Why doesn't the new LEB (Lexham English Bible) show up in the text comparison tool?
The LEB is New Testament only, so Old Testament references won't work with the LEB:
It works fine for me in the New Testament:
I've just been perusing the LEB and I'm wondering if it is considered more literal than the perennial standard for literal translation, the NASB 95???
I typed in Romans 11.36 as in yours and it worked, but i have tried other NT verses and it hasn't come up. Does yours work throughout the entire NT? Mine does not.
The only books that are NOT WORKING are: Gospels and Acts. All the others work.
I can confirm this is the case with me too. So if I were you, I'd edit the first post to change the thread title to indicate a bug.
Yes, At least by some, but you didn't ask who considered it more literal than the NASB 95.
If you can, do your own comparison.
Most of the time I have found the LEB to be more literal, a very few times (okay, once) I have found other translations to be more literal.
YMMV.
First of all, if we remember that ALL translation is interpretive we go a long way. But as one who has long favored the NASB95 for it's literalness I would suspect you could say LEB could be more literal at the contextual gloss level. But once you get past that considering that both work with the idioms of the text in a similar fashion, I think you're probably on about equal footing.
I poked at a pet passage of mine for stuff like this and found them to be quite similar indeed, though both clearly take interpretive stances.
----------------------------------------
Thomas,
Can you let us in on what that pet passage might be ??? [Nothing in Genesis 6, right?]
There was an update today that included the Gospel and Acts : try the Update Now command. There seems to also be a 28MB rvi file for LEB !!
It appears that the Libronix version of the Lexham English Bible is the incomplete 2009 edition - e.g., Luke and John are missing, and maybe others, to. The title page says (c) 2009, whereas the Logos 4 version says (c) 2010.
Should I report this?
I think the update will fix the issue! No books are missing but it is shy about appearing in reports until after the book of Acts.
No need - there is an updated Libronix version available to day as well !!
It's fixed by the recent 37 MB download. It shows up for all NT books in TC and also appears in Parallel Resource Sets where it exhibited the same shyness!
These guys are on to it! brilliant...bug yesterday...fixed today.....smiles all round. [:D]
LOL. Just noticed the lacklustre Dell. Can't say the same about the bike!
I have just tried Update resources and there are no resources to update I probably updated earlier this morning).
The LEB (copyright 2010) is present and currently showing John 20:23 (a totally random Gospel passage) ... BUT ... John 20:23 in the Text Comparison Tool is still missing for the LEB .
I have just tried Rev 1:1 (i.e. NT post -acts) and it is not appearing in the text comparison there either.
Anybody else experiencing this. I am running the beta 1, so it may be a beta issue.
I have just tried Rev 1:1 (i.e. NT post -acts) and it is not appearing in the text comparison there either. Anybody else experiencing this. I am running the beta 1, so it may be a beta issue.
It works for me in 4.0b and 4.0c beta.
What is the Support Info in Resource Information? - mine is LLS:LEB, 2010-03-23T20:41:40Z, LEB.logos4
The support info is
LLS:LEB2010-03-23T20:41:40ZLEB.logos4
... the same.
When I try the various other Lexham resources in text comparison they seem fine, it is only the LEB ('The Lexham English Bible' ) that does not seem to appear. I am choosing the LEB from the drop-down list within Text comparison as well as just typing LEB. Both seem to be broken on my machine.
I have tried one or two other verses such as 1 TIm 1:2 and Eph 4:1. These show no sign of the LEB either.
I cannot reproduce your issue even using the TC settings you have!
In your resource folder do LEBNT.lbsrvi & LEB.logos4 have the same date/time modified eg. 26 March '10?
LEB.logos Modified: 25 March 2010, 16:21:02 - 2.22 MB (2,337,555 bytes)
LEBNT.lbsrvi Modified: 25 March 2010, 16:21:08 - 28.2 MB (29,579,743 bytes)
What I cannot understand is why the LEB works as a resource in its own right but not within the TC. I do not think that it is a corrupt/missing resource file.
I have just switched on my other computer (acually my wife's macbook running XP in Bootcamp). It synchronised and downloaded about 250Mb. (I only use it on a Sunday since it is more portable that my main laptop).
After it had finished all downloading, restarting and indexing I still had the same issue with the TC. They are both running 4.0cB1.
Using the latest updated LEB version I am not having any issues re text comparison:
Running Logos 4.0b SR-1 (4.02.3.7704)LLS:LEB2010-03-23T20:41:40ZLEB.logos4
What I cannot understand is why the LEB works as a resource in its own right but not within the TC.
Does LEB show the Parallel Resource set icon and is it's name displayed in the list?
After it had finished all downloading, restarting and indexing I still had the same issue with the TC.
That takes care of one potential fix, which leaves me at a loss for suggestions. Can you upload the logos4indexer.log for that indexing?
Then restart L4 with logging enabled, go thru two examples of a TC with LEB, close L4 and upload logos4.log.
Yes ... Twice, in the same automated collection. The two instances have the same name and author but different covers. The first one in the list seems to be 'missing' when I click on it. I presume that it is intercepting references to the other LEB from the TC.
When I click on the first resource, the missing resource panel is present but the 'Update resources now' button is disabled. Neither does it have any 'hover' text.
The 'errant' version of the LEB shows no support info:
I have added the errant version to the list of hidden resources and restarted Logos.
The correct LEB is now only in the collections once and in the parallel lists once.
After a short period of indexing, and reselecting the LEB within the TC, it is now working [:D]
Thank you Dave for you help with this (and to honest many other things where a regular forum lurker learns)
Should I report this as a bug? I am not sure how I would do this, the issues that I have discovered have all been seen by Melissa and the team on these forums and as such would this topic be a sufficient report?
Many thanks
Martin
Should I report this as a bug?
It has been adequately documented (http://wiki.logos.com/Bug$3a_Traces_of_obsolete$2fexpired_Resources_are_not_removed) and Logos have refused to recognise obsolete resources as a problem that they need to resolve. Leave any further action with me!
