Bug: Ruth no longer permitted?

I created a reading plan for the NRSV using the Tanakh sequence string: Ge-2Ki, Is, Je, Eze, Ho-Mal, Ps, Pr, Job, So, Ru, La, Ec, Es, Da, Ezr-Ne, 1 Ch-2Ch

The string was copied from the definition pane so it is exactly what went into the reading plan. I gave it a 6 month time frame. I got:

What does Logos have against the book of Ruth? There must be a reason it was left out of the reading plan.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

DominicM

yep, I can reproduce this, in sr7,

if I choose ru/ruth on her own, it works, so it must be something to do with custom plans..

Damian McGrath

What does Logos have against the book of Ruth?

Vincent dated a Ruth once - enough said!

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/54592#Comment_54592

What does Logos have against the book of Ruth?

Vincent dated a Ruth once - enough said!

Damian, you're ruthless!

Damian McGrath

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/55016#Comment_55016

Damian, you're ruthless!

and maryless, and joanless, and annaless .......

TCBlack

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/55033#Comment_55033

Damian, you're ruthless!

and maryless, and joanless, and annaless .......

Don't forget Hopeless.

Scott Fleischman

I created a reading plan for the NRSV using the Tanakh sequence string: Ge-2Ki, Is, Je, Eze, Ho-Mal, Ps, Pr, Job, So, Ru, La, Ec, Es, Da, Ezr-Ne, 1 Ch-2Ch

In the NRSV, Ge-2Ki includes Ruth, so you should see Ruth after Judges and before Samuel. But reading plans currently do not support repeating verses in a single plan (although we have a case open to add that feature), so Ruth does not show up again after the Song of Songs. The following range for NRSV should work as you expect.

Ge–Jdg, 1 Sa–2 Ki, Is–Je, Eze, Ho–Mal, Ps–Pr, Job, So, Ru, La, Ec, Es, Da, Ezr–Ne, 1 Ch–2 Ch

Some extra details: the custom range applies to the book order of the bible you have selected. So if you select BHS and enter Ge-2Ki, then Ruth will not be part of the reading plan. But if you select NRSV and enter Ge-2Ki, then Ruth is included. One interesting thing to try is to select BHS, enter Ge-2Ki but also enter a title, and then save that custom range. Then switch to NRSV and look at the converted range with that title in the dropdown: it should show Ge–Jdg, 1 Sa–2 Ki because Ruth was not included in that range in BHS.

Scott

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/55372#Comment_55372

That's excellent! So what you're saying is that Logos 4 is cleverer than we are [;)]

Damian McGrath

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/55334#Comment_55334

Don't forget Hopeless.

Yes, my brother once said to me that my problem is not that I'm useless. If I were simply useless, that might change. My problem is that I'm hopeless; I'll never change......

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/55372#Comment_55372

But reading plans currently do not support repeating verses in a single plan (although we have a case open to add that feature), so Ruth does not show up again after the Song of Songs.

Got it - I need a large chart of book sequences ... I thought I remembered the NRSV [:$]... repeating verses in a single plan is a critical feature. For example, the most common Greek/Slavonic Orthodox plan reads the Gospels twice parallel to reading Acts and the Epistles once. A lectionary-based Catholic plan would read one Gospel twice and the other three once in the space of a year.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/55334#Comment_55334

Damian, you're ruthless!

and maryless, and joanless, and annaless .......

Don't forget Hopeless.

And gormless. ;-) I heard of a couple named Ruth and Gorm (I'm not sure that was the guy's name; but I can't think of any other male name for which this would work). They joked that if she predeceased him, he'd be ruthless, but if he predeceased her she'd be gormless (British slang for "lacking in vitality or intelligence; stupid, dull, or clumsy").

Damian McGrath

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/55681#Comment_55681

And gormless. ... "lacking in vitality or intelligence; stupid, dull, or clumsy"

It's not as easy as it looks.