• Can we get a version of the NIV specifically of the 1984 revision and not of the 2011 revision?
    1. No, publisher restriction.
    2. I'm with you, David. It's ridiculous that Zondervan would force this restriction. Not only do I not prefer the gender neutral language, but it stinks when it doesn't match my physical NIV that I actually use to teach from when I get to class.
    3. I just got the 1984 NIV from another Bible software provider. I had to purchase the 2011 NIV and then they added the 1984 to my account. Is there any reason Faithlife could not do the same thing?
  • Any resource which purports to be about the historic creeds and confessions but leaves out the Augustana and Luther's Small Catechism is terribly lacking in reach and in context.
    1. Is the fourth volume not included because it is an index volume?
      1. It's a great product, I love it, but I have the hardbound physical copy. On that note, why does this cost more than the physical product on Amazon?
        1. Because this version is combined with all the other benefits of Logos. With a physical copy, you have to find it by hand (an excellent practice, to be sure, but not always beneficial at every time). With the Logos edition, you can type the word right into it (or click to go straight there in Bible Word Study). In addition, you can copy and paste, and all the other benefits that come with a digital edition.
      2. I own the print version and it is a very useful resource to maintain short daily practice in the Biblical Languages. This won't turn you into an expert, but you keep thinking in the original text. The pairing with the Book of Concord is nice, especially for Lutherans, but will benefit most other denominations as well.
        1. This is a very expansive collection, but I would have appreciated some more resources dedicated to comparing the LDS faith with that of orthodox Christianity.
          1. "apologists and students of world religions" hardly sounds inclusive. It's clearly putting Mormons in the category of "other" faiths.
          2. May I quote Logos: "At the turn of nineteenth-century came America's second Great Awakening. Out of the ashes of this second awakening arose what would eventually become one of America's largest and somewhat controversial churches". These churches didn't come out of the ashes of the second great awakening. They lead people astray. This seems, in my opinion, to legitimize them. You disagree. Cool. People don't always see eye to eye, and my main point is LOGOS has moved from their traditional roots as an evangelical ministry, when they were libronix to a very FOR PROFIT business asking far more money for their resources than competitors. And I have spent thousands and still do but see their slow shift away like many great universities and other organizations. Maybe you can't see it. Again we can disagree.
          3. To say they arose out of the ashes of the Second Great Awakening is not a flattering statement. During the late 19th century, traveling preachers crisscrossed the nation with tent revival meetings. They would blow into town, hold some meetings for a few days then blow out of town as fast as they had come. The problem was that many people who made a decision for Christ (or made some sort of decision) received little or no biblical instruction and were often not pointed to any churches. Some areas had too few churches to meet the demand stirred up by some "revivals" which were often more about decisions than disciples. In western and central New York was an area called the "burned over district". So many preachers had blown through it was like a forest being depleted of fire wood. Charles Finney coined the term saying that the "burnt district" had been so heavily evangelized there was no more "fuel". Also in this same area were a number of other groups experimenting with new approaches to religion including Shakers, perfectionists, the Oneida Society and a variety of spiritualists. With so little biblical instruction the environment was ripe for theological error and blatant false teaching. After some years (I forget exactly how long) from these "ashes" of the burned over district in New York arose Mormonism (and Jehovah's Witnesses). Logos' description is no endorsement, but a succinct statement of exactly where Mormonism came from. (Depending on what resources you have in your library, do a search on "burned over district" (in quotes) and you may find some interesting reading.) So, on that note it seems there was simply a misunderstanding. Separately, I, too, have become a little uncomfortable with Logos' business model and marketing but that has nothing to do with this resource. The opportunity to get this many source documents at community pricing for Mormon apologetics is great.