Huge encyclopaedia: The Dictionary of Christianity and the Bible
Comments
-
Rosie Perera said:
Wow, Dan. Did you make that? It's awesome! Or was there already an ancient book by that title? This looks like a well-worn cover. I couldn't find it in a Google search, though.
Mark did include a jpg file for a cover image in the zip file, BTW.
Found the cover and added the text...and yes I did see that after the download finished... I just got excited and started right away on a cover.
-Dan
0 -
Beloved said:
I extracted to new folder, but, my computer couldn't find it
Extracting the .zip will only take a few seconds. If you can't find the extracted files, it might be easier to re-extract them, and keep a closer eye on the destination folder. Googling extract zip files windows vista (or whatever operating system you have) should give you the info you need to do that.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Verbum 5.2 SR6 Unable to compile, is any other Mac Verbum user experiencing this? Attached are my log file for the error (tried twice both 86 errors and failed to compile).
-dan
0 -
Thanks again, Mark, for this PBB. Is it possible to create a similar program to extract images related to Christianity and the Bible? Then we could compile these into a PBB, maybe? Just thought I'd ask.
Also, I wonder if anyone knows a simple way to find out who wrote (or contributed to) the Wikipedia articles.
0 -
Dan Francis said:
Verbum 5.2 SR6 Unable to compile, is any other Mac Verbum user experiencing this? Attached are my log file for the error (tried twice both 86 errors and failed to compile).
There were no logs, unfortunately.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Paul Strickert said:
Is it possible to create a similar program to extract images related to Christianity and the Bible? Then we could compile these into a PBB, maybe?
Possibly, if you persuade me of demand [;)] — and give me some examples.
Paul Strickert said:Also, I wonder if anyone knows a simple way to find out who wrote (or contributed to) the Wikipedia articles.
If you click on the "View Online" link you'll be taken to the Wikipedia site for that page. Then click on View History. However, most articles have hundreds, if not thousands of edits, from dozens of contributors. I check a random page (Theophany), and there were 468 edits from 253 different users.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
here are the log 5850.PBB_5886ac90eed44d3c97eae42940a8a115.log
3 errors 86 warnings
0 -
Mark Barnes said:Paul Strickert said:
Is it possible to create a similar program to extract images related to Christianity and the Bible? Then we could compile these into a PBB, maybe?
Possibly, if you persuade me of demand
— and give me some examples.Paul Strickert said:Also, I wonder if anyone knows a simple way to find out who wrote (or contributed to) the Wikipedia articles.
If you click on the "View Online" link you'll be taken to the Wikipedia site for that page. Then click on View History. However, most articles have hundreds, if not thousands of edits, from dozens of contributors. I check a random page (Theophany), and there were 468 edits from 253 different users.
Click on just about any major topic. "Book of Revelation", for example, has some wonderful images of artwork.
A question for you, Mark: How do you personally feel about the quality of scholarship in the Wikipedia articles? Do you trust what you read? Or do you prefer, if possible, to compare its content with more trusted sources? Just curious.
0 -
Thanks for all the work! The article on "Geronimo" caught my eye, and I wondered what it might have to do with Christianity. Who knew that "he joined the Dutch Reformed Church in 1903 but four years later was expelled for gambling"?
Windows 8.1 64-bit, Core i5-3330, 8GB RAM
0 -
Thanks for all your efforts on this Mark. It works great!
0 -
Mark, thank you so much. You are always contributing so much to the Logos community. You are a real blessing to all of us.
0 -
We are all thankful for your effort and sharing. Great resource.
0 -
Dan Francis said:
Verbum 5.2 SR6 Unable to compile, is any other Mac Verbum user experiencing this? Attached are my log file for the error (tried twice both 86 errors and failed to compile).
-dan
Dan, I've had the same issue. I have Logos, not Verbum, but I am running it on a Mac. I've tried to compile 4 times and had the same result each time. I also had 3 errors and 86 warnings. Strange.
0 -
Success. I am kind of overwhelmed, and so grateful. I remember how awestruck I was when the Perseus package came along, and not to diminish the value of Perseus (which I love), this is far greater!
Thanks!
0 -
Dan Francis said:
Verbum 5.2 SR6 Unable to compile, is any other Mac Verbum user experiencing this? Attached are my log file for the error (tried twice both 86 errors and failed to compile).
The compiler is crashing — because a temporary file is missing. It's fair to say that this PB has exposed a number of bugs in Logos, but Logos have been great about fixing them and suggesting workarounds. Over the last few weeks I've had several emails from one of the guys who works on PBs, so I'll let him know about this problem too. Hopefully he can suggest a workaround and get it fixed in the next beta.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Paul Strickert said:
A question for you, Mark: How do you personally feel about the quality of scholarship in the Wikipedia articles? Do you trust what you read? Or do you prefer, if possible, to compare its content with more trusted sources? Just curious.
One of the interesting things about Wikipedia is that it insists that all articles are written from a neutral point of view (NPOV). This wouldn't be the case with any other Bible dictionary, which — depending on the editors/publishers — would be written from a certain perspective (perhaps 'Catholic' or 'evangelical', but at least 'trinitarian'). That is that all the articles need to be acceptable to all branches of Christianity. So you'll find Wikipedia less critical than AYBD, but also less evangelical that NBD.
Wikipedia is also a place which collects existing research, it is not a place for original research. 'Proper' dictionaries — at least the better ones — often ask leading scholars to write articles, and sometimes they slip in their own pet research into the topic. This often makes those dictionaries more interesting than Wikipedia (which can sometimes be a bit wooden), but I doubt it makes them more trustworthy.
Various studies have been done about the quality of Wikipedia articles in general, and they are consistently found to be of high quality. You can read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Comparative_studies
So, I would trust Wikipedia almost as much as I would trust other sources. But, in any dictionary, I would verify any significant point that was new to me.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
So, I would trust Wikipedia almost as much as I would trust other sources. But, in any dictionary, I would verify any significant point that was new to me.
Your overview of Wikipedia is helpful and your advice to verify is wise.
Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
The compiler is crashing — because a temporary file is missing. It's fair to say that this PB has exposed a number of bugs in Logos
I don't suppose switching to the beta channel would help this problem would it?
0 -
Liam Walsh said:
I don't suppose switching to the beta channel would help this problem would it?
I doubt it would make an immediate difference. There's not been a beta release since the fixes Logos have told me they've made. More importantly, I've not seen this problem before, so they may not even be aware of it. But it would be good if a Mac user on the beta could confirm whether they have build problems.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Mark Barnes said:Liam Walsh said:
I don't suppose switching to the beta channel would help this problem would it?
I doubt it would make an immediate difference. There's not been a beta release since the fixes Logos have told me they've made. More importantly, I've not seen this problem before, so they may not even be aware of it. But it would be good if a Mac user on the beta could confirm whether they have build problems.
I was using 5.2a Beta 5 (5.2.1.0054) when the problem introduced itself to me. That's the latest beta.
0 -
Erwin Stull, Sr. said:Mark Barnes said:Liam Walsh said:
I don't suppose switching to the beta channel would help this problem would it?
I doubt it would make an immediate difference. There's not been a beta release since the fixes Logos have told me they've made. More importantly, I've not seen this problem before, so they may not even be aware of it. But it would be good if a Mac user on the beta could confirm whether they have build problems.
I was using 5.2a Beta 5 (5.2.1.0054) when the problem introduced itself to me. That's the latest beta.
I've been told the endless recompiling on both platforms should be fixed in beta 6. But Dan and Liam's issue is a Mac-only problem where even the first compile fails through a missing temporary file.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Mark Barnes said:Liam Walsh said:
I don't suppose switching to the beta channel would help this problem would it?
I doubt it would make an immediate difference. There's not been a beta release since the fixes Logos have told me they've made. More importantly, I've not seen this problem before, so they may not even be aware of it. But it would be good if a Mac user on the beta could confirm whether they have build problems.
Ok, maybe I'll switch over some time later today and see what happens. Thanks Mark.
0 -
Mark Barnes said:Dan Francis said:
Verbum 5.2 SR6 Unable to compile, is any other Mac Verbum user experiencing this? Attached are my log file for the error (tried twice both 86 errors and failed to compile).
The compiler is crashing — because a temporary file is missing. It's fair to say that this PB has exposed a number of bugs in Logos, but Logos have been great about fixing them and suggesting workarounds. Over the last few weeks I've had several emails from one of the guys who works on PBs, so I'll let him know about this problem too. Hopefully he can suggest a workaround and get it fixed in the next beta.
Thanks for the update on my issue, and thank you once again for undertaking this, I am sure as soon as I can use it it will be a very helpful resource.
-Dan
0 -
Mark Barnes said:Erwin Stull, Sr. said:Mark Barnes said:Liam Walsh said:
I don't suppose switching to the beta channel would help this problem would it?
I doubt it would make an immediate difference. There's not been a beta release since the fixes Logos have told me they've made. More importantly, I've not seen this problem before, so they may not even be aware of it. But it would be good if a Mac user on the beta could confirm whether they have build problems.
I was using 5.2a Beta 5 (5.2.1.0054) when the problem introduced itself to me. That's the latest beta.
I've been told the endless recompiling on both platforms should be fixed in beta 6. But Dan and Liam's issue is a Mac-only problem where even the first compile fails through a missing temporary file.
Thanks Mark. This is good to know. The fix appears to be even more crucial for the Mac platform for the reason of no workaround available.
0 -
Paul Strickert said:
How do you personally feel about the quality of scholarship in the Wikipedia articles?
The good thing about Wikipedia is that it has many and varied contributors. The bad thing about Wikipedia is that it has many and varied contributors.
But the ultimate good thing about Wikipedia is this: for every person who will contribute erroneous or egregiously biased articles or edits, there are probably 100 pedantic know-it-alls who are itching to correct it.
God bless the pedantic know-it-alls.
macOS (Logos Pro - Beta) | Android 13 (Logos Stable)
0 -
Thank you Mark for compiling and making available such a comprehensive resource. Your efforts are much appreciated.
0 -
Liam Walsh said:Mark Barnes said:Liam Walsh said:
I don't suppose switching to the beta channel would help this problem would it?
I doubt it would make an immediate difference. There's not been a beta release since the fixes Logos have told me they've made. More importantly, I've not seen this problem before, so they may not even be aware of it. But it would be good if a Mac user on the beta could confirm whether they have build problems.
Ok, maybe I'll switch over some time later today and see what happens. Thanks Mark.
After switching to the Beta channel the Dictionary compiled fine with no errors! It was a long wait though (took about 3 hours!).
Thanks again for this resource Mark! I'm comparing articles to the encyclopedias/dictionaries I have and the articles in this are for the most part much longer. It looks like this will be extremely helpful!
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
One of the interesting things about Wikipedia is that it insists that all articles are written from a neutral point of view (NPOV). This wouldn't be the case with any other Bible dictionary, which — depending on the editors/publishers — would be written from a certain perspective (perhaps 'Catholic' or 'evangelical', but at least 'trinitarian'). That is that all the articles need to be acceptable to all branches of Christianity. So you'll find Wikipedia less critical than AYBD, but also less evangelical that NBD.
Mark,
Just out of curiousity where are you placing this dictionary in your prioritization ranking? I'm not sure where to place it. My current prioritization is #1 NBD, #2 LBD, #3 Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, and #4 Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, with some other specialized ones thrown in there. When it comes down to it I'll decide, but curious where you would place this resource in the mix?
Thanks!!!
0 -
Liam Walsh said:
Just out of curiousity where are you placing this dictionary in your prioritization ranking?
I've placed this dictionary almost at the bottom of my major dictionaries (currently I have AYBD, NBD, NDT, NDBT, followed by IVP's 'black' dictionaries, then various others such as BEB), one place above the Lexham Bible Dictionary. That means it's also above the smaller Bible dictionaries, and the general encyclopaedias like the Encylopedia of Christianity.
I think it has two particular strengths: (a) the sheer number of articles, and (b) it's unique point of view. In other words, I'll use it (a) to find things not in other resources, and (b) for an alternative perspective when I'm doing in-depth study. For both purposes it is best for me not to prioritize it too highly.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Thank you Mark.
Blessings in Christ.
0
