search question

Larry Craig

Hello

I don’t use the forums much anymore, because Logos does not notify me when people respond.

But I have a question that customer service could not answer. Maybe someone here can.

I think it’s a glitch, but you tell me

I am looking for all the times the Holy Spirit is referred to in the Old Testament.

I started by typing Holy Spirit in the NASB. It gave me the suggestion Holy Spirit person

That should do it

38 hits

But then going through them I see that it missed all the times the Holy Spirit came on people in the book of Judges. So I did a search for “the spirit of the Lord” and got all of them.

Surprisingly at least one of those hits was in the first search.

So why would the first search miss all the “Spirit of the Lord” uses in Judges and Samuel?

Thank you

I may be slow in responding. I don’t get notified

Thank you

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

MJ. Smith

But then going through them I see that it missed all the times the Holy Spirit came on people in the book of Judges. So I did a search for “the spirit of the Lord” and got all of them.

You just hit my pet peeve with Logos coding ... down to my specific example of my pet peeve. The concept of a Triune God, and therefore, of the Holy Spirit did not exist in the minds of the human authors nor the audience at the time the Old Testament was written. Therefore, it is anachronistic for anything to be tagged as the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament. That is not to say that later, New Testament writings, did not expose a novel meaning for the Old Testament texts - it did. The Holy Spirit is present in the Old Testament through the interpretation based on later revelation. I want Logos coding to give me, to the degree possible, the literal meaning of the text at the time it was written. Therefore, in certain cases such as this I not only ignore but actively reject Logos' coding conventions.

Now to directly answer your question. All occurrences of person:"Holy Spirit" in the Old Testament represent the interpretation of the Logos taggers which aimed at a consensus of interpretation acceptable to the majority of their core market. Any individual, including yourself, may quite justifiably make other interpretative choices. Unfortunately, after revealing the triune nature of God, God failed to use his neon highlighters to identify the 3 persons in the Hebrew Scriptures.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271687#Comment_1271687

I want Logos coding to give me, to the degree possible, the literal meaning of the text at the time it was written. Therefore, in certain cases such as this I not only ignore but actively reject Logos' coding conventions.

[A]

Larry Craig

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271687#Comment_1271687

Thank you, as always

I fail to see how all the uses of the Spirit coming on a person in Judges and Samuel don't match the search term Holy Spirit in the OT. The CS rep thought I didn't understand Logos. Then please tell me what I did wrong. How could that not be a hit, about 20 of them?

I am doing another OT search (LXX), and I am equally frustrated with this.

I have an old program Bible Windows, which I see I deleted from my computer, because I have Logos. Big mistake. Fortunately i did a lot of searches in the past and saved the results in Word files. I also have Hatch and Redpath concordance of the LXX. Seems I'll have to manually check a lot of my searches and not assume it is complete.

Justin Gatlin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271692#Comment_1271692

Is this not working for you? I would check that your email is correct and check your spam. It works for me.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271692#Comment_1271692

Thank you, as always

I fail to see how all the uses of the Spirit coming on a person in Judges and Samuel don't match the search term Holy Spirit in the OT. The CS rep thought I didn't understand Logos. Then please tell me what I did wrong. How could that not be a hit, about 20 of them?

I think MJ explained why it works this way pretty well. You didn't do anything wrong. It's a theological assessment of the people who tagged the Logos text, which doesn't match your and many Christians' theological understanding of the text. The understanding of that "Spirit of God" as equivalent to the New Testament concept of "Holy Spirit" didn't come until later, and the taggers are apparently only tagging things with "Holy Spirit" that were understood that way at the time.

It's a reasonable gripe to have. If I'm understanding MJ correctly, her pet peeve is the opposite to yours. She says " it is anachronistic for anything to be tagged as the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament." So she would balk at all those 46 hits in 38 verses.

It seems that the search feature needs to accommodate both types of people's queries. "Search with NT/Christian understanding" vs. "Search with OT/Jewish understanding". I don't know what I'd prefer in this case. Holy Spirit is by definition a NT/Christian theological concept, so if you search for it, it ought to trigger a NT/Christian type search. But this halfway one that doesn't include the verses in Judges seems like some tagging was missed. Again, you did nothing wrong. It's a mistake (IMO) in the tagging.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271698#Comment_1271698

It seems that the search feature needs to accommodate both types of people's queries. "Search with NT/Christian understanding" vs. "Search with OT/Jewish understanding".

I'd look at it a bit differently as there are unitarian Christians who wouldn't read it as "Holy Spirit" - if Logos wishes to appeal to most markets, it must keep it's coding as free of theology as possible. Otherwise, users miss a step of interpretation and are easily made to look like idjits in apologetic settings. From previous discussions on the issue, I know many users have less of a distinction between literal meaning and my interpretation than I. But over the years, I have watched Logos-created products becoming broader in perspective - less predigested theology, more pure text.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271692#Comment_1271692

am doing another OT search (LXX), and I am equally frustrated with this.

Good luck. Take a look at 1 Sam 16:14 tagging, where God/YHWH is associated with 2 spirits, one good, one evil. Which in some ways matches up with 2-Ways, centuries later (2nd Temple, Qumran, Didache, Barnabas).

But it is interesting the pattern you found describes the 'Deuteronomist' (maybe he works at Logos).

Your reference to Hatch and Redpath reminds me of Muraoka's index to HR in Logos ... his wife Keiko did all that collation. Still impressed.

And a good interview: https://williamaross.com/2018/02/08/12th-international-lxx-day-an-interview-with-t-muraoka/

Larry Craig

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271694#Comment_1271694

yeah, this has gone on for years. I've done all that. Logos is clueless why it doesn't work

Larry Craig

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271698#Comment_1271698

thank you

I did find some overlap in the results.

I really think there was an error which I hoped the person in CS would at least consider that a possibility.

Nope. mistake is all mine.

Like I said before to MJ, I did a lot of searching years ago on another program I have since deleted. Now I have to manually check my results against that program. I can't reinstall it, because it's on a disk. I don't know if they are even in business still.

worth a check I suppose.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271706#Comment_1271706

yeah, this has gone on for years. I've done all that. Logos is clueless why it doesn't work

Keep in mind that "Logos" as an entity encompasses many people, so not all of the company could be clueless. The Customer Service folks are not developers. I'm sure the developers and digital book creators understand exactly what is going on and could either explain it better to you than Customer Service did or would appreciate your frustration and realize something is wrong in the tagging. Hopefully one of them will notice this thread, but the forums are mostly just user-to-user support, with occasional Logos employees who drop in now and then to glean feedback and help resolve things.

The best way to get attention for something you consider to be a problem in the software is to put BUG: as a prefix in the subject line.

But tagging is a complex job and involves thousands of hours of work across all the books in the Logos catalogue. Logos teams are constantly tweaking things, but I'm sure there is a backlog of tagging to be done on new books, and problems to be resolved in the tagging on existing books. There's also the issue of whether they'll agree that this ought to be changed, since they have the knowledge of what decisions went into tagging it this way, which Customer Service might not have. They might have some justification for it. But that wouldn't help your frustration. I'm sorry, but I can't offer suggestions in the meantime. It's a bummer that you no longer have the software that did it the way you liked it.

Mozzie

Using the prompt below in Chat GPT, I received a total of 272 hits with 48 of these identified in the OT. “Spirit of the Lord”, “Spirit of God”, “Spirit”, etc. hits were included in the OT results. I’m finding that I use Chat GPT, Bing, Bard, etc. more and more for these types of searches. Of course, one needs to review and seriously critique results as bias and other errors will sometimes occur.

I’d post the results but for the length, though I assume you’d get the same results using the same prompt. And note, I didn't specify the Bible version.

Ps, I’m also learning that a slight prompt difference can result in radically differing results.

Prompt: In table format, list all obvious and potential biblical references to the Holy Spirit that occur.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271721#Comment_1271721

Maybe Rosie is right... more tagging is needed. But once again, it is shown that Search needs more work. imo.... [8-|]

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271725#Comment_1271725

But once again, it is shown that Search needs more work. imo..

I'm not sure this is a search issue as it relates to tagging.

more tagging is needed.

And whether more tagging is required in this area comes back to the point MJ was making about the decisions the Logos team had to make

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271755#Comment_1271755

I'm not sure this is a search issue as it relates to tagging.

Not disagreeing, relative to the OP's example.

But just trying a right-click in NABre and a 'spirit' in Gen 6:3 below (the logic doesn't know which part of the Bible it found the sense). Always needs adult supervision.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271721#Comment_1271721

I assume you’d get the same results using the same prompt.

No, I didn't ... then I changed to viewing only the New Testament got as the final summary

[quote]The total number of references, based on the above estimation, is approximately 272. This count is a close approximation and might vary based on translation and interpretations of specific passages. If you require a detailed list or have questions about specific references, please specify.

On the NRSV, Verbum gave me for the New Testament 353 results.

I have found ChatGPT gives me correct information a bit more than half the time, often contradicting itself within two or three related questions and rarely remembering a correction. But it is very polite when caught contradicting itself and in telling me to read original sources in an academic library. Then I have to break down and actually use my obscure Logos resources to find such things as the contents of the Ethiopian book of Baruch - found in a footnote,

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271757#Comment_1271757

But just trying a right-click in NABre and a 'spirit' in Gen 6:3 below (the logic doesn't know which part of the Bible it found the sense).

The reason for not finding any results in Genesis 6 is you are restricting the search to Matthew-Revelation

Wolfgang Schneider

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271705#Comment_1271705

... Take a look at 1 Sam 16:14 tagging, where God/YHWH is associated with 2 spirits, one good, one evil. ...

So then what's the problem with

doing a search for the word "spirit" (or lemma searches for both the Hebrew and Greek words) in order to get the places where the word is used in the text. Finding and listing all the occurrences / passages seems to me to be the job of the Logos search function. and then
instead of expecting and relying on the Logos tagging team doing the "interpretation work" of determining the sense of the word as used in a particular passage / context, the user's job is to do such "interpretation work" by going through the passages and determining for him-/herself how the word is used in a passage and to who or what it refers.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271764#Comment_1271764

... Take a look at 1 Sam 16:14 tagging, where God/YHWH is associated with 2 spirits, one good, one evil. ...

So then what's the problem with

doing a search for the word "spirit" (or lemma searches for both the Hebrew and Greek words) in order to get the places where the word is used in the text. Finding and listing all the occurrences / passages seems to me to be the job of the Logos search function. and then

instead of expecting and relying on the Logos tagging team doing the "interpretation work" of determining the sense of the word as used in a particular passage / context, the user's job is to do such "interpretation work" by going through the passages and determining for him-/herself how the word is used in a passage and to who or what it refers.

Which can cause a considerable amount of work simply because Search is too general. I don't know how many times I have used Search to search for something and found so much data to sift through that I just gave up, went outside Logos did the same search, found the answer I was looking for and went on with what I was doing. Maybe my problems with Search is that I don't study the "hieroglyphics" of Search and use them. I don't have to go to school to learn them (hieroglyphics) with other searches.... I refuse to have to do that in Logos, a program that I pay for!

I do use Logos Search... but more and more, I am not convinced it actually works for me as much as it causes more work for me. And others are saying things about Logos Search also. Just watch the forums... seems there's people like me that don't understand all the "hieroglyphics" to use with getting precise answers from Logos Search... Or... maybe this is good question... How many times do you have to help someone with a Search in Logos? The current thread.. about search "Holy Spirit" is a good example.

I know the odds are against me but I still say..... Somehow, Logos Search needs more work.... imho.... but I think that horse has already left the barn.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271768#Comment_1271768

The current thread.. about search "Holy Spirit" is a good example.

I'm struggling to understand - and I'd like to understand - why it is a good example.

As explained above it is a question of tagging with, presumably, the people in Logos who tagged the text taking the view that some references to the spirit of the Lord in Judges should not be tagged as referring to the Holy Spirit. (I'm assuming here that it wasn't a mistake).

So a search on person:"Holy Spirit" won't find those references.

And as also discussed above there are different views on whether these references should be tagged to refer to the Holy Spirit or not. So it's not a search question it's a tagging question.

What I am missing?

(And this isn't to say that improvements to search aren't important - there are and there was another update in its functionality in the version 28.0)

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271764#Comment_1271764

nstead of expecting and relying on the Logos tagging team doing the "interpretation work"

Believe me, Wolfgang, I don't expect or rely on the Logos tagging team! Lord (generically) have mercy on our Logosian souls.

I was simply illustrating that the tag team has to sort of 'wing it' when faced with non-doctrinal text (or shall we say post-Marcion doctrines). YHWH having evil spirits just like the Adversary is perfectly textual.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271763#Comment_1271763

The reason for not finding any results in Genesis 6 is you are restricting the search to Matthew-Revelation

Actually not .. the app did that, re-using an earlier search. They sort of fixed that a few years back, relative to a verse's location. Sense tagging relative to location is another issue.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271768#Comment_1271768

Which can cause a considerable amount of work simply because Search is too general.

How general or specific a search is depends almost entirely on the person building the search.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271772#Comment_1271772

They sort of fixed that a few years back,

There was significant pressure put on Logos (some by myself) to retain certain settings so they wouldn't have to be reset every single time when one was doing repetitive searches. The flip side of addressing that issue is the need to glance at the settings when you intend to have them change. Improvements could still be made.

Sense tagging relative to location is another issue.

Not sure what you mean by this. An example please?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271778#Comment_1271778

The flip side of addressing that issue ...

Is that it makes no sense to non-forum users. You right-click an Old Testament verse, and it searches in the New Testament. But they did actually fix that.

Not sure what you mean by this. An example please?

I was simply right-clicking a Genesis reference, selecting 'spirit' as a sense, and it doing a Bible search ... in the New Testament.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271781#Comment_1271781

I was simply right-clicking a Genesis reference, selecting 'spirit' as a sense, and it doing a Bible search ... in the New Testament.

I understand what you mean now. You want the behavior I would hate. I would not want it to assume I am looking for more in the same area as I am currently in; I want it to assume I am looking for more in the same area as my last gazillion searches. Perhaps an ability to freeze the users setting until the user (not the app) changes them is the direction to go.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271770#Comment_1271770

Graham, didn't mean to sound terse... but to answer your question.....How does Larry (first questioner) find his hit of "Holy Spirit"?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271782#Comment_1271782

You want the behavior I would hate.

Actually not ... I never use the sense, etc. But I am convinced Faithlife struggles from excessively confusing designs for non-forum folks, vs their need to sell books and meet payroll. Who's the guy that has to roll the rock up the mountain, and then ....

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271824#Comment_1271824

Graham, didn't mean to sound terse... but to answer your question.....How does Larry (first questioner) find his hit of "Holy Spirit"?

It is a tagging issue, as stated by Graham. I have a different idea about it, that should ensure consistency.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271824#Comment_1271824

I see that Dave has responded and I'm very interested to see how Logos respond.

but to answer your question.....How does Larry (first questioner) find his hit of "Holy Spirit"?

With the current tagging you would need a search string something like (spirit INTERSECTS person:God) OR person:"Holy Spirit"

The first term (before the OR) finds places where the word spirit is tagged as referring to God.

The second term (after the OR) finds places where there is a tag referring to the Holy Spirit

And the OR combines them.

As recognised above this is one of the areas where determining the "correct" tagging is virtually impossible - as there are such a range of views - and one of the things I like about Dave's suggestion is a request for consistency.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271831#Comment_1271831

Dave Hooten and Graham Griddle.... I pray I didn't offend either of you. I have always and still do appreciate your suggestions and advice on the forums. You both have great experience and a wealth of knowledge about Logos and I appreciate that. You both are great assets to people (like me) that use the forums. Thank you both for that.

At the same time, I do feel Search can be improved....

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271865#Comment_1271865

At the same time, I do feel Search can be improved....

If tagging can improve it, then we should press for that so that simpler Search terms can be used (refer to Graham's suggestion for "Holy Spirit").

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271764#Comment_1271764

... Take a look at 1 Sam 16:14 tagging, where God/YHWH is associated with 2 spirits, one good, one evil. ...

So then what's the problem with

doing a search for the word "spirit" (or lemma searches for both the Hebrew and Greek words) in order to get the places where the word is used in the text. Finding and listing all the occurrences / passages seems to me to be the job of the Logos search function. and then

instead of expecting and relying on the Logos tagging team doing the "interpretation work" of determining the sense of the word as used in a particular passage / context, the user's job is to do such "interpretation work" by going through the passages and determining for him-/herself how the word is used in a passage and to who or what it refers.

^^^This. This has been my gripe with FL's "we do the thinking so you don't have to!" approach for the last decade or so. Of course, every single new "dataset" that purports to "make it EASIER!!" to study, isn't just a crutch...it's a cash cow.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271873#Comment_1271873

At the same time, I do feel Search can be improved....

If tagging can improve it, then we should press for that so that simpler Search terms can be used (refer to Graham's suggestion for "Holy Spirit").

I'm willing. I'm all for simpler terms.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271831#Comment_1271831

I see that Dave has responded and I'm very interested to see how Logos respond.

but to answer your question.....How does Larry (first questioner) find his hit of "Holy Spirit"?

With the current tagging you would need a search string something like (spirit INTERSECTS person:God) OR person:"Holy Spirit"

The first term (before the OR) finds places where the word spirit is tagged as referring to God.

The second term (after the OR) finds places where there is a tag referring to the Holy Spirit

And the OR combines them.

As recognised above this is one of the areas where determining the "correct" tagging is virtually impossible - as there are such a range of views - and one of the things I like about Dave's suggestion is a request for consistency.

Thanks. person:"Holy Spirit" is what I have used before.... then "wade" through 278 verses that came up to find pertinent info. It's the "wading" where I have a problem. I like Dave's suggestion also.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271899#Comment_1271899

It's the "wading" where I have a problem.

Which is where Wolfgang and I strongly disagree with you. You are asking to "read" Logos employees' coding of the text based on their theology and hermeneutics. Wolfgang and I prefer to read the scriptures as written. The difference is genuinely that simple.

Wolfgang Schneider

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271900#Comment_1271900

It's the "wading" where I have a problem.

Which is where Wolfgang and I strongly disagree with you. You are asking to "read" Logos employees' coding of the text based on their theology and hermeneutics. Wolfgang and I prefer to read the scriptures as written. The difference is genuinely that simple.

MJ, well said ... that was the point of my earlier note

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271920#Comment_1271920

It's the "wading" where I have a problem.

Which is where Wolfgang and I strongly disagree with you. You are asking to "read" Logos employees' coding of the text based on their theology and hermeneutics. Wolfgang and I prefer to read the scriptures as written. The difference is genuinely that simple.

MJ, well said ... that was the point of my earlier note

Well... I feel we're rehashing an old discussion and I'm confused! For me, with a bible search, it is about the Scripture also. I not asking to read coding of text or theological backgrounds or anything else. Just saying Search of the bible can give so many "answers" that it take time to plow through all the answers to find the answer one is looking for. The answer Search gives many times is too broad. Too general. That seems pretty simple to me. Is there a way to narrow the replies Search gives, in simple terms? I think so. Proof of this is one can go to other program (i.e. google, A.I. etc) and get simple answers to bible questions, without having to hunt for the answer in the responses given.

And as I have stated, I wonder if Search is trying to accommodate so many different theologies and backgrounds (not wanting to see them at all) that it has to come up with so many search hits to do that? If I search the bible....there is only one bible.... what's the big deal about getting so many replies? When I choose one of the other searches (all, books, Factbook, etc.) as my search sure, I expect to get many many responses because of the many books Search goes through.

Like Dave said.... maybe the issue is tagging. Maybe we need lots more tagging. But I do think Logos Search can be improved a lot. And if you read the forums, which I know you do, you've seen many questions about Search and how to find something. They may not be as persistent as I am but I've seen their questions and complaints.

And on that note.... [8-|]

Wolfgang Schneider

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271927#Comment_1271927

... If I search the bible....there is only one bible.... what's the big deal about getting so many replies?

Well, for example, if you search the Bible text for the word "spirit" or its lemma πνεῦμα (pneuma) you will get hundreds of hits/replies ... and the big deal is this: There are hundreds of hits because that word has been used that many times in the Bible you are searching.

Now, if the Logos team has tagged the word "spirit" in certain places with a specific meaning, such as "person:(God)" or "person:(the Holy Spirit)" or whatever else, they have provided such an interpretation / theological view to the word in those places based on their theology/interpretation premises. And if you are then searching for this tag you are actually searching for that interpretation and thus you will get only those places where that interpretation was attached/tagged; you are not really searching the Bible text as such but doing a search for that interpretation (because the actual text of the tag - "person:(The Holy Spirit)" etc. - does not even occur in the Bible text.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271929#Comment_1271929

... If I search the bible....there is only one bible.... what's the big deal about getting so many replies?

Well, for example, if you search the Bible text for the word "spirit" or its lemma πνεῦμα (pneuma) you will get hundreds of hits/replies ... and the big deal is this: There are hundreds of hits because that word has been used that many times in the Bible you are searching.

Now, if the Logos team has tagged the word "spirit" in certain places with a specific meaning, such as "person:(God)" or "person:(the Holy Spirit)" or whatever else, they have provided such an interpretation / theological view to the word in those places based on their theology/interpretation premises. And if you are then searching for this tag you are actually searching for that interpretation and thus you will get only those places where that interpretation was attached/tagged; you are not really searching the Bible text as such but doing a search for that interpretation (because the actual text of the tag - "person:(The Holy Spirit)" etc. - does not even occur in the Bible text.

Thanks.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271927#Comment_1271927

The answer Search gives many times is too broad. Too general. That seems pretty simple to me.

When you search for a word, lemma, or root Logos gives quite accurate results - everything time that word, lemma, or root occurs in the Bible text itself. One may quibble over whether the lemma and roots are correctly defined or, in the case of ambiguity, if the right choice was made. But you always "know" what Logos is doing. If you are blindsided, it is by linguistic theory not theology. What you are calling "too board, too general" is simply "too accurate" - you are asking for predigested interpretation and translation ... Perhaps this will help you understand the point:

Left column - this is a simple search on the OT of the NRSV text for every occurrence of the word "spirit" - this is what you are saying is too broad.
Center column - this is a simple search on the OT of the NRSV text for every occurrence of the phrase "Holy Spirit" - this you would say is too narrow
Right column - this is a simple search on the OT of the NRSV tags for every occurrence of the Logos supplied person tag "Holy Spirit" - this is what you want with corrections to tagging What Google supplies is often the equivalent of this from a variety of sources.

What some of us want is for the tags for person to be as theologically neutral as those for words, lemmas, and roots, What Logos did was cave into pressure from one group of users to use theological tagging here (and a few other cases) because that group of users had been so indoctrinated on what the text meant that they could not see what the text actually said. My concern is not whether or not the interpretation is correct; my concern is that I want to search and study the text,

If you want to argue that the author God meant "Holy Spirit" even though the human author and audience lacked the concept or the word for it, then you are moving into sensus plenior, a more complex theological/hermeneutical debate more appropriate to the Verbum market.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271979#Comment_1271979

If you want to argue that the author God meant "Holy Spirit" even though the human author and audience lacked the concept or the word for it, then you are moving into sensus plenior, a more complex theological/hermeneutical debate more appropriate to the Verbum market.

Martha, it is not your task to lecture the forum on "broader" matters like this which are definitely theological and easily perceived as a "put down" of those who differ.

What some of us want is for the tags for person to be as theologically neutral as those for words, lemmas, and roots, What Logos did was cave into pressure from one group of users to use theological tagging here (and a few other cases) because that group of users had been so indoctrinated on what the text meant that they could not see what the text actually said. My concern is not whether or not the interpretation is correct; my concern is that I want to search and study the text,

Your own words show that "theologically neutral" is impossible wrt. the current discussion, where we are not discussing "things". And words like Logos caving "into pressure from one group of users" is inflammatory when you claim that they don't understand the text. What translation is not "theological" or interpretative? And what tagging can avoid being "theological" or interpretative?

You provide the example Search of "spirit" in the NRSV, which is missing Gen 1:2 because it uses "wind", together with NAB, NABRE, Tanakh 1985 (two of them use the phrase "wind from God" whilst the others use "mighty wind"). Tanakh 1917 uses lower case "spirit" together with DR, REB, Five Books of Moses. 33 other translations (in my Library) use Upper Case "Spirit". It is tagged person:"Holy Spirit" and sense:wind (followed by person:God) in Logos. Both "Holy Spirit" and "God" are Supernatural Beings in Logos, as well as "Satan". But all of them are addressed by the keyword person:.

So which text do you want us to study.

A favorite of mine is 2 Thess 2:7 where you can find the restrainer designated as "He" in NKJV and MEV whilst Wuest enthusiastically translates as "He [the Holy Spirit]". Most other translations adopt the neutral "he" whilst Logos have resisted any pressure to tag the Greek article (which you would not know unless you studied the Greek text). Clearly, there are people who believe that the Holy Spirit is also a "He".

I believe that good Commentaries deal with the issues of Gen 1:2 and 2 Thess 2:7.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272030#Comment_1272030

Still jonesing for that missing popcorn emoji.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272030#Comment_1272030

I need a direct response to this request before I can address the miscommunication that has happened between us.

as the case for identification was made by the Jewish authors of the NT and the OT.

Can you give me some examples of Jewish authors in the Old Testament? I am open to correction, but the earliest hints I've seen are in the deuterocanonicals.

Trying to answer this myself, I spent some time trying to find pre-deuterocanonical hints of a multi-person God. I can find development in the concept of separate "manifestations/energies" such as shekinah and wisdom, often with a hint that they are the feminine side of God but nothing early on a multi-person God.

I will try once more to get you to understand my point which is based strictly on linguisitics and history of ideas -- and Logos.

I am talking about the tagging i.e. original language text not translations.
I am talking about literal meaning - what the original, inspired human author was trying to convey to his audience.
The idea of emanations, attributes, avatars of God is broadly spread and too early to guessimate when it arose.
The idea of a single God made up of multiple persons is uniquely Christian in the broadest sense of the word
The earliest hint of the concept of the "single God multiple person" concept is in the 2nd Temple period ... unless you can prove otherwise, in which case I will adjust my position.
Without the concept, early Hebrew could not have a word for the concept.
Without a word for the concept, the original inspired human author could not as the literal meaning of the text have intended the concept. (Note sensus plenior is simply the term for when God as ultimate author intended a meaning not known to the human author - its use is theological interpretation, the term is not.)
Therefore, tagging the word with the concept is anachronistic.
That says absolutely nothing about the accuracy of interpretation of the verse that includes the later concept ... it only says that the Hebrew author writing to a Hebrew speaking audience did not knowingly intend the meaning.
Note: The linguistic based tagging was used when the RVI's were based off Andersen-Forbes.

I do not expect everyone to agree with me on what the coding should be; I do expect my point to be understood and not misrepresented.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272033#Comment_1272033

Still jonesing for that missing popcorn emoji.

[:D] You want copies of the out-takes to follow the trailer?

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272036#Comment_1272036

In communication, it was taught there are 3 ways of communicating.

1. Adult to adult - where both parties show respect for the other. This is the best way of communicating.

2. Adult to child - where the adult is talking down to the other, instructing the child but assuming the child is not on their level. This will generally show itself by one party over-talking the other and trying to prove they are always right.

3. Child to child - where both show less respect for the other.

Some on the forums only use the "Adult to child" as they believe they are always right. Personally, I see this kind of communications come across a lot, whether it is meant or not.

just my 2 cents ... which is about all the sense I have! [8-|]

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272030#Comment_1272030

Clearly, there are people who believe that the Holy Spirit is also a "He".

Well, they're just wrong (joking). But you bring up a good point ... for a good period of time the Spirit and Wisdom were synonymous, ergo a 'she'. Overlapped 2nd Temple and the NT.

The other generalization I'd avoid ... Jews in the OT, Christians in the NT. Actually Jews both.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272042#Comment_1272042

Adult to child

Visitors to our family would often remark this did not exist in our family. Children were consistently given the same respect as adults. I have personally seen this continue through 4 generations.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272034#Comment_1272034

as the case for identification was made by the Jewish authors of the NT and the OT.

Can you give me some examples of Jewish authors in the Old Testament? I am open to correction, but the earliest hints I've seen are in the deuterocanonicals.

That was a mis-communication as I was thinking more about the Jewish authors of the NT being the interpreters of the OT with regard to "Holy Spirit" and "Spirit of God".

I am talking about the tagging i.e. original language text not translations.

I am talking about literal meaning - what the original, inspired human author was trying to convey to his audience.

This began with my request for consistency in tagging of "Holy Spirit" and understanding has more to do with this than "literal meaning", which has a poor history in Hermeneutics and won't improve matters for any audience. My main thought is that we are able to pursue the intention of the Holy Spirit ([:)]) independently of the tagging provided it is able to assist our Searches without grabbing for alternative terms, which can be version dependent.
We need to take any further discussion off-line.