study bibles.

Wild Eagle

Deleted by user

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510552#Comment_510552

I would be interested in seeing an example of some of the objectionable material. I don't use it, but I have seen these types of critiques before. What bothered you most?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510542#Comment_510542

... the forums are not the place to debate personal agreement or disagreement. ...

I'm not trying to be merely defensive or argumentative, but seriously? The forums are the perfect place. Indeed, they are the intended place. In fact, that is the very definition of "forum":

forum: n. 1 a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged

But enough said ... this thread was to address the lack of faith presented in the FSB, and now it is being hijacked to discuss forum etiquette. How incredibly ironic. [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510559#Comment_510559

... the forums are not the place to debate personal agreement or disagreement. ...

I'm not trying to be merely defensive or argumentative, but seriously? The forums are the perfect place. Indeed, they are the intended place. In fact, that is the very definition of "forum":

forum: n. 1 a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged

But enough said ... this thread was to address the lack of faith presented in the FSB, and now it is being hijacked to discuss forum etiquette. How incredibly ironic.

Ed, its Logos house, they make the rules. http://community.logos.com/forums/t/10072.aspx from the thread:

Please abide by the following guidelines as you interact on our forums.

Please keep your discussions focused on Logos Bible Software: our software, products, websites, company, tools, etc.
Please do not discuss or debate biblical, theological, or other controversial topics. Use one of the many web forums intended for these kinds of discussions.
Please treat each other with the love, courtesy, respect, and kindness that you would if you were sitting in your living room together.
Please do not use our forums to
- sell or give away anything or link to anything you’re selling or giving away—including Logos products
- promote or link to competitors
- point people to other places that sell Logos-compatible products
- advertise yourself, your business, your ministry, your website, etc. (a tasteful link in your forum signature is acceptable)
- post Logos Coupon Codes. If you are aware of a special promotion Logos is running online, you are welcome to link directly to the promotion.
Please search before posting. It’s likely that someone has already asked your question.
Please help others follow these guidelines. If the problems continue after you’ve given a gentle reminder of these expectations, please click “Report Abuse” under “More” or send an email to forums@logos.com.

Thank you for your cooperation. Enjoy discussing and learning about Logos Bible Software.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510558#Comment_510558

I would be interested in seeing an example of some of the objectionable material. I don't use it, but I have seen these types of critiques before. What bothered you most?

For example, from the article The Extent of the Biblical Flood from the Sidebars->Context Studies:

[quote]

"A straightforward reading of Gen 7:19–22 indicates the writer envisioned a flood on a massive scale—covering “all the high mountains which were under the entire heaven” (Gen 7:19)."

... then ...

[quote]

The physical evidence for a global flood is limited and inconclusive.

In the article, the writer systematically tears down the Biblical account of the flood with his claim that "physical evidence is inconclusive," and he presents no bibliography or basis for the "evidence" upon which he stands. In fact, despite this author's claims, much evidence exists for the Biblical account of the flood. But instead of presenting an unbiased view of all facts, the author presents a biased view without facts. To me, that is not only an inexcusable abuse in a so-called "study Bible," and not only a failure of scholarship, it is a typical attack against faith with pseudo-scientific propaganda. Why would this tripe be included in a study Bible?!?

That is one example of the general tone of many of the articles in the Context Studies. The article on The Fall of Jericho is similar, as well as others that I reviewed. Hope that helps clarify my concerns.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510571#Comment_510571

Ed ... your conclusions are correct. Don't know about 'faithless'. But it's pretty unbelieving-ish. Like MJ said ... on target for them.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510563#Comment_510563

Ed, its Logos house, they make the rules. http://community.logos.com/forums/t/10072.aspx from the thread:

Understood. The discussion is specific to a Logos product: namely the FSB. And simply my concern with that product, that it presents anti-Biblical and anti-faith information under the guise of being a "study Bible." I am a pastor, and I sometimes have to clean up the mess when young believers have their faith stumbled or even destroyed by anti-Christian publications that sneak into churches as "Bibles." God help us.

Having said that, I respect people's right to disagree respectfully.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510579#Comment_510579

Having said that, I respect people's right to disagree respectfully.

Hope you don't mind.

I respectfully AGREE with you.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510571#Comment_510571

Hi Ed

he presents no bibliography or basis for the "evidence" upon which he stands

Did you see the "See Also:" section at the end of the article?

I have just scanned one of them (the DOT P article) but these probably will provide more light on the perspective and arguments presented. And this is consistent with the way the FSB is designed to work.

Graham

Wild Eagle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510600#Comment_510600

your example proves your point. You should state it at the beginning. If the audience for FSB is not academic but general then those articles can easily destroy someone's faith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510600#Comment_510600

Did you see the "See Also:" section at the end of the article?

...

I have just scanned one of them (the DOT P article) but these probably will provide more light on the perspective and arguments presented. And this is consistent with the way the FSB is designed to work.

Graham

Good point. I actually did see the "See Also" section, but alas, as a lowly Logos Gold owner ( [:(] ), most of those resources are not in my library. But the article's perspective (and not just one article) is that when God's Word contradicts modern "science," God's Word is in error and science is supreme. The point I'm simply trying to make is that a study Bible should build the faith of a believer. And a Bible cannot deny the inerrancy and authority of God's Word, and edify believers in God's Word at the same time. (Psalms 11:3; Mark 3:25)

I think the information in the Context Studies has its place, but never inside a "Bible." They should be removed from the FSB and placed in a separate volume with a title like, "Why We Don't Believe The Bible Is God's Word." That way people who are trying to build their faith through Bible study won't let their guard down. [^o)]

Colossians 2:8

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510632#Comment_510632

I have never thought of chapter and verse markers, pericope titles, word definitions, cross-references, sidebars or any other appended materials as part of a Bible even when published in a study Bible. I think the electronic formats make any such confusion even less likely. There is a very

The FSB is no different than other Logos resources: it presents a particular point of view that is agreeable to some portion of the Logos market. That portion of the Logos market purchases and uses the product; the rest of the Logos market hides it, doesn't purchase it, or gives it so low priority it is seen only when specially requested.

What is it about the availability of this particular resource that bothers you? Why do you see it as more threatening to believers' faith than other resources? I fail to see the intent of the thread beyond complaining about a resource you disagree with. Can you image the length of a thread in which we all listed the products we disagree with? Actually, written with the right sense of humor that could be fun ... but off topic and inappropriate for the forums.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510634#Comment_510634

...

What is it about the availability of this particular resource that bothers you? Why do you see it as more threatening to believers' faith than other resources? I fail to see the intent of the thread beyond complaining about a resource you disagree with. ...

The intent of this thread was to raise awareness.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510638#Comment_510638

The intent of this thread was to raise awareness.

Thank you - that makes sense. Unfortunately, it also indicates that all participants in the thread need to remind themselves of the forum guidelines and re-evaluate the appropriateness of their posts.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510640#Comment_510640

Thank you - that makes sense. Unfortunately, it also indicates that all participants in the thread need to remind themselves of the forum guidelines and re-evaluate the appropriateness of their posts.

Thank you for your participation.

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510640#Comment_510640

it also indicates that all participants in the thread need to remind themselves of the forum guidelines and re-evaluate the appropriateness of their posts.

Since this is a Logos-edited and produced resource, discussion of its theological slant seems appropriate in the Logos forum.

For the record, I tend to agree with Ed's assessment of the resource.

Tes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510670#Comment_510670

it also indicates that all participants in the thread need to remind themselves of the forum guidelines and re-evaluate the appropriateness of their posts.

Since this is a Logos-edited and produced resource, discussion of its theological slant seems appropriate in the Logos forum.

For the record, I tend to agree with Ed's assessment of the resource.

Very good comment ,I agree with you Jack.

Wild Eagle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510640#Comment_510640

The intent of this thread was to raise awareness.

Thank you - that makes sense. Unfortunately, it also indicates that all participants in the thread need to remind themselves of the forum guidelines and re-evaluate the appropriateness of their posts.

if someone says that resource leans to be Calvinistic, it doesn't mean that he is in theological debate, he just expresses the nature of the resource. i don't see anything wrong with that, we do discuss here about logos products, which in this case is FSB and the nature of it, which in this case raises science over the Bible. The only thing here what's seems to be wrong according to guidelines is "shame on you logos"

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510640#Comment_510640

OK ... MJ ... wake up your logic dog. He'll probably need some exercise on my post.

Maybe 'faithless' might be a tad over the line, but discussing the perspective of Logos resources is an area quite germaine both from a personal belief perspective, and even an academic one as well. This is actually the first thread I've seen that stated the obvious; that FaithLife probably targets a population somewhere in the AYBD range (me!).

But I can guarantee I'd not recommend it at church. The reason isn't 'head in the sand'. The problem is that most people are trying to 'live' faith; not study it. FaithLife targets the latter, and I've no problem with that. But I can guarantee it'd be a problem at church.

Here, I'm probably going to get in mucho trouble, but the present Pope in Brazil this week essentially proposed the same issue. Though I'm not Catholic, I sure find his discussions refreshing. I notice Pastor Rick Warren is back from a very unfortunate experience, with the same message.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510699#Comment_510699

I notice Pastor Rick Warren is back from a very unfortunate experience, with the same message.

I think that was a bit more than an "unfortunate experience." That was a tragedy. I haven't read his book and don't follow his teaching so as to know his position, but pray that God will give him peace.

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510703#Comment_510703

I guess the wording could be a problem, but in all reality, there is little evidence for a world-wide or large-scale flood, just like up until recent years there was no archaeological evidence of Kind David, even though there have now been archaeological finds that prove David existed.

The fact that there may not be much evidence for something is not a denial of its existence. This happens all the time in Ancient Near Eastern history. There are many people/places that we know existed because there are written records, but we just haven't found the archaeological evidence.

Maybe a line that says something like, "See the following resources for evidence of a local flood;" see the following resources for evidence of a world-wide flood...; see the following resources for blah, blah, blah;" or the reader could take the time to look at the suggested resources at the end of the article as they are listed and read the information to see what the resource is about.

Logos could also take the time to annotate the suggested resources. It would take a little more time, but since the point of having those resources listed is to sell books, then they should not have a problem adding a little extra incentive next to each suggestion.

John D. Barry

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510738#Comment_510738

Thank you for the feedback on Faithlife Study Bible. I am sorry to hear that a few of you would not feel comfortable endorsing it.

In general, the sentiment that this type of discussion is not well suited for the forums is correct, since this discussion is in the realm of "theological debate." If you email us at editor@logos.com, we will read your email and respond directly. We also take all feedback into consideration, and often edit notes, articles, etc. as a result. When we say that your feedback is important to us, we mean it.

Faithlife Study Bible aims to be as unbiased as possible, and we hold to the ECPA Statement of Faith. You can read more on our publishing philosophy here: http://www.logos.com/about/publishing-philosophy

Since it has been suggested that Faithlife Study Bible's article about the flood is not as unbiased as it could be, we will take a look at it again and consider making changes in a future update. In this regard, the more specific feedback you can send to editor@logos.com, the better.

At times, you will disagree with the content we publish, but it is our aim that when multiple viewpoints are available on a topic to present them fairly. I am very sorry to hear that some of you feel that we have not done a good enough job at this.

Thank you again for your feedback.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510783#Comment_510783

Denise - this is not for you, but as he was within a keystroke (send) of an appearance prior to your post ...

tom

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510783#Comment_510783

Since it has been suggested that Faithlife Study Bible's article about the flood is not as unbiased as it could be, we will take a look at it again

Just to let you know, I believe that the FSB's article about the flood is unbiased.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510783#Comment_510783

Thank you for the feedback on Faithlife Study Bible. I am sorry to hear that a few of you would not feel comfortable endorsing it.

...

Thank you again for your feedback.

John ... I received your email, and I appreciate your consideration and objectivity. I am very impressed that you were not only willing to hear customer concerns, but also seem willing to consider their basis or merit in light of Logos' policies. I could not ask for more. Thank you!

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510866#Comment_510866

Since it has been suggested that Faithlife Study Bible's article about the flood is not as unbiased as it could be, we will take a look at it again
Just to let you know, I believe that the FSB's article about the flood is unbiased.

Titus 3 can use some work...

Greg

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510948#Comment_510948

The elephant in the room (at least from my understanding) that might be at the core of this discussion is the general disconnect that many church denominations have with current Biblical scholarship. In my experience as a Southern Baptist, you have your core group of scholars that are generally read and taught from, and then there's everyone else outside that group who aren't "approved of". The scholarship coming from the core group is generally from the "If the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it" mindset, and any serious deviation from this is frowned upon.

Many within these denominations therefore don't have the opportunity to explore other viewpoints or be made aware of new developments within Biblical scholarship that help to place the Bible within its ancient context. They're sand-boxed from the "real world", so when real world scholarship makes it into their sandbox, its immediately looked at with extreme suspicion merely because it doesn't tow the party line. The possibility that the party line needs correction and refinement is hardly ever considered. (I'm not naive enough to believe either that modern scholarship has a monopoly on the final truth of the matter. But the advantage of modern scholarship is that it seeks to explore and explain as much current evidence as possible, and not just that which reinforces our long held beliefs. Old conclusions must always be reassessed once new information comes to light.)

Hence the reaction to the Flood article in the Faithlife Study Bible. That article reflects what current scholarship is reflecting, namely that there isn't any convincing archeological evidence for a worldwide flood, and that the story of the flood as presented to the ancient Israelites would have been understood very differently than what modern American Christians understand it to be saying. That article is not trying to destroy one's faith, but actually trying to reinforce it by getting closer to the original meaning of the flood in the context of the world of the Bible.

Ed, I know it may be jarring at first, but I would encourage you to give thoughtful consideration to the articles you had the opportunity to read. They bring a lot of helpful information to the table that has, until recently, not really been available outside of graduate schools and academic journals.

It doesn't mean its wrong. It only means the tradition you are a part of probably hasn't been exposed to it yet.

Give it a try. I speak from experience when I say it will strengthen your faith, not destroy it.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510968#Comment_510968

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Acts 26:24b "thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad." [:D]

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510976#Comment_510976

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Acts 26:24b "thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad."

I haven't looked it up recently, but I seem to recall that this was a comment made to Paul. As such, it would seem an odd thing to say to someone since we obviously aren't to take Paul as having been mad.

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510994#Comment_510994

I'm jumping into this discussion a bit late but upon reflection I think that Ed does have a point although the way he put it is on the line of crossing forum guidelines.

Since Logos is reaching out more and more to the average person I think that resources that Logos is involved in producing perhaps could consider clearly state somewhere in them the theological persuasion or viewpoint that they are trying to represent. Maybe Faithlife does this and I have not read it but Ed was surprised by what he discovered and I don't think he would be alone in this.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510994#Comment_510994

I haven't looked it up recently, but I seem to recall that this was a comment made to Paul.

That is why the smiley face, George. But my real point was faith (as in FaithLife) is not based on what is seen (like geological strata) but on things not seen (like having to believe God without the scientific method.)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511015#Comment_511015

clearly state somewhere in them the theological persuasion or viewpoint that they are trying to represent

I believe there are other references to this statement in the context of other products. I seem to remember Bob using the phrase "broadly evangelical" ...

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511039#Comment_511039

Forgot to mention. You can find out more about our publishing philosophy for the study Bible here.

Bob Pritchett, our president and CEO, has also written a lengthy explanation of our publishing philosophy here.

The list of contributors to the study Bible can be found here.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510968#Comment_510968

...

Ed, I know it may be jarring at first, but I would encourage you to give thoughtful consideration to the articles you had the opportunity to read. They bring a lot of helpful information to the table that has, until recently, not really been available outside of graduate schools and academic journals.

It doesn't mean its wrong. It only means the tradition you are a part of probably hasn't been exposed to it yet.

Give it a try. I speak from experience when I say it will strengthen your faith, not destroy it.

I appreciate the gentleness of your suggestion, even if it does imply that I'm one of the closed-minded "core group" that frowns upon everything outside. However, the point of my original post (and my apologies for its directness) was specific to the FSB's apparent bias, not to outside views. (And let me reiterate that I am pleased and impressed by the response from John Barry of Logos.)

In reality, I am a proponent of studying the FACTS of all sides of an issue, and testing them where possible (1 John 4:1). And I accept the fact that many good Christian people can disagree on non-essentials ... no problem. I am, however, a bit disappointed how many people focused upon forum protocol instead of the point. But oh well.

[:)]

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511043#Comment_511043

Ed, sorry your outing here has not proved so pleasant. Perhaps if your initial post had been worded more level-headedly...

The Logos forum is populated with Christians of all stripes, and also non-Christians.

There are those who hold to their theological convictions on these forums, and by virtue of their long standing and rapier wit, are able to push the boundaries of logic and civility, and insist on putting their stamp on things.

But if you hear the voice of Logos, and she barks and whimpers, well it isn't equivalent to the voice of the community, much less Logos. You got the voice of Logos from John Barry, an official employee. His response was measured and generally positive.

I, for one, would like to see less of ICC'ish slant in Logos' "broad evangelical" material. I share your concern about the theological and practical effects of some of that material. And, except for your initial overstatement, I quite agree with you, and feel that your feedback was within forum guidelines. One way to proceed next time: if you see something about FSB you feel is slanted one way, maybe it is good to make a specific, positive suggestion about what you would like included, either by email or in the relevant forum. Alternatively, you may want to avoid the resource altogether, and similarly advise those under your charge.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511043#Comment_511043

I am, however, a bit disappointed how many people focused upon forum protocol instead of the point. But oh well.

Ed, assuming from your post count that you are comparatively new to the forums, your disappointment is understandable. Logos tried hard to make the forums work without guidelines, but a few people went so far over the line of acceptable behavior, that Logos implemented guidelines and began deleting objectionable posts or threads. You will note that during the same time period as this thread, another thread was deleted by Logos. It was in the context of trouble, that I chose to warn you of the potential for trouble that you were creating - not intentionally. If it had been intentional, I would have assumed that reminding you of the guidelines would be futile. I was personally pleased that those who persisted in addressing your point both represented multiple opinions and did not cause the thread to devolve.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511050#Comment_511050

Well, I'm always impressed that the pastoral writer completely forgot about ancient language expertise in the bishop/elder job description. Indeed a close reading seems to be suspicious of detail-oriented candidates, instead emphasizing teaching and leading talents. No Logos requirement (software that is).

Let's take a close look at the writer's guidance:

'and foolish questions [Logos pricing], and genealogies [George's age], and contentions [questioning Macs] , and strivings about law [forum rules], stand away from -- for they are unprofitable [don't highlight good sales] and vain [like none of us]'

David Thomas

While the original post may have started with some hyperbole, I appreciate Ed's humility as he has interacted with Forum users and the way he has commended the feedback he received from Logos employee(s). I thank you for drawing my attention to this matter. I often consult with the FSB notes and have developed the skill of filtering viewpoints that are consistent with or contrary to my own conclusions. While I personally am a little to the right of the author of the note in FSB in this text [Douglas Magnum], I can appreciate his attempt to identify what is claimed in Scripture, what it attested in extra-biblical records, and what the archeological finds (to date) seem to support. I have recommended the FSB to some people who view a 6-day creation or global flood as a Litmus test of truth and I would hate for them to disregard the whole work as "liberal lies" just because they disagree with notes on Genesis 6-8.Now I know that when I endorse the FSB I should qualify my endorsement with "while I don't agree with all that the notes claim, the format of a hyperlinked electronic study bible with layers of information is a valuable addition to your faith toolbox."

Ed, thank you for raising an issue that has clarified the way I will continue to recommend the FSB to others.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511134#Comment_511134

I have recommended the FSB to some people who view a 6-day creation or global flood as a Litmus test of truth and I would hate for them to disregard the whole work as "liberal lies" just because they disagree with notes on Genesis 6-8.Now I know that when I endorse the FSB I should qualify my endorsement with "while I don't agree with all that the notes claim, the format of a hyperlinked electronic study bible with layers of information is a valuable addition to your faith toolbox."

I like your recommendation David. I usually tell others that you will not agree with everything but it is a good resource.

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511137#Comment_511137

I usually tell others that you will not agree with everything

Reminds me of a man who worked for me in the Navy whose father was a Seventh Day Baptist Pastor. He would often say, "My dad says that if two people agree on everything, at least one of them is not thinking." I always appreciated that pearl of wisdom. [8-|]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511227#Comment_511227

He would often say, "My dad says that if two people agree on everything, at least one of them is not thinking.

Sound words.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511104#Comment_511104

Let's take a close look at the writer's guidance:

'and foolish questions [Logos pricing], and genealogies [George's age], and contentions [questioning Macs] , and strivings about law [forum rules], stand away from -- for they are unprofitable [don't highlight good sales] and vain [like none of us]'

[:)]