Original Languages Study
Comments
-
Thanks Donovan. I am amazed at how much easier these complex Hebrew searches are in Logos than in Accordance. Using these wivu constituency trees in Logos has made syntax searching a lot of fun.[Y]
0 -
Brian Leathers said:
Thanks Donovan. I am amazed at how much easier these complex Hebrew searches are in Logos than in Accordance. Using these wivu constituency trees in Logos has made syntax searching a lot of fun.
It really is a delight to see you to put Logos through the paces. I know Logos is not for everyone, but it is such a capable platform for Original Language studies. It is something I have known for a long time as I have straddled the Accordance and Logos worlds, but you have given some really clear examples. Certainly better than I ever could, particularly with Hebrew. Well done! These are worthy of going into the wiki or some other resource location.
0 -
After watching Michael Heiser's training videos on learning to use hebrew on logos, you can create visual filters where you can spot all of the hebrew particples, noun absolute constructs, the infinitives, imperatives, and the main verb stems all in your english text. This teaches you to slow down and think more carefully about what you're reading in the text of scripture.
0 -
Link your english bible with the visual filters with the wivu constituency trees and you can find and search different hebrew forms and search for multiple combinations of sentences in your english and hebrew texts:
0 -
Thanks for taking the time to write up all these explanations on how you use the resources in Logos. I think someone mentioned how nice it would be to compile this to put on the wiki page. I have bookmarked this thread to return to later.
0 -
Do you know how to do this in New Testament Greek? It looks beneficial to studying the original language.
0 -
Any layout I make I always open a Bible and duplicate it it for sending links to it. It's a practice you should incorporate in any layout you do where you are using a bible.
0 -
Brian Leathers said:
Since migrating from Accordance, I have been blown away by how Logos is miles ahead of Accordance in studying the Biblical texts. Here is just one example of a layout that I have created for studying the Old Testament. I took my inspiration from BibleWorks that I used to use before I tried Accordance. Check it out:
Thanks for taking the time to post this. I also am a former (and current [:)]) Bibleworks user. I also have Accordance, but am not proficient with it.
What this shows is that Logos has capability equal to or beyond what other programs offer. It also shows the need to become a power user and take advantage of all of the available training which are available to make the most of the Logos software.
I hope to have the time in the future to dive in to Logos and learn it more completely.
You mentioned the Heiser training, which I have always thought were terribly overpriced on Logos. This leaves me with a question, what is the best training available for this type of original language work in Logos? Does the MP seminars take you this deep? I was actually looking at a couple of different third party sources of training also. But it would be good to get feedback from people who have been through the training already [:)]
0 -
I subscribe to MP seminars and I have Michael Heiser's learn to use hebrew with logos. All of this training plus being a former Accordance user has paid massive dividends in learning to do these searches and diving deeper into logos. I highly recommend taking the time to go through this type of training because it all connects. Now I'm going through the syntax training videos in wiki and you tube and more dots are connecting.[Y]
0 -
My main focus has been on Hebrew the past 2 months but now, I'm going to start delving into the Greek syntactical databases to learn how to do the searches there. Going to take me a little while to learn these...
0 -
Ok guys, I have thought about some more improvements on the previous Greek and Hebrew layouts that I showed ya'll how to create. Well let me walk you through some simple steps to combine both layouts into one to study both the Hebrew and Greek texts.
0 -
Here we go:
1. Go to documents and open your collection of greek theological dictionaries or lexicons, whatever you have named them.
2. Next, drag and drop your library icon in the right pane and find your first listed greek theological dictionary and click on the information icon in the library pane list the information on your dictionary.
3. Next, scroll down to where you see series listed under the information about your dictionary and edit the series to say favorite theological dictionaries or whatever you want to name this series. Do this for the rest of your greek theological dictionaries and then do the same thing for your collection of favorite hebrew theological dictionaries. You must set all of your greek and hebrew dictionaries to the exact same series name in order for this to work later.
4. Next, find your favorite hebrew and greek lexicons and change the series name to favorite lexicons on all of them.
0 -
5. Next, go to the tools menu and find collections and create a new collection named most used bibles and put in there your favorite hebrew and greek bibles and then put in there your favorite septuagint.
6. Next, open your hebrew bibleworks layout that you created earlier in this Original Languages thread and go to the pane displaying your english, hebrew, and greek septuagint panel and click on the multibook view icon. Uncheck your hebrew bible and septuagint. Then type most in the search window and click on most used bibles.
7. Then click on link set A on your panel displaying your english, hebrew, and greek septuagint.
8. In the search panel next to your text comparison panel, click on add versions to add your favorite greek new testament.
0 -
9. Now type in John 6:36 in your english bible in the middle panel and hit enter.
10. Now notice that your bibles in the left panel have automatically changed to john 6:36 and only your greek new testament is displayed next your english text.
11. Now, double click on the english word believe in john 6:36 and notice all of your greek lexicons and dictionaries have followed you.
12. Now right click on the word believe in verse 36 and click on its specific morphological form.
13. Now it has searched for that specific form in your english bible and greek new testament.
14. Now in the search window of your english text, type in isaiah 45:10 and hit enter.
15. Notice now that in the left panel, the greek new testament has disappeared and your hebrew bible and greek septuagint have automatically followed your english text. Also, your favorite hebrew text has followed underneath your english text in the middle pane.
0 -
16. Double click on the word begetting in Isaiah 45:10 and notice all of your hebrew lexicons and dictionaries have appeared as well as the search results in the left pane.
17. Now right click on the word begetting in verse 10 and click on its specific morphological form.
18. And the results show up in your hebrew and greek bibles automatically.
0 -
Now, instead of having to use two different layouts to study the old and new testaments, now you only have to use one layout and everything follows you wherever you go in the bible. All of your hebrew and greek resources follow you no matter whether you are searching the hebrew old testament or greek new testament. Pretty cool huh? And don't forget to rename this layout to cover the hebrew and greek texts.
0 -
This is fantastic, Brian. In general, using custom-named series is very helpful in several circumstances. For example, if you have an incomplete commentary set, you can incorporate another favorite commentary to fill in the blanks, so your linked commentary series will follow you through the whole bible, even if you enter a book that isn't covered by your prioritized commentary. Several other uses too (e.g. replacing an outdated edition with an updated edition from the same series); it's a neat option to have.
0 -
One more thing, when you are doing word studies with your lemmas, make sure you unlink your texts in the left panel so that they do not automatically scroll with your english text in the middle panel. When you want to switch between the old and new testaments, have link set A clicked so that that panel follows your main english text.
0 -
Also, you can add the exegetical guide to your Hebrew and Greek layout and link it to your english bible so it will follow your word studies and check your textual variants, grammatical constructions, grammars, etc. So many ways with Logos to mine the riches of the text of scripture. [H]
You can also add the bible word study report and link it to your english bible and study the grammatical relationships in your hebrew and greek texts. Just click on any english word in your favorite bible and Logos automatically will search that word in your bible word study report:
0 -
Brian Leathers said:
Since migrating from Accordance, I have been blown away by how Logos is miles ahead of Accordance in studying the Biblical texts.
I run both Accordance and Logos from my notebook computer so screen real estate comes at a premium if you know what I mean. So, I am wondering:
Question: how does one go about splitting up some these mega layouts and turn them into more managable tabbed work spaces, with labels?
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
0 -
Hey BKMitchell,
Good question, it took me a while to learn and get adjusted to how to do layouts in Logos and I'm still learning. I had to go through a lot of trial and error to get this layout the way I wanted it to look. My laptop has a large screen so this one fits perfectly:
Since you have limited screen space, I would recommend focusing on what's most important to the kind of work that you are wanting to do and saving that as a layout on your notebook. I can use all of this on my laptop but if I were in your shoes, I would pick out the most important panels and save that as a layout. Maybe what you don't use as much, make a layout of those panels and save that to use less often would be my recommendation.
0 -
Brian Leathers said:
Maybe what you don't use as much,
Well, I think I use just as much, but not on one screen at one time.
Rather, I would probably have divided into name tabbed spaces, so I can jump back and forth between different searches andor studies. So, I am still trying to figure out how to do that.
Brian Leathers said:I had to go through a lot of trial
That line of thought rings true for me! Logos is powerful, but it can be challening to figure out how to do things.
For example I would like to search on vowel points patterns and instead of using consonants would like to have wild cards in their place. I am sure logos can do it, but I still have yet to figure it out.
anyway thanks for the recommendations
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
0 -
BKMitchell said:
Question: how does one go about splitting up some these mega layouts and turn them into more managable tabbed work spaces, with labels?
This is a limitation that has driven me nuts for years. There are some feedback items to vote on if you wish:
https://feedback.logos.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/ability-to-create-tab-groups
https://feedback.logos.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/rename-tabs
https://feedback.logos.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/allow-multiple-application-instances
Floating windows help, but there are limitations. i.e. if you click a link, it will send you to your main layout to open up the guide, tool or resources. (you can click and drag though to stay in the floating window)
In my opinion, the gap between laptop screens and multiple desktop screens is bigger than it has ever been, so having some of these options to build layouts (a.k.a workspaces in Accordance) would be very useful.
0 -
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
0 -
Miles ahead? I followed your setup, and yes, there are some things that Logos can do that Accordance cannot. But I can do so much more with the multiple workspaces in Accordance that Logos cannot. With a triple monitor setup, that was the killer for me when I gave both software a run. I do 90% of my work with the competition because of the limitation on having one layout open at a time.
And, lot of what you do here is actually as easy or easier for me with the live click in Accordance. And the text comparison in the competition has the the tagging in it.
So, like Chevy, Ford, Dodge, they all can get you there (if you know how to drive them). Probably none of them would be "miles ahead" of the competitors. Maybe yards or feet. [;)]
But thanks for sharing this; It is very helpful. I think I will find it useful and, who knows, maybe some day I will get to liking it more than the competition. So far, I am not convinced.
0 -
Michael Atnip said:
But I can do so much more with the multiple workspaces in Accordance that Logos cannot. With a triple monitor setup, that was the killer for me when I gave both software a run. I do 90% of my work with the competition because of the limitation on having one layout open at a time.
I suspect this is a matter of familiarity with the software and having developed habits around it. Logos users often use multiple monitors with different floating windows on different monitors. The primary difference is that the full collection of monitor layouts is drawn together under a single layout - opened and closed as a single unit while, as I understand it, Accordance users are used to having these as separate layouts opened and closed as independent units.
There are Logos users who would prefer the Accordance approach and those who prefer the Logos approach; I suspect the same is true in Accordance. But brush away the noise and one finds little difference in functionality, only in how one achieves it.
Speaking for myself only, one aspect that made me turn towards Logos rather than Accordance is the ease with which the Bible text is left "pure" rather than being an active workspace. Not that this is difficult in Accordance but rather it is counter-cultural. Mind you my distaste for the multi-colored visual filtered Bibles shown in many Logos screenshots are just as counter-cultural to me.
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."
0 -
I totally agree with you MJ.[Y] In transitioning from Accordance to Logos, I'm still learning and adjusting to the functionality of Logos but I am enjoying the journey of discovering all that Logos can do in studying the Scriptures in the original languages. There are some things that I miss in Accordance that Logos can't do yet, but I am discovering day by day so many more things that Logos can do that Accordance simply can't do. Mark Allison is right, 5 years ago Accordance led the way in the study of original languages. But what a difference 5 years are in the world of Bible software development. It's all about staying on the cutting edge of software development and these past five years are exhibit A on the difference in direction between Accordance and Logos. Logos is moving forward and growing while listening to their customers' needs and Accordance is bleeding customers and censoring feedback while staying stagnant in development. This is why so many former Accordance users like myself are here now at Logos and excited about Bible software again.[H]
0 -
Brian Leathers said:
I am discovering day by day so many more things that Logos can do that Accordance simply can't do.
Hello Brian Leathers, If you do not mind please share some of things especially as releated to Original language research. For example what kinds of queries can run on Hebrew texts in Logos that I can't do else where?
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
There are Logos users who would prefer the Accordance approach and those who prefer the Logos approach; I suspect the same is true in Accordance. But brush away the noise and one finds little difference in functionality, only in how one achieves it.
My main struggle with the Logos approach of floating windows is that their behaviour is different than the main workspace. (i.e. links) I have adapted to this, but my main use case of floating windows is that when I am working in a text or tool, I sometimes want to 'pop it out' from amongst the other tabs, so that I can focus in on it. Keyboard commands are brilliant for this, because you can move around very quickly and drill down into that pane. (This use case is a lot different than attempting to use a floating pane as an extension of resources in a multi-screen environment.)
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
But brush away the noise and one finds little difference in functionality, only in how one achieves it.
MJ. Smith said:Yes, the "noise" from recent Accordance-to-Logos converts needs to be discerned. The functionality of the two are neck-and-neck, with one ahead here, the other there. The other "noise" has to do with dissatisfaction with perceived mismanagement. If we can keep these two aspects separated, then we will probably not make claims about being "miles ahead" or that one or the other software is seriously handicapped. I find not having multiple workspaces a major "handicap" for my workflow, but my workflow is not the only one, and may not be the best if I knew of others.
Bible software has hit a plateau in development, with little foreseeable major advances in the near future. Tweaks and improvements? Yeah ... but like image manipulation software (think Photoshop and such), not much new has really happened in the last few years other than AI integration. Maybe I am wrong about any major breakthroughs in Bible software; I am not a prophet, just giving a very subjective opinion. :-)
0 -
Michael Atnip said:
Bible software has hit a plateau in development, with little foreseeable major advances in the near future. Tweaks and improvements?
You may be right but there are many useful features from other text analysis and data mining tools that could be brought into Bible software that would greatly enhance the visual logic capabilities.
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."
0 -
Michael Atnip said:
The functionality of the two are neck-and-neck, with one ahead here, the other there. The other "noise" has to do with dissatisfaction with perceived mismanagement.
Like you and many others, I have paid for the privilege of being a big fan of Accordance. In my head, it is a bit hard to separate what is possible in my use case with the direction management is taking the company. So, I have hard time creating a dichotomy in my mind, because I am frustrated at management's performance to deliver syncing for some years now, when the reality is that this is standard technology in many apps and is not exactly cutting edge.
Ok, this reflects one small element of my use case of increasingly relying on mobile technology to study on the fly, but it also represents a passion that I have that Accordance should be working on other technologies by now. This is in addition to resource development. In the last month we have had Galaxie Journals and Master Collection updates drop in Logos, and I have no confidence that we will see Galaxie updates any time soon in Accordance.
Of course, if all I want to do is do the type of textual studies I have always done, solely on the desktop with a few updates here and there, I would have nothing to complain about right now.
I do think more is possible and I do wish them well. I am not burning my licenses just yet because it is an amazing piece of software.
Michael Atnip said:Bible software has hit a plateau in development, with little foreseeable major advances in the near future. Tweaks and improvements?
I have wondered the same thing, but I look at things that I would like to see more development and imagination on. So for example, in the last few days there has been dialogue about taking the text comparison tool further. https://community.logos.com/forums/t/224904.aspx
Also, could the Logos Bible Study platform be a bit more open to interfacing in a contextual way with complimentary studies in Biblical and extra Biblical materials through features such as sharing highlights with Readwise? There are materials out there that will never ever appear in Logos and platforms like ReadWise can help bridge the gap. https://feedback.logos.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/send-highlights-to-readwise or even allow the import of materials formatted in PDF or ePub? https://feedback.logos.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/request-a-facility-to-add-pdf-and-epub-books-directly-into-logos-please I have been pretty passionate about keeping external and internal linking in Logos as part of the strategy going forward, so we can link our thinking, no matter which pieces of software we are employing in our overall research workflows. https://community.logos.com/forums/t/224537.aspx?PageIndex=3
From a historical Christianity point of view, I think there is more to be done in mining the resources and datasets we have on a number of fronts, such as allowing users to more easily navigate Biblical interpretation from over the years https://feedback.logos.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/bible-interpretation-choices-at-a-glance or allowing users to focus on specific era studies, such as this feature suggested around the Church Fathers. https://feedback.logos.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/collection-church-fathers-categorized.
Some church traditions would also be better served to allow for greater ease of study according to their approach to the church calendar. https://feedback.logos.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/revive-liturgical-ribbon or a Confessional Bible study filter https://feedback.logos.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/confessional-bible-study-filter
I'd also like an improved Atlas Guide https://feedback.logos.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/add-atlas-resources-to-atlas-guide-section and for the Bible Atlas revamped with a greater ability to build your own layers and fundamental things like alternative spellings addressed: https://feedback.logos.com/boards/logos-data-sets/posts/accept-known-alternate-spellings-for-place-names-in-atlas Images and multimedia are the same: https://feedback.logos.com/boards/logos-mobile-app/posts/resource-view-improve-image-viewing-support I am a big fan to Biblical Archaeology, so I am hopeful they will return to this at some point because in the early days of Logos this was quite popular. https://feedback.logos.com/boards/logos-data-sets/posts/archaeology-data-set I am still grieving over the day we lost BAR!
Of course, AI predictive technologies adds an additional and exciting overlay to all of this. If am comparing the translation of Biblical texts, what if the software recognises that I am leaving out some key comparisons in some commentaries, therefore giving me a prompt 'Also Consider...'
With this new business model, I would hope to see Logos be very mindful in what really brings value and addressing long standing things in the software that need revised. I also hope to see some imagination, like we are seeing around AI. (How about rebuilding from the ground up a new, more powerful notetaking tool, which has AI highlighting other notes you should cross link to or further resources you might consider consulting?)
I am writing as someone who uses the software every day, so you may be correct, we are at a plateau, like a wordprocessor, where 90% of the users use 10% of the features. If this is the case, and due to a lack of competition and vision Logos becomes bloated with useless stuff, their subscription model will likely highlight what people think when they vote with their feet. Time will tell.
0 -
Donovan R. Palmer said:
Of course, if all I want to do is do the type of textual studies I have always done, solely on the desktop with a few updates here and there, I would have nothing to complain about right now.
Okay, this is a very helpful distiniction!
And, I think it describes what I usually use Bible Software for.
Donovan R. Palmer said:Ok, this reflects one small element of my use case of increasingly relying on mobile technology to study on the fly, but it also represents a passion that I have that Accordance should be working on other technologies by now. This is in addition to resource development. In the last month we have had Galaxie Journals and Master Collection updates drop in Logos, and I have no confidence that we will see Galaxie updates any time soon in Accordance.
This is also helpful!
You know because I only use Logos and or Accordance only on my notebook pc I haven't paid attention to the syncing issue. As for Theological Journals they were never on my radar in the first place.
Donovan R. Palmer said:I am writing as someone who uses the software every day, so you may be correct, we are at a plateau, like a wordprocessor, where 90% of the users use 10% of the features.
Very interesting!
Donovan R. Palmer said:If this is the case, and due to a lack of competition and vision Logos becomes bloated with useless stuff, their subscription model will likely highlight what people think when they vote with their feet.
Some might argue that some of Logos packages are already bloated with useless stuff! No-the-less you have made some good points!
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
0 -
Brian Leathers said:
I have been blown away by how Logos is miles ahead of Accordance in studying the Biblical texts.
Hey Brian! I am all ears! Please elaborate more on this statement.
I am very, very curious! For example what kinds of morpho-syntactic Hebrew searches can I run in Logos that are miles ahead of the competition (in this case Accordance).
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
0 -
Donovan R. Palmer said:
I am writing as someone who uses the software every day, so you may be correct, we are at a plateau,
Oh, I don't remotely agree (smiling). The problem at Bellingham, is two-fold. They're locked into a legacy design, and a selling model, from 15 years ago. And it appears, between the PE, and the subscription idea, they'll just pitter-patter some more refinements. Some contracting out. A few more EEC volumes.
Now, my Bible software (and I'm not even a dev etc) happily does most of what Logos does (for me). I also allow my users (me) to edit the text, etc I import PDFs, texts, etc and allow searches and notes. I can highlight a text block and ask the app to find matches elsewhere ... and tell me why the match and what is different (in-app neural nets). My app also highlights author signitures, and deviations (what would be expected). And more.
Then , there's graphics. Fast, importable, and adjustable for presentation use. I also allow my users (me) to draw in the text ... diagram the arguments. On and on.
I've said before, modern Bible software has been largely just automating Westcott, and your local Christian bookstore ('All the Miracles in the Bible!'). There's much more that's do-able.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
DMB said:
my Bible software (and I'm not even a dev etc) happily does most of what Logos does (for me).
Do you mean to say that you have your own Bible Software? As in you created your own Bible Software platform?
DMB said:I've said before, modern Bible software has been largely just automating Westcott, and your local Christian bookstore
Are you refering to the Rt Rev. Brooke Foss West cot t, d,d.,d.c.l.. Lord Bishop of Durham by any chance? If so, what do mean by automating Wetcott? Do, you mean that modern Bible Software is all Anglican or related to the Church of England in some way?
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
0 -
BKMitchell said:
Are you refering to the Rt Rev. Brooke Foss West cot t, d,d.,d.c.l.. Lord Bishop of Durham by any chance? If so, what do mean by automating Wetcott? Do, you mean that modern Bible Software is all Anglican or related to the Church of England in some way?
Yes, my own software; Logos helps out. That's not tremendously impressive, when only one customer to impress, and one primary use.
Regarding Westcott, that refers to the late 1800s move away from the majority texts, in favor of the Egyptian (over-generalizing). But the mss choices, and methods Westcott espoused are largely Logos's heritage.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
DMB said:
The problem at Bellingham, is two-fold. They're locked into a legacy design, and a selling model, from 15 years ago.
While both of those are true, I think the problem is more fundamental ... they are locked into a historical-grammatical heuristic and scripture as ink-on-a-page that leads to an underappreciation of many methods that are actually used in bible study. Often, their implementation is poor, based on this heuristic e.g. case frames that are all but hidden rather than being touted as a critical tool of narrative criticism.
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."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
While both of those are true, I think the problem is more fundamental ... they are locked into a historical-grammatical heuristic and scripture as ink-on-a-page that leads to an underappreciation of many methods that are actually used in bible study. Often, their implementation is poor, based on this heuristic e.g. case frames that are all but hidden rather than being touted as a critical tool of narrative criticism.
Well said!
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Hey BKMitchell,
I apologize for making such a brash statement. My excitement and zeal got the better of me and I apologize. For the type of work and searching that I like and need to do, Logos works better for me is much more intuitive and user friendly than Accordance. Two years of frustration with Accordance 14 and the numerous bugs and lack of response in fixing numerous errors in their software led to my overzealous outburst at finally having Bible software that functioned the way that I needed it to. Once again I apologize and if Accordance works for and does what you need it to do, I'm happy for you. I am finally happy to have a Bible software program in Logos that does what I need it to do. I do miss some searching capabilities in Accordance, like vowel searches for example that I am hoping Logos will offer, but I will enjoy and appreciate what Logos does give me for now.
0 -
Brian Leathers said:
Hey BKMitchell,
I apologize for making such a brash statement. My excitement and zeal got the better of me and I apologize. For the type of work and searching that I like and need to do, Logos works better for me is much more intuitive and user friendly than Accordance. Two years of frustration with Accordance 14 and the numerous bugs and lack of response in fixing numerous errors in their software led to my overzealous outburst at finally having Bible software that functioned the way that I needed it to. Once again I apologize and if Accordance works for and does what you need it to do, I'm happy for you. I am finally happy to have a Bible software program in Logos that does what I need it to do. I do miss some searching capabilities in Accordance, like vowel searches for example that I am hoping Logos will offer, but I will enjoy and appreciate what Logos does give me for now.
[Y]
0 -
Here is what I just found in Logos about searching with vowels in Hebrew:
Just getting started using some of these search commands and I have already tried searching for the "interrogative He" for instance and so far so good.
0 -
Brian Leathers said:
Hey BKMitchell,
I apologize for making such a brash statement. My excitement and zeal got the better of me and I apologize.
Thank you, but Logos is a very powerful program and I am interested in find out more about what it can do.
Brian Leathers said:For the type of work and searching that I like and need to do, Logos works better for me is much more intuitive and user friendly than Accordance.
I would like to hear more about that, and I sure that others who like to and need to the same kind of work would very appreciate your post!
Brian Leathers said:Two years of frustration with Accordance 14 and the numerous bugs and lack of response in fixing numerous errors in their software led to my overzealous outburst at finally having Bible software that functioned the way that I needed it to. Once again I apologize
Hey, I appreciate your response but there really is no need to apologize.
Brian Leathers said:I am finally happy to have a Bible software program in Logos that does what I need it to do.
This is great to hear!
Once again Logos is a very powerful program and I have recently found out that is can actually run a lot of the types searches I want to run, but sometimes Logos does so in very convoluted and cumbersome ways in my opinion. For example in logos it I want to search on accent patterns I have to formulate a long boolean string on the search bar/command line.
Brian Leathers said:I do miss some searching capabilities in Accordance, like vowel searches for example that I am hoping Logos will offer, but I will enjoy and appreciate what Logos does give me for now.
I hope Logos will bring back the Original language library line of basepackages. That used to be my favorite upgrade path in logos.
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
0 -
DMB said:
Regarding Westcott, that refers to the late 1800s move away from the majority texts, in favor of the Egyptian (over-generalizing). But the mss choices, and methods Westcott espoused are largely Logos's heritage.
Thanks for the explanation!
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
, I think the problem is more fundamental ... they are locked into a historical-grammatical heuristic and scripture as ink-on-a-page that leads to an underappreciation of many methods that are actually used in bible study. Often, their implementation is poor, based on this heuristic e.g. case frames that are all but hidden rather than being touted as a critical tool of narrative criticism.
WOW! now, this is very intriguing!
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
0 -
BKMitchell said:
Some might argue that some of Logos packages are already bloated with useless stuff! No-the-less you have made some good points!
I know what you mean, but yet I probably don't. What is useless? One person's definition of what is useless is different depending on their study objectives and use case. Also the software platform can make a difference.
What is interesting, when I am using Accordance, I never download all of the contents of their collections. My install of Accordance is very lean and mean, and if it is not related to my textual studies, it does not get downloaded. I am very selective in what I have in my library.
Logos, on the other hand, I am much more generous. I rate and tag all of my resources. So for example, classic commentaries which are in the public domain, I give a two star rating, which everything starts out with. If one of these resources pops up in a search or is referred to in another resource, making a significant contribution to my investigation of a text, I promote it by bumping up the rating accordingly. The more I refer to it, the more I might bump it up. I might add it to a collection or two too.
Conversely, I might bump it down to one star because I really think it is not very good. In a worse case, I could 'hide' it in my library. This is very rare. So it is like a gold pan, in which I am sifting for little nuggets all the time. I am shocked how sometimes I think something is useless, then later I realise that I didn't know what I had.
So I have a collection that is my all time favourites, that if I don't want to go digging, I just go to the core resources that I know I would absolutely draw on in any situation. But if I want to roam, I can broaden my search. I think this is where the AI search stuff is getting really exciting. It can help me discover stuff that I didn't even know I had.
For years I used Logos primarily as mobile seminary type library and Accordance for textual studies. I will say though, that the original language capabilities of Logos have grown to such that it's more of an effort to switch to Accordance, so I just stay in Logos. Also, Logos is much, much faster and they have done a lot to improve the quality of the programming, so it rarely crashes. As long as Logos does not break things that I like when it comes to my definition of 'text-centric' studies (i.e. blow up in-line searches), I can foresee being in Logos 95% of the time. This is not to say it is perfect. I wished I could open multiple layouts at once or have tabbed zones, but each software has a philosophy that you have to run with.
Interestingly, yesterday, I did happen to open Accordance to chase something down and it crashed on my first lexeme search. This is something that would never ever been tolerated by Roy and Helen Brown. They had a fanatical commitment to quality, and because this is not a one off, I have concluded that this is the result of the change of management culture. It is not as it once was. (I won't rehash the disastrous launch of v. 14 or draw a comparison to Boeing)
We need Accordance to survive. It has a different approach and the competition is healthy. So we wait and see what will happen in the market...
0 -
Donovan R. Palmer said:
I know what you mean, but yet I probably don't. What is useless? One person's definition of what is useless is different depending on their study objectives and use case.
Indeed this was my point when I said 'some might' the point being that as you and I both seem to agree one size does not fit all. I greatly miss Logos' Original language library that was my favorite basepackage.
Donovan R. Palmer said:For years I used Logos primarily as mobile seminary type library and Accordance for textual studies.
I think I use Logos in much the same way as I use it as a reference library.
Donovan R. Palmer said:Logos is much, much faster
This is true! I was suprised at how fast it runs on my MacBook!
Donovan R. Palmer said:I will say though, that the original language capabilities of Logos have grown
This is probably true althought it also may greatly depend on what you are trying to do.
Donovan R. Palmer said:We need Accordance to survive. It has a different approach and the competition is healthy. So we wait and see what will happen in the market...
I agree!
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
0 -
BKMitchell said:Donovan R. Palmer said:
I know what you mean, but yet I probably don't. What is useless? One person's definition of what is useless is different depending on their study objectives and use case.
Indeed this was my point when I said 'some might' the point being that as you and I both seem to agree one size does not fit all. I greatly miss Logos' Original language library that was my favorite basepackage.
Donovan R. Palmer said:For years I used Logos primarily as mobile seminary type library and Accordance for textual studies.
I think I use Logos in much the same way as I use it as a reference library.
Donovan R. Palmer said:Logos is much, much faster
This is true! I was suprised at how fast it runs on my MacBook!
Donovan R. Palmer said:I will say though, that the original language capabilities of Logos have grown
This is probably true althought it also may greatly depend on what you are trying to do.
Donovan R. Palmer said:We need Accordance to survive. It has a different approach and the competition is healthy. So we wait and see what will happen in the market...
I agree!
Yes to all the above! I want Accordance to continue to thrive and improve as well. Just like mechanic's tools, BibleWorks, Accordance, and Logos are three tools in my collection where I have the option and blessing to pull out the best tool for the job.
If I am going to pay more for Logos Max for original languages then I want my money's worth in features, not just books :-)
0
