Logos 4 Original Languages vs BibleWorks 9

robrecht said:

Which Tov text are you referring to?

The Parallel Aligned Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Texts of Jewish Scripture  $100.00.

robrecht said:I meant to refer specifically to the Johann Lust et al LXX lexicon. I helped proofread the fist volume quite a few years ago so I kind of want this for sentimental reason, plus it is very useful.

So did I. It's included.

robrecht said:Yes, I figure I would probably be extended the 15% disount on the Original Languages package

I figure you will probably get 15% or more on most or all items.

robrecht said:There's some good stuff in the Catholic package, but I have a lot of it in print already and I assumed  the Original Languages probably has more of the original biblical language stuff I want.

There are several Catholic packages by now, including one with quite a few language resources (and all 4 Apostolic Fathers). I haven't done an exact comparison since they didn't exist when I bought, but I don't think there's too much difference in language resources. I believe another user has made the spreadsheet comparison Logos should have done. I'll see if I can dig out the link.

robrecht said:

Wow, a spreadsheet, what a great idea!  Much better than going back and forth between multiple browser windows!

Thanks for the corrections.

So here's a revised table:

$359 BibleWorks 9
$80 Qumran sectartian texts morphologically analyzed
$30 Qumran sectarian and biblical texts in English
$469 Total

 

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts			$80.00
The Works of Philo: Greek Text with Morphology			$99.95
The Apostolic Fathers Greek-English Interlinear			$49.95
Josephus in Greek: Niese Critical Edition with Apparatus			$179.95
The Dead Sea Scrolls in English			$120.00
New International Reader's Version			$26.65
New International Version (NIV)			$9.99
Original Languages Library (JG) [DVD]			$415.95
The New Jerusalem Bible			$10.00

 

Subtotal	$992.44

Assuming a 15% discount on everything, that would come to about $850 vs $470.

Of course, there are still advantages and disadvantages of both programs.

Any more corrections?

No BDAG?  I know that BW has the abridged edition standard, but I would suspect any serious study of the Greek NT would require the full 3rd edition.

I'm sorry robrecht, but if you were proofreading LXX/Lust, I now have to take back EVERYTHING I said.

I can't imagine you settling on BW (no offense to BW). I'm in heaven digging thru the 'odd' resources in Logos ... Gottingen, inscriptions, in program and search-based Perseus, and on and on. Logos keeps digging out old classics and rock-bottom prices. Goodness. I remember the day I got my OL. I only wanted 1 resource in it since no one else had it. That was7 years ago. The OL (or BW for that matter) would not answer my questions today. I whine a lot about some of the Accordance resources though.

I also don't fathom 'people that just want to study the text'. What text? Which ones? How so? Other experts? Maybe for a monk in a monestery (which is good) but it's a big world of scholarship becoming available.

But again having multiple software is good; I'll stick with that.

DMB said:

But again having multiple software is good; I'll stick with that.

EXACTLY![Y] Great point!!!

I am about to make a logical fallacy (so watch out) serious scholars/students owe it to themselves to check and double check their work. Relying on only one piece of software or even one morphological database is dangerous(friends don't let friends do that)! 

If, funds permit, I recommend owning the top three Logos4, Accordance, and BibleWorks.  I have played with Accordance, and am about it to get it myself. In general I run queries in both Logos4 and in BibleWorks9 to compare and contrast the results. Sure, it can take a little more time than only using one program but I find the discipline instructive and illuminating.

robrecht said:

Is there a Catholic Logos blog, a specifically Catholic Logos Facebook page, and a Catholic Logos forum as well.

Not sure if this got answered, if not here it is:

Catholic blog: http://catholiclogosuser.blogspot.com/

Catholic Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/?sk=welcome#!/logosforcatholics

Catholic Logos forum - none, as the forums are software-product focused for the most part.

Here is the link for Verbum the official Logos for Catholics blog.

David Knoll said:

I subscribe (as usual) to the wise words of BKMitchell above. He makes a habit of refuting the Karaite saying attached as a signature to his posts.

Thanks for the compliment.

By, the way according to another thread Logos is working on tagging root information in their Hebrew database/databases. Here is some of the dialogue from that thread:

Ben said:

The problem is that yarah is not a root but a verbal
form, YRH is the root. Due to the complexity and ambiguity of Hebrew,
it's very difficult to tag by root, which is why no one has really done
it (except Accordance, I believe.)

Vincent Setterholm said:

This is coming. The analysis
is done, but I'm fairly sure you won't see it until the next major
version release (there's still some work that needs doing to deliver the
data in the app/resources).

Fr Devin Roza said:

And don't forget about the (well hidden) official Logos Catholic home page!

That's a nice page, why is it well hidden? Isn't the propose to advertise and sell?

Fr Devin Roza said:

the reason it is well hidden is because Logos is afraid that if they put links to it on their home page it will offend some of their customer base.

This is highly confusing. I assumed that Catholics and Orthodox (maybe Anglicans) make up the largest percentage of Christians world wide not to mention being the earliest successful Christian groups in recorded History. I can understand why some atheist might be upset, but I doubt very seriously they make up very much of Logos customer base. Now, why any Christian customer would be upset or offended that Logos offers products of a Historical Christian and Universal nature is beyond me.

Now, now ... fgh. It's been a rough ride the last couple of years (not to ignore the previous 20). But there ARE some died-in-the-wool evangelicals that agree with BK Mitchell. I've mentioned before I'm to the far right of our evangelicals here .. flaming liberals! Each Sunday I try to keep my eye on Jesus. It's tough. But that said, I also think there's greater connectivity between the 1st century church and the Catholic church. The protestants are largely a Pauline emphasis from the late 1st century.

And so, though I don't agree with what happened in the 4th century and thereafter, I do enjoy seeing the expansion and participation of the Catholics. If there were Greek Orthodox that would be even more interesting.

Getting back to this thread, I've kept my mouth shut, but the 'study the text' is also a theological assumption. Most really don't think too hard about it, but if one views the text as 'what showed up' then logically 'what showed up' is nothing more than the last iteration and ignores the thousands previous. This is best illustrated when a software user does a hebrew search across authors that (in theory) wrote across many centuries. Their search is a theological assumption; it's certainly not supported in all the other languages (amount of change).