BUG? Does this confuse you or is it fine .. I have mixed feelings

Upper right: I choose an entry that has a prefix because it is an alternative chapter/verse division but, as shown on the upper right, the prefix is not carried into Factbook. Note there is nothing in the Factbook entry identifier or alternative names that indicates verse mapping is necessary. Therefore, as shown in the lower right, there are Bible Commentary entries that are correct but could be confusing to users not aware that Malachi in some Bibles has 3 chapters, in others has 4 chapters.

Is this required esoteric knowledge situation, clear to the average Logos user.

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

GaoLu

Joel too. But how else could it be done?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1303785#Comment_1303785

But how else could it be done?

They could (a) retain the verse mapping indicator in the header name or,(b) more easily, show the verse mapping differences in the alternative names portion of the header.

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1303825#Comment_1303825

Confusing indeed

Dave Hooton

Is this required esoteric knowledge situation, clear to the average Logos user.

The average user would enter Mal 4:1-6 and be none the wiser!

Users of Luther bible, Tanakh, NJB, NAB, NABRE would enter your passage, but your commentaries show a predilection for the Hebrew mapping.

the prefix is not carried into Factbook. Note there is nothing in the Factbook entry identifier or alternative names that indicates verse mapping is necessary.

The BHS prefix is necessary and my commentaries indicate that their entry is in Mal 4 with Mal 3 in angle brackets. There is scope for confusion but a query to the forum would resolve that.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1303825#Comment_1303825

But how else could it be done?

They could (a) retain the verse mapping indicator in the header name or,(b) more easily, show the verse mapping differences in the alternative names portion of the header.

They could. How should Ps 151 be handled, though?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1303936#Comment_1303936

The average user would enter Mal 4:1-6 and be none the wiser!

The average "Evangelical" user would enter Mal 4:1-6 (if it were their starting point) and see absolutely no difference. But if they are following a rabbit trail, they are exactly the people most apt to be confused as they, judging from the forums, tend not to be aware of the mapping differences. I am talking only about those cases where the drop-down menu forces you to enter a mapping code then drops it. The reordering of text in Jeremiah is, perhaps, the maximum in confusability.

There is scope for confusion but a query to the forum would resolve that.

I believe that applications shouldn't be designed for "ask in the forums" as a requirement. My question, to which I truly don't know the answer, is would the average user be confused (or confused enough to ask in the forums)? As a little girl with my first, leather-bound Bible, I was taught to go to the reference given - if it was Psalms look a chapter forward or back, otherwise look a couple of verses forward or back. I was never taught to deal with Jeremiah.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1303939#Comment_1303939

How should Ps 151 be handled, though?

The same way as Pss. 152-155 [:D]

The issue I intended to bring up was simply one of verse mapping not one of canon differences. Nor was I even trying to address confusion caused by the colophon to Job.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1303942#Comment_1303942

There is scope for confusion but a query to the forum would resolve that.

I believe that applications shouldn't be designed for "ask in the forums" as a requirement. My question, to which I truly don't know the answer, is would the average user be confused

There is the possibility for confusion, whether "average" or not. And this would be true of other features (e.g. not using the Title in Factbook > Commentaries[:)]). Any user would search the Logos website for Help, whether via Customer Support or the Forums.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1303953#Comment_1303953

Any user would search the Logos website for Help, whether via Customer Support or the Forums.

You are more optimistic than I. I recall a couple of "new Christians" who peppered the forums with questions/error reports/suggestions that were solely because it was all new to them. Fortunately, they both learned and became much less active in the forums but I used to cringe when I saw their names. And I see many users who have little experience outside their specific denomination for whom I'd like to see Logos to intentionally introduce them to a broader perspective in a gentle, factual way. If Logos is designed with all the major user groups in mind without privileging any group, this broader perspective should happen naturally. Examples of where Logos taught me a broader view -- the use of the phrase "high view of," the existence of non-trinitarian Pentecostal groups, the CEN (commands-examples-necessary inference) hermeneutics in the Stone-Campbell movement, Christmas emphasis of birth of Baby rather than incarnation, the actual meaning of "sola scriptura" as compared to the popular understanding ... My starting point gave me a very broad starting point on canon, church history, liturgy, parabiblical texts ...

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1303954#Comment_1303954

Any user would search the Logos website for Help, whether via Customer Support or the Forums.

You are more optimistic than I.

We shouldn't forget the Help Center initiative in the the beta 35 where "Community" does direct one to the Forums. However, Verbum needs to be redirected from "Catholic Products". I don't know what it does in Logos, but "General" or "Logos Desktop App" would be better for both.

And I see many users who have little experience outside their specific denomination for whom I'd like to see Logos to intentionally introduce them to a broader perspective in a gentle, factual way. If Logos is designed with all the major user groups in mind without privileging any group, this broader perspective should happen naturally.

I was in a Strong's user with a nice, fat KJV Concordance in print and had to be educated in Lemmas and language Lexicons by users, although the weaning process was accelerated when Logos 4 went away from Strong's related features. That was reasonably "gentle and factual". But I learned about bible datatypes and their prefixes from their use in books i.e. how they linked to my translation vs. the Hebrew bible or LXX I had acquired.

Examples of where Logos taught me a broader view -- the use of the phrase "high view of," the existence of non-trinitarian Pentecostal groups, the CEN (commands-examples-necessary inference) hermeneutics in the Stone-Campbell movement, Christmas emphasis of birth of Baby rather than incarnation, the actual meaning of "sola scriptura" as compared to the popular understanding ... My starting point gave me a very broad starting point on canon, church history, liturgy, parabiblical texts .

A "broader/higher" view can be picked up via the forums because of the diversity of users. Church doctrine like "sola scriptura" doesn't concern me because I would argue from the bible and Holy Spirit guidance, because I was taught that the bible is infallible but some Holy Spirit guidance goes a long way. I am far more concerned with the fulfillment of OT prophesy where it appears to clash with NT teaching e.g. mortals in the Millennium in Dispensational hermeneutics.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1303958#Comment_1303958

A "broader/higher" view can be picked up via the forums because of the diversity of users. Church doctrine like "sola scriptura" doesn't concern me because I would argue from the bible and Holy Spirit guidance, because I was taught that the bible is infallible but some Holy Spirit guidance goes a long way. I am far more concerned with the fulfillment of OT prophesy where it appears to clash with NT teaching e.g. mortals in the Millennium in Dispensational hermeneutics.

Amen Dave! I am in the camp of the bible being infallible and inerrant. While there are things I may not understand in the bible, that does not make it a lessor book. Some think if they can't understand something in the bible, then no one can. This is wrong. The bible is God's word (2Ti 3:16-17) and is preserved by the Holy Spirit for all mankind today. Church politics does not change the word of God. [8-|]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1303974#Comment_1303974

The bible is God's word (2Ti 3:16-17) and is preserved by the Holy Spirit for all mankind today

A great example. I thought of this as a "low view" of scripture when I first ran into the low view/high view vocabulary. God's Word to me means first and foremost Jesus Christ who together with written scripture is the Word of God. And you can't get much higher than God Himself. [8-|] It is also an example of how Logos must walk a very thin line to the theologically consistent i.e. as close to neutral as possible.

Mark Barnes (Logos)

Upper right: I choose an entry that has a prefix because it is an alternative chapter/verse division but, as shown on the upper right, the prefix is not carried into Factbook. Note there is nothing in the Factbook entry identifier or alternative names that indicates verse mapping is necessary. Therefore, as shown in the lower right, there are Bible Commentary entries that are correct but could be confusing to users not aware that Malachi in some Bibles has 3 chapters, in others has 4 chapters.

We spent a lot of effort when building new Factbook sections to make sure they respect verse maps (i.e. differences between versification in different Bible versions). That wasn't the case before.

We plan to add an indicator into the reference box when the verse mapping used in Factbook doesn't match the verse mapping of the user's top Bible.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1304040#Comment_1304040

We plan to add an indicator into the reference box when the verse mapping used in Factbook doesn't match the verse mapping of the user's top Bible.

That will work. Thanks.