BUG: Hermeneia's Enoch Translation Isn't Typed as Bible

One could argue if it's Biblical (smiling).

But other Enoch translations are typed Bible. Well, actually almost. One of Charles' is Bible, and one is Ancient Manuscript Translation. Both have the Enoch indexing.

The issue shows up when you want to display verses by line ... Ancient Manuscripts can't. And in Multiple Book Display, they just blank out, if a leader.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

MJ. Smith

bumping in order to get attention/response from appropriate people.

Majo Diaz (Logos)

Hi DMB,

Thank you for your message. We have reviewed this title and found that it doesn't meet the criteria required by our software to work properly as a Bible type. Due to its data type tagging characteristics, the appropriate type is Ancient Manuscript Translation.

Have a great day!

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1279679#Comment_1279679

Appreciate it Majo

Looks like a couple years back they pushed it out without a Bible index ... the Charles Enoch has one. Similarly Enoch in Lexham's Swete LXX resources.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1279679#Comment_1279679

We have reviewed this title and found that it doesn't meet the criteria required by our software to work properly as a Bible type. Due to its data type tagging characteristics, the appropriate type is Ancient Manuscript Translation.

As Logos created the datatype tagging and as they have an Enoch as Bible tagging as evidenced below.

The usual Logos bias against consistency, correction of narrow canonical bias, and being useful to the user (my prioritizations reflect this inconsistency) is a poor excuse for not correcting an error that runs deeper that the user reported error. Note Majo, this is not directed at you personally but is pent up frustration at a Bible (research) software that only truly supports the canon "invented" by a portion of the leaders of the Reformation which currently represent approximately 25% of the Christians worldwide and appears to not know that while there were many regional councils and theologians who adopted canons, that the actual canon in use was not officially defined until those Reformers forced the issue in the Western Church. Logos would be greatly improved by a loosening of the definition of canon and a broading of the support for paraBiblical literature.