John T Reagan
- The CSB is a revision of the HCSB. For me it was a step downward. In the Old Testament the Hebrew name for God is "YHWH" or Yahweh. Traditionally it has been translated "the Lord" turning it into a title instead of a name and changing the way we learn to relate to God as we read the Bible. One of the best features of the HCSB is that it often translates YHWH as Yahweh. I really appreciated that. The CSB took that feature out of the translation, returning to the traditional "the Lord". I don't read the CSB for that reason. However, there is no question that the HCSB needed some revision. For instance, the Greek word "doulos" (sp?) is consistently translated as slave, which is not inaccurate, but, at least in my thinking, presents a false connotation in the mind of the modern reader. "Servant" is usually a better rendering, depending on context. I understand that the CSB corrected that. I have noticed several places where I felt the translators got carried away and let their own interpretations slip into the text. For instance, when Peter showed Jesus a sword He responded with, "It is enough." The HCSB translators rendered it, "That's enough!", turning it into a rebuke. I think they let their pacifist tendencies influence them. Things like that need to be fixed without deleting the use of the Lord's name when appropriate. One note: When I first complained about this a couple of years ago another commenter pointed me to the LEB translation that consistently uses "Yahweh" when translating YHWH. I've used it some since and find it to be a very good translation.
- It seems that every time I dig into a magazine article or book about Biblical archaeology I find myself having to wade through page after page of conclusions derived from an unbelieving worldview. What I mean by that is that so many "Biblical archaeologists" don't begin their analysis from a belief that the scriptures are true and that all evidence should be weighed by that standard. Instead I hear writers questioning the truth of the Exodus, wondering if King David actually existed and other similar unbelieving foolishness. I have an intense interest in history and archaeology, but it has gotten to the point that I simply avoid the topic. I'm tired of weeding my way through it. So, here is my question: Does this encyclopedia weed out that kind of false thinking and begin from the foundation of a belief in the verity of the scriptures?
- Well said John! I'm also tired of the puerile drivel served up by unbelievers. I don't know much about this particular book but I note that one of the editors is Shimon Gibson. A VERY liberal Jewish friend of mine is a friend of his and he speaks in glowing terms of Shimon. To me that speaks volumes. As far as a Christian perspective I'm enjoying the Lexham Geographic commentary on the Gospels and there's one on Acts to Rev. coming out soon. They give good detail on sites, as far as they go. Logos has, "Jesus and His world, the archaeological evidence" coming out soon. One man I was very impressed by is Menashe Har-El, a Jewish professor of Biblical Geography at Tel Avvi University. His book "Landscape, Nature and man" is a treasure trove of information by a man who has walked throughout the Holy Land & taught his students on site. At least he believes the Biblical texts...in fact he has proved them to be highly accurate on a number of points. Whilst that work & the Lexham Geographical volumes are not strictly archaeological works, they do cover some of that ground and are well worth a read. Hope this is helpful. Blessings.
- David, Thanks for the thoughts and suggestions. I checked out the resources you suggested and will be getting some of them soon. The book Landscape, Nature and Man isn't available on either Logos or Amazon. How does one obtain it? It's refreshing to know that someone else shares my concern about unbelieving based archaeology.
- Wow! I agree with the other comments -- this book isn't Christian at all. It begins with the assumption that the Big Bang theories and Darwinism are facts. No room for Intelligent Design or instant creation. No acknowledgement that in Christian circles there are alternate points of view. To bill his book as a primer for someone wanting to know about Christianity seems to be a deliberately crafted deception. He is presenting only one point of view. Why is Logos publishing this book? I know it's important to keep the Logos library open to the full span of Christian theology, but this book seems to fall outside that criteria.
- What an undertaking! Logos, you're doing a great job. Wish it was in my budget. For now it will go in my wishlist.
- Rather than write a review I want to ask a question. How relevant is a book written about Ancient Egypt in the mid-nineteenth century to us now? I'm not asking this critically. I just started reading this book but that question seems unavoidable to me. Anyone have some insight on this?
- So, how is this different from the commentary by the same authors that is already in my Logos library?
- This is the complete unabridged commentary. The other resource is a condensed version contained in a single volume. www.logos.com/product/720/commentary-critical-and-explanatory-on-the-whole-bibleCommentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole BibleSince its publication in the late nineteenth-century, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible—also known as the JFB—has earned a reputation as a trustworthy, conservative, practical, and altogether invaluable Bible study tool. C.H. Spurgeon once noted of the commentary that “It contains so great a variety of information that if a man had no other exposition he would find himself at no great loss if he possessed and used it diligently.”www.logos.com
- I just bid on the community pricing for the unabridged version. I use the small one that is in my library all the time and have come to appreciate what they say. As with all older works like this one has to stay aware of their late nineteenth century mindsets. They also are quite Calvinist, but that doesn't seem to get in the way most of the time. I think it will be good when they get the unabridged version done.