Good Day
Is the a way of highlighting all one's selected bibles versions at the same time? For example, if one has selected NKJV, AMP, NIV and one wants to highlight John 10:10 on all 3 bible versions, who does one go about it?
GILA
Welcome Geoffrey,
There isn't!
You might consider a Visual Filter on a Collection of these bibles as you can nominate a specific verse and morphological criteria - see http://wiki.logos.com/Visual_Filter
I had that same question a little while back. Maybe we can get Logos to add that to the prograqm sometime in the future.
Looks like this is one for the suggestions thread!
Took 15 minutes to highlight couple verses in two Bibles using a Visual Filter and a Passage List (practically unusable):
By the way, a wildcard search for * takes almost 3 times longer than searching for (a*,b*,c*,d*,e*,f*,g*,h*,i*,j*,k*,l*,m*,n*,o*,p*,q*,r*,s*,t*,u*,v*,w*,x*,y*,z*)
Edit: in contrast, using visual filters with a morph search and passage list is usable (caveat: English words added for readability are not highlighted):
Keep Smiling [:)]
Geoffrey,
Visual Filters with Morphological searches will not work in English Bibles which do not have a Reverse Interlinear.
So it will not work in the AMPIt will not work in the Old Testament in the NIV84It will not work in the NIV 2011.
But you can use English words (which are not Morphological) in the Visual Filters with the above books.
Definitely and I think it will be a useful function to all.
I was shocked that highlights only apply to one version of the Bible. I view this as a priority item that should be at the top of the list...
any updates on this issue?
I was shocked that highlights only apply to one version of the Bible. I view this as a priority item that should be at the top of the list... any updates on this issue?
Derek, how would Logos implement this? You highlight an English word. Another translation does not use that word in the same verse. What does Logos do?
Wow. ok. yes, I see your point.
A few possibilities:
1) have an option on the highlight options window that says highlight verse, and make highlighted verse highlighted in all versions.
2) have an indicator in other versions when words or phrases are highlighted in another version.
3) if a version is tied to strongs, use that as a basis to highlight other versions.
4)option to highlight entire verses if another version contains a highlight within that verse.
The one way I see Logos could do this would not apply to all Bibles. They'd use the underlying Greek or Hebrew word (like using Strong's) and propogate the highlight to other texts even if the word was translated differently there. They could do this because they have created Reverse Interlinears. Unfortunately only a few Bibles have a Reverse Interlinear, so it would not work across all Bibles. The underlying Hebrew and Greek texts are not all the same even among the Bibles that have a Reverse Interlinear created, so that would introduce another difficulty. Not as simple as one might initially think.
Not as simple as one might initially think.
I agree. There is another way, however… but not a good one. I suggest it to show why it would be bad. [:P] Currently, highlighting is by "selection" only. You could conceivably create one that is by "reference," as you can do for notes. With the current implementation of "by reference," this would mean highlighting of the entire verse (i.e. there would be no control over highlighting part of a verse). It would ALSO mean that any commentary passage that included that reference would be completely highlighted (i.e. pages and pages of solid highlighting). I am not a programmer, nor do I play one on TV… the only solution to the commentary issue that I can think of would be to create different rules about highlighting notes rather than "regular" ones… You would need a rule that would allow highlighting for type:bible only. If this were really easy, you would think it would have been done already.
It would ALSO mean that any commentary passage that included that reference would be completely highlighted (i.e. pages and pages of solid highlighting). I am not a programmer, nor do I play one on TV… the only solution to the commentary issue that I can think of would be to create different rules about highlighting notes rather than "regular" ones…
How about simply turning off that highlighting 'note file' in your commentaries? (Which I presume the programmers could do by default.)
Or, wait. I haven't created any Bible PB's, but there's some field:bible tag for Bible text, isn't there? One could program the highlighting to show up only in text tagged like that. Then it would show up in commentary translations, but not the actual commentary.
But personally I'd be more interested in being able to attach a note to a word/expression and have it show up in several translations via the lemma. Currently I have to attach all notes to references. Only problem is my Swedish Bible doesn't have any lemma tagging at all, so it wouldn't really help me.
It's rather simple. OliveTree has managed to do it. You highlight, let's say Ro 3:25 in your NASB, and it is highlighted in all your other Bibles, including Greek.
It's rather simple. OliveTree has managed to do it.
Joy, it is rather simple for the user, but not for the designer and programmer. There is no one-to-one correspondence of English words to underlying Greek and Hebrew words among translations. All the Bible words have to be tagged with some indicator of the Greek or Hebrew word that is being translated and the connections have to be made at that level for it to work, and one of the other problems is not all Bibles are based on the same Greek and Hebrew texts.
Obviously Olive Tree has an approach to this that seems to work. Logos could do this, but it is not trivial.
It is difficult to compare features among different software companies because they approach things differently. Logos and Olive Tree don't use the same resource files, for example. FGH had some suggestions for how it might be done, but I really have no idea how "easy" it would be. Again, if it is super easy, why hasn't Logos done it already?
I don't know. [:)]
Personally, I still want to see resource specific note files for each resource, which are hidden away under normal circumstances (not crowding up the document library). The more books I get, the more I read. The more I read, the more I highlight. The more I highlight, the more note files I have. The more note files I have, the more irritated I get at not having resource specific note files, hidden away under normal circumstances. [:P]
Personally, I still want to see resource specific note files for each resource, which are hidden away under normal circumstances (not crowding up the document library). The more books I get, the more I read. The more I read, the more I highlight. The more I highlight, the more note files I have. The more note files I have, the more irritated I get at not having resource specific note files, hidden away under normal circumstances.
Agree completely! Half of my highlighting seems to end up in the wrong file and has to be dragged around.
There are multiple ways to approach this. the only reason something is not already done is because it is not high enough priority...
Agreed. I also agree that it CAN be done. Where we disagree is why it isn't a "high enough priority." I think that one of these solutions will come along at some point… maybe. But if it does, the version that it takes will tick off those lobbying for the other way (i.e. "by reference" vs. "by lemma"). [;)]
One does not have to preclude the other...
I found myself wanting this same thing in service today.....
