BIBLE SENSE LEXICON Tool
Comments
-
Really don't know where to stick this comment, here seemed good.
Logos clearly has a three-pronged strategy or approach.
1. Software. A sophisticated means for searching, arranging, and exploring the Bible and other related texts.
2. Publishing. Providing and ever expanding library of resources covering the broad field of "biblical studies." To this end they have agreements with publishers from the Gutenberg Galaxy, bringing those works into a fully functional digital library.
3. Hermeneutics. As Logos has incorporated more "academic" editors, produces more in-house works (Lexham), and develops the meta-tools for exploring the text (Bible Sense Lexicon,); It is clear that Logos is providing the umbrella of a conceptual exegetical/hermenutical process. It is a discourse driven model. (I would expect that I am not the firs person who became confused when I first looked at the syntax feature and found little that was familiar from my studies of Greek syntax. What Logos meant or was doing, was apply discourse methodology to the text. Once I realized that I was easier to make sense of the data and use it.) So Logos provides a suite of tools to investigate the discourse-driven functional meaning of words.
In an earlier post I mentioned that I was coming to understand that much of the upgrade pain for long-time users is that we are helping to invest in that third strategies. Those oft-mentioned databases/data-sets/meta-tools are hermeneutical tools, Not the time or place to get into a philosophical discussion but my perspective is that understanding the big-picture, or grasping the whole model helps to understand some of the niggling details.
0 -
Robert C. Beckman Jr. said:
Really don't know where to stick this comment, here seemed good.
Logos clearly has a three-pronged strategy or approach.
1. Software. A sophisticated means for searching, arranging, and exploring the Bible and other related texts.
2. Publishing. Providing and ever expanding library of resources covering the broad field of "biblical studies." To this end they have agreements with publishers from the Gutenberg Galaxy, bringing those works into a fully functional digital library.
3. Hermeneutics. As Logos has incorporated more "academic" editors, produces more in-house works (Lexham), and develops the meta-tools for exploring the text (Bible Sense Lexicon,); It is clear that Logos is providing the umbrella of a conceptual exegetical/hermenutical process. It is a discourse driven model. (I would expect that I am not the firs person who became confused when I first looked at the syntax feature and found little that was familiar from my studies of Greek syntax. What Logos meant or was doing, was apply discourse methodology to the text. Once I realized that I was easier to make sense of the data and use it.) So Logos provides a suite of tools to investigate the discourse-driven functional meaning of words.
In an earlier post I mentioned that I was coming to understand that much of the upgrade pain for long-time users is that we are helping to invest in that third strategies. Those oft-mentioned databases/data-sets/meta-tools are hermeneutical tools, Not the time or place to get into a philosophical discussion but my perspective is that understanding the big-picture, or grasping the whole model helps to understand some of the niggling details.
that's evidence of a lot of thought and reflection. thanks, Robert.
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
Janice said:
If this is the case then I might as well drop my Diamond upgrade and go for the minimal crossgrade since you guys are promoting it like crazy.... How unfair to those who paid for this upgrade and the resources. I thought we paid for the upgrade/features as well? Is that not the case anymore?
Diamond includes all of the features AND a ton of resources. The minimal crossgrade only gives the new features, and none of those features would be new to you if you already have Diamond.
0 -
I do try[:D]
Not bad for the only certified fork-truck-drive/ordained ministry in the state of IL
Bob
0 -
Robert C. Beckman Jr. said:
I do try
Not bad for the only certified fork-truck-drive/ordained ministry in the state of IL
Bob
YOWZAAAA!
You're not related to Ernie, are you? (EDIT: I know an Ernie Beckman, from when I lived in Lincoln, IL)
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
Dan,
Ernie is my little brother. Spent most of Saturday at His house immersed in Sports.(and food) Drop me an E-mail and perhaps we can make some connections
Bob
0 -
Robert C. Beckman Jr. said:
Dan,
Ernie is my little brother. Spent most of Saturday at His house immersed in Sports.(and food) Drop me an E-mail and perhaps we can make some connections
Bob
cool! he was Lincoln around the same time--I think I was in seminary. then i was in campus ministry at ISU when he was up there.
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
BSL does address the word-concept fallacy to some degree by suggesting that the meanings of words are only understood in relation to the meanings of other words. So, words are not isolated concepts. But, the aim of BSL was not specifically to address this fallacy. BSL is based on linguistic theory that has developed since Barr.
0 -
Jeremy Thompson said:
BSL does address the word-concept fallacy to some degree by suggesting that the meanings of words are only understood in relation to the meanings of other words. So, words are not isolated concepts. But, the aim of BSL was not specifically to address this fallacy. BSL is based on linguistic theory that has developed since Barr.
Jeremy, does Joel know you're here?
0 -
Probably doesn't want to know because I'd likely be talking about Hebrew here.
0 -
Fr Devin Roza said:
From what I gather, only senses of nouns in the New Testament have been actually classified up to now. Is that correct?
Even a word study, for example, on a Hebrew noun brings up senses of the corresponding Greek term in the New Testament, but not in the Old Testament. The Hebrew vocabulary seems to be very complete, and with appropriate definitions and corresponding words, but without actually tagging words from the Old Testament.
No, we've annotated all the noun senses in the OT as well. You'll have to have the Lexham Hebrew Bible to see them: see http://community.logos.com/forums/p/58253/415676.aspx#415676 about turning on the reverse interlinear ribbon to show senses.
One feature missing from the current implementation is "Search this sense" (along with "Search this and narrower senses"): this should come in an update fairly soon.
0 -
Sean Boisen said:
No, we've annotated all the noun senses in the OT as well. You'll have to have the Lexham Hebrew Bible to see them: see http://community.logos.com/forums/p/58253/415676.aspx#415676 about turning on the reverse interlinear ribbon to show senses.
One feature missing from the current implementation is "Search this sense" (along with "Search this and narrower senses"): this should come in an update fairly soon.
That's very good to hear - especially for you guys... a lot less work to do!!! [;)]
I thought they weren't yet marked because the graphic bar which displays how many "senses" appear per book of the Bible on the upper right hand the "Senses" tool in the Bible Word Study, as well as in the Bible Sense Lexicon, displays only the New Testament. This leads to lots of Bible Sense graphs that look like this:
Notice that the graph actually says that there are 0 hits. Using the method you mentioned with the Reverse Interlinears, I was able to confirm that there are in fact hits registered for this word, we're just not seeing the Old Testament graph.
In the Bible Sense Lexicon, I am hovering my mouse over the first book of the Bible in the graph on the lower left, and we only see the New Testament graph:
And in the Bible Word Study tool we have the same situation (upper right corner), even when, in this case, I am searching directly on the Hebrew word:
If we contrast this with the "Roots" tool (as well as all the other tools), we see a graph of the Old Testament books:
Maybe Logos could use a graph which displays all the books of the Bible, or simply present two graphs, one for the Old Testament and one for the New Testament.
0 -
Fr Devin Roza said:
...
I thought they weren't yet marked because the graphic bar which displays how many "senses" appear per book of the Bible on the upper right hand the "Senses" tool in the Bible Word Study, as well as in the Bible Sense Lexicon, displays only the New Testament. This leads to lots of Bible Sense graphs that look like this:
Notice that the graph actually says that there are 0 hits. Using the method you mentioned with the Reverse Interlinears, I was able to confirm that there are in fact hits registered for this word, we're just not seeing the Old Testament graph.
...
Let me clarify a little. What we've annotated on the text is the pairing of a word and a sense: that's what makes this dataset so important (and so hard!).
I don't see any instances of שָׂהֵד śā·hēḏ that are annotated with this sense ("advocate"), though there is an instance in Job 16:19 where the same lemma is annotated with a different sense, "advocate (legal)" (which has a confusingly similar, but still different, definition). So the sparkline graph here is telling you the truth, not about where this word occurs (that's what BWS is for), but where this sense occurs.
(you could argue it's not very helpful to have an "advocate" sense with no hits and no children: we'll look further into that. It may be that these two senses really ought to be merged. )
0 -
Fr Devin Roza said:
...
In the Bible Sense Lexicon, I am hovering my mouse over the first book of the Bible in the graph on the lower left, and we only see the New Testament graph:
...
Here's the graph i get for "person", which you can see includes the OT and many more hits:
Do you have the Lexham Hebrew Bible (logosres:lhb)? I think that might be the problem.
0 -
I know I don't have the Lexham Hebrew Bible, and I don't see any point in getting it. When I already have BHS 4.2 and AFAT that should be sufficient. I suppose this means that the Bible Sense Lexicon will be of no use to me.Sean Boisen said:Do you have the Lexham Hebrew Bible (logosres:lhb)? I think that might be the problem.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Yes, I have LHB. Here is a shot of my Logos desktop as it stands right now. You link worked perfectly well, as well. So, looks like we have a bug!
And here is a picture of my view of "advocate (legal)". It does not recognize the hit in Job at all:
I'd be glad to research it with the Logos techies if need be.
I'm glad to hear this is just a bug! Much easier to solve than having to tag all those missing words.
0 -
George Somsel said:
I know I don't have the Lexham Hebrew Bible, and I don't see any point in getting it. When I already have BHS 4.2 and AFAT that should be sufficient. I suppose this means that the Bible Sense Lexicon will be of no use to me.
It comes with all the packages except the Starter, so no need to worry really. It's quite nice - it has all the te'amim (accents), like the BHS.
0 -
Fr Devin Roza said:George Somsel said:
I know I don't have the Lexham Hebrew Bible, and I don't see any point in getting it. When I already have BHS 4.2 and AFAT that should be sufficient. I suppose this means that the Bible Sense Lexicon will be of no use to me.
It comes with all the packages except the Starter, so no need to worry really. It's quite nice - it has all the te'amim (accents), like the BHS.
Which means that it's irrelevant to me since I already have that. I can concentrate on buying other items I want. BTW: I'm leaning toward getting the minimal upgrade.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:Fr Devin Roza said:George Somsel said:
I know I don't have the Lexham Hebrew Bible, and I don't see any point in getting it. When I already have BHS 4.2 and AFAT that should be sufficient. I suppose this means that the Bible Sense Lexicon will be of no use to me.
It comes with all the packages except the Starter, so no need to worry really. It's quite nice - it has all the te'amim (accents), like the BHS.
Which means that it's irrelevant to me since I already have that. I can concentrate on buying other items I want. BTW: I'm leaning toward getting the minimal upgrade.
We haven't finalized the details, but it's pretty likely that the LHB will be included in the minimal crossgrade.
We're standardizing our Hebrew datasets around the LHB for the future, so it will be important to most Logos users.
0 -
Fr Devin Roza said:
Yes, I have LHB. Here is a shot of my Logos desktop as it stands right now. You link worked perfectly well, as well. So, looks like we have a bug!
...
I'd be glad to research it with the Logos techies if need be.
I'm glad to hear this is just a bug! Much easier to solve than having to tag all those missing words.
I'll file a bug report, thanks.
0 -
George Somsel said:
I know I don't have the Lexham Hebrew Bible, and I don't see any point in getting it.
The LHB is also tagged for root data, so if you ever want to search on roots directly in a Hebrew Bible, you might enjoy LHB for that. Of course, you can always just use an interlinear.
0 -
Vincent Setterholm said:George Somsel said:
I know I don't have the Lexham Hebrew Bible, and I don't see any point in getting it.
The LHB is also tagged for root data, so if you ever want to search on roots directly in a Hebrew Bible, you might enjoy LHB for that. Of course, you can always just use an interlinear.
Using this tip here http://community.logos.com/forums/p/58571/417105.aspx#417105 you can pull up a "Root" tool from BHS or AFAT, as well as from LHB of course, as the "Root" tool will work off the Lemma.
For a "Root" Search, LHB is necessary.
0 -
Vincent Setterholm said:George Somsel said:
I know I don't have the Lexham Hebrew Bible, and I don't see any point in getting it.
The LHB is also tagged for root data, so if you ever want to search on roots directly in a Hebrew Bible, you might enjoy LHB for that. Of course, you can always just use an interlinear.
If I e'er use thee, O interlinear,
Let my intellect forget its cunning.
If I e'er use thee,
Let my eyes grow dim from seeing.george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Fr Devin Roza said:Vincent Setterholm said:George Somsel said:
I know I don't have the Lexham Hebrew Bible, and I don't see any point in getting it.
The LHB is also tagged for root data, so if you ever want to search on roots directly in a Hebrew Bible, you might enjoy LHB for that. Of course, you can always just use an interlinear.
Using this tip here http://community.logos.com/forums/p/58571/417105.aspx#417105 you can pull up a "Root" tool from BHS or AFAT, as well as from LHB of course, as the "Root" tool will work off the Lemma.
For a "Root" Search, LHB is necessary.
I can tell the root, in most cases, simply by looking at it. If I have a problem with a particular word, there is always the popup at the bottom of the screen or I can click on it and bring up HALOT. So, what's the advantage of LHB?
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
So, what's the advantage of LHB?
By applying the data to the text, these become searchable - like lemmas and morphology. As time goes on, more and more data will be hung on the LHB. Roots are just one example that is in place now. Makes it easier to find constructions where different lemmas and parts of speech using the same root are used.
0 -
I don't guess this would be the best place to mention my dissertation supervisor was the general editor on the Lexham Hebrew Interlinear.
::gives self 40 lashes::
0 -
Jeremy Thompson said:
I don't guess this would be the best place to mention my dissertation supervisor was the general editor on the Lexham Hebrew Interlinear.
::gives self 40 lashes::
An interlinear editor? I'm not sure 40 lashes are enough. [;)]
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:Fr Devin Roza said:Vincent Setterholm said:George Somsel said:
I know I don't have the Lexham Hebrew Bible, and I don't see any point in getting it.
The LHB is also tagged for root data, so if you ever want to search on roots directly in a Hebrew Bible, you might enjoy LHB for that. Of course, you can always just use an interlinear.
Using this tip here http://community.logos.com/forums/p/58571/417105.aspx#417105 you can pull up a "Root" tool from BHS or AFAT, as well as from LHB of course, as the "Root" tool will work off the Lemma.
For a "Root" Search, LHB is necessary.
I can tell the root, in most cases, simply by looking at it. If I have a problem with a particular word, there is always the popup at the bottom of the screen or I can click on it and bring up HALOT. So, what's the advantage of LHB?
The advantage isn't so much being able to know what the root is, which is normally relatively easy to figure out, but rather the advantage is to know what other words are members of the same root family. That way you get a feel for the semantic range of a word. Check out the pictures and discussion from the post linked above as they try to show how that works.
0 -
Fr Devin Roza said:
Yes, I have LHB. Here is a shot of my Logos desktop as it stands right now. You link worked perfectly well, as well. So, looks like we have a bug!
...
And here is a picture of my view of "advocate (legal)". It does not recognize the hit in Job at all:
...
I'd be glad to research it with the Logos techies if need be.
I'm glad to hear this is just a bug! Much easier to solve than having to tag all those missing words.
This issue should be resolved in 5.0a Beta 2 for beta users, and in general when 5.0a ships to the stable channel.
0 -
Brisa Calderon said:Fr Devin Roza said:
Yes, I have LHB. Here is a shot of my Logos desktop as it stands right now. You link worked perfectly well, as well. So, looks like we have a bug!
...
And here is a picture of my view of "advocate (legal)". It does not recognize the hit in Job at all:
...
I'd be glad to research it with the Logos techies if need be.
I'm glad to hear this is just a bug! Much easier to solve than having to tag all those missing words.
This issue should be resolved in 5.0a Beta 2 for beta users, and in general when 5.0a ships to the stable channel.
I just installed (from the beta channel) version 5.0a RC-1 and can confirm that this bug has been fixed. Thanks for the quick response!
0
