Why is the type "bible"? Shouldn't it be considered a commentary so it will show up in the PG?
( yes, I went and upgraded to platinum )
It ain't a bible
But it also most definitely ain't a commentary
I wouldn't even know how to classify it.
It ain't a bible But it also most definitely ain't a commentary I wouldn't even know how to classify it.
I don't know how to classify it but I am happy I have it in my Platinum. I found it only as I looked for some v4 files to add to the v3. on the web page of Logos. Great tool.
Something that would have been really nice to have is the ability to edit the Type ourselves. That way we would be able to customize our Passage, Exegetical, and Word searches.
By the way, is there a quick way to quote someone else when responding?
But it's indexed by passage, just like a commentary, and it would be nice to have it show in the PG which requires the commentary type be assigned.
Something that would have been really nice to have is the ability to change the Type ourselves. That way we would be able to customize our Passage, Exegetical, and Word searches.
Logos has explained that the type is closely tied to the automated tools so they don't want people messing up the type. I can see that...it would break the program if you made something a commentary that didn't have commentary features.
Be very careful. The print version is absolutely riddled with errors.
Use the reply button, and then on the posting page you can select the text you want to quote from the previous post, and click "Quote". Or click "Quote" on that page to quickly quote the whole post.
So you don't like it, eh?
Be very careful. The print version is absolutely riddled with errors. So you don't like it, eh?
Not a question of like.
At the Pontifical Biblical Institute we were strongly advised to go nowhere near it because of the high number of errors. Naturally, we all ignored that advice and learnt ourselves how many there were. These could all be fixed in the electronic version, but I doubt it. So caveat lector.
Todd, I can't answer that one, but the issue of exactly what tags are put on resources came up in beta testing. Then we are told that more work needed to be done on it. I agree. For example in Collections the new dynamic model assumes you can find a way to identify using modifiers in a search exactly what you want. Often it doesn't work that way. I haven't heard if work is being put on the tagging of resources at this point, but it is needed.
I don't think Logos will ever let us control the basic tags that come with the resources. The only hope will be for Logos to spend a good deal of time making their tagging consistent and useful.
Be very careful. The print version is absolutely riddled with errors. So you don't like it, eh? Not a question of like. At the Pontifical Biblical Institute we were strongly advised to go nowhere near it because of the high number of errors. Naturally, we all ignored that advice and learnt ourselves how many there were. These could all be fixed in the electronic version, but I doubt it. So caveat lector.
Not sure how useful it is anyway. Most everything it provides already built into the BHS/WM4.2 .
Well, thanks Damian for the information. You spoiled my joy a little bit but still I want to give it a try.
instead of using the quick quote link below the message you want to respond to, use the reply button above. Then highlight the part of their message you want to quote and click the "Quote" button.
Available Now
Build your biblical library with a new trusted commentary or resource every month. Yours to keep forever.
)
