a question from an Accordance User

Hi Kristin - and welcome to the forums

but so far I have been prevented because of Logos' seemingly complete lack of a functional "user bible," which is a critical aspect of my work

I spoke with a friend who uses both programs, and he told me that the closest thing Logos has is this so-called Personal Book, and that Logos does not distinguish whether it is a Bible or not. Thus, if I want my text to function like a Bible and scroll in parallel with another biblical text, before each word I need to write [[@Bible the verse reference, then ]] before EVERY verse. So.... I need to do this 3,102 times. 

Your friend is correct - the Personal Book is the mechanism for doing this sort of thing in Logos. And, as it supports different book types, it is necessary to add some additional coding to indicate verse boundaries etc.

So I'm afraid it may be that Logos does not provide the functionality you are looking for.

Graham

I use the native Text Edit, and can write "Gen 1:1 In...." and then I am able to import it into Accordance. Doing so I simply say it is a Bible, ask it to follow the verse layout of the published Bible I choose (the default is KJV, but I can change it if I want).

Elsewhere you state "my actual text includes square brackets and numbers (apart from verse references)". This would say there is a necessary formatting to distinguish verses, which is not dissimilar to the 31,102  square bracket verse references in a Personal Book bible.  Does it handle unique pericopes, chapter headings (or non-bible text in general)?  Can it distinguish and/or format "red letter" Words of Christ?

I have other issues with the PB also, such as it needing to be in a docx format (I am on a Mac and use plain text). Also, if I try uploading it to just be a random PB and don't bother with it being able to scroll in parallel, even searching for random references as if they are words brings false results. If I type "Gen 1:1" it brings me to Gen 1:1, but if I then type "Luke 1" it brings Mark 13:29 to the top of the page. From Gen 1:1, if I type "Rom. 1" it brings Acts 25:26. I can likewise scroll down until I get to Romans and it will be highlighted as searched for. Typing "Rev. 1" brings up 1John 5:15. If I scroll to Rev 1, it is likewise highlighted, and if I type "Rom. 1" it brings me to Rom 6:18.

The underlined text indicates a use other than that of a Bible, and your search for random references implies that the PB does not have milestones for every verse  e.g.when I type Luke 3 it brings me to  Luke 2:14 because it is the nearest milestone in the PB.

None of this makes any sense. The only thing I can think is that converting my TextEdit txt file on Mac to a docx format messed something up, but if that was the issue it seems like Logos wouldn't be auto hyperlinking all my verses, but it does.

The best way to resolve this is to upload your docx file (or a sample of it) to the forum by using the paperclip icon. Ensure that it is intended to be a bible, or clarify what it is intended to be e.g. Bible Notes.

It is able to be written in plain text, which works beautifully for me on a Mac. I use the native Text Edit,

So I need to keep using Accordance because of it's beautifully simplistic user bible, but after the suggestion of my friend, I decided to post here just in case I am missing something.

I have never created a personal book for Logos, but from Dave Hooton's posts it looks pretty simple.

I say that as someone who has done computer programming in the past. To a user Logos appears more complex (in many ways) than other programs.

I still use Bibleworks (now obsolete and unavailable), a  program that could import and export personal Bible text to and from a simple text file. So the process for Accordance sounds similar.

There are two suggestions I could offer you at this point.

First you need to think in terms of "workflow" to get this into Logos. You do not change your original document if it is the master copy for other things you are doing with it. The first step in a "text to Logos Bible PB" workflow would be to make a copy of your latest document. Then you would make the formatting modifications required by the Logos PBB. This could be done in many ways, and there is a lot of good help available here on the forum. Then finally, export that to the .docx file that Logos requires.

A second option would be to just continue using BOTH programs. There are methods available to link the two programs. Again I have never done this, but there are posts on both forums discussing how to link the programs using external or web links.

It should be possible and fairly simple to get both programs scrolling through Bible references together.

Just wanted to say hi to the Logos-curious / Accordance ex-pats crowd.  

I used to love personal books and have tons of them in my library. However, since the introduction of the Notes database, I have been moving more to putting everything in notes and anchoring whatever it is to verses to aid in searching and finding things. I find that much closer to what the user is looking for, although, unfortunately, notes will not scroll with the Bible text. 

I also used Accordance for a long time when I first started looking at Bible software, and I keep it because of the superior graphics, but Logos is my favorite by far. 

Good luck with finding what you need, and welcome to the forums.

Bumping this thread as the images are missing! Brian’s posts are really useful and it would be sad to lose them.

@Jason Stone (Logos) here is a thread with missing images.

@Donovan R. Palmer This is actually the primary example that we were already looking at! Thank you so much—we're on it.

Cool… I saw this somewhere else in another thread, but I can't remember or find it now!

@Donovan R. Palmer, noted! Thank you. If it comes to mind, please do let me know.

@Jason Stone (Logos) I see you fixed it. Well done to you and your team! 🏆

 However setting up the types of queries I want to run tends to be very time consuming and cumbersome.

@BKMitchell I can see that. For those who have a robust original language use case, especially when it comes to some technical searches, Logos can do most things, but not as easily… particularly in Hebrew. Though @Brian Leathers has been demonstrating this gap is much, much narrower than it used to be. He has impressed me over and over, and highlighted areas that I still need learn and grow in.

I bought Accordance years ago when I engaged in formal studies. A lot of materials I needed were in Logos and not in Accordance. Logos 1.x for Mac was out, and I primarily used it as my mobile seminary library because I was travelling a lot, so hauling paper books was not a great option. Accordance was what I used for original languages studies. Then Logos for Mac jumped from 1.x to 4, when the strategy was to have feature parity between the Mac and Windows. Logos v.4 Mac was a trainwreck. So much so, I ran the Windows version in a VM until version 5.0 came out. It was still buggy and slow, and in my view did not hold its own with Accordance's speed until version 10.

So for years, I would say Accordance was the first app that I opened, but this has changed. This has not been intentional, but rather when I am working in Logos and find that I have not felt the need to switch back to Accordance, it is an indicator that the friction to do so, is not worth it to me anymore, at least for my use case. And this is the key I think. Most people's use case, even if they read the original languages, is often not as demanding as some.

Add on top of that, the disaster of Accordance version v. 14 and how far it is slipping behind in technological advancements is disturbing. 'Enhanced syncing' is actually 'standard syncing' in many applications now. Mobile apps and cloud are becoming less and less of a poor cousin, and forming a valid part of people's study workflows. This is mature and standard technology now. Accordance sold these features over two years ago, and when users started to make comments, the response was disasterous and resulted in some even being banned. (I don't blame the admin btw, and I know it is not easy sometimes to make peace) Updates to resources are also slipping further behind, such as some of my main commentaries and journals.

Yet there is still a place for Accordance if they can get the ship righted again. The philosophy of the UI and its capabilities, particularly for demanding original language use cases, has value and so it would be a shame to lose it… particularly as we have seen the premium Bible software space contract considerably. Personally, I felt it very disturbing when BibleWorks closed. I never bought it, but I saw its value and I thought at the time, at least we still have Accordance!

I rarely open Accordance these days. The few times I have, it has crashed. I know there are fixes if I concentrate on it, but this used to never be the case when the Browns ran the company. It was rock solid and put Logos to shame in terms of speed and dependability. This is no longer the case, and while I hope the new management in Accordance can redress all of this, I hope that Logos will also continue to refine its original language capabilities. Without sounding like I want Logos to be Accordance, I do think the original language use case merits a fresh look at search construction, the ability to manage multiple layouts, including renaming of tab groups, and new or improved text tools like text comparison would be welcomed.

With this said, Logos has a much larger general user base and I know these requests compete against things like Sermon Builder or Counselling Guide, which are not on the radar of my use case. AI has been a value add and I can see exactly why Logos has needed to go there, but still… would love to see a tool like text comparison go to the next level in its basic functionality. With all this said, I have to say I am truly grateful for the cool tools we have in both Logos and Accordance. What we have access to is historic! 😎

Hi @Donovan R. Palmer , we for sure have the same impression of v.14. I am personally still at the point where I like playing with Logos, and there are a few books I like reading in it, but if I need to get actual work done it really forces me to go to Accordance. This is primarily because of how original languages are handled, with the Logos "lemma" vs Accordance "lex" as they are just not comparable. The Accordance lex often finds more, and the reason is because the Logos lemma separates the lex into a different lemma for certain situations (as previously mentioned with words like κύριος), which just doesn't work if I am looking for the word in every instance. I understand there is the root option, but it captures words which are just of the same root, obviously. The second issue is that there is no way to easily compare the lists. If I were in Accordance I could take the results from one search and compare them against each other in under a minute to find the differences, while in Logos it seems to be possible to create something similar, but it is clunky and would require exporting the list outside of Logos (from what I understand). I also miss the way that I have ONE search bar and can type a word or a verse and the system just gets it, while in Logos the process is more complicated, since if I am searching for a word or a verse, they seem to be two different areas. So I suppose in short, I personally feel like Logos does a far better job with books, and Accordance does a far better job with languages and searching (as you mentioned above). While I do need to use Accordance exclusively for my work, I do appreciate having Logos and reading a lot of the cool things I now have in it. I also agree with you about BW, only I in fact did have it.

Great post. Yeah, I learned a lot about lemma/lex differences earlier in this thread and your approach to your language studies. My approach doesn’t require this distinction at this stage, but it does emphasize why we need different tools and datasets. I hope Accordance and Logos continue to develop.

" The second issue is that there is no way to easily compare the lists. If I were in Accordance I could take the results from one search and compare them against each other in under a minute to find the differences, while in Logos it seems to be possible to create something similar, but it is clunky and would require exporting the list outside of Logos (from what I understand). I also miss the way that I have ONE search bar and can type a word or a verse and the system just gets it, while in Logos the process is more complicated, since if I am searching for a word or a verse, they seem to be two different areas. "

This post-quoting in the new exciting forum, is really not satisfactory … first a 'quote' to reference the post correctly, and then a copy/paste (Jason's solution) to narrow down the issue.

ANYWAY … your second issue has always been a mystery to me … why the Logos design-team (or the boss) doesn't place efficiency as a key feature in planning app development. Passage lists are a very common tool; my preacher Dad lived on them. Especially comparing his passage lists for … another passage list! They're integral to types of preaching, and also research. Another example is text comparison … sometimes folks want to do a single passage comparison and scroll … sometimes compare a list of passages. In Logos, good luck … it's do-able. Just painful.

OT: I just noticed, the forum app can't underline, etc. Basically, bold, and strike-thru, though italics works.

@Kristin

The second issue is that there is no way to easily compare the lists. If I were in Accordance I could take the results from one search and compare them against each other in under a minute to find the differences, while in Logos it seems to be possible to create something similar, but it is clunky and would require exporting the list outside of Logos (from what I understand)

You can compare Passage Lists using the Merge option - there are a number of ways you can use this.

 since if I am searching for a word or a verse, they seem to be two different areas

Can you expand on this please?

In Logos, good luck … it's do-able. Just painful.

When we were debating in-line search in relation to the new dynamic search bar, I was surprised about the push towards the search panel. Some of the concerns were heard and made the cut, but it really made me wonder who on the team is pushing the developmental boundaries and efficiencies of original languages work. Voices like Dr. Heiser and Rick Brannan are not as prominent as they used to be. So when it comes to strategy, who is starting to wave the flag that the text comparison tool is looking very long in the tooth, let alone the limited data sets that it accesses? So I hope in this new era we might be able to hear what is on the roadmap for investment. To be fair, I don’t see Accordance with its core issues and no one like the Browns in the mix, innovating anything new soon either.

Hi @Graham Criddle ,

Thank you for your response. I have a few comments / questions, so I will number them if that is alright.

1) Regarding the merge, I am having a lot of confusion about it. If I start from the NA28 and search, it defaults to "Morph." Since your screenshot showed books, I ran it there, but I still don't see it. I will post a screenshot.

2) Is there a clear def anywhere about the difference between "Bible" Books" and "Morph"? I seem to be able to run the same search everywhere.

3) A lot of the words are highlighted random colors, yet I did not highlight them. I assume there is a way to turn them off, but I am wondering whose highlights these are.

4) Regarding the two searches, I will post a screenshot here as well. In Accordance I have one search box and I can type anything. In Logos I can type a verse in the search box, but to type a word I need to press a magnifier and then it produces a second box. Then if I type a verse in the second box, I now have two places to type references. It is just kind of confusing.

Take care,
Kristin

Hi @Kristin

1) Regarding the merge, I am having a lot of confusion about it. If I start from the NA28 and search, it defaults to "Morph." Since your screenshot showed books, I ran it there, but I still don't see it. I will post a screenshot.

Apologies, the Books Search in my earlier screenshot just happened to be there - it wasn't relevant to what I was trying to describe.

Here, I've done the same search as you showed (I am using Logos with a subscription so my toolbar will be different to yours but functionally they are equivalent)

Now I can sent the results to a Passage List (I'm showing the resulting Passage List on the right of the screenshot). Note: I think there might be an issue in sending the results to a Passage List from the earlier toolbar (the one you are using) - it so, please advise.

If I do the same search in Scrivener's Textus Receptus - and generate another Passage List - I get a different number of results.

Now I can merge the two lists to see where the differences are - I'll choose the Difference option below:

This gives me a new Passage List showing where the differences appear - it's worth playing around with the different options to see how they work:

2) Is there a clear def anywhere about the difference between "Bible" Books" and "Morph"? I seem to be able to run the same search everywhere.

Bible Search is defined here

Books Search is defined here

Morph Search is defined here

Basically a Bible Search is designed to search Bibles - and this supports the most options in terms of tagging. A Books Search is designed to search all of the books in your Library while a Morph Search is focused on searching for morphologically tagged terms. Some time ago - maybe over a year now - the ability to do morphological searches within a Bible Search window was introduced and this has blurred the boundaries between a Morph and a Bible Search.

3) A lot of the words are highlighted random colors, yet I did not highlight them. I assume there is a way to turn them off, but I am wondering whose highlights these are.

If you are referring to the blues, pinks, etc in your screenshot they look very much like the results of Visual Filters. Have you defined some?

4) Regarding the two searches, I will post a screenshot here as well. In Accordance I have one search box and I can type anything. In Logos I can type a verse in the search box, but to type a word I need to press a magnifier and then it produces a second box. Then if I type a verse in the second box, I now have two places to type references. It is just kind of confusing.

I see the difference you are describing - I think it is probably a different approach in the two programs.

The top box in Logos is not a search box - it is used to change positions in the resource. Whereas the box that appears when you click the search icon in the toolbar is designed to search for elements within the resource.

You can see the difference by typing a reference in both boxes:

• In the top box, it will just change position in the Bible
• In the bottom box, it will fiter what is displayed to just that verse

Hope this helps a little

You are correct in that Dr. Heiser is dead and Rick Brannan is no longer a Logos employee - rather he is now a very helpful MVP. But I'm not sure what you mean by pushing things towards the search panel. Logos has always used the search panel as the most complete, most powerful search location. I am annoyed that the Find option was left in the panel menu rather than moved to the new dynamic resource toolbar. (Note that by calling it a search bar you implied a much narrower purpose for it than it serves.) To get comfortable with Logos, one must recognize that Logos does some things differently than Accordance - but the functions are there, from the examples given often more powerful functions.

For transparency: I hate the inline search shredding my text into random bits. I hate a verse orientation: my hierarchy is morpheme - lexeme - lexical unit - phrase - clause- sentence - discourse unit - pericope.

Hi @Graham Criddle ,

Thank you for the links and screenshots. That was helpful. You are correct that I don't have the Passage list in the toolbar with the version I have, but I figured out that after I run the search it becomes an option if I click the three vertical dots on the right. I admit I still find it somewhat confusing, primarily since Logos doesn't allow re-naming tabs, and it is complicated sorting through a collection of "Search." However, it makes a lot more sense. Thank you for your help.

but the functions are there, from the examples given often more powerful functions.

The point I was trying to make, perhaps poorly, is efficiency. Yesterday as I was bouncing from panel to panel, clicking away at my mouse, it reminded me of the old amusement park game whack-a-mole. Amazing what I could do, but seeing a couple of other examples, one from a product that is now dead, I express hope that language experts who are much more capable than I, could work with the UI designers in optimisation. I know this is not easy because of the span of use cases for Logos. There always seems to be a tension between user friendliness and efficiency!

(FWIW, my approach to the text is similar, but that is a post for another day!)

 I am annoyed that the Find option was left in the panel menu rather than moved to the new dynamic resource toolbar.

I share this point of view. I was surprised it was not harmonised into the new toolbar.

@Donovan R. Palmer Thank you for the lengthy message!

I found Logos and its offerings to be very exciting early on! My journey with Logos began in 2010 when I acquired the Stuttgart Electronic Study Bible (SESB), Version 3.0 (52 vols.) in Libronix format. Then a year later In 2011, I added the Original Languages Library (JG) Logos 4, and in 2012, I used the Crossgrade option Logos used to have to upgrade to Logos 5. I think the biggest library I went with was Platinum (Logos 6) . I have been satisfied with Logos as digital theological library assistant. However, I felt a bit disheartened that Logos discontinued the Original language library line of basepackages/libraries. Even now when I look at the 2025 libraries I notice there isn't an Original language anywhere to be found.

Logos' user base has clearly grown (and that is great thing!) and is lot bigger and wider than it was in the past. The new Logos of today is moving in a brand new direction! Logos has been and is developing more and more products that cater to a new generation and a very different audience than I am part of.

Grace and Peace,

Brian

However, I felt a bit disheartened that Logos discontinued the Original language library line of basepackages/libraries. Even now when I look at the 2025 libraries I notice there isn't an Original language anywhere to be found.

I agree. I am hopeful that in the new libraries to be launched in Q1, there will be a strong Original Languages offering. I think the MAX subscription is supposed to build out additional value propositions for the Original Languages crowd as well.

I agree. I am hopeful that in the new libraries to be launched in Q1, there will be a strong Original Languages offering. I think the MAX subscription is supposed to build out additional value propositions for the Original Languages crowd as well.

@Donovan Palmer I'm holding out hope for this is well. This is actually the first Logos release where I wasn't all that enthused with the packages offered. Normally there is at least a couple resources that I convince myself I must have. There were some offerings in the higher packages that I would desire, but not enough to not weight for the denominational and academic packages. Normally under the circumstances I would have purchased a package specifically for the course, but with the courses that come with Max, I don't have that urge. This is actually a good thing for my pocket book :P

@Donovan Palmer rather than forcing people who are interested in Original languages to subscribe to a Max subsricption, I am hoping Logos will simply make a streamlined Original Language package line and/or subscription line like they used to have and much in the same way they do with the denominational packages. Just as someone who wants a Catholic product can go for Verbum, or one can simply go do the Baptist basepackage I am hopping one can do the same with an Original Language package line.

@Frank Hodges @BKMitchell - we are on the same page. I hope to see a solid set of packages for Original Languages. It may be in part to my library growing over 20 years, but this is the first major update I have not bought a library package in the first few weeks after release. Maybe in Q1 next year!

Is Q1 Oct-Dec? Or are we expecting a whole new set of libraries in January?

Jan-Mar

I like Jan-Mar. What would the Fall be if it were expressed in a similar way. I don’t like the Fall, it’s meaningless. But Jan-Mar, I could get behind that.

I agree. @MJ. Smith is there a feedback post for this that I can vote on? I know you've been advocating for it, and I think it's a great idea. I imagine opinions differ on how to incorporate Find into the Search bar, as "Find" and "Search" can be easily confused with one another. IIRC, Logos previously even had "Find" as the grey text identifying the search bar. I'm really happy this is no longer the case.

My personal opinion is that "Find" should be integrated as a button next to the inline search within the search tab. Hovering over the button would cause a pop-up to appear that would identify its unique function, i.e. "Find and jump to an exact match (not case sensitive)". Clicking the "Find" button would cause the Find search bar to appear, as it does currently.

@Aaron Hamilton, I was going to quote your section, "is there a feedback post for this that I can vote on?" and as I tried, I can see why everyone is complaining about the quote function, as it not only copies the ENTIRE post, but there is no way to edit a part. Hopefully that will be fixed. Anyway, I had wanted to quote that part since while I think the feedback voting system is a good idea in many regards, I truly hope Logos does not ONLY look at votes, and sometimes works to implement something under the category of common sense. Such as being able to have more than one layout open at a time (the Accordance "Workspace"). Apart from the other issues of language I have mentioned, there is truly no way I could ever do serious work in Logos with ONE workspace open. That is just not even remotely sufficient for the type of work I do. I would argue if that voting thing doesn't have "enough" votes, it is because Logos users haven't experienced it and don't realize how helpful it is. I think a good analogy would be that Logos is like a 13 inch laptop (with one Layout), and Accordance is like having two 27 inch wide screen monitors. There are just certain tasks which require more Workspaces (Layouts) to be viewable at the same time.

Fall is typically Q4, Oct-Dec.

Just to clarify, are we expecting new libraries sometime during the quarter from January through March?

Yes, it has explicitly been announced that the denominational libraries will come in Q1/25 i.e. January through March (I personally hope for a time shortly after we subscribers receive the 5% cashback coupon that needs to be spent in one go.)

@Kristin wrote:

Apart from the other issues of language I have mentioned, there is truly no way I could ever do serious work in Logos with ONE workspace open.

Oh, I'll bite on this again. Yes, I violently agree. I get around this by loading up my main space in the App and then using the web app for other workspaces.

Where is this useful? Particularly in Greek and Hebrew. If I am working on Greek, sometimes that will lead me to want to chase some trails with Hebrew. I don't want to close my workspace optimised for Greek and then open a Hebrew space. Then, sometimes, I want another space to look at historical trends in how scripture has been translated over the years. Again, I now use the web app for some of this, occasionally, a floating window or two, but it is sub-optimal.

If I could only change one thing about Logos, this would be it. Other pieces of software on my computer allow me to open multiple instances of the program in different windows… (i.e. browser, word processor, database…) It would be a game changer in research workflows for me to see this come to Logos as well.

Donovan, I think your post was the first time (in years!) that someone asked to have multiple layouts open at the same time and I instantly thought "that makes sense." I'm glad to hear the Web App works for you as a workaround - for my taste it still is too underdeveloped (i.e. has no real feature parity with the desktop, starting with most basic, simple things like the library). The other alternative workaround is to run Logos and Verbum on the same machine, this allows two full-fledged layouts concurrently.

Personally, I haven't seen a 'use case' for multiple (independent) workspaces (layouts). The need for add-on layouts has been suggested for years (good old Steve, who's now gone to a much better place).

Kristin sees it, so obviously there must be a good 'use case'. My standard layout (6 windows) has one dedicated window for greek/NT analysis, and another window for hebrew/OT (both supplemented by translations … syriac, latin and so forth). And I make heavy use of multi-views for 'leader' management and reducing the links needed. I used to have Logos and Verbum operating independently. I also used Verbum-Mac along with Verbum-Mobile-Mac (big mistake). But both didn't add that much to just using multiple windows with independent links.

There is a feedback item for this feature, though it seems it has lost some of its votes in the migration:

I appreciate this is not for everyone, but a feature like this, does not have to be used or even noticed by those that don't have a need for this.

it has lost some of its votes in the migration

Feedbear, our previous ideation provider, would allow for anonymous or guest upvoting. We have done away with anonymous attribution of upvotes—as well as those anonymous or unverified upvotes themselves—with our migration.

Now that is so clear! Why can't people just say that.

You miss my point … I'm just saying for 'votes', there may be a need to explain why multiple workspaces are so valuable. I'd assume there's quite a bit of coding (expense), since the base design assumes a single space.

The feedback voting function has no standards for submitting an idea. It appears to be mostly a gauge of community interest rather than a place to put forward a business case. Whilst it is likely this is useful intel for Logos, I haven't seen any evidence that it influences the development roadmap significantly. I don't mean that critically; it is just an impression.

If I were to build a case for this, it would be based on changes in technology and UI standards since the launch of Logos 4. Studies about tabs, multiple desktop spaces, and multiple monitors would all factor into it. I would also cite research and study trends in contextual computing. As a reference, I would also add some comparisons to competitor products, though, because the Bible Software space is so limited compared to what it used to be, I would likely broaden it to include similar research tools, but not exclusive to our niche. I would also cite previous threads in which users advocated for this capability in their personal workflows.

Would that convince Logos or users who find the current design sufficient? Maybe not. It is just an idea that some hold on speculation that there might be a point when it will be seriously considered.

I have seen this behavior in the past. And I don't like it. Logos is a complete control freak. Thats also why don't allow to contact other users per DM or PM. Only in Groups where you have the control. I really don't like it. For me Logos has signs of a serious sickness. Plus the messy syndrome.

1. Bring "Ordnung" in your system.
2. Treat us like adults.

@Donovan R. Palmer  Have you seen any evidence that Logos is thinking of create an Original Language library or basepackage? I mean Logos has not had a publicly available Original Language package since Logos 4!

@BKMitchell wrote:

Have you seen any evidence that Logos is thinking of create an Original Language library or basepackage? I mean Logos has not had a publicly available Original Language package since Logos 4!

I used to track the development of some of the packages in the early days, but there become so many variations, that I peeled out.

I am not aware or seen mention of a new original language package. I think the substitute has been their 'Academic Package', in which I picked up some very useful greek language resources in version 10 (EGGNT). What would you like to see offered in the future?

@Fabian

I have seen this behavior in the past. And I don't like it. Logos is a complete control freak. Thats also why don't allow to contact other users per DM or PM. Only in Groups where you have the control. I really don't like it. For me Logos has signs of a serious sickness. Plus the messy syndrome.

Bring "Ordnung" in your system.

Treat us like adults.

Please be accurate when tossing around evaluations. The pulling of the DM/PM capability was in response to user concerns. I have had a few people from the forums contact me personally - it only takes a bit of creativity to do so. There is a component of the Logos/Verbum community who are justifiably paranoid about potentially identifying information - you can easily determine what countries they live in as there are only a few where being Christian is highly problematic.

It isn't an area that I watch closely but with the exception of expanding the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, Gothic, Sogdian, Church Fathers … materials is there enough new material every two years to build useful original language packages