FSB should be called the FaithLESS Study Bible

Deleted by user

Jack Caviness said:

MJ. Smith said:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Super Tramp said:

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.

George Somsel said:

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.)

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.

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]'

Jack Caviness said:

Lynden Williams said:

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-|]

I absolutely agree with you 100%.  [;)]  [:D]  [:P]