Updated Lexham English Bible (LEB), Fourth Edition
Hi folks.
We will shortly (perhaps even today, Tuesday, February 21 2012) release an update to the Lexham English Bible. This update will be available for users of Logos 4.5a. An update for LDLS 3.x will also be available on ftp://ftp.logos.com/lbxbooks in the next 24 hours or so. Updates for iOS, Android and Biblia.com will follow.
Since the initial release of the Old Testament of the Lexham English Bible, we have been working hard on reviewing and fixing some things. We have located and corrected several typos and other errors that slipped through the cracks earlier. Thanks to all who have reported them, and please continue to report whatever issues you encounter by using the "Report a Typo" feature.
The biggest change in this latest release, however, is the versification of the Old Testament.
In the original (Third Edition) release of the LEB with OT, the OT had a versification that mirrored that of the Hebrew Text. This was helpful for some things, but made other things more difficult. For example, typing in your favorite Psalm reference would likely have been off by one verse. This is confusing and unexpected by many folks who primarily read the English Bible.
So we decided to re-order the versification more along the lines of what English Bibles traditionally use. That work is done, so we are now releasing the Fourth Edition of the Lexham English Bible.
There have been some questions on the forum about a reverse interlinear for the OT of the LEB. No, it isn't in there right now. Yes, we do want to do it, and yes we are working on it. But it will take some time to complete.
We think the LEB OT translation is useful even without a reverse interlinear for the Old Testament, so we decided to release the translation without it. While I don't have an exact time frame on when the OT Reverse Interlinear might be released, it should be out before the end of the year (and hopefully well before then).
Thanks for your use and interest in the LEB!
Rick Brannan
Data Wrangler, Faithlife
My books in print
Comments
-
Thanks for all your (pl.) work on this!
Speaking of reverse interlinears, any update on the NIV & NLT rev. int's for the OT?
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:
Thanks for all your (pl.) work on this!
+1 [Y] Thanks ye all, ye all [:D]
Richard DeRuiter said:Speaking of reverse interlinears, any update on the NIV & NLT rev. int's for the OT?
Edit: likewise wonder about reverse interlinear progress for 1901 American Standard Version (ASV) ?
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Hi KS4J & Richard
Thanks for the kind words.
Richard DeRuiter said:Speaking of reverse interlinears, any update on the NIV & NLT rev. int's for the OT?
Edit: likewise wonder about reverse interlinear progress for 1901 American Standard Version (ASV) ?
On the NIV: We've wrapped up the NIV2011NT Reverse Interlinear and hope to release it soon (perhaps even this week). We're over halfway done with the alignment to the NIV2011 OT Reverse Interlinear. No estimated release date on that, however. Lastly, for all sorts of reasons, we are not working on a NIV84 OT alignment at present.
The NLT OT is a long story. The short version is that we had expected (well before now) the OT from the same party that provided the NT, but it was never delivered. We are working to try to ascertain its status with that provider, but have no idea what may come of it.
OT Reverse Interlinears are simply more complex beasts than NT Reverse Interlinears. There is 3x the content, issues with qere/kethiv, issues with taking LXX readings in some places, issues with versification, and a less direct relationship between Hebrew and English than there is between Greek and English. That is, (I'm told, as I don't know much Hebrew) you can read the Hebrew and see that the English matches, but aligning word to word can be tricky; much trickier than with Greek and the NT. There is more of it, and it is more difficult, so it just takes longer. We have some ideas to speed things up, but those will pay off in the long run, not the short run.
KS4J, on the 1901ASV: We have no plans at present to do a reverse interlinear (OT or NT) of that translation. There are a few other translations that we would likely pursue first.
Rick Brannan
Data Wrangler, Faithlife
My books in print0 -
Rick Brannan said:
Lastly, for all sorts of reasons, we are not working on a NIV84 OT alignment at present.
Ouch! I guess I can understand that, somewhat, perhaps, maybe. (I'm still smiling KS4J)
"For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power"
Wiki Table of Contents0 -
Rick Brannan said:
KS4J, on the 1901ASV: We have no plans at present to do a reverse interlinear (OT or NT) of that translation. There are a few other translations that we would likely pursue first.
Appreciate update, albeit "das tut mir leid" (with stilted literal translation) comes to mind about 1901 ASV (along with a dream).
[Y] Looking forward to interlinear and reverse interlinear resources.
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Rick Brannan said:
Lastly, for all sorts of reasons, we are not working on a NIV84 OT alignment at present.
I can understand the difficulties with the NIV84, but I had been under the impression that you were working on it, and that our purchase of the NIV (84) reverse interlinear with our initial L4 base package purchase would still be honored.
I'm very disappointed, and not a little bit frustrated.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:Rick Brannan said:
Lastly, for all sorts of reasons, we are not working on a NIV84 OT alignment at present.
I can understand the difficulties with the NIV84, but I had been under the impression that you were working on it, and that our purchase of the NIV (84) reverse interlinear with our initial L4 base package purchase would still be honored.
I'm very disappointed, and not a little bit frustrated.
+1 extremely disappointed [:(] Hope Logos and Publisher reconsider.
JK
MacBookPro Retina 15" Late 2013 2.6GHz RAM:16GB SSD:500GB macOS Sierra 10.12.3 | iPhone 7 Plus iOS 10.2.1
0 -
-
Richard DeRuiter said:
I'm very disappointed, and not a little bit frustrated.
I share the disappointment. The NIV84 is a classic bible in (almost) every way that the King James was and It's fair to say that I paid for it; not the TNIV nor NIV2011 RI.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Dave Hooton said:Richard DeRuiter said:
I'm very disappointed, and not a little bit frustrated.
I share the disappointment. The NIV84 is a classic bible in (almost) every way that the King James was and It's fair to say that I paid for it; not the TNIV nor NIV2011 RI.
But it seems that Logos can't do much about it - their contract partner and publisher doesn't even allow them to give access to the existing NIV 1984 NT RI, even if this means to dishonor the product description (e.g. of the minimal crossgrade throughout most of 2011) and drives potential customers to the competitor product.
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
The NIV84 and NIV2011 text don't differ that much so I would think that once the RI is completed for one it would be easy to finish it for the other. Obviously some people, including the NIV translation committee and publisher, want the NIV84 to die a quick death but that isn't going to happen for "all sorts of reasons" so let's hope that Logos can finish what they started.
0 -
Tom Reynolds said:
The NIV84 and NIV2011 text don't differ that much so I would think that once the RI is completed for one it would be easy to finish it for the other.
Sure, and that (and to honor past promises) was the rationale everyone thought - and Logos said - that they were to complete the NIV 84 OT RI and then finish it for NIV2011. Basically someone who wishes NIV84 a quick death told them not to - and this may mean they won't do it.
Tom Reynolds said:let's hope that Logos can finish what they started.
Or at least be able to re-use most of the work already done (which hopefully was very much...).
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
-
Hi Folks
LimJK said:Richard DeRuiter said:Rick Brannan said:Lastly, for all sorts of reasons, we are not working on a NIV84 OT alignment at present.
I can understand the difficulties with the NIV84, but I had been under the impression that you were working on it, and that our purchase of the NIV (84) reverse interlinear with our initial L4 base package purchase would still be honored.
I'm very disappointed, and not a little bit frustrated.
+1 extremely disappointed
Hope Logos and Publisher reconsider.I understand and appreciate the disappointment. The decision was not an easy one, nor was it come to lightly.
We had done some initial work on the NIV84 OT, but had to put it on hold for a very long time while the future of the NIV84 was uncertain. Please note I'm not saying it will never happen (though it may never happen), I'm saying we're not working on it right now. Our OT Reverse Interlinear efforts are presently focused on the NIV2011 OT and the LEB OT.
Rick Brannan
Data Wrangler, Faithlife
My books in print0 -
Rick Brannan said:
I understand and appreciate the disappointment. The decision was not an easy one, nor was it come to lightly.
We had done some initial work on the NIV84 OT, but had to put it on hold for a very long time while the future of the NIV84 was uncertain. Please note I'm not saying it will never happen (though it may never happen), I'm saying we're not working on it right now. Our OT Reverse Interlinear efforts are presently focused on the NIV2011 OT and the LEB OT.
Our church uses the NIV84 as our official worship Bible. This is not likely to change any time soon (not because we dislike the more inclusive language, it's because we can't afford to replace all our pew Bibles, nor the personal Bibles I've been encouraging folks to buy up till now). If the Committee on Bible Translation insists on not ever selling the NIV84 again, I'm convinced they're in for a lot of resistance.
I understand Logos' resistance to doing a rev. int. OT for those few users who were grandfathered in to be allowed to keep what we already own in the NIV NT rev. int. There isn't that many of us to justify the cost, I suppose. Understanding that, my frustration has not given way to anger -- at least not toward Logos.
Maybe I'll write the CBT again, and ask them to change their policy.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:
Our church uses the NIV84 as our official worship Bible.
Richard DeRuiter said:I understand Logos' resistance to doing a rev. int. OT for those few users who were grandfathered in
But surely it will be some time before the number of 2011 users exceeds the number of 1984 users making the 1984 Old Testament Reverse Interlinear a more important resource in terms of priority. I say this as someone who is neutral as I personally use the NASB.
I also think that it is important that Logos deliver on their "promises" (or perceived promises) as this seems to be a recurring issue raised by customers.
God Bless
Graham
Pastor - NTCOG Basingstoke
0 -
Graham Owen said:
But surely it will be some time before the
number of 2011 users exceeds the number of 1984 users making the 1984
Old Testament Reverse Interlinear a more important resource in terms of
priority. I say this as someone who is neutral as I personally use the
NASB.From a marketing perspective this is both true and irrelevant, if Logos can no longer sell the NIV84 rev. int. It's true that there will continue to be a market for the NIV84, and thus the NIV84 rev.int. But if Logos is not allowed to sell it (whether by Zondervan, or more likely the Committee on Bible Translation), then the cost to Logos to produce it may far outweigh the benefit to them (since there can be no new sales).
Graham Owen said:I also think that it is important that Logos deliver on their "promises" (or perceived promises) as this seems to be a recurring issue raised by customers.
Not to be overly picky about this, but since I purchased the Platinum Package in 2009, with the promise of the NIV (84 - there was no NIV2011 yet then), being in production, I don't consider this a 'perceived promise.' It may be a promise that Logos4 can no longer deliver on, but it was a promise.
When the NIV2011 was released and the NIV84 was replaced by it in the base package, we were assured that the rev. int. for the NIV84 was already well under way and would be completed (see here). I, for one, have been patiently awaiting a rev. int. for the NIV since well before Logos4's release. Perhaps Logos' strategy has shifted to getting the 2011 done first, and as the NIV11 is 95% the same as the NIV84, it shouldn't represent too many editorial-level decisions to align the text (not that I have any idea about what it takes to produce a rev int. even with all the editorial-level decisions completed).
Please note: I harbor no ill-will toward Logos on this. I am very frustrated, but I know that the primary reason for that frustration is not Logos itself.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:
I don't consider this a 'perceived promise.
Sorry I did not mean to imply that this was not a genuine promise just wanted to broaden the scope as I believe this issue has impacted many users in relation to a number of features.
God Bless
Graham
Pastor - NTCOG Basingstoke
0 -
Graham Owen said:Richard DeRuiter said:
I don't consider this a 'perceived promise.
Sorry I did not mean to imply that this was not a genuine promise just wanted to broaden the scope as I believe this issue has impacted many users in relation to a number of features.
Understood.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
David Carter said:
Observation: "leid" has literal "sorrow" meaning so stilted translation is "that does me sorrow" [:'(] Personally like 1901 ASV for literal translation. Thankful can use => American Standard Version 1901 - Personal Bible without Chapter and Verse #'s
Since 1901 ASV is a revision of AV 1873, wonder about programming automation to update AV 1873 surface text with 1901 ASV ? that could include flagging updates that are more than a literal word replacement for human review. Logos 4 has Text Comparison capability.
Likewise wonder if automated replacement could be used to replace NASB 95 surface text with 1977 version (time travel back) along with same technique to create NIV 1984 Old Testament reverse interlinear from NIV 2011.
Anticipate reverse interlinear tagging for other translations being bit more labor intensive: e.g. The NET Bible, Wuest's Expanded, ...
Thankful for Lexham English Bible (LEB) updates; looking forward to reverse interlinear tagging.
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
My four parish churches also use the NIV84 as their main bible text, and just like Richard we couldn't afford to change either. So I'm with Richard on this one.
0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:Graham Owen said:
But surely it will be some time before the number of 2011 users exceeds the number of 1984 users making the 1984 Old Testament Reverse Interlinear a more important resource in terms of priority. I say this as someone who is neutral as I personally use the NASB.
From a marketing perspective this is both true and irrelevant, if Logos can no longer sell the NIV84 rev. int. It's true that there will continue to be a market for the NIV84, and thus the NIV84 rev.int. But if Logos is not allowed to sell it (whether by Zondervan, or more likely the Committee on Bible Translation), then the cost to Logos to produce it may far outweigh the benefit to them (since there can be no new sales).
Graham Owen said:I also think that it is important that Logos deliver on their "promises" (or perceived promises) as this seems to be a recurring issue raised by customers.
Not to be overly picky about this, but since I purchased the Platinum Package in 2009, with the promise of the NIV (84 - there was no NIV2011 yet then), being in production, I don't consider this a 'perceived promise.' It may be a promise that Logos4 can no longer deliver on, but it was a promise.
When the NIV2011 was released and the NIV84 was replaced by it in the base package, we were assured that the rev. int. for the NIV84 was already well under way and would be completed (see here). I, for one, have been patiently awaiting a rev. int. for the NIV since well before Logos4's release. Perhaps Logos' strategy has shifted to getting the 2011 done first, and as the NIV11 is 95% the same as the NIV84, it shouldn't represent too many editorial-level decisions to align the text (not that I have any idea about what it takes to produce a rev int. even with all the editorial-level decisions completed).
Please note: I harbor no ill-will toward Logos on this. I am very frustrated, but I know that the primary reason for that frustration is not Logos itself.
Well put. I'm in the same situation.
2 1/2 years after customers bought L4, there are still unfinished commitments made to those customers. That is an eternity in software years.
There is a saying in the legal system: Justice delayed is justice denied.
0 -
Will the LEB ever be published as a printed Bible?
0
said:
