If you look at the bibliography entries for resources divided into multiple parts, most of the bibliography references are "wrong". The first entry below is what one would expect to see in a standard bibliography. However, the three subsequent entries are misleading. For the print copy of 1937 one would expect the first entry without a modified title. For the Logos electronic version, the only version to which the division and modified title apply, one would expect acknowledgment of the electronic version and publisher so one know where to actually look. I suspect students are going nuts trying to edit their references - footnote, endnote, or bibliography.
