DID you notice that the collection you suggested "DOES NOT HAVE THE KJV in it?
That is the ONLY one that I would want to make sure is absolutely included.
And it is MISSING
Wayne levi Price:DID you notice that the collection you suggested "DOES NOT HAVE THE KJV in it?
Free version 7 Basic and Verbum Basic include KJV with Reverse Interlinear tagging so can use visual filters to "see" range of Greek verbal expression.
By the way, this KJV text is a "she" version in Ruth 3:15
FYI: since introductory Logos 8 & Verbum 8 promotion ends on Thu 7 Feb, humanly not know what change(s) are coming for free Basic and Verbum Basic next month.
Keep Smiling
Logos Wiki Logos 8 Beta Free Support
Someone want to explain to me why possible contents of L8 libraries is being discussed under L4?
Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."
My installation of Logos 8 has three versions of the KJV text, and I believe they are the same three versions that have been in the software since Logos 4.0 days, namely the Cambridge Paragraph, the 1900 Cambridge, and the 1769 KJV that has been in Logos since the beginning.
I will fully admit that I don't know the exact details about which ones are still for sale, are included in new base packages, or have all the tagging for the fancy Logos features.
But the most recent version of Logos certainly appears to "allow you to have the older KJV Bible."
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Orthodox Silver, Lutheran Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
In the New packages for new people, they will not be able to get the Original KJV one -1769, they do not even show it on the Logos.com website anymore. THey only show the 1900. They are slowly dissolving the Standard KJV icon to blend the powerful name with appendages like 1900, New King James, and many others you can see on the internet like American King James, King James 2000 and many more.
Wayne levi Price: In the New packages for new people, they will not be able to get the Original KJV one -1769, they do not even show it on the Logos.com website anymore. THey only show the 1900. They are slowly dissolving the Standard KJV icon to blend the powerful name with appendages like 1900, New King James, and many others you can see on the internet like American King James, King James 2000 and many more.
It does seem a bit bizarre. Maybe they're trying to push the Heiser 1879 Cambridge RI.
What I get tired of, is them changing resources I own and no communication. Luckily, Libby (Libronix) keeps the oldie; thank you Libby!. In this case, the 1769 with Strongs, to include the interesting morph coding, OT included. The current one is stripped but they forgot to change the resource info.
"I didn't know God made honky tonk angels."
MJ. Smith: Someone want to explain to me why possible contents of L8 libraries is being discussed under L4?
Deaf ears Martha?
tootle pip
Mike
How to get logs and post them.
That is a simple answer, my friend.
When doing a google search for Bible versions, the link to this forum and string pope up.
I have had Logos since Libby myself. What are you referring to when you say 1769 with strongs to include the Morph coding? I want to see if I have that?? Are you referring to the KJV The original?
Wayne levi Price: I have had Logos since Libby myself. What are you referring to when you say 1769 with strongs to include the Morph coding? I want to see if I have that?? Are you referring to the KJV The original?
I'm not a KJV person, so I'm just repeating. As I understand it, the closest original Logos might choose would be the 1611 (which I think is unreadable?). The 1769 might have been the first 'practical' KJV for modern users? Like KSFJ above, I hope for the Bishops.
I also don't know the history of the Logos 1769 KJV. It's an interlinear. English, Strongs lexeme numbers, and verbal morph numbers (if you remember them). The resource was titled 'The King James Version' (the 1900 one didn't have 'The). The verbal morphs came from Pierce (Woodside Bible Fellowship). The last update was 2011-11 (Libby version).
My guess is, like much of Logos' work, they got lazy. NAS also had a Strongs interlinear. In their updated NAS they retained the Strongs, but not the updated version. (as also the 1900 KJV RI).
Hey Wayne, I'm curious. The original post was asking what's the difference between all the KJVs in Logos and which one is the right one. Do you think the 1769 is the right one and not the Pure Cambridge 1900 and if so why? I've read the info linked in earlier posts that was arguing for the 1900. What's the argument for the 1769?
I'm not KJV-only but I'm just curious to know what people think about that and what makes a KJV the right KJV.
Kiyah: ... I'm not KJV-only but I'm just curious to know what people think about that and what makes a KJV the right KJV.
... I'm not KJV-only but I'm just curious to know what people think about that and what makes a KJV the right KJV.
While we're waiting for Wayne, as above I'm not a KJV'er. But I am interested in 'theological' translation (why MJ and I get tangled up on the Logos Bible Sense tool). Ezra 5:1 is a random example. The 1769 and 1900 KJVs are the same. But if you track forward from 1382 (Wycliffe1), you'll see their treatments shift (in this example, unimportantly). The missing pieces in comparisons like this are the Bishops and 1611 KJV. By the time of the ISV, as an example, the translation is pretty much a disaster. I could select other examples.
Wayne levi Price: In the New packages for new people, they will not be able to get the Original KJV one -1769...
In the New packages for new people, they will not be able to get the Original KJV one -1769...