a question from an Accordance User
Comments
-
Robb Brunansky said:
Thanks again for all the tips (especially the one about the journal subscription for $50/year)!
Welcome Robb!
I too, have been very sad about the state of Accordance, but I can honestly say that I was working on some Greek tonight and marveled at what a cool original languages tool we have in Logos.
Glad you found the journals subscription. Journals are one of my favorite resources in Logos and when combined with smart search and summaries, it is easy to cruise through to what you are looking for. It’s fun to be excited about Bible software for sure!
0 -
One of the tools that I use a lot with Accordance is the MT-LXX tool. Logos does not offer that particular tool but it does have the ability to find Greek equivalents through the Bible Word study tool. Here is another way to find Greek equivalents through Logos that might be helpful:
1. I start with this layout utilizing the Hebrew and Aramaic Index to the Septuagint by Muraoka, the LHB and the search panel keyed to have all searches sent there:
2. Then I hover my mouse over the word לְתוֹעֵבָֽה in Jer. 2:7 and click once to find the word in Muraoka's Index:
3. Then you will see all of the greek equivalents to your word in the Hebrew text. You can then right click on any of the greek words and do a Bible search and find equivalents in your favorite Bibles in the search panel:
0 -
4. But it gets better, from the three dots in the search panel select float this panel:
5. Select analysis then right click on resource and start to remove the check marks on what you don't want to see and leave the items checked that you want to display:
6. Now we can see all of the different hebrew equivalents ἀκάθαρτος that we selected in Muraoka's Index:
0 -
Kristin said:
While I am grateful to have Logos now also, Accordance has been (and is) a better fit for my language needs and workflow, so it worked out well having gone with them.
Kristin thanks for your very balanced comment! And, many thanks for starting this thread!
In my opinion as an Electronic Theological library of publish works in English Logos has no peer nor rival and for that reason I am also grateful to have access to Logos whereever I am and whereever I go.
When it comes to running queries on Original language text logos is very capable and Logos has improved it can much of what I want to do but not all. However setting up the types of queries I want to run tends to be very time consuming and cumbersome. For example I find setting up long boolean like strings just to search on patterns to be unintuitive. That of course is my opinion, others may find Logos to be straightforward and quick. Having said all that I want to say about that as theological library of English works Logos is great!
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
0 -
One last thing you can do with Logos is to make sure that the Analytical Research Lexicon to the Septuagint is prioritized in your library. Then you can right click on the greek equivalent in Muraoka's index and then click on the Analytical lexicon under search and then you can find a lot of good information there:
0 -
How did you get that separate gloss to appear in the top left window? It looks as though its a separate pop-up that you'd find on other apps, I've never seen this in Logos. When I hover over a word, I get the gloss in the bottom of the resource, or when I right click and go into the context menu I'm able to open a specific resource, but I don't know how to open up a quick gloss like that. Could you help me achieve that?Brian Leathers said:One last thing you can do with Logos is to make sure that the Analytical Research Lexicon to the Septuagint is prioritized in your library. Then you can right click on the greek equivalent in Muraoka's index and then click on the Analytical lexicon under search and then you can find a lot of good information there:
0 -
Sure thing.
1. Right click on any greek equivalent in Muraoka's Index, then hover your mouse on any of your lexicons showing up under look up in your search panel and you should get the summary pop up to show your info on the word:
Hope this helps.
0 -
Darn, it looks like I don't have that resource. I'm going to check if it does it on other resources though. This is the first I've seen it!
0 -
Bumping this thread as the images are missing! Brian’s posts are really useful and it would be sad to lose them.
0 -
@Jason Stone (Logos) here is a thread with missing images.
0 -
@Donovan R. Palmer This is actually the primary example that we were already looking at! Thank you so much—we're on it.
Sr. Community Manager at Logos.
1 -
Cool… I saw this somewhere else in another thread, but I can't remember or find it now!
0 -
@Donovan R. Palmer, noted! Thank you. If it comes to mind, please do let me know.
Sr. Community Manager at Logos.
1 -
@Jason Stone (Logos) I see you fixed it. Well done to you and your team! 🏆
1 -
However setting up the types of queries I want to run tends to be very time consuming and cumbersome.
@BKMitchell I can see that. For those who have a robust original language use case, especially when it comes to some technical searches, Logos can do most things, but not as easily… particularly in Hebrew. Though @Brian Leathers has been demonstrating this gap is much, much narrower than it used to be. He has impressed me over and over, and highlighted areas that I still need learn and grow in.
I bought Accordance years ago when I engaged in formal studies. A lot of materials I needed were in Logos and not in Accordance. Logos 1.x for Mac was out, and I primarily used it as my mobile seminary library because I was travelling a lot, so hauling paper books was not a great option. Accordance was what I used for original languages studies. Then Logos for Mac jumped from 1.x to 4, when the strategy was to have feature parity between the Mac and Windows. Logos v.4 Mac was a trainwreck. So much so, I ran the Windows version in a VM until version 5.0 came out. It was still buggy and slow, and in my view did not hold its own with Accordance's speed until version 10.
So for years, I would say Accordance was the first app that I opened, but this has changed. This has not been intentional, but rather when I am working in Logos and find that I have not felt the need to switch back to Accordance, it is an indicator that the friction to do so, is not worth it to me anymore, at least for my use case. And this is the key I think. Most people's use case, even if they read the original languages, is often not as demanding as some.
Add on top of that, the disaster of Accordance version v. 14 and how far it is slipping behind in technological advancements is disturbing. 'Enhanced syncing' is actually 'standard syncing' in many applications now. Mobile apps and cloud are becoming less and less of a poor cousin, and forming a valid part of people's study workflows. This is mature and standard technology now. Accordance sold these features over two years ago, and when users started to make comments, the response was disasterous and resulted in some even being banned. (I don't blame the admin btw, and I know it is not easy sometimes to make peace) Updates to resources are also slipping further behind, such as some of my main commentaries and journals.
Yet there is still a place for Accordance if they can get the ship righted again. The philosophy of the UI and its capabilities, particularly for demanding original language use cases, has value and so it would be a shame to lose it… particularly as we have seen the premium Bible software space contract considerably. Personally, I felt it very disturbing when BibleWorks closed. I never bought it, but I saw its value and I thought at the time, at least we still have Accordance!
I rarely open Accordance these days. The few times I have, it has crashed. I know there are fixes if I concentrate on it, but this used to never be the case when the Browns ran the company. It was rock solid and put Logos to shame in terms of speed and dependability. This is no longer the case, and while I hope the new management in Accordance can redress all of this, I hope that Logos will also continue to refine its original language capabilities. Without sounding like I want Logos to be Accordance, I do think the original language use case merits a fresh look at search construction, the ability to manage multiple layouts, including renaming of tab groups, and new or improved text tools like text comparison would be welcomed.
With this said, Logos has a much larger general user base and I know these requests compete against things like Sermon Builder or Counselling Guide, which are not on the radar of my use case. AI has been a value add and I can see exactly why Logos has needed to go there, but still… would love to see a tool like text comparison go to the next level in its basic functionality. With all this said, I have to say I am truly grateful for the cool tools we have in both Logos and Accordance. What we have access to is historic! 😎
3 -
Hi @Donovan R. Palmer , we for sure have the same impression of v.14. I am personally still at the point where I like playing with Logos, and there are a few books I like reading in it, but if I need to get actual work done it really forces me to go to Accordance. This is primarily because of how original languages are handled, with the Logos "lemma" vs Accordance "lex" as they are just not comparable. The Accordance lex often finds more, and the reason is because the Logos lemma separates the lex into a different lemma for certain situations (as previously mentioned with words like κύριος), which just doesn't work if I am looking for the word in every instance. I understand there is the root option, but it captures words which are just of the same root, obviously. The second issue is that there is no way to easily compare the lists. If I were in Accordance I could take the results from one search and compare them against each other in under a minute to find the differences, while in Logos it seems to be possible to create something similar, but it is clunky and would require exporting the list outside of Logos (from what I understand). I also miss the way that I have ONE search bar and can type a word or a verse and the system just gets it, while in Logos the process is more complicated, since if I am searching for a word or a verse, they seem to be two different areas. So I suppose in short, I personally feel like Logos does a far better job with books, and Accordance does a far better job with languages and searching (as you mentioned above). While I do need to use Accordance exclusively for my work, I do appreciate having Logos and reading a lot of the cool things I now have in it. I also agree with you about BW, only I in fact did have it.
3 -
Great post. Yeah, I learned a lot about lemma/lex differences earlier in this thread and your approach to your language studies. My approach doesn’t require this distinction at this stage, but it does emphasize why we need different tools and datasets. I hope Accordance and Logos continue to develop.
1 -
" The second issue is that there is no way to easily compare the lists. If I were in Accordance I could take the results from one search and compare them against each other in under a minute to find the differences, while in Logos it seems to be possible to create something similar, but it is clunky and would require exporting the list outside of Logos (from what I understand). I also miss the way that I have ONE search bar and can type a word or a verse and the system just gets it, while in Logos the process is more complicated, since if I am searching for a word or a verse, they seem to be two different areas. "
This post-quoting in the new exciting forum, is really not satisfactory … first a 'quote' to reference the post correctly, and then a copy/paste (Jason's solution) to narrow down the issue.
ANYWAY … your second issue has always been a mystery to me … why the Logos design-team (or the boss) doesn't place efficiency as a key feature in planning app development. Passage lists are a very common tool; my preacher Dad lived on them. Especially comparing his passage lists for … another passage list! They're integral to types of preaching, and also research. Another example is text comparison … sometimes folks want to do a single passage comparison and scroll … sometimes compare a list of passages. In Logos, good luck … it's do-able. Just painful.
OT: I just noticed, the forum app can't underline, etc. Basically, bold, and strike-thru, though italics works.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
4 -
The second issue is that there is no way to easily compare the lists. If I were in Accordance I could take the results from one search and compare them against each other in under a minute to find the differences, while in Logos it seems to be possible to create something similar, but it is clunky and would require exporting the list outside of Logos (from what I understand)
You can compare Passage Lists using the Merge option - there are a number of ways you can use this.
since if I am searching for a word or a verse, they seem to be two different areas
Can you expand on this please?
0 -
In Logos, good luck … it's do-able. Just painful.
When we were debating in-line search in relation to the new dynamic search bar, I was surprised about the push towards the search panel. Some of the concerns were heard and made the cut, but it really made me wonder who on the team is pushing the developmental boundaries and efficiencies of original languages work. Voices like Dr. Heiser and Rick Brannan are not as prominent as they used to be. So when it comes to strategy, who is starting to wave the flag that the text comparison tool is looking very long in the tooth, let alone the limited data sets that it accesses? So I hope in this new era we might be able to hear what is on the roadmap for investment. To be fair, I don’t see Accordance with its core issues and no one like the Browns in the mix, innovating anything new soon either.
1 -
Hi @Graham Criddle ,
Thank you for your response. I have a few comments / questions, so I will number them if that is alright.
1) Regarding the merge, I am having a lot of confusion about it. If I start from the NA28 and search, it defaults to "Morph." Since your screenshot showed books, I ran it there, but I still don't see it. I will post a screenshot.
2) Is there a clear def anywhere about the difference between "Bible" Books" and "Morph"? I seem to be able to run the same search everywhere.
3) A lot of the words are highlighted random colors, yet I did not highlight them. I assume there is a way to turn them off, but I am wondering whose highlights these are.
4) Regarding the two searches, I will post a screenshot here as well. In Accordance I have one search box and I can type anything. In Logos I can type a verse in the search box, but to type a word I need to press a magnifier and then it produces a second box. Then if I type a verse in the second box, I now have two places to type references. It is just kind of confusing.
Take care,
Kristin
1 -
Hi @Kristin
1) Regarding the merge, I am having a lot of confusion about it. If I start from the NA28 and search, it defaults to "Morph." Since your screenshot showed books, I ran it there, but I still don't see it. I will post a screenshot.
Apologies, the Books Search in my earlier screenshot just happened to be there - it wasn't relevant to what I was trying to describe.
Here, I've done the same search as you showed (I am using Logos with a subscription so my toolbar will be different to yours but functionally they are equivalent)
Now I can sent the results to a Passage List (I'm showing the resulting Passage List on the right of the screenshot). Note: I think there might be an issue in sending the results to a Passage List from the earlier toolbar (the one you are using) - it so, please advise.
If I do the same search in Scrivener's Textus Receptus - and generate another Passage List - I get a different number of results.
Now I can merge the two lists to see where the differences are - I'll choose the Difference option below:
This gives me a new Passage List showing where the differences appear - it's worth playing around with the different options to see how they work:
2) Is there a clear def anywhere about the difference between "Bible" Books" and "Morph"? I seem to be able to run the same search everywhere.
Bible Search is defined here
Books Search is defined here
Morph Search is defined here
Basically a Bible Search is designed to search Bibles - and this supports the most options in terms of tagging. A Books Search is designed to search all of the books in your Library while a Morph Search is focused on searching for morphologically tagged terms. Some time ago - maybe over a year now - the ability to do morphological searches within a Bible Search window was introduced and this has blurred the boundaries between a Morph and a Bible Search.
3) A lot of the words are highlighted random colors, yet I did not highlight them. I assume there is a way to turn them off, but I am wondering whose highlights these are.
If you are referring to the blues, pinks, etc in your screenshot they look very much like the results of Visual Filters. Have you defined some?
4) Regarding the two searches, I will post a screenshot here as well. In Accordance I have one search box and I can type anything. In Logos I can type a verse in the search box, but to type a word I need to press a magnifier and then it produces a second box. Then if I type a verse in the second box, I now have two places to type references. It is just kind of confusing.
I see the difference you are describing - I think it is probably a different approach in the two programs.
The top box in Logos is not a search box - it is used to change positions in the resource. Whereas the box that appears when you click the search icon in the toolbar is designed to search for elements within the resource.
You can see the difference by typing a reference in both boxes:
- In the top box, it will just change position in the Bible
- In the bottom box, it will fiter what is displayed to just that verse
Hope this helps a little
1 -
You are correct in that Dr. Heiser is dead and Rick Brannan is no longer a Logos employee - rather he is now a very helpful MVP. But I'm not sure what you mean by pushing things towards the search panel. Logos has always used the search panel as the most complete, most powerful search location. I am annoyed that the Find option was left in the panel menu rather than moved to the new dynamic resource toolbar. (Note that by calling it a search bar you implied a much narrower purpose for it than it serves.) To get comfortable with Logos, one must recognize that Logos does some things differently than Accordance - but the functions are there, from the examples given often more powerful functions.
For transparency: I hate the inline search shredding my text into random bits. I hate a verse orientation: my hierarchy is morpheme - lexeme - lexical unit - phrase - clause- sentence - discourse unit - pericope.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
1 -
Hi @Graham Criddle ,
Thank you for the links and screenshots. That was helpful. You are correct that I don't have the Passage list in the toolbar with the version I have, but I figured out that after I run the search it becomes an option if I click the three vertical dots on the right. I admit I still find it somewhat confusing, primarily since Logos doesn't allow re-naming tabs, and it is complicated sorting through a collection of "Search." However, it makes a lot more sense. Thank you for your help.
0 -
but the functions are there, from the examples given often more powerful functions.
The point I was trying to make, perhaps poorly, is efficiency. Yesterday as I was bouncing from panel to panel, clicking away at my mouse, it reminded me of the old amusement park game whack-a-mole. Amazing what I could do, but seeing a couple of other examples, one from a product that is now dead, I express hope that language experts who are much more capable than I, could work with the UI designers in optimisation. I know this is not easy because of the span of use cases for Logos. There always seems to be a tension between user friendliness and efficiency!
(FWIW, my approach to the text is similar, but that is a post for another day!)
1 -
I am annoyed that the Find option was left in the panel menu rather than moved to the new dynamic resource toolbar.
I share this point of view. I was surprised it was not harmonised into the new toolbar.
1 -
@Donovan R. Palmer Thank you for the lengthy message!
I found Logos and its offerings to be very exciting early on! My journey with Logos began in 2010 when I acquired the Stuttgart Electronic Study Bible (SESB), Version 3.0 (52 vols.) in Libronix format. Then a year later In 2011, I added the Original Languages Library (JG) Logos 4, and in 2012, I used the Crossgrade option Logos used to have to upgrade to Logos 5. I think the biggest library I went with was Platinum (Logos 6) . I have been satisfied with Logos as digital theological library assistant. However, I felt a bit disheartened that Logos discontinued the Original language library line of basepackages/libraries. Even now when I look at the 2025 libraries I notice there isn't an Original language anywhere to be found.
Logos' user base has clearly grown (and that is great thing!) and is lot bigger and wider than it was in the past. The new Logos of today is moving in a brand new direction! Logos has been and is developing more and more products that cater to a new generation and a very different audience than I am part of.
Grace and Peace,
Brian
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
0 -
However, I felt a bit disheartened that Logos discontinued the Original language library line of basepackages/libraries. Even now when I look at the 2025 libraries I notice there isn't an Original language anywhere to be found.
I agree. I am hopeful that in the new libraries to be launched in Q1, there will be a strong Original Languages offering. I think the MAX subscription is supposed to build out additional value propositions for the Original Languages crowd as well.
1 -
I agree. I am hopeful that in the new libraries to be launched in Q1, there will be a strong Original Languages offering. I think the MAX subscription is supposed to build out additional value propositions for the Original Languages crowd as well.
@Donovan Palmer I'm holding out hope for this is well. This is actually the first Logos release where I wasn't all that enthused with the packages offered. Normally there is at least a couple resources that I convince myself I must have. There were some offerings in the higher packages that I would desire, but not enough to not weight for the denominational and academic packages. Normally under the circumstances I would have purchased a package specifically for the course, but with the courses that come with Max, I don't have that urge. This is actually a good thing for my pocket book :P
2 -
@Donovan Palmer rather than forcing people who are interested in Original languages to subscribe to a Max subsricption, I am hoping Logos will simply make a streamlined Original Language package line and/or subscription line like they used to have and much in the same way they do with the denominational packages. Just as someone who wants a Catholic product can go for Verbum, or one can simply go do the Baptist basepackage I am hopping one can do the same with an Original Language package line.
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
0
