New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge revised
Comments
-
Jerome Smith said:
Mark raised the question above:
"I am sorry, but I am still confused. Please make is clear. What is the difference between TNTOSK and TUCRT? From your comments, one is contained in the other. Is TNTOSK contained in TUCRT, meaning the TUCRT is more complete or the other way around?"Others have also raised interesting questions.
After at least 26 years of pre-digital age meticulous Bible study using such resources in my personal Bible study (see the Bibliography in the New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge and the Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury), I compiled additional cross references in many of my wide-margin Bibles. I used these as my first basis of increasing the number of cross references given in the original Treasury of Scripture Knowledge....
Thank you for this comprehensive and helpful post, Jerome (as well as the follow-up). I've added my vote for this to be included in Logos as well.
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou [art] God. (Ps 90:2)
0 -
I'm so pleased to learn of the continued progress on this work. Jerome, thank you!
It is my understanding that Logos/Verbum $50 USD version of the NTSK is a 2001 version based on the 1992 print version (https://www.logos.com/product/1214/the-new-treasury-of-scripture-knowledge). I really want to buy the latest version of either NTSK or UTSK as Jerome described them above. Is that expected to become available anytime soon? Surely for this important and unique resource, FL would not require a voting process, etc...?
If my question has been answered in previous posts and I, after reading them, have not gotten it, please still answer, anyone in the know.
God bless, and God be glorified.
0 -
They shouldn’t require a voting process, but for some reason they seem to have moved in that direction.
DAL
0 -
Even if this work duplicates to any extent what we already have, I still would buy it and it surely doesn't need a vote. I would also be in favor of having Jerome or maybe someone from MP Seminars doing a short video on this to explain how all the tools work. I mostly beeline to references and don't get some of what Jerome has done.
The mind of man is the mill of God, not to grind chaff, but wheat. Thomas Manton | Study hard, for the well is deep, and our brains are shallow. Richard Baxter
0 -
Even if this work duplicates to any extent what we already have, I still would buy it and it surely doesn't need a vote. I would also be in favor of having Jerome or maybe someone from MP Seminars doing a short video on this to explain how all the tools work. I mostly beeline to references and don't get some of what Jerome has done.
The mind of man is the mill of God, not to grind chaff, but wheat. Thomas Manton | Study hard, for the well is deep, and our brains are shallow. Richard Baxter
0 -
DAL said:
They shouldn’t require a voting process, but for some reason they seem to have moved in that direction.
Well, we actually don't know that (just chatting).
- Normal retailers recognize forums and suggestion participation as the iceburg problem. The part see-able. Good source of ideas, missing SKUs, new areas, weaknesses, etc. But a very (very) tiny portion of your market. Rarely representative.
- Then, you add sales patterns, competitive trends, and often just talking or surveying, trying to get an expanded product share
- Add to that web-stats that provide a lot of clues to why, or why not. Google-stats.
Now, feedbear's other (more) obvious purpose is 'kick the can'. Go vote! Why, we use your votes for something or other!
Edit: To be upfront, I don't feedbear. I don't trust their privacy policy, and surveys are now just more personal data collection.
0 -
I think I should expand on my comment, "Surely for this important and unique resource, FL would not require a voting process, etc...":
I think a voting process makes business sense for many, perhaps most, books that are not the Bible. But in this case it would amount to a vote on whether the best study Bible system should have very adequate cross references, "adequate" being measured by the best compilation currently available, or only (to pick a number) 3/4 of adequate cross references. Put another way, what is available for Logos/Verbum now is, as I understand it, when compared with the NTSK-rev or UTSK, a whittled down selection of Bible cross-references. The question is, should FL bother to put in the rest of them? I think the answer is obviously yes - or what am I missing? This has been the state of the question since UTSK was known to be available for E-Sword only; the NTSK-rev as a near-equivalent (slightly higher quality than UTSK, but a few less informative possible cross references edited out, if I understand the above) re-raises the question.
I think FL could answer that if customers value having as many cross references as possible, more should have purchased https://www.logos.com/product/1214/the-new-treasury-of-scripture-knowledge. I as a customer would answer in part that I have been checking on that resource a number of times in recent years to see if it was brought up to date yet, and it wasn't, so I haven't bought it yet. If the NTSK-rev were to be added, I would surely buy it. The other part of my answer is that probably most Logos/Verbum users never knew about its existence, which is a marketing issue.
I have used qualifications such as "probably" and "as I understand it" repeatedly because since I do not have UTSK or NTSK-rev or even NTSK, and I don't know if something really comparable is available, I admit my judgment on this question is not fully informed. If there is something else just as good as NTSK-rev or UTSK already in Logos/Verbum for Bible cross references that I don't know about, I think that could explain why FL hasn't rushed to make it available. If anyone from FL is reading, thanks for considering.
0 -
LW said:
I think I should expand on my comment, "Surely for this important and unique resource, FL would not require a voting process, etc...":
Playing devil's advocate without taking a side on the issue, I would say that cross-references support one of many basic Bible study methods and that several additional features in Logos expand upon the cross-reference data e.g. Important Passages. Aren't there other basic Bible study methods that need basic source material more than cross-references need expanded source material? Something to think about ... not a proposal.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Thanks MJ, but I don't fully understand. The source material of Bible cross references is the Bible itself, which is why it is in a category above so many other resources, right? I'm not sure what other important basic methods' source material you are referring to as being missing, or how it relates..? I admit I have not explored "Important Passages" functionality. I wasn't aware of it. Thanks for pointing it out to me.
0 -
How does FL categorize a "cross reference" from a "commentary"??
I would say that when most of the book is commentary then it should be categorized as such...
xn = Christan man=man -- Acts 11:26 "....and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch".
Barney Fife is my hero! He only uses an abacus with 14 rows!
0 -
LW said:
I'm not sure what other important basic methods' source material you are referring to as being missing, or how it relates..?
The one that is most frequently on my mind is the structural elements that indicate emphasis i.e. the "discourse analysis" at the time of the writing -- inclusios, stair steps, chiasms, parallelism ... (the last is the best supported of them). It relates because we are talking about the allocation of limited resources based upon priorities. Pericope analysis has it's own academic society but one older tool in Logos without any of the backup analysis. Argument analysis ... I haven't even since a hint of it despite its role in interpreting the epistles. Integration of the Jewish materials is only via "ancient literature" ... I consider this an embarrassment when users claim to seek what the text meant to the original audience ...
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
xnman said:
How does FL categorize a "cross reference" from a "commentary"??
I would say that when most of the book is commentary then it should be categorized as such...
It is not clear if you are referring to a previous comment (use the Quote button to clarify) or making a puzzling new contribution. So:
- a reference in a commentary can be taken as a cross-ref
- I agree with the second comment
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
LW said:
The source material of Bible cross references is the Bible itself, which is why it is in a category above so many other resources, right?
No, the source is the human mind that saw a connection and tagged it as a cross-reference. No more or less important than the many other lists we have in Logos ... lists of where a word is used in a particular sense, some of which are chosen as cross-references; lists of where a particular topic is discussed, some of which are chosen as cross-references, lists of everywhere a person is mentioned, some of which are chosen as cross-references; lists of everywhere a place is mentioned, some of which are chosen as cross-references; lists of everywhere a thing is mentioned, some of which are chosen as cross-references; lists of everywhere one word is translated by another word, some of which are chosen as cross-references; lists of everywhere a syntactic structure is used, some of which are chosen as cross-references; . . . a big part of Logos/Verbum is a high-pressure stream of verses relating to each other on some common aspect. Although I strongly support letting scripture interpret scripture, I see cross-references as simply one useful tool for doing that. Logos' unfiltered spewing of data is what I would describe as coming from the Bible itself ... unfiltered and too expansive to be directly usable in most instances.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:LW said:
The source material of Bible cross references is the Bible itself, which is why it is in a category above so many other resources, right?
No, the source is the human mind that saw a connection and tagged it as a cross-reference. No more or less important than the many other lists we have in Logos ... lists of where a word is used in a particular sense, some of which are chosen as cross-references; lists of where a particular topic is discussed, some of which are chosen as cross-references, lists of everywhere a person is mentioned, some of which are chosen as cross-references; lists of everywhere a place is mentioned, some of which are chosen as cross-references; lists of everywhere a thing is mentioned, some of which are chosen as cross-references; lists of everywhere one word is translated by another word, some of which are chosen as cross-references; lists of everywhere a syntactic structure is used, some of which are chosen as cross-references; . . . a big part of Logos/Verbum is a high-pressure stream of verses relating to each other on some common aspect. Although I strongly support letting scripture interpret scripture, I see cross-references as simply one useful tool for doing that. Logos' unfiltered spewing of data is what I would describe as coming from the Bible itself ... unfiltered and too expansive to be directly usable in most instances.
I agree with MJ... Logos builds their own lists and such. Maybe someone can show me one, but I have not found a really good cross reference book that takes all the biases out of it. I started some years ago a cross reference in Word, and as I read the bible, I keep adding to it.... but then I have my own biases in my cross reference.... good or bad.
One of the things I like about Logos is the Personal Books.... (hope Logos keeps that function) I make and keep a Personal Book of my cross references word document and then I can use it in Logos... it's a process, takes some work but I feel worth it.... I do it because my memory isn't what it used to be.... [:S]
xn = Christan man=man -- Acts 11:26 "....and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch".
Barney Fife is my hero! He only uses an abacus with 14 rows!
0
