a question from an Accordance User

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

The one who wouldn't be contacted could have a turn off switch. I still stay by my statement. I for me, I don't want to share my email here. But the users could contact me if Logos would allow.

Through Faithlife, they can.

Which confirms my statement about the controlling.

What would I like to see?

I would like to see a new, original language library/basepackage line that excludes theological works, and theological commentaries. But, something that includes Oringal language texts, Masorah, morphological databases, syntatical databases, lexicon/dictionaries, apparatuses, grammars/syntax, exegetical commentaries, commetaries for translators: Maybe something like this:

• OL Starter
• OL Bronze
• OL Silver
• OL Gold
• OL Platinum
• OL Diamond
• OL Portfolio
• OL Collector’s Edition

Or it could even be spreated into a Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic tracks or lines.

I believe the type of package Logos used to provide with the Original Language Library was excellent (although it was limited to one level). It was a well-curated package that was highly focused, ensuring that users didn’t need to purchase a top-tier package to obtain a decent one with original language texts and tools.

In the past, whenever someone asked me which library they should get, I thoroughly enjoyed being able to recommend tightly curated packages like the SESB 3 and the Logos OL package. However, it’s challenging to find a decent base package/library that focuses on original languages and exegesis at logos.com. It’s puzzling that Logos offers more resources than enough to create multiple levels of original libraries/base packages, yet they don’t have one when smaller companies with far less resources do.

Grace and Peace,

Brian

A lot of this is covered in the Academic packages though it doesn’t exactly have a specifically original language focus. I enjoy the Academic packages as they’re fairly well rounded. It would be nice to see a Greek package or a Hebrew specific package similar to how some of the competitors have.

What resources would you like to see in these packages that aren’t contained in the Academic packages?

@BKMitchell wrote:

It’s puzzling that Logos offers more resources than enough to create multiple levels of original libraries/base packages, yet they don’t have one when smaller companies with far less resources do.

I am puzzled too, and therefore I have wondered from time to time who are the original language voices in the team these days that push on the development map with this focus, and of course this would be pertinent to configuring OL packages as well.

You mentioned it before (I believe in this thread) and it did cause me to wonder with Heiser going home, and Rick Brannan no longer being on staff, who are the OL voices within FL?
Does FL list their current staff anywhere? I know they list the leadership staff but I don’t recall seeing any page where they list all employees or contractors?
It seems inconsequential, but it would be nice to know who at FL is working on OL resources and datasets, or if there is any plans for development in those areas. I subscribe to Max, and if there’s no OL work being done, I don’t see the sense is being on Max rather than Pro for the time being.
Maybe someone from Logos can chime in and let us know if there is any OL work on the roadmap, without having to be specific or spoil anything.

And for what it's worth, OL feature enhancements and additions that do not require web access or AI, ie: ones that will be included in Fallback license in 2 years.

When I entered seminary, I was able to purchase an Original Languages library. I think it was called the Biblical Languages library. At the time I think it was only available to seminary students. It was useful and added some good grammars and biblical language tools. I can't remember if it was v5 or v6, but sometime around that time. I haven't seen a replacement for it in years, but I personally enjoyed it back then and still get use out of the content from it.

@Nathan Parker , sort of makes my eyebrows raise to hear you come here to talk about the value you see in Logos in your current job…

There's nothing to make anyone's eyebrows raise. It was a purchase I made years ago when I first entered seminary, years before I ever had my current job. I don't even think that particular item is available for anyone to purchase anymore, but at the time, it was useful to me.

You have kind of already answered your own question. As you have stated the Academic packages do not have a specifically original language focus, and what I would like to see is a library/package that does have an Original language focus (like Logos used to have) nothing more nothing less.

I would like to be able to point people to a streamlined logos library focused on the original language and texts. Currently no such library exist in Logos, and I end up having to point people else where.

Since, there are  Anglican, SDA, Pentecostal, Methodist, Reformed, Lutheran, Baptist, Orthodox, Messianic, Catholic Verbum and so on packages, why can't there also be an OL package?

@BKMitchell wrote:

I would like to be able to point people to a streamlined logos library focused on the original language and texts. Currently no such library exist in Logos, and I end up having to point people else where.

I don't remember in recent times when we have seen anything new directly related to OL studies. For example, we have recently had our first looks at the following:

Sermon Planning Manager:

AI Powered Bible Search:

The new era was launched with AI of course - Smart Search and Summaries. I fully get why Logos needed to get on this bandwagon and it has been a value add in my workflows.

We also got Factbook Refinements, Dynamic Toolbar, Sermon Builder and Bible Study Builder and of course we have this new shiny forum with the web app and mobile apps continuing to move forward.

So lots being worked on and I hope one of these days we will see some new developments for OL studies.

@Nathan Parker , sort of makes my eyebrows raise to hear you come here to talk about the value you see in Logos in your current job…

I think I first met Nathan here years ago - was it Mallard Computer? He's been a multi-platform and Bible tech user for a long time.

Hi @Donovan Palmer,

Ya, he for sure has, and that is of course fine. It had just made my eyebrows raise hearing him in his current position drawing everyone's attention to the resources Logos has which Accordance doesn't. (btw, you don't appear to be multi-platform anymore, as I couldn't find you over there).

Nathan's in a tough spot, which I guess is understandable. But people seem to get on his case whether he says anything positive or negative about either. I suppose it comes with the territory of having one foot in both camps.

I agree OL is not packaged well. Basically, I add up Academic Pro (Logos/Verbum) to Verbum Biblicum (sp?), and the the Orthodox series which picks up early translations. Widely spread out.

Also, Logos staff have posted in Accordance … I think helpfully.

Sad but true. Nathan owns both products and this is not an either-or competition. I promote the advantages of both Logos and Accordance and hope they both do well. As of today, neither one can replace the other. For original language study I would still say Accordance, but Logos has great value in its features as well. I support both.