Is Logos 4 theologically biased?

Just wondering about the L4 theology. I have not purchased L4 and I need this question answered before purchase. My question is this, is there a theological position the programmers have that is influencing the out come of a search in L4.  I have heard it said, "Water tastes like the hose pipe you drink out of".  Let me explain. My concern is that if a programmer has a Calvinistic (or any other) theological convictions, would that come out when doing a search on "eternal security"?    Does a programmer tell the computer how to respond to a search? How do we know we are getting all sides of an issue? Do the resources available have a balanced perspective on issues of theology? I expect this kind of slant from a commentary. Can a computer software be netrual when programmed by a human?

have been a user of Logos starting on ver.1.6 I love the product but I have a concern that the Word of God may be transitioning out of the hands of the Holy Spirit into the hands of some great and well meaning programmers.

Any validity to these concerns?

 

I'm quite sure that programmers have some theological convictions. Being without a theological conviction is like trying to have a day without weather. It's just not possible. The bigger question would be do these convictions have any impact on how the Bible is studied, or the material is presented. 

I'm not sure how you would test your hypothesis.

But the assertion has
been made before that Logos seems to cater to North American
Evangelicals. This is probably true, at least to the extent that this
is their primary user base, and drives much of their decisions about
which resources to publish. That being said, they are intentionally
expanding their resource collection to include materials from other
Christian streams.

Your question on "eternal security" is one I can speak to a bit, by explaining what the search results would be. If I search a Bible for "eternal security" (in quotes)I get zero hits. If I enter the same without quotes, most Bibles return zero hits, the ESV returns one verse Heb 9:12, where Jesus, enters the holy places by His blood "thus securing an eternal redemption." This is because "securing" is close enough to "security" that the result is shown. Clearly this is a programmatic outcome, not a theological judgment. As a Calvinist, I wouldn't point to this scripture as the first place to go, let alone the only one, to argue for this doctrinal point.

You could do a search for "eternal security" in the non-Bible resources and come up with dozens of hits, but that's not what you're asking about. If a topical Bible has a section on eternal security, it would be the theological bias of the authors of that resource we should discuss, not whether or not Logos finds the entry in the resource.

In short, I don't think your concern has much ground to stand on -- at least as concerns Logos.

Just wondering about the L4 theology. I have not purchased L4 and I need this question answered before purchase. My question is this, is there a theological position the programmers have that is influencing the out come of a search in L4.  I have heard it said, "Water tastes like the hose pipe you drink out of".  Let me explain. My concern is that if a programmer has a Calvinistic (or any other) theological convictions, would that come out when doing a search on "eternal security"?

Just echoing your thoughts in a different way: in Zondervan's Glo software, it seems clear that they designed it more around a premill/dispensationalist view point, by the sheer fact that the related terms in their constellation catered to that view (rapture, etc).  Not that those SHOULDN'T be there, but that other related terms would NOT be there, that would be more in line with Amill, Postmill, etc.

That said, I am not Calvinist--in regard to a particular perspective on predestination and election--and i use Logos all the time.  For nearly a decade.  But I feel my resolve crumbling . . . (that was humor).  I love the software and I recommend your purchase it.  If anything, if you notice that the technology veers toward a particular persuasion, you can make comments on this forum and often, they are heard and addressed.

i realize that my last post is not carefully enough written . . . it may seem like I am making leaps in logic.  No, just poorly written in some parts.  But after posting, I see Richard makes the point that programmers could limit WHAT content is searched.  Now, he may be referring to what resources are available. If that is so, I am not too worried about that with Logos, either.  But again, if programmers make decisions on how we can search topically (what connects with what) they may (unintentionally) combine or exclude terms/topics based on theology.

I haven't yet noticed that within Logos, but it would be possible.

I have a concern that the Word of God may be transitioning out of the hands of the Holy Spirit into the hands of some great and well meaning programmers.

Any validity to these concerns?

It is not the great and well meaning programmers that you should be concerned about. It is the user who believes that they know more than they really do - reading commentary excerpts without understanding the author's use of terms, the taking of syntax diagrams as established fact without understanding why there is controversy ... In short readers are still readers with the same shortcomings as always. Perhaps magnified a bit.

Logos resources show a primary focus on non-liturgical traditions using what I have nicknamed the NAP canon (North American Protestant). However, within the program functions this is much less true than it was a few years ago. Logos as you actually use it, should reflect your own theological biases - as you set the priorities, build your library, add your notes Logos shows you first the items you have chosen with their theological bias. Forget about programmers - it is use who most strongly affects the bias of Logos.

Note: this is written from the perspective of one from a liturgical tradition using an expanded canon.

In a Scholar package with all available Galaxie journals (some 1600 resources) try running a search on Paul Tillich or Christian Existentialism...

Logos did not publish the Galaxie Journals. 

And even this only shows the interest of publishers, not a bias from Logos.  Any publisher can use the Logos system if they choose.

Dag nabbit, what IS IT with these backwoods Publishers and their stubborn ways?  In all seriousness, i wonder what is the hesitancy to use Logos more for their publications.  Afraid of not getting as big a cut?  Wanting to do their own technology?  Maybe call it Pradis, or something?

[8o|]

[;)]

In terms of back-wood publishers money is money for a three volume systematic (well over $100 prepub I think) for Tillich without regard to how one feels toward the theologian..diversity of opinion does not mean agreement especially when a profit is to be made.

not sure what you mean here.  you mean that Logos is asking too much?  Or that the publishers want to ask too much, so Logos won't get them published?