NET Bible Notes 2nd Ed, difficult to use

I found it extremely useful to use the NET notes in the same way as a commentary in the past. Grouped with a Bible, often actually open with my greek nt. In the new 2nd ed. it appears that the notes are embeded in the primary resource. I wonder if others feel as I do that it would be much more useful to do it the old way?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

DMB

I wonder if others feel as I do that it would be much more useful to do it the old way?

Wonder no more:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Acommunity.logos.com+net+notes+2&t=icab&ia=web

I think it was a publisher great idea?

Mattillo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1206641#Comment_1206641

I can't believe people still use DuckDuckGo!

I agree though. I wish it was separated but the below forum has a good highlight idea. Otherwise Power Lookup helps

https://community.logos.com/forums/t/205682.aspx

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1206669#Comment_1206669

I can't believe people still use DuckDuckGo!

Last week someone couldn't believe anyone was still using Google. I think the pattern is people unable to believe {whatever they don't like]. Smiling.

Startpage strips off Google; Duckduck strips off Bing.

Kyle G. Anderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1206679#Comment_1206679

For what its worth, there were non-technical reasons why we needed to include the notes within the Bible itself. Although not preferred, it was a purposeful decision on our part.

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1206684#Comment_1206684

For what its worth, there were non-technical reasons why we needed to include the notes within the Bible itself. Although not preferred, it was a purposeful decision on our part.

When I could regard the issue of the form of NET 2nd ed. to a purely publisher decision I positioned myself as resigned and chalked it up to better luck next time. Now having learned that FL purposely chose to present this edition in this format I am seething.

If there is any way FL can reverse their decision I would be one customer who would be appreciative. NET 2nd ed. compared to its previous edition is a failed execution. I thought I'd get used to it, I haven't. Please reverse yourselves.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1206690#Comment_1206690

When I could regard the issue of the form of NET 2nd ed. to a purely publisher decision I positioned myself as resigned and chalked it up to better luck next time. Now having learned that FL purposely chose to present this edition in this format I am seething.

Kyle doesn't (and perhaps can't) tell us what the "non-technical" reasons were... but for clarification: It would seem to me that the publisher deciding not to allow FL to do so would fall under the "non-technical" reasons category.

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1206697#Comment_1206697

When I could regard the issue of the form of NET 2nd ed. to a purely publisher decision I positioned myself as resigned and chalked it up to better luck next time. Now having learned that FL purposely chose to present this edition in this format I am seething.

Kyle doesn't (and perhaps can't) tell us what the "non-technical" reasons were... but for clarification: It would seem to me that the publisher deciding not to allow FL to do so would fall under the "non-technical" reasons category.

Then why not come right out and say it was due to the publisher? Kyle is usually plain in his communications. I don't understand this if you are right.

mab

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1206704#Comment_1206704

NET has been mostly free for everyone who has Logos. NET 1 came in a package and NET 2 was in Logos 9 for me. The easiest way to use NET 2 is to keep it in your priority Bible list. I understand why people want to split it, but I think it's actually a choice tablet resource. YMMV

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1206690#Comment_1206690

Now having learned that FL purposely chose to present this edition in this format I am seething.

Beloved, you're not capable of seething. More like super-frustrated.

But what happened with NET2 was similar to the updated New Jerusalem awhile back. Great notes, and unuseable in Logos (me). I refunded New Jerusalem and passed on NET2. But bothersome has been FL keeping quiet and shipping what they knew isn't as good.

Kathleen Marie

I am really thankful that we have the NET 2.1. It does what I need it to do.

It is one of my top 3 Bibles, and I have it in other software, too. I really need the text in Logos for cut and paste into term papers.

Now if we can just get the NIrV and some more of the Strong's stuff, I will have everything that I need in Logos so that I don't have to overload my laptop with 3 different softwares open.

I know a lot of other people here have no use for the KJV, Strong's, and Thompson's but some of us are still using those things in hardcopy and in other software. The NET 2.1 was updated from the NET 1 and the NET 2 to be getter linked up to Strong's and that is very useful to me.

Brad

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1206669#Comment_1206669

I can't believe people still use DuckDuckGo! ...

O.k., who out there cannot believe people do not still use AltaVista or Gopher!?

Anthony Dowden

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1206733#Comment_1206733

And how about some people still use the hardback Encyclopaedia Britannica! Beat that!

Mike Binks

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1206740#Comment_1206740

Beat that!

Beat it! I can hardly lift it.

Kathleen Marie

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1206740#Comment_1206740

I like hardcopy encyclopedias. They have less typos and better formatting.

John Goodman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1206684#Comment_1206684

For what its worth, there were non-technical reasons why we needed to include the notes within the Bible itself. Although not preferred, it was a purposeful decision on our part.

Kyle, not understanding what those reasons are, it is hard to comment save to say that I hope you will reconsider. It seems to break a precedent. We have so many bible notes resources and the norm seems to be a separate resource; this of course makes it possible to read through the notes at a glance. As it stands all the information is hidden from view. It makes the resource very difficult to use, almost unfit for purpose. Please revisit this decision.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1207162#Comment_1207162

It seems to break a precedent. We have so many bible notes resources and the norm seems to be a separate resource

Somehow, I'm missing what the issue is. My NRSV, JPS, LES, RSVCE, and NABRE have the notes in the Bible text. I was unhappy when the NJB notes came as a separate resource.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1206684#Comment_1206684

it was a purposeful decision on our part.

Again, I am a minority - I prefer this to a separate resource.

Robert M. Warren

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1207163#Comment_1207163

Somehow, I'm missing what the issue is. My NRSV, JPS, LES, RSVCE, and NABRE have the notes in the Bible text.

I don't regularly use those translations / editions, but my sense is that the NET has significantly more notes than those, making its footnotes more analogous to a study bible or bible notes. For many, it is tedious to mouse-over for popups when there are a lot of notes. Additionally, many of the notes are lengthy such that if one causes the notes to appear at the bottom of the resource pane, the text itself can become so brief for each 'page' that it doesn't flow well. Also, since many of the notes are applicable to general textual issues, some users like to see the notes paired with other bibles.

My workaround, using Power Lookup to display the notes separately, has its own limitations.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1207164#Comment_1207164

it was a purposeful decision on our part.

Again, I am a minority - I prefer this to a separate resource.

Since we are required to speculate (part of the human contract), I'm guessing NET wants to be like the other big boys. "It's a Bible ... notes extra." Not the opposite. The clue was when they had the hedge clippers out in v2, trimming what they perceived to be useless notes.

Kathleen Marie

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1207194#Comment_1207194

The translation is being used for a wider purpose now. There are study Bibles using the NET 2.1 that have notes that are not the translation notes.

Love God Greatly

https://netbible.com/buy-now/net-love-god-greatly/

The Abide Bible

https://netbible.com/buy-now/net-love-god-greatly/

And the Thinline Large Print that has no notes

https://netbible.com/buy-now/net-thinline-large-print-reference-bible/

I prefer the 2.1 to the first edition, inside and outside Logos. I can understand how others are not as pleased with the 2.1 as I am, but I am pleased with it. It is my first priority Bible right now, so it is what comes up in my pop ups. I am curious to see what happens in the next few years with this translation as a mainstream hardcopy translation.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1207180#Comment_1207180

I don't regularly use those translations / editions, but my sense is that the NET has significantly more notes than those, making its footnotes more analogous to a study bible or bible notes

I actually compared the number & length of notes before I posted. I had set all of them (and a couple of others that I tested) to show footnotes at the bottom of the page - my standard practice when I intend to use the notes heavily. NET has many more short notes; NABRE appeared to have more text in the notes - fewer notes but longer entries.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1207288#Comment_1207288

NABRE appeared to have more text in the notes - fewer notes but longer entries.

Yep. NET is good on original language. But NABRE is tops for lengthy discussion. In the OT, notes generally take up 15% of a page and fairly light, depending. But in the NT, it's more like 40% and quite good. Even, Mat 1 has lengthy notes, surprisingly.