Bible Facts and the "Referred To" - Section

Dear all,

Morris Proctor shows in one of the recent blogs how you can easily pull a list of Gods names.

http://blog.logos.com/2012/12/logos-5-see-the-names-and-titles-of-god-in-bible-facts/

However, when I do so, I don't get the section he is referring to, and thus cannot see the list of names he is talking about.

Any hints as what may be wrong or what I am missing?

Blessings,

Thomas Zimmermann

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Fred Chapman

Do you get a "Referred to as" section with any other searches? What L5 package do you own?

Thomas Zimmermann

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/439843#Comment_439843

No "Referred to as" section in any search.

I have L5 bronce edition, updated from L4 Scholars Edition. I use it on a Mac, but that shouldn't make any difference?!

Fred Chapman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/439847#Comment_439847

The referrent dataset is not included in the Bronze package

Thomas Zimmermann

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/439849#Comment_439849

oh. I thought since "Bible Facts" is in the Bronze Package that means all of Bible Facts. Did not know that the packages interact. :-(

bummer

But thanks!

Ebbe Andréasson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/439855#Comment_439855

I have Platinum but my "Refered to as" section looks differnt than the Morris Proctor screenshot. My first entry is an unlabled section and then I get the two first sections from Proctors list.

Could this depend on my swedish selected bible?

My Bible Facts:

From Morris Proctor blog post:

Ebbe Andréasson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/440188#Comment_440188

Now I've changed to english UI and everything works fine. This seems to be one of the bugs in the swedish UI.

Have a nice day!

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/440188#Comment_440188

Yes. A reverse interlinear bible gives more results.

EDIT: see below

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/440195#Comment_440195

Yes. A reverse interlinear bible gives more results.

Hi Dave,

Can you expand on that a little please? I have just got confused thinking about this.

I seem to get the same results in the "referred to" section whether I use the NRSV (with OT and NT RI) or the NIV84 (with just NT RI)

Which led me to realise I didn't know how this was working!

Thanks, Graham

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/440197#Comment_440197

Can you expand on that a little please? I have just got confused thinking about this.

I seem to get the same results in the "referred to" section whether I use the NRSV (with OT and NT RI) or the NIV84 (with just NT RI)

That was hasty of me. The referent tagging is not restricted to reverse interlinear bibles and doesn't depend on the interlinear data as I get the same results for the ISV as with ESV, and the titles of God don't always match the ESV, let alone ISV. So all the data must come from the Referents database? You got me thinking as well!

Thomas Zimmermann

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/440205#Comment_440205

So all the data must come from the Referents database? You got me thinking as well!

Which makes sense as I got not referent data, and thus have not "god - refered to as" section.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/440205#Comment_440205

So all the data must come from the Referents database? You got me thinking as well!

Yes, I would have really expected this to be based on highest prioritised Bible.

But the evidence doesn't seem to support this[:)]

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/440209#Comment_440209

So all the data must come from the Referents database? You got me thinking as well!

Which makes sense as I got not referent data, and thus have not "god - refered to as" section.

That - indeed - makes sense[:)]

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/440210#Comment_440210

I took a different test case where there would be less references to think about - and chose "Nineveh"

From the screenshot below there is one strange referent to Nahum 1:8 where Nineveh is referred to as "of".

However, in the NRSV (my preferred Bible), it is the word "adversaries" which is tagged as Nineveh

but this - Nineveh as "adversaries" - isn't reflected in the Biblical Facts referent section

It is as though there is some other base text which is being used to populate the referent database

Does this make any sense?

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/439855#Comment_439855

oh. I thought since "Bible Facts" is in the Bronze Package that means all of Bible Facts. Did not know that the packages interact. :-(

bummer

Have you checked your price to add the Minimal Crossgrade? It might not be that much.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/440219#Comment_440219

Does this make any sense?

I think the "of" is simply the first word of the phrase - a convenient algorithm for display that doesn't quite work here.

On right click, I do get adversaries=place:Niveveh which I can justify (Nahum 1:1). Although person:Ninevites seems more natural, it is arguably not what the text says - I wish I knew Hebrew[:'(]

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/440219#Comment_440219

but this - Nineveh as "adversaries" - isn't reflected in the Biblical Facts referent section

"of the adversaries" in ESV isn't tagged nor is it aligned with any Hebrew whilst the underlying Hebrew words (7 & 8) are not translated i.e. both sets of words are unaligned. The Hebrew pronoun (her/its) is tagged as Nineveh in LHB, LHI, but this is a phrase that literally means "of her place". The NIV translates as "of Nineveh" but is not tagged! NKJV translates "its place" and both words are tagged.

I am very disappointed with the total inconsistency of the tagging and it leaves a question mark on the integrity of the information in the Referents database.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/440445#Comment_440445

I think the "of" is simply the first word of the phrase -

But doesn't the arrow under the "of" indicate that it is part of another phrase - not associated directly with "adversaries"?

On right click, I do get adversaries=place:Niveveh which I can justify (Nahum 1:1). Although person:Ninevites seems more natural, it is arguably not what the text says - I wish I knew Hebrew

The sense of "adversaries" seems to be a city - so Nineveh would be about right

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/440451#Comment_440451

I am very disappointed with the total inconsistency of the tagging and it leaves a question mark on the integrity of the information in the Referents database.

Dave, I think this is the key issue and one which needs to be addressed

Graham

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/440455#Comment_440455

But doesn't the arrow under the "of" indicate that it is part of another phrase

I'd say the answer is yes/no depending on whether you are looking at Hebrew or English. I was actually thinking in terms of an example that Sean? explained to me that I read as saying Abraham was his own father.

Thomas Zimmermann

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/440436#Comment_440436

Have you checked your price to add the Minimal Crossgrade? It might not be that much.

I did and bought it a few days ago: 18$ ~ 14€ .

Very helpful indeed :-) Thanks for the hint!