feature difference between the free Logos and subscription?

Hey @NichtnurBibelleser,

Thanks for the link. Correct me if I am mistaken, but I don't think this quite answers the question since that site is comparing the different subscriptions, but it is not compared to the free version. Is there somewhere like this, but has another column to the left which is listing what the free version includes?

Hi @DMB,

Just so I understand, if he had the NA28 the TR or whatever, he could search for hits of the lemma or inflected and such. Is this correct?

I know he likes the NKJV which, I don't think is interlinear. So he could have the Greek and NKJV linked to scroll, but they would not interact. Is that correct?

Hi @DMB,

Ok, I think I understand. So it sound like if had a Greek text he could search it, but it would not interact with an English text without a subscription, if I understand correctly.

Hi @Aaron Hamilton and @Justin Gatlin, thank you both for your responses. Aaron, thank you for the link, I appreciate it, but I am afraid I agree with Justin that it is still pretty unclear. The link just shows screenshots without really clarifying much what I am looking at, and then if I click compare plans it is only comparing the paid plans.

Logos doesn't run natively on Linux, so he would need to use app.logos.com or something like Wine. Aaron's link is good but I usually find Logos feature lists opaque. He should just make a free account and try it out.

Thanks for confirming about Linux. Regarding telling him to try it out, the problem is, as I think you know, Logos is not intuitive and has a pretty sharp learning curve. I remember when I had the free version (which I think I had for a month or something before getting v.10), that it really couldn't do anything. Then I finally bought v.10, not because I was committed to the idea, but more out of a state of urgency to avoid the subscription. Then after I bought it I still didn't like it, tbh.

Then because of this forum I started watching videos you main on YouTube, and now I would say I actually like it. The problem is, however, since the program is so unintuitive, just playing with it clarifies nothing.

I can provide an example which I think will help. When I got Logos, sort of understandably, I immediately tried to do what I am doing in Accordance, which is translational work. I discovered I could not do what I needed to do, and it actually took a pretty long time to discover how to do ultra basic functions, like look up Gen 1:1 and Ex 1:1 at the same time, or get my notes to scroll in parallel with the text, or a bunch of other things. So perhaps it works for a regular person, but an "Accordance user" specifically is going to approach the software in a particular way.

What was helpful to me personally is just sort of starting over with learning it and assuming nothing. Through the progress I discovered that things which were clunky with the biblical languages were now extremely smooth with extrabiblical material. What has worked for me at the moment anyway is using Accordance for original language work, and Logos for notes.

I guess one question I have, the cross highlighting, where if you have the ESV on one side and the NA28 on the other side, and if I hover over a word it shows it in both texts. Is that part of the free version? I think my main question concerns how the English and OL interact with each other, as cross highlighting feels like basic functionality.

ps - on a side note, one of the main reasons why translational work has been super difficult is because any kind of info about a word, such as cross-highlighting or parsing is ONLY available if I actively click on Logos. By contrast in Accordance I can be typing on my document, then move my mouse and just hover over a word and confirm it is passive or whatever, and be typing on my document.

So in Logos, if I am typing in my document and I want to confirm if something is passive, I need to actively click away from my document and click onto Logos, THEN it will cross highlight and show parsing info. THEN I need to re-click onto my document and continue until the next word, causing me to AGAIN click off my document and click onto Logos, then click back to my document and type.

After trying this for awhile I eventually decided I don't have the time for this, then I go to Accordance and again have my text on one side, Accordance on the other, and I can see all of the relevant info of cross-highlighting and parsing simply by hovering with my mouse, allowing me to type on an external document at the same time. So everything OL related takes half the time or less in Accordance. My understanding is this is just a difference between Accordance and Logos, but if I am mistaken and a setting can fix this, please let me know.

@Kristin did you scroll down far enough to see the list of features and resources? Regardless, you may also appreciate this list.

Hi @Aaron Hamilton, thanks for the link. Ya, i had scrolled to the bottom and see there are 27 "features" but what the features actually do is not clear. For example, the free version apparently includes, "The English-Hebrew Reverse Interlinear Old Testament English Standard Version" yet from my background, if I hear those words, that would imply cross-highlighting. Yet if I am understanding correctly, that is not part of the free version. Likewise, the free version has "Corresponding words visual filter" which I thought was cross-highlighting, yet that is not in the free version. Is that correct?

Or maybe it is and I just didn't have it turned on? Regarding my friend, I think his main needs would be cross-highlighting and parsing, and the ability to search for inflected forms and lemmas. Is that possible on the free version?

Regarding the new link you sent, thank you very much for this. It really does a good job listing the distinction, but I am still confused. If I do a word search for "corresponding" (which I think might mean cross-highlighting, I think) it is not even a word on the chart. (But actually "highlight" produces no results on the chart either, which I know is on the free version. I thus did a search for "inductive" just to see, and that did produce a hit on the chart).

That all said, from this chart I got the distinct impression that Logos is not interested in people doing scholarly work on the free version. Which is understandable, but it really shows the extreme need for a "buy" option to be available. I am extremely grateful to Rick for telling me what to buy when I bought Logos. I really had no idea what I was buying, but since we knew each other and he had a good grasp of my language needs, I was able to just follow his advice, and I am so grateful I did.

What about using the Lexham Hebrew English Interlinear and using the Reverse Interlinear to show morphology?

Hi @Justin Gatlin, thank you for the idea and screenshot. I mainly have to issues with this. The first is that the coding of what the morph letters mean has never been clear. I had previously tried to find a list of the letters, but through the process I discovered that multiple letters can stand for multiple things, and so it has never been clear. Do you know of a clear way to know what the letters mean?

Second, and actually more importantly, I cannot read Hebrew backwards. Reading English backwards is not a problem, but my mind just can't adapt and read Hebrew right to left. Your text seems to be going the correct direction, but I can't figure out how you are doing this. If I start with the ESV it scrambles the Hebrew, but if I start with the Hebrew it won't let me put English under it. Could you clarify how to do this?

Third, I think I should probably clarify more why I need the cross highlighting. I had mentioned parsing for the sake of simplicity, but the true issue is that I need cross highlighting specifically. I have my actual translation open as a document which is separate from Accordance or Logos, and it is where I am typing. I need to look at what I am typing. I then have the ESV and OL open in parallel, and my mouse is just hovering over where I am. So then I am not looking at the texts, I am just looking at and typing in my document. In Accordance when I am through typing a word and need something else, I can just glance over to Accordance and instantly see where I am in both the OL and ESV. I then quickly glance at whatever I am doing and then keep typing. In Logos, however, I need to actively stop typing in order to go to Logos, but I further need to constantly re-find where I am on the page since there is no indication of where I had been. I am translating purely from the OL (this is a "translation" not a "version") but I still glance over at the ESV once in a while to make sure they basically agree. If they say something totally different, such as saying something is passive and I translated it actively or something stupid, I then stop what I am doing and look into that word specifically to check if I missed something or if the ESV translator had just taken more license than I personally would have. I thus use cross-highlighting since I am constantly looking back and forth between the two texts while typing somewhere else, and I need to keep my place where I am while I am typing somewhere else. I hope this is clear, but I am not sure if I did a good job explaining this or not.

Hi @Justin Gatlin,

Thank you very much for the screenshots. I have a few thoughts and questions, but I have a class soon so I will need to respond later. One thing super quick though. I set it up and then just to test it I typed in Lk 1, which didn't work.

If I remember correctly from your prior video, the key is that I need to close it all, then go to the library and search for the Hebrew Lexham and call it something as a series, then look for the Greek Lexham and likewise give it that series name. Is that correct?

Thank you again for the screenshots.

Try using this resource: https://ref.ly/Ps81.title;fhhebint It is the Lexham Hebrew Bible with an English interlinear. That will keep it in the Hebrew order (instead of aligning it with the ESV) and will let you get the morphology.

Hi @Justin Gatlin, thank you again, and I finally have the chance to respond to this. Yes, that link was super helpful, thank you. :) Somewhat oddly though, it opens in "Biblia" which I guess is another daughter company of Faithlife? It has been helpful using Verbum to have more than one layout open at a time. Is this a way to have three workspaces open at once? Or is Biblia totally different from Logos and Verbum? Anyway, I was able to open the Lexham you posted and have saved it as a workspace (in Logos).

The key for the morphology is here:  Letters can mean multiple things, but the order matters. For me, the easiest way to learn them is to go to a morphology search and type @. It will give you a menu to see the order for each part of speech. You probably know that if you mouse over the morphology it will give you a tooltip on the bottom left that will explain it.

Thank you for that morph sheet and other morph idea. I will look at both of those. Regarding the explanation if I mouse over it, ya, I think you mean in the "instant details." (I am still not sure what it is called here, but that little text down on the bottom).

If I use the ESV and the Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear, I get cross-highlighting and Strongs Numbers on the ESV side (although not the LHI).

Ok, thank you for letting me know and for the screenshot, and that is good to know. I think I will mess around with it putting things next to it and see how it goes. Tbh, my initial impression is that it is kind of hard to read since I am so used to one column of JUST the English, another of JUST the OL, and the morph and Strongs is only viewable if I mouse over it. So this little workspace I made is kind of disorienting with the English under the OL. However, as long as the Hebrew is going the correct direction, I think it would get easier to read the after using it for a few days, I assume. (Accordance has interlinear options just like Logos, but I just never used it in that view).

That's right. You need to link them so that Logos will consider them a part of a series and scroll between them, otherwise it does not know what Greek text you want.

That is a really interesting point of it not knowing which text I would want. I guess Accordance has us set it up like that too, now that I think about it. It isn't called a series but it is a similar concept.

I logged in with a free account and verified that the corresponding highlights work. You must have just had it off.

Great! Thank you for checking that! I will let them know. :)

Hi @Justin Gatlin,

Thanks for clarifying that, and I will play around with the different interlinear options and see what works best. :) I have been working really hard on my note import, so it might be awhile before I have the chance to mess with the layout options, but I will be sure to do that when I am able. Thanks also for explaining Biblia.

Personally, I can't imagine what a scholar would do with Logos, period. Pastors and priests, certainly.

Hi @DMB, I think this is maybe the third day in a row I am somehow typing and pressing post before seeing your comment. I am sorry about that and don't mean to be ignoring you. Anyway, regarding this, I agree 100% that Logos seems to be geared for pastors. That said, scholarly research is able to be done through searching all in the library (as long as AI keeps its nose out of it!). Accordance also does this through their "Research" function. Both Accordance and Logos allow for research slightly differently, but I find them both helpful. Sometimes one method is better than the other. Logos also offers a vast array of scholarly books, which I appreciate. Accordance also offers some other books which are not in Logos, so I find my research to sometimes be better in one software or the other, depending on what I am researching.

Translators, yes. Maybe the morph-tagging but how much slicing can you do, after a century of regurgitating.

At best, Logos has a workable digital library. And free reader.

While I have personally found scholarly research to work ok in Logos (I can't stress enough that with the specific type of research I do, AI would be a hindrance, and in fact, would make it unusable for my work). That said, I find translational work very difficult in Logos for several reasons. I have discovered that I "can" translate, but it is easier and faster elsewhere.