Bible Sense Lexicon - how useful?

Today's blog post by Jeremy Thompson titled Find the Right Meaning with the Bible Sense Lexicon prompted me to wonder how people actually use this feature. Would you mind responding to indicate:

a) How often do you use the Bible Sense Lexicon? Constantly? Occasionally? Never?

b) If you do use it, an example where it really helped you.

I personally haven't used it (other than a bit of experimentation), so am I missing out? Or am I the wrong audience for this feature? My reluctance is that words are not really as precise in meaning as we would like to make them. A text often relies on the interplay of meanings, so we can't pin down the meaning as the Bible Sense Lexicon tries to.

Taking Jeremy's example, the word "house" works like this in 2 Sam 7:1-17, where God says to David (in summary), "You want to build me a house? Thanks, but I'll build you a house!" I think the first "house" has the sense of temple, whereas the second "house" has the sense of dynasty. Most commentators would probably agree with that, but in many, many cases we can't be sure, i.e. the assignment of meanings is very subjective whereas the Bible Sense Lexicon can give the impression it's more objective. (Okay, that's true of Louw-Nida and other lexical aids as well.)

So, am I missing the point here? Some examples where it helped you in actual Bible study could be useful, thanks.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

BillS

Like you, I'd rather examine the context, my lexicons, other uses, & my grammars...

Simon’s Brother

Today's blog post by Jeremy Thompson titled Find the Right Meaning with the Bible Sense Lexicon prompted me to wonder how people actually use this feature. Would you mind responding to indicate:

a) How often do you use the Bible Sense Lexicon? Constantly? Occasionally? Never?

b) If you do use it, an example where it really helped you.

I personally haven't used it (other than a bit of experimentation), so am I missing out? Or am I the wrong audience for this feature? My reluctance is that words are not really as precise in meaning as we would like to make them. A text often relies on the interplay of meanings, so we can't pin down the meaning as the Bible Sense Lexicon tries to.

Taking Jeremy's example, the word "house" works like this in 2 Sam 7:1-17, where God says to David (in summary), "You want to build me a house? Thanks, but I'll build you a house!" I think the first "house" has the sense of temple, whereas the second "house" has the sense of dynasty. Most commentators would probably agree with that, but in many, many cases we can't be sure, i.e. the assignment of meanings is very subjective whereas the Bible Sense Lexicon can give the impression it's more objective. (Okay, that's true of Louw-Nida and other lexical aids as well.)

So, am I missing the point here? Some examples where it helped you in actual Bible study could be useful, thanks.

i haven't used it extensively either but I like the concept. I agree with both you an Bill though Allen, we still need to do all the normal things such as looking at context etc, particularly if you are relying on that particular word to make a point in your message, essay etc. Biblical sense lexicon only gives us the subjectively determine sense of the word as determined by the researcher, rather than objective sense of the word.

I believe it is still a work in progress In terms of they are still building upon the range of words it covers. It is a tool, use it with recognition of its limitations alongside other lexical aids, and it has a place I think as an entry point into a deeper study of the contribution off a word to a passage.

Graham Criddle

a) How often do you use the Bible Sense Lexicon? Constantly? Occasionally? Never?

Not very often - but I think I should probably use it more than I do

b) If you do use it, an example where it really helped you.

I was preparing to do a small group study on 2 John and the BSL indicated that there were different senses to the word "truth" - one a more general term, the other more specifically looking at the gospel.

The BSL showed where Logos had tagged "truth" with the sense of the gospel

This took me down a path which I might not otherwise have explored.

It was helpful even if - as others have mentioned - it needed to be checked and I didn't agree with all of the tagging they had done / hadn't done.

Graham

George Somsel

I never seriously considered using the Bible Sense Lexicon. I think my lexica and my knowledge of the languages is sufficient that it really isn't very worthwhile (besides which I've heard some glaring examples of errors).

Allen Browne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/563468#Comment_563468

Thank you for the replies.

Based on the responses so far, it looks like I'm not missing too much.

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/563468#Comment_563468

I never seriously considered using the Bible Sense Lexicon. I think my lexica and my knowledge of the languages is sufficient that it really isn't very worthwhile (besides which I've heard some glaring examples of errors).

Have ou reported the errors?

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/563635#Comment_563635

I never seriously considered using the Bible Sense Lexicon. I think my lexica and my knowledge of the languages is sufficient that it really isn't very worthwhile (besides which I've heard some glaring examples of errors).

Have ou reported the errors?

No, I'm not the one who found them.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/563638#Comment_563638

One wonders who the tool was meant for. In the hands of Graham or George, maybe it'd make sense (both familiar with the background concepts, language, etc). But then, they don't really 'need' it, do they? A special screwdriver that works along with normal screwdrivers.

But in the hands of folks that aren't that deep into the languages or background, I think it's misleading. 'Bible Sense'. The 'REAL' meaning. At least L&N recognized the problem, and used real names (their own).

When I first heard of it, I was hoping it'd operate along the lines of alternative lexica, similar to what commentaries do a lot in. But that demands a many-to-many set of relationships. Not a one-to-many, with a modern semantic structure.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/563647#Comment_563647

In the present implementation, the BSL mixes two functions - being a linguistically savvy lexicon (partially but a decent first step) and being an interlinear in disguise (assigning a sense to a particular occurrence). I strongly support the the first function and have strong qualms about the second.- just as I have qualms about the people, place, thing tags, the syntactic diagrams, the morphology tagging etc. Until Logos recognizes ambiguity/options in their coding, I'll continue to have strong qualms ... they could weaken my qualms by allowing me to create notes altering their conclusions.

Fr. Charles R. Matheny

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/563653#Comment_563653

Dear Mj: Do they not or, can they not use recognized tagging?

Should we request either the ability to assign the lexicons of our choice or, that they use others?

I think I am somewhat confused on what they are doing here.

Help me out a bit if you have the time.
Thanks so much for all you do on the forums.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/563662#Comment_563662

Dear Mj: Do they not or, can they not use recognized tagging?

Should we request either the ability to assign the lexicons of our choice or, that they use others?

I think I am somewhat confused on what they are doing here.

Help me out a bit if you have the time.
Thanks so much for all you do on the forums.

Fr. Matheny,

Yes, they do use recognized tagging, and we can prioritize lexicons as we wish.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/563662#Comment_563662

Do they not or, can they not use recognized tagging?

To the best of my knowledge, the tagging for Logos tools and the Lexham/Cascadia titles is done internally although they may use a well-known resource as a base from which they work. It's a case where I use N.T.Wright and the NIV as a cautionary tale ... it took him 2 years to mistrust the NIV so I take the approach of mistrust of all Logos internal coding. I will continue to be cautious until I see Logos as a company being more obviously aware of the pre-suppositions inherent in all such coding. Cherry puts the pre-suppositions in terms of traits such as cryptic, relevant, perfect, divine, meaning (omnisignificant, pluripotent, peshat, exoteric, esoteric ...) In Logos, I would expect to see it in terms of more alternative taggings, ability to modify or annotate the tagging , etc.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/563666#Comment_563666

Kudos. Excellent answer.

One reason I like using Andersen-Forbes and Dr Heiser's volumes is that at least I can see their other work. There's ample discussion on their pluses and minuses.

Fr. Charles R. Matheny

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/563690#Comment_563690

Hmm, thanks.

How do I change tagging, lexicons etc to my preferred resources?

Thanks.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/563708#Comment_563708

How do I change tagging, lexicons etc to my preferred resources?

You cannot change internal tagging (morphology, LN #, etc) but you can prioritize your lexicons so Logos will use your preferred resources.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/563726#Comment_563726

How do I change tagging, lexicons etc to my preferred resources?

You cannot change internal tagging (morphology, LN #, etc) but you can prioritize your lexicons so Logos will use your preferred resources.

To prioritize your lexicons open your library listing and click on "Prioritize" in the upper right corner. Drag your preferred lexicon to the position in the listing you want.

N/A

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/563730#Comment_563730

In this case (regarding context), as one among many reasons for buying that version, I would rather buy the RSV for the New Testament (also good for parts of the Old Testament, such as Isaiah 2-66).

Allen Browne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/563665#Comment_563665

Dear Mj: Do they not or, can they not use recognized tagging?
Should we request either the ability to assign the lexicons of our choice or, that they use others?

Yes, they do use recognized tagging, and we can prioritize lexicons as we wish.

We're not actually saying (or requesting) that Bible Sense Lexicon use our existing lexicons in accordance with the way we have them prioritized? I can't see that this would be practical (e.g. for search speeds).

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/563812#Comment_563812

Dear Mj: Do they not or, can they not use recognized tagging?
Should we request either the ability to assign the lexicons of our choice or, that they use others?

Yes, they do use recognized tagging, and we can prioritize lexicons as we wish.

We're not actually saying (or requesting) that Bible Sense Lexicon use our existing lexicons in accordance with the way we have them prioritized? I can't see that this would be practical (e.g. for search speeds).

I don't know. How fast do you want it—before you ask for it? [;)]

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/563638#Comment_563638

I never seriously considered using the Bible Sense Lexicon. I think my lexica and my knowledge of the languages is sufficient that it really isn't very worthwhile (besides which I've heard some glaring examples of errors).

Have ou reported the errors?

No, I'm not the one who found them.

Is who found it first relevant to reporting an error. I would think what matters is the good of all users who may not be as knowledgable as the person who found it and yourself who is able verify that it is indeed an error. This is not a school yard game of finders, keepers.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/563836#Comment_563836

Is who found it first relevant to reporting an error. I would think what matters is the good of all users who may not be as knowledgable as the person who found it and yourself who is able verify that it is indeed an error.

The threads I remember, fgh reported the errors or a Logos employee stepped in. Obviously, I don't remember them all but I'm comfortable that the problems are being reported.

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/563838#Comment_563838

Is who found it first relevant to reporting an error. I would think what matters is the good of all users who may not be as knowledgable as the person who found it and yourself who is able verify that it is indeed an error.

The threads I remember, fgh reported the errors or a Logos employee stepped in. Obviously, I don't remember them all but I'm comfortable that the problems are being reported.

Thanks.

Jeremy Thompson

Hi everyone:

I'll respond to the Allen's first post on the thread and then you can pelt me with questions if you like. I wrote the post in question, but I didn't give it that title [:)]. I apologize if "the right" meaning has caused any confusion. Our determinations are to some degree subjective just as the listing of verses under certain glosses are subjective in BDB, HALOT (and its myriad emendations for that matter), etc. Our determinations of meaning were made by looking at a combination of currently existing lexica, comparing translations and looking at discussions in secondary literature.

So yes, we would recommend using the Bible Sense Lexicon as one tool among others to exegete a text. And yes, you should ALWAYS examine contexts for yourself. What we do believe sets the Bible Sense Lexicon apart is the ability to find similar usages of original language words relatively quickly (assuming you agree with our tagging in a particular text) and the ability to explore related meanings as Graham has noted. The Bible Sense Lexicon also allows for examining meanings across testaments.

We are also interested to hear about errors that anyone finds so we can fix them. I am personally working through verbal senses in the Bible Sense Lexicon and making a number of corrections as I go along. This is, of course, different than the process of something like the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew which was 18 years in the making. But, we have gotten the functionality our to users with what we feel is good data and will continue to make improvements as we are able.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/563959#Comment_563959

Thanks for responding Jeremy. I do appreciate your work and believe it to be a major step towards a new and useful tool. Like all new tools it takes users like myself a while to learn how to use it effectively and when to trust/mistrust the results. I am eager to see it mature and users to see its benefits.

I would, however, like a better way to annotate my disagreements or recognition of ambiguities, an issue not limited to the BSL.

Allen Browne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/563959#Comment_563959

I'll respond to the Allen's first post on the thread and then you can pelt me with questions if you like.

Thanks for engaging with us, Jeremy.

Your original post focused on search based on BSL sub-meanings, and that probably is one of the most useful applications for the feature, though it isn't something that I personally need.

I do appreciate everyone's responses, as I feel reassured that I'm not overlooking something I need.

Jeremy Thompson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564062#Comment_564062

Sure. Just as an aside, if anyone is interested in using the information in the Bible Sense Lexicon more like they would a traditional lexicon, that is possible too. There are two ways to do that currently:

Look up the word in the Bible Word Study tool and then check out the senses section. This will give you all of the Bible Sense Lexicon meanings associated with a given original language word.
(This is a little trickier sometimes) Use the easified original language typing scheme in the Bible Sense Lexicon tool's search box (see below).

BillS

b) If you do use it, an example where it really helped you.

Sure enough... after posting that I "never" use it & prefer instead my lexica & original languages texts for reference, I found an instance where it really helped me.

In the NICOT (Logos resource) volume on Romans, author Douglas J. Moo translates Ro 9:10 different than every English translation that I checked (EDIT: the major ones I use, NASB95, NRSV, NIV84, NKJV, CEV, etc.). NIV84's is typical:10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac.

Moo translates: 10 And not only this, but also Rebecca, when she conceived children in one act of intercourse with Isaac, our ancestor.

The Bible sense lexicon (which I had visible as one interlinear option) accurately portrayed the word behind our English translations & was the 1st indicator that I needed to check the lexica, which supported Moo's literal translation. And the difference turns out to be important to Paul's argument, to the effect: God's preference of one (Isaac) of two people conceived at the same moment shows that salvation is never a birthright but always God's election.

Had it not been for the Bible sense lexicon supporting Moo, I'd have missed the lexical support (& DID miss finding the entry I wanted, the 1st time I searched).

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564216#Comment_564216

In the NICOT (Logos resource) volume on Romans, author Douglas J. Moo translates Ro 9:10 different than every English translation that I checked (all the major ones). NIV84's is typical:10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac.

Moo translates: 10 And not only this, but also Rebecca, when she conceived children in one act of intercourse with Isaac, our ancestor.

Interestingly the 2011 NIV has:

“Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac.” (Romans 9:10, NIV)

(and Douglas Moo was the chair of the committee on Bible translation)

BillS

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564221#Comment_564221

Interestingly the 2011 NIV has:

Thanks Graham... I've edited my post to better reflect the more limited number of major translations that I checked. Because of its gender inclusive language, I've tended to avoid using the NIV11. But as you point out, if this instance is typical, it may be better in other places than its predecessor & I'd be unwise to continue ignoring it.

That said, I'm still grateful that Bible sense lexicon proved useful in getting me on the trail...

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564228#Comment_564228

Interestingly the 2011 NIV has:

Thanks Graham... I've edited my post to better reflect the more limited number of major translations that I checked. Because of its gender inclusive language, I've tended to avoid using the NIV11. But as you point out, if this instance is typical, it may be better in other places than its predecessor & I'd be unwise to continue ignoring it.

That said, I'm still grateful that Bible sense lexicon proved useful in getting me on the trail...

The Greek is at least equally useful.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564230#Comment_564230

It's certainly useful, unless it's all greek. In which case, Moo-ification becomes useful.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564264#Comment_564264

It's certainly useful, unless it's all greek. In which case, Moo-ification becomes useful.