BHS and BHW

Page 1 of 2 (25 items) 1 2 Next >
This post has 24 Replies | 4 Followers

Posts 342
Stephen Miller | Forum Activity | Posted: Mon, Feb 10 2014 3:36 AM

I usually use BHW for Hebrew work (partly because i paid a bit extra to get it at some stage).

I noticed yesterday that if I have both BHS and BHW open together on the screen and highlight a passage in one, the same passage is automatically highlighted in the other.

(I had to try some Greek texts and found it works there as well...... perhaps i am just a bot slow)

But what I would like to know is in practice what are the differences between BHW and BHS.

1.  One difference i note is that in the print menu the OT books appear in Hebrew in BHW but in English in BHS.

2. This one is strange and should be changed. The lemma morph searches in one cannot be automatically searched in the other.  BHW uses only lower case, such as    lemma:שָׁמַיִם@ncmpa,  but BHS uses upper case, such as    lemma:שָׁמַיִם@NCMPA and lower case.

Any other differences?

Stephen Miller

Sydney, Australia

Posts 9946
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Feb 10 2014 7:18 AM

Stephen Miller:

I usually use BHW for Hebrew work (partly because i paid a bit extra to get it at some stage).

I noticed yesterday that if I have both BHS and BHW open together on the screen and highlight a passage in one, the same passage is automatically highlighted in the other.

(I had to try some Greek texts and found it works there as well...... perhaps i am just a bot slow)

But what I would like to know is in practice what are the differences between BHW and BHS.

1.  One difference i note is that in the print menu the OT books appear in Hebrew in BHW but in English in BHS.

2. This one is strange and should be changed. The lemma morph searches in one cannot be automatically searched in the other.  BHW uses only lower case, such as    lemma:שָׁמַיִם@ncmpa,  but BHS uses upper case, such as    lemma:שָׁמַיִם@NCMPA and lower case.

Any other differences?

Stephen Miller

Sydney, Australia

My understanding is that there are some textual differences though I don't know offhand what they are.  Vincent Setterholm might be able to tell you if you desperately want to know.  Smile

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 4625
RIP
Milford Charles Murray | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Feb 10 2014 9:54 AM

Peace, Stephen!            *smile*

                    Are you using the new 4.18 yet?              http://blog.logos.com/?s=4.18

Philippians 4:  4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........

Posts 1599
Ken McGuire | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Feb 10 2014 11:17 AM

Stephen Miller:
I noticed yesterday that if I have both BHS and BHW open together on the screen and highlight a passage in one, the same passage is automatically highlighted in the other.

This is Logos' "Sympathetic Highlighting" feature.  It also works with English bibles that have RI back to the original language.  I suppose it would also work with LXX and Spanish bibles with RI's, but have not tried it out...

Stephen Miller:
But what I would like to know is in practice what are the differences between BHW and BHS.

BHW is the text used for the Westminster morphology.  It, like just about all Hebrew Bibles is based on the same medieval manuscripts.  But my understanding is that as time went by, the Westminster group choose to read it a bit differently than the BHS.  Yet for a long time Logos still called it "BHS".  With the new 4.18 version, they made it clear that it isn't exactly BHS anymore.

And so to some extent you question depends on what you mean by BHS.  If you mean the BHS you can get in book form, a few of the web pages like http://www.wts.edu/resources/alangroves/grovesprojects.html give some of the history of BHW and how it came to diverge.  I am not aware of a specific list of changes, however.  If you mean by BHS something called by Logos BHS, it depends on which text.  In my library I have 5 BHS's, as well as BHW.  Four of the "BHS's" are older versions of the Westminster text, and the other is WIVU.  In addition there is the "real" BHS in the Stutgart electronic reference collection.

It would be helpful if Logos were to come up with an updated page describing the features of their various texts...

SDG

Ken McGuire

The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann

Posts 4763
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Feb 10 2014 11:45 AM

Ken McGuire:

It would be helpful if Logos were to come up with an updated page describing the features of their various texts...

Yes, I agree. This may not be a big deal in the grand scope, but if I quote the BHS from my Logos library, and it really isn't BHS and I get called on it, that would really perturb me. So, if there is in fact this jumble of kosher alphabet soups where the BH_ is concerned, I'd like to get squared away on what I actually have. I'm asking for clarity.

Posts 24926
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Feb 10 2014 12:24 PM

David Paul:
I'm asking for clarity.

This might help --> http://community.logos.com/forums/t/75645.aspx

Dave
===

Windows & Android

Posts 433
Vincent Setterholm | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Feb 10 2014 1:38 PM

The rundown is this: version 1 of the Westminster database was basically the BHS. Being the first edition, there may have been some transcription errors, but the goal of that edition was to faithfully reproduce the text of the BHS. Starting at version 2, however, the goal shifted to being an accurate transcription of the manuscript that BHS is based on, Codex Leningradensis (L). But with every edition of L, including BHS, editors make choices about whether or not to preserve things that look like mistakes in this single manuscript or to correct them. At times, the Westminster database made different decisions than the BHS editors both on when to correct L and at times, how to read L (in difficult-to-read places). One of the nice features of the Westminster database is textual notes (implemented as popups in Logos) that list both where BHW corrects L and where they read L differently from the BHS and the fascicles of BHQ (the work-in-progress replacement for BHS). The notes list if the difference is in a consonant, vowel, accent or punctuation mark, though they leave it to the reader to compare with those editions or with the L facsimile to know exactly what is different.

There are other differences as well. The print BHS follows L in its presentation of Kethiv/Qere readings, which means that it doesn't attempt to provide vocalized versions of the Kethiv readings, and the vowels from the main line have to be paired with the consonants in the margin (sometimes with some transformations) to arrive at a vocalized Qere. Westminster does provide vocalized Qere and reconstructions of vocalized Kethiv forms. So this is a significant difference between the presentation of L in BHS and Westminster.

Since the first version of the Westminster database Logos implemented was version 2, none of them should ever have been called 'BHS'. (I believe one of our competitors went through the textual notes in the Westminster database and manually changed their copy to match a particular printing of the BHS, so there may be some edition of the 'Westminster' database - in quotes because it isn't exactly the Westminster database at that point - out there that actually matches a particular printing of the BHS, but none of our editions of the Westminster database ever did.) In rolling out the new version 4.18, we decided to correct this problem and give it a more appropriate label. The Westminster releases have had their own 'alphabet soup'. You'll see information about 'WLC' - the Westminster Leningrad Codex. This was originally only used to refer to the surface text (not the morphology) of a version of the text that did NOT have the Kethiv reconstructions, since those aren't part of L. WHM for 'Westminster Hebrew Morphology' is the database that has the surface forms, lemma and morph tagging as well as the full Kethiv-Qere treatment. Historically we'd named our morph-tagged resources as 'Text A with Morphology B' and in keeping with that convention, we used a third abbreviation 'BHW' (Biblia Hebraica Westmonasteriensis) to refer to the Westminster text with the Kethiv reconstructions. This abbreviation/title was used by the database creators, I think for version 4.14 (I'm doing this by memory), but their release notes haven't continued to make use of that title, so it might be a bit anachronistic of us to run with it. I think now they tend to just call it the 'WHM'. But if you type 'WHM' into My Library, you'll get the BHW, so it works either way.

The SESB edition is the only edition with the text critical notes of the print BHS. The text is very like the print BHS as well, but it is important to understand that these texts are moving targets. If the database creators spotted an error in the text, for example, they might correct it and so for a time, the text might be 'out of sync' with the print BHS, until a new printing corrects the mistake. There may be places where the SESB 'BHS' has a reading that will be found in BHQ - the replacement for BHS. So it may be that not every jot and tittle is exactly the same as any particular print edition of the BHS. Indeed, the SESB edition also has Kethiv reconstructions (similar to Westminster), so right there it is different than the print BHS.

The text entitled BHS/WIVU is an old snapshot of the SESB edition that we licensed. It's a bit of a strange beast, since we don't own it outright, we feel limited about what types of corrections and improvements we can make to it, but it isn't being maintained either - the SESB edition has pressed ahead. It may be at some point we can negotiate updating the 'snapshot' with all the corrections made to the BHS/SESB to bring this back up to date, but for now, there are several better Hebrew Bibles to choose from.

The other main Hebrew Bibles in our stable are: AFAT, the Andersen-Forbes Analyzed Text and LHB, the Lexham Hebrew Bible. The text of AFAT is very similar to BHS in terms of consonants and vowels, but lacks accents and has its own treatment of Kethiv/Qere. That text was developed as a base for the Andersen-Forbes syntax graphs. LHB is our own in-house Hebrew Bible that was created so that we could have something that we maintain and can hang whatever data we want on it, and make derivative products from it, without dealing with contract negotiations and royalties. LHB is another edition of L, with some corrections. However, unlike BHW, it doesn't currently mark deviations from L or from any print edition. Few, if any, of the deviations would surprise anyone - they're generally limited to things like supplying a missing accent or maqqef (the dash that indicates two words are sharing a primary accent) or sof passuq (end-of-verse punctuation) - they're the type of corrections that most editions make, so most people wouldn't even notice them. But I'd still like to make a list of those spots available at some point so people concerned with such matters can feel a bit more confident about this relative new-comer.

The bottom line for citations is: cite the actual edition you are using. If you're concerned that you might get called out for a bad citation, don't cite any digital edition of the BHS as if it were the 1990 (or whatever year) print BHS since that's not what you're using.

Posts 4763
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Feb 10 2014 1:51 PM

Vincent Setterholm:

The rundown is this: version 1 of the Westminster database was basically the BHS. Being the first edition, there may have been some transcription errors, but the goal of that edition was to faithfully reproduce the text of the BHS. Starting at version 2, however, the goal shifted to being an accurate transcription of the manuscript that BHS is based on, Codex Leningradensis (L). But with every edition of L, including BHS, editors make choices about whether or not to preserve things that look like mistakes in this single manuscript or to correct them. At times, the Westminster database made different decisions than the BHS editors both on when to correct L and at times, how to read L (in difficult-to-read places). One of the nice features of the Westminster database is textual notes (implemented as popups in Logos) that list both where BHW corrects L and where they read L differently from the BHS and the fascicles of BHQ (the work-in-progress replacement for BHS). The notes list if the difference is in a consonant, vowel, accent or punctuation mark, though they leave it to the reader to compare with those editions or with the L facsimile to know exactly what is different.

There are other differences as well. The print BHS follows L in its presentation of Kethiv/Qere readings, which means that it doesn't attempt to provide vocalized versions of the Kethiv readings, and the vowels from the main line have to be paired with the consonants in the margin (sometimes with some transformations) to arrive at a vocalized Qere. Westminster does provide vocalized Qere and reconstructions of vocalized Kethiv forms. So this is a significant difference between the presentation of L in BHS and Westminster.

Since the first version of the Westminster database Logos implemented was version 2, none of them should ever have been called 'BHS'. (I believe one of our competitors went through the textual notes in the Westminster database and manually changed their copy to match a particular printing of the BHS, so there may be some edition of the 'Westminster' database - in quotes because it isn't exactly the Westminster database at that point - out there that actually matches a particular printing of the BHS, but none of our editions of the Westminster database ever did.) In rolling out the new version 4.18, we decided to correct this problem and give it a more appropriate label. The Westminster releases have had their own 'alphabet soup'. You'll see information about 'WLC' - the Westminster Leningrad Codex. This was originally only used to refer to the surface text (not the morphology) of a version of the text that did NOT have the Kethiv reconstructions, since those aren't part of L. WHM for 'Westminster Hebrew Morphology' is the database that has the surface forms, lemma and morph tagging as well as the full Kethiv-Qere treatment. Historically we'd named our morph-tagged resources as 'Text A with Morphology B' and in keeping with that convention, we used a third abbreviation 'BHW' (Biblia Hebraica Westmonasteriensis) to refer to the Westminster text with the Kethiv reconstructions. This abbreviation/title was used by the database creators, I think for version 4.14 (I'm doing this by memory), but their release notes haven't continued to make use of that title, so it might be a bit anachronistic of us to run with it. I think now they tend to just call it the 'WHM'. But if you type 'WHM' into My Library, you'll get the BHW, so it works either way.

The SESB edition is the only edition with the text critical notes of the print BHS. The text is very like the print BHS as well, but it is important to understand that these texts are moving targets. If the database creators spotted an error in the text, for example, they might correct it and so for a time, the text might be 'out of sync' with the print BHS, until a new printing corrects the mistake. There may be places where the SESB 'BHS' has a reading that will be found in BHQ - the replacement for BHS. So it may be that not every jot and tittle is exactly the same as any particular print edition of the BHS. Indeed, the SESB edition also has Kethiv reconstructions (similar to Westminster), so right there it is different than the print BHS.

The text entitled BHS/WIVU is an old snapshot of the SESB edition that we licensed. It's a bit of a strange beast, since we don't own it outright, we feel limited about what types of corrections and improvements we can make to it, but it isn't being maintained either - the SESB edition has pressed ahead. It may be at some point we can negotiate updating the 'snapshot' with all the corrections made to the BHS/SESB to bring this back up to date, but for now, there are several better Hebrew Bibles to choose from.

The other main Hebrew Bibles in our stable are: AFAT, the Andersen-Forbes Analyzed Text and LHB, the Lexham Hebrew Bible. The text of AFAT is very similar to BHS in terms of consonants and vowels, but lacks accents and has its own treatment of Kethiv/Qere. That text was developed as a base for the Andersen-Forbes syntax graphs. LHB is our own in-house Hebrew Bible that was created so that we could have something that we maintain and can hang whatever data we want on it, and make derivative products from it, without dealing with contract negotiations and royalties. LHB is another edition of L, with some corrections. However, unlike BHW, it doesn't currently mark deviations from L or from any print edition. None of the deviations would surprise anyone - they're generally limited to things like supplying a missing accent or maqqef (the dash that indicates two words are sharing a primary accent) or sof passuq (end-of-verse punctuation) - they're the type of corrections that most editions make, so most people wouldn't even notice them. But I'd still like to make a list of those spots available at some point so people concerned with such matters can feel a bit more confident about this relative new-comer.

The bottom line for citations is: cite the actual edition you are using. If you're concerned that you might get called out for a bad citation, don't cite any digital edition of the BHS as if it were the 1990 (or whatever year) print BHS since that's not what you're using.

Wow, Vincent, that's some run down! Surprise  Let me uncross my eyes if I can...

So, do you...um...have a chart? Geeked

JK...let me review your run down and see if I can get the picture. Cool

Posts 4763
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Feb 10 2014 2:09 PM

Well, I would have to say that your explanation is much clearer than mud! Thanks for taking the time. I have a few other questions, but I won't burden you with them now. They would probably be easier to answer in a classroom or over a beer, anyway. The non-BHS that I tend to use has Westminster 4.2. Where does that fit in the scheme of things? I also have W 4.0 and WIVU.

Also, regarding the text critical notes of the SESB...are those written in German? Having only the barest German knowledge, is there any utility I can gain from SESB? I found Gottingen to be pretty worthless to me.

Posts 4625
RIP
Milford Charles Murray | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Feb 10 2014 2:13 PM

Peace, David!           I think you may be eligible for a free 4.18 version because you've had 4.2 ????

Take a look!      *smile*                            http://blog.logos.com/?s=4.18+AND+free

Edit:              Maybe you even have it in your library????

Philippians 4:  4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........

Posts 4763
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Feb 10 2014 2:28 PM

Milford Charles Murray:

Peace, David!           I think you may be eligible for a free 4.18 version because you've had 4.2 ????

Take a look!      *smile*                            http://blog.logos.com/?s=4.18+AND+free

Edit:              Maybe you even have it in your library????

Thanks for reminding me of this, Milford. Yes, I do have it. I didn't mention it because, being an L3 fanboy, I was only noticing the resources I have in my L3 library. The 4.18 is not available for L3, but I do have it in L5. I guess I need to keep this info in my personal RAM for when I decide to quote from the BHwhatever.

Posts 4763
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Feb 10 2014 2:43 PM

So, this is what I'm noticing. The BHS's (4.2, 4.0, WIVU) that I have, which aren't really BHS's, all say they are BHS when I quote them. If they aren't BHS, shouldn't this be adjusted? The 4.18 seems to be the only one to ID itself as BHW...which brings me to my next Surprise ...

Westmonasteriensis??? Seriously? Not only is this typical, impossibly long German...it's German with a bad case of the vowels!!! What gives?

...and just when I finally memorized Stuttgartensia... Super Angry

Posts 433
Vincent Setterholm | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Feb 10 2014 3:29 PM

David Paul:

So, this is what I'm noticing. The BHS's (4.2, 4.0, WIVU) that I have, which aren't really BHS's, all say they are BHS when I quote them. If they aren't BHS, shouldn't this be adjusted? The 4.18 seems to be the only one to ID itself as BHW...which brings me to my next Surprise ...

Westmonasteriensis??? Seriously? Not only is this typical, impossibly long German...it's German with a bad case of the vowels!!! What gives?

...and just when I finally memorized Stuttgartensia... Super Angry

I'm not going to change the titles of a bunch of shipped resources so that suddenly no one can find their books. That just creates a customer service problem. Besides, all those old resources are dead to me. Why would anyone still be using them? I tell anyone who asks just to hide them. My inner fascist wishes we could just disable all those old Hebrew Bibles so that no one was even tempted to use them again, ever. The new editions are much, much better.

Westmonasteriensis is Latin, not German. As are 'Biblia' and 'Hebraica'.

Posts 433
Vincent Setterholm | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Feb 10 2014 3:35 PM

David Paul:

Well, I would have to say that your explanation is much clearer than mud! Thanks for taking the time. I have a few other questions, but I won't burden you with them now. They would probably be easier to answer in a classroom or over a beer, anyway. The non-BHS that I tend to use has Westminster 4.2. Where does that fit in the scheme of things? I also have W 4.0 and WIVU.

Also, regarding the text critical notes of the SESB...are those written in German? Having only the barest German knowledge, is there any utility I can gain from SESB? I found Gottingen to be pretty worthless to me.

The text critical notes use Latin abbreviations and various symbols that are defined in pop-ups in the digital edition. It's not that hard to get used to, but it helps to read a book on text criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Tov would be my first choice for Hebrew Bible, with Wurthwein being good enough for most purposes).

The 4.2 is almost 10 years old now. It was just new enough to have support for things like homograph numbers and KeyLink tables into lexicons, so it works OK, but there have been a LOT of improvements to the database in the last 10 years. I recommend the jump to the 4.18.

Posts 4763
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Feb 10 2014 3:40 PM

Vincent Setterholm:

Why would anyone still be using them? I tell anyone who asks just to hide them. My inner fascist wishes we could just disable all those old Hebrew Bibles so that no one was even tempted to use them again, ever. The new editions are much, much better.

If you had just said that up front, you could have saved yourself having to type out that eye-crossing explanation. Wink

Vincent Setterholm:

Besides, all those old resources are dead to me. Westmonasteriensis is Latin, not German. As are 'Biblia' and 'Hebraica'.

Isn't there a tad bit of irony in the juxtaposition of these two statements? Smile  On the other hand, it does explain the vowel soup.

Posts 8601
TCBlack | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Feb 11 2014 9:53 AM

Vincent Setterholm:
Besides, all those old resources are dead to me. Why would anyone still be using them? I tell anyone who asks just to hide them. My inner fascist wishes we could just disable all those old Hebrew Bibles so that no one was even tempted to use them again, ever. The new editions are much, much better.
 Sooo.... Could you push a tag such as "deprecated"?  I just read it, and I'm still not certain which ones to hide.  I have eight or nine Biblia Hebraica /somethings/ and I'd love to narrow it down to one or three.

Looking at the higher up post...

Vincent Setterholm:
The SESB edition is the only edition with the text critical notes of the print BHS.
So I should keep that one. But I have two! 

  • LLS:1.0.204  2009-03-12T22:17:45Z BHSSESB.lbxlls

  • LLS:BHSSESB2 2006-12-16T00:22:51Z BHSSESB2.lbxlls

Vincent Setterholm:
The text entitled BHS/WIVU is an old snapshot of the SESB edition that we licensed.

So it's older than the above two?  So I can/should hide it also?  At least this one appears to have a logos 4 format.

  • LLS:WIVUMORPH 2012-10-12T01:14:41Z WIVUMORPH.logos4 

And while we're at it, what about 

  • LLS:1.0.202 2008-07-03T18:14:49Z bhswts35.lbxlls

  • LLS:1.0.197 2008-04-07T19:27:28Z BHSWTS42.lbxlls

  • LLS:1.0.203 2006-03-23T02:26:38Z BHSWTS40.lbxlls

Apparently I should keep BHW (LLS:BHW418 2013-10-29T21:58:22Z BHW418.logos4) But should I make this one my goto?

I've also got the lexham HB the Lexham Heb/english interlinear and Emanuel Tov's two texts.

 I remain confused.

Truth Is Still Truth Even if You Don't Believe It

Check the Wiki

Warning: Sarcasm is my love language. I may inadvertently express my love to you.

Posts 433
Vincent Setterholm | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Feb 11 2014 10:46 AM

This is the SESB version to keep:

LLS:1.0.204  2009-03-12T22:17:45Z BHSSESB.lbxlls

hide the other:

LLS:BHSSESB2 2006-12-16T00:22:51Z BHSSESB2.lbxlls

I still hold some hope that someday we might be able to update BHS/WIVU, particularly since it is still in the base packages - if you hide it, you'll never see if it gets updated. I just wouldn't use that one, personally, in its present state, when there are more up to date options. The main structural difference between BHS/WIVU and BHS SESB is that the pronominal suffixes are split into separate segments in our snapshot edition. More on this in the last paragraph.

All the old Westminster editions with the file names BHSWTSxx can be hidden, the BHW replaces all of them.

Personally, I'd love it if everyone used LHB as their go-to Hebrew Bible, because I'd like to gather as much feedback on that edition as possible, since that's the one we can improve in house. There's another, perhaps more compelling, reason to do with pronominal suffixes (see below). In terms of searching, one major feature LHB currently has that BHW does not is searching on roots (in addition to lemmas), though BHW tags some morph features that LHB does not (like more particular tagging of the volitives for form vs. function). LHB has a slightly fuller treatment of Kethiv-Qere in that it includes the hybrid form with the consonants of the K and the vowels of the Q. (That was something we added to one older edition of the Westminster database, but probably shouldn't have - it wasn't part of their data and they got typo reports for a couple of my mistakes!)

BHW and BHS SESB currently treat pronominal suffixes in the same 'segment' as the word they are attached to, and then have the suffix information tacked on to the end of the morph code. While LHB, AFAT and BHS/WIVU all split the pronominal suffixes out into separate segments. So if you're using only BHS SESB or BHW, you're going to miss out on some of our in-house data work that involves hanging data on individual segments. For example, we've done work disambiguating pronouns by tagging their referent (e.g. where 'him' or 'his' = Moses in some particular instance). You'll miss out on some of that context-sensitive information that comes not from the Hebrew Bible itself, but from our in-house ancillary databases, when you're working with databases that segment the text very differently than the LHB and AFAT. And this, then, is also a reason why one might keep BHS/WIVU around even if one had BHS/SESB - assuming BHS/WIVU gets an update at some point.

Posts 8601
TCBlack | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Feb 11 2014 11:52 AM

Thank you Vincent!

I would like to use the LHB more, but I often rely upon the text critical notes that are linked in the SESB version. (This is why I bought the SESB version).

For the sake of feedback I'll set up my default Hebrew Study layout with both of them linked side to side.  Now if you paired it with text crit..... 

Truth Is Still Truth Even if You Don't Believe It

Check the Wiki

Warning: Sarcasm is my love language. I may inadvertently express my love to you.

Posts 8010
LogosEmployee

TCBlack:

Sooo.... Could you push a tag such as "deprecated"?

We can't actually push out specific tags to you, but if enough users added the same tag, it should sync through community tagging. If you're interested in this experiment, try adding the tag "deprecated" to the following resource IDs. (Paste each resource ID into your command box, open the resource info screen, then click "add tag" and add a "deprecated" tag. I'm not giving the resource titles, because there are many similar titles and I don't want the wrong resource to get tagged incorrectly. And if you don't have all these resource IDs, don't worry.)

LLS:1.0.197

LLS:1.0.200

LLS:1.0.201

LLS:1.0.202

LLS:1.0.203

LLS:BHSSESB2

Posts 468
BKMitchell | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Apr 26 2014 10:43 PM

Vincent Setterholm:
Personally, I'd love it if everyone used LHB as their go-to Hebrew Bible, because I'd like to gather as much feedback on that edition as possible, since that's the one we can improve in house...

Alright, whenever I use Logos I will be using the LHB from now on!

חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי

Page 1 of 2 (25 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS