NIV English–Hebrew Reverse Interlinear

When will the NIV English–Hebrew Reverse Interlinear be available?

We've been patiently waiting for its release.

Logos, please reply. Thanks

Also wondering the same thing....

Hi David & Dennis.

When will the NIV English–Hebrew Reverse Interlinear be available?

We've been patiently waiting for its release.

Logos, please reply. Thanks

Also wondering the same thing....

Thanks for your patience. We have been working on it.

Reverse interlinears of the Old Testament typically take around a year of concerted effort on the part of an editor. Without giving all the details, this one was thrown for a loop when the 2011 NIV came out and has had some other speedbumps along the way; some technical, and some otherwise. We've adjusted all of the alignments based on the previous NIV and are well on our way to completing this one. There is a possibility it will be done by the end of the year (2012), but it might slide into Q1 2013.

I know that's not optimal, but that's where we are right now.

Hi David & Dennis.

When will the NIV English–Hebrew Reverse Interlinear be available?

We've been patiently waiting for its release.

Logos, please reply. Thanks

Also wondering the same thing....

Thanks for your patience. We have been working on it.

Reverse interlinears of the Old Testament typically take around a year of concerted effort on the part of an editor. Without giving all the details, this one was thrown for a loop when the 2011 NIV came out and has had some other speedbumps along the way; some technical, and some otherwise. We've adjusted all of the alignments based on the previous NIV and are well on our way to completing this one. There is a possibility it will be done by the end of the year (2012), but it might slide into Q1 2013.

I know that's not optimal, but that's where we are right now.

 

Am I correct in assuming that when this is completed it will be an automatic update to the Scholar's Library and other base packages with reverse interlinears?

Am I correct in assuming that when this is completed it will be an automatic update to the Scholar's Library and other base packages with reverse interlinears?

You are correct. When we bought scholars, we bought the completed NIV reverse interlinear. There was (and still is) an asterisk beside that listing stating that it is still under construction and will be released when available (or something like that).

So yes, if you bought a package with the NIV rev.int. you've already paid for it and won't have to pay again when it's released.

That is good news!  I cannot wait for this resource to be completed!

Without giving all the details, this one was thrown for a loop when the 2011 NIV came out and has had some other speedbumps along the way; some technical, and some otherwise. We've adjusted all of the alignments based on the previous NIV and are well on our way to completing this one.

So does this mean it will be the NIV 2011, and NOT the NIV 1984 that will get the Hebrew reverse interlinear?  Will there not be a 1984 NIV interlinear?

Without giving all the details, this one was thrown for a loop when the 2011 NIV came out and has had some other speedbumps along the way; some technical, and some otherwise. We've adjusted all of the alignments based on the previous NIV and are well on our way to completing this one.

So does this mean it will be the NIV 2011, and NOT the NIV 1984 that will get the Hebrew reverse interlinear?  Will there not be a 1984 NIV interlinear?

Can't say for sure, but my guess is no since they don't even offer the NIV84 anymore....

Will there not be a 1984 NIV interlinear?

I really don't understand why they don't let L4 and other distributors keep selling both versions. It's rather annoying really.

However, a lot of water has gone under the bridge and Zondervan may be a little fickle.  I am not sure if there has been an announcement on this issue since.

I think I remember a Logos post to this, stating that they are not allowed to continue work on the NIV 1984 OT RI.

So I wouldn't expect on to arrive anytime soon, unless the whole stance towards NIV 1984 gets reversed (as it should be, IMHO).

I really don't understand why they don't let L4 and other distributors keep selling both versions. It's rather annoying really.

I don't agree with the position, but here is a reason why. Zondervan doesn't want people using the OLD version, they want people to BUY the new one. By continuing to allow their partners to support the old NIV, they feel they would be undermining the success of the new version. In a sense, they are probably right. If your goal is to sell as many new Bibles as possible, you would want to undermine the access to the old one.

I really don't understand why they don't let L4 and other distributors keep selling both versions. It's rather annoying really.

If the pastor reads from a NIV 201l electronically, the church members buy paper NIV 2011.

I really don't understand why they don't let L4 and other distributors keep selling both versions. It's rather annoying really.

I don't agree with the position, but here is a reason why. Zondervan doesn't want people using the OLD version, they want people to BUY the new one. By continuing to allow their partners to support the old NIV, they feel they would be undermining the success of the new version. In a sense, they are probably right. If your goal is to sell as many new Bibles as possible, you would want to undermine the access to the old one.

Well, ok, I understand the business reason, and from my understanding it wasn't Zondervan that pulled it but the Bible Society.  Either way, People should have a choice.

Logos originally told us that if you had the NIV 84 with the NT interlinear that they would complete the OT interlinear for it and for the NIV 2011 in approximately the same time frame.

http://community.logos.com/forums/p/28219/210586.aspx#210586

Logos originally told us that if you had the NIV 84 with the NT interlinear that they would complete the OT interlinear for it and for the NIV 2011 in approximately the same time frame.

http://community.logos.com/forums/p/28219/210586.aspx#210586

yes but this is newer: http://community.logos.com/forums/p/45878/341190.aspx#341190

yes but this is newer: http://community.logos.com/forums/p/45878/341190.aspx#341190

Ahhh, i had missed reading that post. Bummer....
i am not a fan of the 2011 version and only use the 1984 version on L4 (along with other translations). i've been using the paper version of the NIV84 for years. My son got me a new copy of the NIV84 in paper (before they were pulled from the store's shelves) and i have it stored away until my current one wears out.

only use the 1984 version on L4

I guess we could use NIV 1984 for the NT as our default Bible and the NIV2011 for the OT. 

only use the 1984 version on L4

I guess we could use NIV 1984 for the NT as our default Bible and the NIV2011 for the OT. 

Not ideal, but it would be better than nothing.

Not ideal, but it would be better than nothing.

The NIV11 is about 95% identical to the NIV84, so it shouldn't be hard to work with.

Also one could set up side-by-side tabs with the 84 & 11 and get what you're looking for that way.

I really don't understand why they don't let L4 and other distributors keep selling both versions. It's rather annoying really.

This wasn't Zondervan's / News Corporation's decision, this in compliance with the copyright holders and producers of the NIV, namely The Committee on Bible Translation.

They have made this unilateral decision in keeping with their chief goal that every revision to the NIV text is to bring the translation into line both with contemporary biblical scholarship and with shifts in English idiom and usage. They also believe that the 2011 NIV matches statistically significant data on the state of spoken and written English at this given time in its history.

Finally they believe that the 1984 NIV no longer accomplishes this task, and therefore feel that the 1984 NIV is no longer the most useful text of their goal.

compliance with the copyright holders

Thanks Paul for this correction.  I will refrain from making any further judgments on either Zondervan or the Committee's work. Or at least I'll try.

compliance with the copyright holders

Thanks Paul for this correction.  I will refrain from making any further judgments on either Zondervan or the Committee's work. Or at least I'll try.

I don't know, judgment may be appropriate in this situation. One could argue that the 1984 NIV has become such an integral part of the English language Evangelical Church that taking it away, regardless of the right to do so, is somehow wrong.

I know that the original purpose of the NIV was to translate a Bible to late 20th century English, but they were working against a standard that was 400 years old, and to make such sweeping changes to a text that is less than 30 years old almost seems like pandering.

Then there is the argument that their motives are suspect. Shown by the fact that they made the TNIV as a "updated" option to the 1984, (an edition that is more like the 2011 than the 1984), and it failed when competing with the 1984. One could suggest that they are driving with an agenda, rather than responding to societal changes.

Take it for what it's worth, but the factual history does speak volumes...

I guess I a bit disappointed with NIV 2011 and feel that the respected work in the OT might be overshadowed by some small but annoying differences.  One is the way they handled propitiation with the typical sacrifice of atonement and the footnote is not as strong as the older NIV.  I like the OT reference, but I think the average reader who does not do a deep dive will miss this.  This was a miss in my humble opinion.

This wasn't Zondervan's / News Corporation's decision, this in compliance with the copyright holders and producers of the NIV, namely The Committee on Bible Translation.

They have made this unilateral decision in keeping with their chief goal that every revision to the NIV text is to bring the translation into line both with contemporary biblical scholarship and with shifts in English idiom and usage. They also believe that the 2011 NIV matches statistically significant data on the state of spoken and written English at this given time in its history.

Finally they believe that the 1984 NIV no longer accomplishes this task, and therefore feel that the 1984 NIV is no longer the most useful text of their goal.

They are making the biggest mistake in marketing since "New Coke", and it will be harder to correct once the brand damage is done.

The NIV11 is about 95% identical to the NIV84, so it shouldn't be hard to work with.

Wrong.  95% is significant enough to cause it to fail in my eyes.  Every translation is 95% acceptable.

Besides if NIV1984 was good enough for Jesus and St. Paul, it is good enough for me.  I'm not changing, and if I do it will be to an entirely different version, not another NIV. 

I am slow to change and slower to give up.  Why, when I watch the movie "Gettysburg", I keep hoping Bobby Lee can pull it out on the replay.  Never give up - especially the NIV84!  Hey, I live in Mississippi, y'all!

Besides if NIV1984 was good enough for Jesus and St. Paul, it is good enough for me.   

?

Besides if NIV1984 was good enough for Jesus and St. Paul, it is good enough for me.   

 ?

I think this was a joke, citing a common uneducated stance towards a certain bible version (often attributed to KJV-only advocates, don't know if it goes back to any real citation). It made me smile, at last.

haha ok!  I've never seen that said about another translation than the KJV

haha ok!  I've never seen that said about another translation than the KJV

Don't you know that NIV stands for "Nearly Inspired Version?" [;)]

haha ok!  I've never seen that said about another translation than the KJV

Don't you know that NIV stands for "Nearly Inspired Version?"

This, of course, only applies to the one true 1984 version [;)]

haha ok!  I've never seen that said about another translation than the KJV

Don't you know that NIV stands for "Nearly Inspired Version?"

This, of course, only applies to the one true 1984 version

I've always heard, Non-Inspired Version LOL

I do own both (print and ebook) and I must say I still prefer the 1984 edition.

When one of my fundamentalist friends tries to rib me with the Non Inspired Version or Eastern Standard Version, I just say KJV stands for Kindergarten Juvenile Version.

Reverse interlinears of the Old Testament typically take around a year of concerted effort on the part of an editor.

Rick, if OT RI's typically take a year, you'd expect an Apocrypha RI to take considerably less, so what's holding up the English-Greek Reverse Interlinear of the NRSV Apocryphal Texts?

what's holding up the English-Greek Reverse Interlinear of the NRSV Apocryphal Texts?

I think the answer is "concerted effort." [:P]

I wish on their Logos.com site they'd at least be up front with people (dream on, I know).

What's the chance it's 'Under development'? When I was working, such labels inside a company would not be acceptable (generally someone trying to keep the heat off and hoping they won't be called on it).

 I canceled my order twice (!),  since it's not clear what Logos version it will ever come out under. I get the feeling the NT apocrypha are in the same world.

So this has now been completed and guess who has a scholars library that didn't get the revers int for the NIV Hebrew?  This is so wrong Logos.

So this has now been completed and guess who has a scholars library that didn't get the revers int for the NIV Hebrew?  This is so wrong Logos.

Who said it was completed?  Last I saw Rick said end of the year.  Did you hear something else?

(The line item in the base package contents is just a license for it.)

It was listed in the resources for L5 but you are saying it hasn't been completed?  If that's the case I'm not as mad but still very disappointed about how they handled and are handling the L5 release.

you are saying it hasn't been completed?

No, it's not completed yet.

still very disappointed about how they handled and are handling the L5 release.

Certainly communication could have been better, but I don't see any reason to be disappointed.  Minimal crossgrade pricing and free engine access is coming.

Should have been available day one, they aren't taking care of current customers who have already made significant investments in Logos.

Bump

When?[;)]

I see that the NIV English–Hebrew Reverse Interlinear was removed from the LOGOS 5 Interlinear Bibles content yesterday.  [N]

This resource was supposed to be a Logos 4.0 deliverable which we paid for. 

What is going On?????

The NIV English-Hebrew Reverse Interlinear Bible is still being worked on. It is nearing completion, we only have Numbers and Deuteronomy left to align.

Suffice it to say, we have had a number of bumps (not to mention chasms) along the road on this one. Some under our control, some out of our control.

I wish it was different, and I wish this work was done and being used by you folks right now. That is my goal, and what I want to happen as soon as possible. But it is going to be just a bit longer. I wish I could definitively say "It will be X weeks." But I can't.

Know that I'm well aware we haven't shipped this yet. It is not forgotten. Know we are working on it. Know that we want it done just as much, if not more, than you do.

Thanks for your patience with us as we work on completing this particular alignment.

Rick,

It's nice to get a credible response from a Logos person. I understand it's still not ready. [:(]  However, Yesterday morning it was on the L5 resource list, as it was on L4, and now it's not on the L5 resource list. If I were to pay Logos they way Logos delivers this resource (waiting some 2 years now), Logos would not be very happy. But I am keeping the faith and trust that Logos will come through in the not too distant future (before the rapture) and I will get what I paid for a long time ago..... believe it or not I am trying to keep a good humor about this. [:D] I pray for your success. Amen

believe it or not I am trying to keep a good humor about this

Thanks, Dennis. We appreciate it.

Reverse interlinears of the Old Testament typically take around a year of concerted effort on the part of an editor.

Rick, if OT RI's typically take a year, you'd expect an Apocrypha RI to take considerably less, so what's holding up the English-Greek Reverse Interlinear of the NRSV Apocryphal Texts?

Bump.

Basically, we've never done a reverse interlinear of apocryphal/deuterocanonical material, and have encountered issues, both with the data and also with the toolset — which is in need of revamping/rewriting, and has had issues working with the "wonderful variation" of apoc/deut versification. On the bright side, we're learning a lot!

One example: The basis of Tobit in the NRSV is a bit of a pastiche. There were issues with determining which Greek text was actually translated; or at least which Greek text is the better of the two available to align against. So we've had to do some picking and choosing between the normal and 'alternate' editions of things in Rahlfs to build a dataset that represents the vorlage of the apoc/deut material.

However, we are actively working on getting through these issues and getting this one out the door into the hands of users. No promises or time estimates, but it is now at the top of someone's post-Logos-5 tasklist.

Thanks for the update, and sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. Too many posts lately...

the "wonderful variation" of apoc/deut versification

[:D]

it is now at the top of someone's post-Logos-5 tasklist

That is good in one sense, of course, and I realize there are difficulties. Nevertheless, I don't quite like the sound of that. Quite a few people payed for this a year ago, and you're saying it was put aside to work on L5? That doesn't sound right to me. 

Furthermore, to lots of us this is Bible text, Logos is supposed to be first and foremost a Bible study software, and that software is programmed in such a way that much of its functionality can't be accessed without an RI. That leaves us crippled when studying this part of the Bible. This should have been done years ago. You should be working on the third or fourth Apocrypha RI by now. (Imagine the uproar if it had been the Reformed who had the larger canon![:P])

Which naturally leads to the question: how is it possible that this RI isn't included in the regular base packages? 

Quite a few people payed for this a year ago, and you're saying it was put aside to work on L5? That doesn't sound right to me. 

This is a pre-pub, so I don't believe anyone has paid for it yet. When it is complete, the pre-pub will be fulfilled.

Furthermore, to lots of us this is Bible text, Logos is supposed to be first and foremost a Bible study software, and that software is programmed in such a way that much of its functionality can't be accessed without an RI. That leaves us crippled when studying this part of the Bible. This should have been done years ago.

I understand different canons of different traditions. This is one reason why I pitched this project—it's important. It has had issues along the way; I don't think I need to go into any more detail than that. I appreciate that you and others want it. We want it too (and it is closer to being done every day).

It wasn't relegated to nothingness in the past; the alignment has been roughly complete and the process of building and verifying the reverse interlinear has been going on. It just hasn't been the first priority of anyone. It now is; and is much further along than it would have been because we did spend some time on it, juggling amidst a sea of priorities, in the past year.

Hope it helps.

Sorry Rick, we tend to get caught up in the frenzy and become accusatory.  You and the team are greatly appreciated.