Logos 4: Searching The Apologetics Study Bible

Today’s post is from Morris Proctor, certified and authorized trainer for Logos Bible Software. Morris has trained thousands of Logos users at his two-day Camp Logos training seminars and provides many training materials.

mp|seminars Tips

On a recent televised political debate, one of the candidates referred to the “fact of evolution” followed by condescending remarks toward another candidate who didn’t believe in this “fact of evolution.” After my blood stopped boiling, I thought of Peter’s admonition to always [be] prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you (1 Peter 3:15, ESV). The Greek word translated defense sounds a lot like the English word apologetics which is “simply defined as the defense of the Christian faith” (The Apologetics Study Bible).

To help us make a defense, Logos places within most of its base collections The Apologetics Study Bible. Make sure to open this resource and display its table of contents. After surveying the contents of this study Bible and I think you’ll be very impressed with what you find!

I won’t recount all of the features of this tremendous resource which you can read about at the Logos website, but I will make mention of a few.

First, Logos assigns the type Bible Notes to this resource which means it will show up in the Passage Guide under the Commentaries section. This study Bible is much like a commentary in that the contributors offer comments on numerous passages of Scripture, but their insights are geared toward defending the faith.

In addition to the versified comments, various Twisted Scripture Notes are interspersed throughout the study Bible. These expanded notes again focus on verses of the Bible, but here the author explains how various individuals or groups have incorrectly interpreted or applied the passage. The Passage Guide will also locate the Twisted Scripture Notes for you.

Also, appearing throughout the resource are brief, but very informative articles on numerous subjects related to apologetics such as, Evolution: Fact or Fantasy?, How Can Modern Medicine Relate to the Old Testament?, Does the Bible Teach reincarnation?, etc. Since these articles deal with subjects and not verses, the Commentaries section of the Passage Guide won’t find them for you.

One way to track down these articles is by using a proximity search:

  • Choose Tools | Collections and create an Apologetics Collection making sure to place in it The Apologetics Study Bible
  • Click the Search icon
  • Select Basic at the Search type
  • Click the Search’s panel menu and select Match all word forms
  • Select your new Apologetics Collection from the range drop down list
  • Type a proximity query in the Find box like: reincarnation WITHIN 7 words Bible
  • Press the Enter key to generate the search results

SearchingApologetics1.png

 

SearchingApologetics2.png

The above search query locates all of the places where the words reincarnation and Bible occur within 7 words of each other!

Try other queries like:

  • creation WITHIN 5 words evolution
  • prophecy WITHIN 6 words fulfill
  • age WITHIN 8 words earth

Have you ever had a time when the validity of your faith has been called into question? How has Logos helped you offer a defense for your faith? Leave a comment and let us know!

On Facebook? Join the Discussion

23 Responses to “Logos 4: Searching The Apologetics Study Bible”

  1. Steve Maling September 19, 2011 at 12:00 pm #

    Dear Brother Morris,
    The Logos Forums are not a platform for theological controversy, I had mistakenly assumed the Logos Blog is not, either. Thus, I am disappointed to read your implication that those of us who hold to the Bible as the only rule for faith and life, and who yet perceive no conflict with evolution as the creative means by which God began and sustains creation, are beyond the pale.
    Having said that, I also express profound appreciation for your ministry of helping us Logos students develop greater proficiency with this unparalleled tool for exploring Scripture.
    May the peace of our Lord attend you,
    Steve Maling

    • Derek Boivin September 19, 2011 at 12:12 pm #

      Dear Steve,

      I would disagree that this blog post or its perceived implications is beyond the pale simply because you and some others disagree with the premise of an illustration. Should the standard be that only statements that are universally accepted be usable? Too high a standard, indeed. Also, I do not believe that the statement made within the debate was made with the belief of Jesus Christ, the Giver and Sustainer of life in mind. Therefore, I believe this post to appropriate despite your objection.

    • John S September 20, 2011 at 3:02 am #

      Steve,
      You never really finished saying what you think Morris Proctor was implying. If you truly hold the Bible as the only rule for faith and life, how do you ignore the first chapters of it? The only controversy is those who come in to the faith and want to put their own authority on what Scripture says. What Morris did was not beyond the pale, it was straightforward explanation of the truth. You attacking him here is beyond the pale.

  2. Kevin Taylor September 19, 2011 at 6:19 pm #

    In the hope of providing some degree of conciliatory tone I must say that not only did I watch the same debate and have a similar reaction, but more impotantly I see the connection and relation to 1 Pet 3:15 and the resource in question.

    As Christians we are certainly aware that we may differ along lines of conviction. In examination of the statement made during the debate what we must ask ourselves is who made a statement of offense?

    The offence (if any is to be claimed) was made against the candidate who was convicted of a six day creation by a candidate who embraces evolution (and in a very derogatory manner). In reaction Morris Proctor highlights 1 Pet 3:15 which commands us to be ready to give reason (not to flee) our convictions when pressed.

    He also points to a resource designed to provide such helps. The theme of this post was mounting a defense. Sureley nothing else was implied.

  3. Eddie Tex September 19, 2011 at 11:18 pm #

    Steve,

    I see absolutely no theological controversy with Proctor Morris’ post. Genesis 2:7 and 3:19 state that man is created of dust. Genesis 2:21 state woman is created from man’s rib. Genesis 1:26-27 state man was to be created in God’s image (which was after the creation of all land creatures in vv. 24-25).

    There are many things in the Bible that can be debated. This is not one of them. There is no controversy. There simply is no room for evolution in those verses.

    • Bruce Fraser September 20, 2011 at 7:26 am #

      Re: “There is no controversy. There simply is no room for evolution in those verses.”

      Thank-you, Eddie, for eloquently making Steve’s point. If I can paraphrase your comment, “God created the universe in seven days, exactly as it says in the Bible. God created man and woman exactly as it says in the Bible. Evolution is heresy. Anyone who thinks or believes otherwise is un-Christian.” No, that isn’t what you wrote; but that’s the tone suggested by that kind of argument.

      No controversy? Hardly.

      So the ball is back to Morris Proctor, who got this started.

    • MJ Smith September 20, 2011 at 11:55 am #

      “There are many things in the Bible that can be debated. This is not one of them. There is no controversy. There simply is no room for evolution in those verses.”

      Eddie, I take a slightly different point as important in your post – different than Bruce, that is. Empirically, people can and do debate whether the text of the Bible is compatible with evolution. Theologians have come down on both sides of the issue. Why? because of differences in their beliefs as to how the Bible is best understood.

      Luckily, Logos supplies many theological books and guide to exegesis to allow us to explore why and how there are differences in understanding on how the Bible is understood. It also provides us with the resources to understand how the Bible has been understood historically.

      If Morris Proctor were to do a blog on how to trace exegesis historically, I would be delighted I would even enjoy such a post if he were to illustrate it with a particular example such as the interpretation of creation vs. evolution.

  4. MJ Smith September 20, 2011 at 12:01 am #

    Thank you Steve for pointing out the obvious. I also had assumed that the Logos Blogs would either address the whole Logos community or clearly state their intention to do otherwise. I always feel a bit insulted when posters, official or otherwise, assume that the Logos community is homogenous.

    I would suggest that the appropriate response to a statement with which I disagree is rarely to find a way to refute the view; rather it is to learn why I believe what I believe. If I wished to accept the authority of predigested arguments, I’d have no need for Logos.

    Logos, I think you blew it on this log and offer Eddie’s post as evidence. You opened the door to his clearly theological posting.

  5. JR September 20, 2011 at 8:54 am #

    Morris’ post simply expresses that he is in disagreement with the “fact” of evolution, and his blood boiled at someone calling it that. I don’t believe he suggested anyone was “beyond the pale.” Obviously those who disagree will not likely be interested in the Apologetics Study Bible, while those who do agree may value this resource highly.

    There are other posts which express the value of resources from various other theological positions. I don’t necessarily agree with or even appreciate the availability of some resources that I consider in error. Nonetheless I understand that Logos is making resources available to those of all theological stripes, and that their employees are human and have a theological persuasion of their own, and should be free to express it.

    • MJ Smith September 20, 2011 at 7:47 pm #

      JR -

      Basically I agree with you. My only concern with the original post was that it opened the door to the post by Derek which was clearly outside the bounds intended for the forums. Since there is a forum thread for the blog, I assumed (as did Steve) that the rules of the forums would also apply to the blog. If Logos is to succeed in their effort to broaden their base, they need to minimize the assumption that “everyone” shares a theology in all their communication with the public.

      • MJ Smith September 20, 2011 at 11:31 pm #

        My apologies – I did not mean Derek, I meant Eddie. I was clearly careless when I scrolled back to pick up the name. Derek’s post was clearly appropriate. Unlike the forums there does not appear to be a way to correct my error.

    • Cynthia September 21, 2011 at 10:02 am #

      Having followed this discussion, I have to say this is the most logical and well put comment of all these posts.

      Just saying…

  6. Steve Maling September 20, 2011 at 9:47 am #

    Greetings, Eddie, Bruce, and JR,
    I appreciate your responses.
    After hitting “Submit” [there's got to be a multi-level theological pun bound up with "Submit", a pun with better and worse "applications":-)], anyway, after hitting “Submit” I got to thinking the same thing JR writes in his first sentence.
    Also, I heartily agree with the first two sentences in JR’s second paragraph. I’m a bit uneasy with his final sentence because the duty, let alone freedom to express our theological persuasions calls for a suitable venue. I’m not sure overt proclamation of one’s particular theological understanding is helpful when “making resources available to those of all theological stripes.”
    Would I allow myself to be “hooked” in the future by what I took to be the implication of Morris’ statement? Probably, because of the point made by Eddie and paraphrased by Bruce. In the current cultural climate it seems I’m not the only one who is a tad “touchy” (present company excepted). Hence, I try to find ways to enter into conversation that might contribute to greater understanding with folks I don’t get to talk with very often, either virtually or physically.
    Grace, mercy, and peace all around,
    Steve

  7. Robert Volk September 20, 2011 at 9:50 am #

    You can certainly be saved by believing in evolution as the bible states in Romans 10:9

    It is not an issue of who is a Christian and who is not a Christian; it is an authority issue. God does not give us dominion or authority over His word. We should not add to it, or take away from it.

    There is absolutly nothing in the bible which supports evolution; either millions of years or ape to man. Evolution is a philosophy based on human opinion.

    Here is the point: if Genesis is wrong, then why should I believe the rest of it?

  8. Derek Boivin September 20, 2011 at 8:52 pm #

    MJ – I fail to see how my post was “clearly outside of the bounds intended for the forums”. I simply disagreed that Morris’ blog was beyond the pale and explained why without being Theologically biased – which was your complaint about Eddie’s post. Since You obviously disagree with my viewpoint but would you care to explain how I am clearly out of bounds? Because it is not clear to me.

    • MJ Smith September 20, 2011 at 11:33 pm #

      My apologies – I did not mean Derek, I meant Eddie. Thanks for pointing out my error in a polite and civil manner – I blew it here.

  9. Kevin Taylor September 21, 2011 at 12:05 am #

    With all due respect to any who may read this post I am having a tough time digesting the suggestion that alluding to a conviction of ex nihilo creation in a literal seven days as controversial or polemic. This is the historic view held as truth within Christendom as a whole.

    Logos as a company does not seek to facilitate or incite theological debate and I get that. Their role is a provider of electronic resources to enhance the study of God’s Word to all who seek it despite dogmatic allegiences.

    What needs to be thought through here is what constitutes controversy. Is it controversial to refer to creation? Should we as Christians adopt the policies of neutralizing any term or concept that might be in aught with another’s view?If so, can we even have a conversation about God, Christ or the Bible in even the most basic sense?

    I say if this is the order of the day then we cannot say even the most mundane statement for fear that some one might be offended. Is there any greater offense than the scriptures themselves when God is not apologetic in His framing of reality?

    I am not suggesting that we seek to be divisive but seriously, there are just somethings you cannot remove from a Christian environment (and should not have to): the Deity of Christ, innerancy of scripture, sin and yes even creation and origins.

    It concerns me that for sake of offense free zones that nothing can be said of even the most BASIC historic tenets of the faith. Let the politicians and governments have their political correctness, “tolerence” and censure of ideas. We as believers are more noble than these….

  10. MJ Smith September 21, 2011 at 5:59 pm #

    Kevin,

    What concerns me is that in the Logos environment many posters appear to have a very insular view of what “Basic Christian beliefs” are. As a result they appear to exclude the vast majority of Christianity – historical and contemporary. When people feel excluded they are more likely to fight back or to change to a software package that they view as more friendly.

    While I believe that Morris Proctor should have prefaced his remarks with a comment about the theological bias of the Apologetics Study Bible, I am not concerned by his remarks per se. MP as an author, teacher and preacher has made his theological position readily available.

    What I am concerned about is that it provided a platform for others to write “There are many things in the Bible that can be debated. This is not one of them. There is no controversy. There simply is no room for evolution in those verses.” This type of statement is obviously false – empirically it is debated and the author’s position is the minority position. It is this type of “I’m right. You’re wrong. End of discussion.” is precisely what makes people feel excluded.
    It also puts the “in-group” in a poor light – I know a 90+-year-old who has a “crisis of faith” because their years in a small town fundamentalist church had too much of this type of thinking. It left the person unable to discuss their position reasonably when confronted with a broad range of beliefs in a nursing home.
    One of the strengths of software like Logos is that it makes it possible for the user to be introduced to others’ beliefs and consider them in a non-defensive way. To myself that’s ideal – it allows a refining of my own understanding AND a well considered apologetic. I want others to experience that growth rather than others leaving for more friendly software forums.

  11. MJ Smith September 21, 2011 at 6:19 pm #

    Kevin wrote:
    With all due respect to any who may read this post I am having a tough time digesting the suggestion that alluding to a conviction of ex nihilo creation in a literal seven days as controversial or polemic. This is the historic view held as truth within Christendom as a whole.

    Eddie wrote:
    There are many things in the Bible that can be debated. This is not one of them. There is no controversy. There simply is no room for evolution in those verses.

    Kevin, you are absolutely right that alluding to one’s convictions is and should be okay. However, Eddie overstepped – whether or not evolution is compatible with Scripture ia, in fact, debated.

    There are several effects of his statement. Important to this dicussion:
    1. It sounds like a “I’m right. You’re wrong. End of discussion.” position which makes those in the wrong category feel excluded in the blog/forum. People who feel excluded leave or push back.
    2. It fails to show Logos’ strength of allowing us to learn others’ position and in the process refine our own beliefs and improve our apologetics.

    The problem is not with the assertion of the posters’ beliefs; the problem is with the dismissal of other views – especially when there is no indication that they are understood.

  12. Kevin O'Malley September 22, 2011 at 3:28 am #

    Gee… am I missing the point regarding Morris Proctors blog? Is he not telling a story of what motivated him to teach many of us a technique on how to search The Apologetic Study Bible? Where does a statement like “a platform for theological controversy” come from? That comment boggles the mind. Before I became a Christian, it was a lot easier to just slap a person on the side of the head and say, “What are you thinking.”

    It’s all about the technique brother.
    In His Love, naturally.

    Kevin

  13. Matthew C Jones September 22, 2011 at 9:52 am #

    This is all quite silly, everyone. This is LogosTalk (a blog whose purpose is to highlight Logos related news and products. If you don’t like Apologetics just ignore this article. When Andrew Jones writes about Catholic resources Logos is publishing we had a different set of complainers. Same happened when Mark Driscoll’s material was discussed. The very fact everyone is taking offense at what Morris has stated about the “fact of evolution” only goes to show how intolerant the “tolerant” people have become. I saw no objection to all the historical Jesus material Logos published. (You know, the other stuff that questions the reliability of the Bible…) Whoever decides what to publish at Logos is more open-minded than everyone else posting here today, myself included.

  14. Scot Hill September 24, 2011 at 3:56 am #

    Morris,

    Thanks for the reminder of how to do a proximity search of a particular resource or across a collection. Even as a long time Logos user, there are many techniques that I forget if I don’t use them regularly.
    I appreciate your demonstration of how a real life situation generated an answerable question. (What does the Apologetics Study Bible have to say about evolution/creationism) After defining the question, you formulated and executed a search methodology. This is an excellent teaching technique that highlights the utility of LBS. The fact that others wished you had asked a different question, held a different set of assumptions, searched other material or used a different methodology seems to miss the point.
    If blog contributors would like to present some alternative views on the subject of the search, perhaps they could share with the class their search/study methodology and the resources that have been formative for their view. We could all learn from such an exchange.

  15. Ian Carmichael September 26, 2011 at 2:20 am #

    Thanks Matthew
    Well… I think the main point of the blog was in the apologetics use of Logos. (I hope all you guys up there made use of the tools Logos supplied – but it sounds more like everyone has knee-jerked to their preferred position. But, I suppose when we all know the answer to the question, we don’t need to do any reference work on it!)
    Of course, your answers in apologetics will not depend so much on your search query. It will depend more on the contents of the library you are searching. No being blessed with a Logos Edition including the Apologetics Study Bible, I can’t evaluate the scope, focus or biases of its contents.
    In any case, I appreciate the purpose and intention behind Morris’s post.