Writing a Paper on Romans 8:1-17

Hello,I am supposed to write a paper on Romans 8:1-17. I would like to get a few hints and/or links of tutorials/youtube videos on gathering information for writing a paper/bibliography.
What would be the role of notes and/or clippings in this process?
Thanks for sharing your experience on this.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

JT (alabama24)

I didn't have Logos while I was in seminary... but I am a "highlighter." If I were writing a paper that required extensive reading of outside sources, I would read the books / articles / relevant material and make highlights of the things that pop out to me (related to the topic). I would then go through and skim those sources, and make clippings of "the best stuff." I would use that clipping document to find appropriate quotes and citations.

Some might suggest this system is redundant... and it is. I happen to like the redundancy because I learn better that way. I like to interact with the material, and this method allows me to do that.

Paulo Bechara

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/723902#Comment_723902

I am right now highlighting in logos and directing everything highlighted to a specific note file.Thanks Alabama for sharing your experience on this.

Jacob Cerone

Here's an introductory video on taking notes in Logos and the ability to attach notes to multiple places. This would be good if you already have a structure for your paper identified. You could start a note labeled "Historical Background" and start adding attachment points to your commentaries at places where they discuss the Historical Background of your text.

Clippings are also very helpful. Like Alabama said, you can use clippings for quotations you think you will use in your paper. They link back to the exact place you found them in the commentary, can be annotated, and provide full citation information, making it easy to transition from note taking to paper writing and citation.

James Chandler

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/723912#Comment_723912

Thanks for the video.

Paulo Bechara

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/723912#Comment_723912

Thanks Jacob

Lew Worthington

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/723902#Comment_723902

I didn't have Logos while I was in seminary... but I am a "highlighter." If I were writing a paper that required extensive reading of outside sources, I would read the books / articles / relevant material and make highlights of the things that pop out to me (related to the topic). I would then go through and skim those sources, and make clippings of "the best stuff." I would use that clipping document to find appropriate quotes and citations.

Some might suggest this system is redundant... and it is. I happen to like the redundancy because I learn better that way. I like to interact with the material, and this method allows me to do that.

This also forms a big part of the method I used. I also did not have Logos until late in grad school, but the same principles apply. I would add just a couple items to the process. (And, BTW, the OP didn't mention what the objectives of the paper are, so I'll assume he's supposed to write an "exegetical" paper.)

First, as I would read sources, I would develop my own ideas and add my notes (whether they were just snippets of thought or complete ideas) to my pile of "clippings".

Eventually, from reading and thinking, a solid thesis would develop. I organized my thoughts in such a way that a coherent outline could be produced. It is into the specific points of the outline that I associated the "clippings" from my reading and thinking.

Finally, I write the paper from this annotated outline. Instant paper! This method served me whether writing a 5 page essay, a 30 page analysis, or a 300 page project.

I'll add one more thing, and if this is too abstract, you can ignore it. When first researching a paper, I would recommend looking at the Scripture passage inductively. That is, read the text to see what relevant points emerge. Don't try to "prove" anything yet. You'll develop a thesis from your observations and readings. Then, when your thesis is formed, you'll need to work on proving your thesis. This is when your research turns to a deductive approach. Deduction, when applied to writing exegetical papers, is the process of finding other passages (biblical or secondary) that support your idea.

OK, I've probably said enough to confuse the matter. But this is the basic method I used and I would ask my students to follow this pattern, too.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/723915#Comment_723915

I'll add one more thing, and if this is too abstract, you can ignore it. When first researching a paper, I would recommend looking at the Scripture passage inductively. That is, read the text to see what relevant points emerge. Don't try to "prove" anything yet. You'll develop a thesis from your observations and readings. Then, when your thesis is formed, you'll need to work on proving your thesis. This is when your research turns to a deductive approach. Deduction, when applied to writing exegetical papers, is the process of finding other passages (biblical or secondary) that support your idea.

Lew, perhaps with your background you can explain something to me - the use of inductive /deductive distinction as "you guys" use it in exegesis. To me one starts with the text itself and what one can deduce using the text only. One then moves to inductive reasoning to discover the inferences of the passage. One finishes with defeasible reasoning to paint the "whole picture" Obviously I'm over simplifying but I think you'll understand. So why is there the emphasis on starting with inductive study which to me doesn't appear to be inductive?

Lew Worthington

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/723927#Comment_723927

Lew, perhaps with your background you can explain something to me - the use of inductive /deductive distinction as "you guys" use it in exegesis. To me one starts with the text itself and what one can deduce using the text only. One then moves to inductive reasoning to discover the inferences of the passage. One finishes with defeasible reasoning to paint the "whole picture" Obviously I'm over simplifying but I think you'll understand. So why is there the emphasis on starting with inductive study which to me doesn't appear to be inductive?

As I use the terms, inductive reasoning makes generalizations based on specific cases. As used in exegesis (or any kind of literary analysis), you might see (for example) that Jesus uses if/(then) statements many times in the gospel of John. This conclusion is based on numerous specific cases you've observed (John 5:31, 5:43b, etc.). You might make a hypothesis (the "generalization" referred to above) that every time such conditionals are used in John, it's on the lips of Jesus. So, to prove that, you go "mining" for evidence that supports that hypothesis. So here, you turn to deductive reasoning where you start with the generalized statement and see how it applies to specific cases. In the application of deduction, you're not seeking to see what generalization emerges from your study, but you're seeing how your generalization is supported by specific cases.

Too often I see folks advocate "inductive Bible study" in such a way the makes deductive study an incorrect approach. Indeed, if one begins with generalized statements without a prior open-eyed study, then it can boil down to proof-texting. But after an inductive study, it's helpful to turn to deductive reasoning to test one's hypothesis.

That's how I see it, anyway. [:)]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/723938#Comment_723938

Thank you - you're the first person to explain why inductive study is called inductive. I've seen several over-simplified methods called "inductive" that I'd failed to understand what inductive meant.

Chuck

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/723938#Comment_723938

Lew, I appreciated learning from your experience as I write this exegetical paper. I was also useful to see your explanation of MJ's question. Many thanks.