Why should I keep my Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek Bibles?

I am using Logos 4 for Mac (Beta 3), and I am beginning to go through my resources and put a bunch of them in the "HIDDEN RESOURCES" category. The question I'd like anyone's input on is this: Why should I even keep any of the many Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Bibles in my Library, if I don't read original languages, don't plan on reading them, and will tap into original languages only through the Reverse Interlinears available in Logos 4?

My understanding is that the Reverse Interlinears are self-contained with both the English words and the original language words, and don't use any outside texts. So again, why would I not want to put the large number of Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek Bibles in "HIDDEN RESOURCES", given my chosen style of study?

THANKS for whatever insight you might have to offer.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Todd Phillips

You're right about being able to use the RevInts without the standalone original language texts. The lower-end packages come with the RevInts but no Greek/Hebrew critical texts. Hide them if you want, and if you decide you want them, you can unhide them.

Robert Pavich

Apexite,

You can do that.

There is nothing compelling you to keep original language texts visible.

Apexite

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/155640#Comment_155640

Todd, Robert......Thank you! My plan for this weekend is to go through every resource I have in my Gold Scholar's package, familiarize myself with them just enough to say YES or NO to hiding them, and then proceed into the Collection generation stage with that cursory familiarity. I don't necessarily relish the idea of spending all this time getting the groundwork laid, but I suspect it will be worth it in the end.

Dave Hooton

why would I not want to put the large number of Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek Bibles in "HIDDEN RESOURCES"

Whoa!

Whilst I might be in the same category for Study the last thing I'll do is get rid of all original language bibles. The ones I won't use are the various Targums/Targumic Fragments and the various "Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manauscripts", any Latin/Syriac bibles and any NA27 with GRAMCORD morphology. But I would keep LHI (Hebrew-English interlinear) and AFAT as the A-F morphology is the basis of the Hebrew used in the RI's and the Hebrew Syntax Search. Likewise I would keep Greek-English interlinears with Logos Morphology and Scrivener's GNT's. The RI's cannot be completely trusted to render the original language meanings because of the changed word order, so the Greek/Hebrew Interlinears can prove valuable. If you use Syntax Search it would be good to keep the bible with which it is associated (OpenText, Cascadia, Lexham).

DMB

Apexite, I think the answer is relative to where you 'are' Bible-study-wise. If you're comfortable with where the various translations ended up (e.g. ESV, NRSV, etc), then greek and hebrew lookups from the reverse interlinears are great. If however, you want to 'dig' a little into why there's variations in the early manuscripts (which often suggests their own questions and struggles), then the hebrew, LXX and greek interlinears are quite useful if you have them.

George Somsel

I am using Logos 4 for Mac (Beta 3), and I am beginning to go through my resources and put a bunch of them in the "HIDDEN RESOURCES" category. The question I'd like anyone's input on is this: Why should I even keep any of the many Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Bibles in my Library, if I don't read original languages, don't plan on reading them, and will tap into original languages only through the Reverse Interlinears available in Logos 4?

My understanding is that the Reverse Interlinears are self-contained with both the English words and the original language words, and don't use any outside texts. So again, why would I not want to put the large number of Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek Bibles in "HIDDEN RESOURCES", given my chosen style of study?

THANKS for whatever insight you might have to offer.

You could put one up when you aren't using your computer to impress those who might see it. Another thing you could do is to display one of the original texts and chant before it. [:D]

Kevin Becker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/155657#Comment_155657

Apexite,

I agree with Dave's advice on which original language resources to keep unhidden. They may be beyond the scope of your interest at this current moment but they will be handy to have on hand in case you need a search that requires two words to be related to each other in some way. These searches are unreliable in the RIs. Besides, these resources won't show up on your English searches and won't be distracting in your normal course of study.

Bohuslav Wojnar

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/155708#Comment_155708

Apexite,

I agree with Dave's advice on which original language resources to keep unhidden. They may be beyond the scope of your interest at this current moment but they will be handy to have on hand in case you need a search that requires two words to be related to each other in some way. These searches are unreliable in the RIs. Besides, these resources won't show up on your English searches and won't be distracting in your normal course of study.

I agree with Kevin (who agrees with Dave [:)] ).

For me the original text is original text and RI are more like lexicon or better version of Strong's numbers. Not even speaking about the Apparatuses and other tools connected to the original texts. I would keep at least the Interlinears (actually all Lexham resources). Anyway, for me it would be strange feeling to have a Golden Library (which main benefit is all the original language resources) and than hide them. Hard Disk space is the cheapest thing in whole thing today. Earlier this year I changed my 160 GB 5400 rpm HD for the 500 GB 7200 rpm and made that 160 GB HD as one of my backup external HDs. I paid less than $140 USD and I have plenty of space (so far [:)] )

Apexite

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/155664#Comment_155664

You could put one up when you aren't using your computer to impress those who might see it. Another thing you could do is to display one of the original texts and chant before it

Dang....why didn't I think of that?

Bohuslav Wojnar

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/155720#Comment_155720

You could put one up when you aren't using your computer to impress those who might see it. Another thing you could do is to display one of the original texts and chant before it

Dang....why didn't I think of that?

If George would have one of his better days today, he would scold you for even thinking about using the Interlinears. For him I think the only acceptable thing to read is the photocopies of the manuscript parchments (if not the parchments itself) whether it is Hebrew, Aramaic, Akkadian, Greek, Syriac etc. [:P]

Apexite

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/155715#Comment_155715

Bohuslav wrote: I agree with Kevin (who agrees with Dave).

Bohuslav, Kevin, and Dave......I love it when brethren are in agreement! But seriously, my confidence in the RI tools is beginning to wane, since the consensus is that they aren't reliable. Why would I even want to use a RI if it can't be trusted to accurately present the original language words behind the English translation? Again, I am not able to read original languages, and do not foresee moving in that direction - so it seems I am at the mercy of RI tools that might or might not be worthy of my trust.

Ronald Quick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/155725#Comment_155725

Can someone elaborate on why the reverse interlinears are not reliable.

Thanks,

Ron

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/155740#Comment_155740

Can someone elaborate on why the reverse interlinears are not reliable.

Thanks,

Ron

I suppose you might say that reverse interlinears are about as reliable as whatever translation they happen to be coupled with. There are, of course, idioms which cannot be literally translated, as well as such things as particles which may be translated or may simply be passed over (see the Logos blog on the particle μεν). My objection to interlinears is that they give the false impression that one is really dealing with the original language when one is solely dealing with the English. It's like the preacher who gets up in the pulpit and says "What the Greek / Hebrew REALLY says is ..." This is usually followed by something showing that he doesn't really understand it at all. If you don't read the original languages, stick to the English.

Remember the words of Paul: "All translations have erred and fall short of the meaning of the original" (at some point).

Kevin Becker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/155725#Comment_155725

I do not mean to say that RI are unreliable per se. They have limitations that one must be aware of when using them.

The databases are inconsistent on how they handle alignment. For example some Greek verbs get placed under the English helping verb instead of the main English verb, this means that searches for correlations between Greek and English (or Hebrew and English) can miss things. I have confidence that these databases will be improved as time goes along.
Greek and Hebrew word order is different than English, often radically so. The RIs essentially place the original languages in English word order. Yes, the database uses numerals to tell you what the original word order is but that information is not used in searches. For example, if I were to perform a search "X BEFORE Y" where X and Y were Greek lemmas then that search would miss things or provide false positives because of the Greek being placed under English words.
Interlinear texts tend to gum up the Analysis view and make it hard to use. A regular Greek or Hebrew text functions much better.

Here's the bottom line. If you only want to examine single words, or limit yourself to AND/OR searches then the RIs will probably suit your needs. However, if there's ever a possibility you will want to do anything more complicated than that, perhaps checking the assertions of a commentary then the original language resources will provide you with the most consistent results.

Bottom line, even if you can't use the original language text right now why close off that avenue? Hopefully as you become more skilled in Bible study you will learn how to use your tools more fully.

Bohuslav Wojnar

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/155745#Comment_155745

Bottom line, even if you can't use the original language text right now why close off that avenue? Hopefully as you become more skilled in Bible study you will learn how to use your tools more fully.

Amen [Y]

Bohuslav Wojnar

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/155743#Comment_155743

Can someone elaborate on why the reverse interlinears are not reliable.

Thanks,

Ron

I suppose you might say that reverse interlinears are about as reliable as whatever translation they happen to be coupled with. There are, of course, idioms which cannot be literally translated, as well as such things as particles which may be translated or may simply be passed over (see the Logos blog on the particle μεν). My objection to interlinears is that they give the false impression that one is really dealing with the original language when one is solely dealing with the English. It's like the preacher who gets up in the pulpit and says "What the Greek / Hebrew REALLY says is ..." This is usually followed by something showing that he doesn't really understand it at all. If you don't read the original languages, stick to the English.

Remember the words of Paul: "All translations have erred and fall short of the meaning of the original" (at some point).

I think that even if I will never be able to come to my independent conclusions concerning the best translation of the original text (I think it is much wiser to listen carefully to those guys who do know far more I will ever know in the matter, that is their life and ministry, I as a pastor will never be able to invest as much time and effort into this) but still, somehow I feel better to be able to check (may be because I am Czech [:)] ) for myself how it is. Before I preach I want to be sure I did my homework well, turning every stone on the way of understanding the word, the text, the context... Logos is just incredible tool in helping to do that.

And I have to add, Reverse Interlinears, being the first line of the contact with the original text, works well IMHO.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/155752#Comment_155752

I think that even if I will never be able to come to my independent conclusions concerning the best translation of the original text (I think it is much wiser to listen carefully to those guys who do know far more I will ever know in the matter, that is their life and ministry, I as a pastor will never be able to invest as much time and effort into this) but still, somehow I feel better to be able to check (may be because I am Czech ) for myself how it is. Before I preach I want to be sure I did my homework well, turning every stone on the way of understanding the word, the text, the context... Logos is just incredible tool in helping to do that.

And I have to add, Reverse Interlinears, being the first line of the contact with the original text, works well IMHO.

What needs to be remembered is that one is to "preach the word" (i.e., the message [no, not Peterson] [;)]), not the words. Don't miss the forest for the trees.

Apexite

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/155760#Comment_155760

George, Bohuslav, Kevin......Wise words of caution, and insight. THANK YOU!

As I move forward, it's nice to know that those original language tools are only "hidden", not gone forever. As a matter of fact, I checked with tech support folks a couple days ago about how to delete unwanted resources, and they said I can delete them from my hard dirve, but the next time I sync up with their server those resources will just be put right back onto my HD. So I'll hide them and see where my needs are down the road, knowing that I have valuable options built into my Library simply by "unhiding" them.

In the meantime, I'm currently using the tools predominantly to take a look at what Kevin described as "single words", or limited to "AND/OR searches", which is sufficient for the teaching/preaching/counseling I do. I also like the quality of LOGOS that Bohuslav mentioned, the ability to understand "the word, the text, the context", which I endeavor to gather first and foremost by reading and re-reading verses, and then approaching study aids (for original language word studies, lexicon use for insight into the contemporary use of that original language word, and lastly (and not often) I might turn to a commentary for further insight. [On that last thing, if I knew which commentaries were strongly oriented to commenting on the actual text, rather than extensive commenting on tangents, I'd look at that subset of commentaries on a more regular basis. So if any of you have a good list of such commentaries, I welcome your forwarding of that suggested list.]