If so, why?
How about a nice power-user interface? Lightning-fast morphology searches? Easy display?
I can switch to a morphology version, set limits, search for a particular root and form, and display it with half a dozen English translations, all without lifting my fingers from the keyboard, in less than two seconds. It's just the nature of the beast.
(I've requested an easier shortcut to the Logos command line, since it currently requires Option+Command+L, but nobody else seems to care. In BW, it's Esc.)
I do all my text work in BW, and all my "library" work in Logos, with very few exceptions.
Edit: I work primarily with Hebrew and the Old Testament, so YMMV.
I bought BW9 about a year ago. I've still yet to really use it, but I will; it's very nice for searching. I usually have something in Logos that's in process. BW9 can help me with the next study on my list;getting the next project started is almost always exegetical and I want it thought through textually.
BibleWorks is like a very nice Santoku knife. It does require some practice to be proficient with it. I doubt many Logos users want to learn two programs and that's a limiting factor.
IMHO, bible works is a tool for learn, and logos is library for study .
It seems like a one trick pony and only good for exegesis. The interface is fast a la Logos 3 and it looks like it.
BW is not limited to technical study, although even if it were, you still don't build solid biblical foundations by simply reading what others find, but by immersing yourself in the text. Some people like to talk about the sufficiency of Scripture but they only quote others. They've never sought to believe in it by testing it out for themselves.
A lot of Logos users rely on other programs for different reasons. A lot of us come to Logos after using the others and sometimes we rely on others for given resources. We still have bound books. I still like the KJV, legal pad, index cards and fountain pens. It's nice to have choices.
Accordance has 2 Japanese Bible.
-Dan
Why? Because, Logos is still unable to search on accentual patterns (Cantillation marks) in the Hebrew Bible. For, example say I wanted to search for every place in the Pentateuch where the Mercha accent is followed by a Tipcha and Munach accent with an Etnachta accent ending the clause. This is called an Etnachta clause by the way.
There are also other times I want to search on vowel patterns with wildcards in place of actual characters/letters or words. This is an area Logos still can not touch. Logos can finally perform accent sensitive searches, but not with wildcards.
The above are things I need to do when preparing lessons. Not, only can I run those type of searches in Accordance and BibleWorks I can also do so graphically rather using a command line. (Logos allows for graphic searches only with syntactical databases, but not with morphological searches).
Viewing actually photos of Biblical manuscripts is also something that I turn to Accordance and BibleWorks to do. In Accordance I can view both photos the Qumran Sectarian manuscripts as well as photos of Biblical manuscripts from the dead sea scrolls.
Now, please don't get me wrong I believe Logos is 'the best Theological research library software' and that is primarily what I use it for. And, yes I know Logos, also has powerful morphological and syntactical features, too. I often use Logos to compare and contrast my query results from other software and I find that super helpful. However, currently, many of my exegetical needs can not be met using Logos.
The above is a good explanation.
Another factor: the original-language databases do not inspire 100% confidence, the way it should be.
I do, pretty much for the reasons already stated. In the study I use two monitors with Bibleworks on one and Logos on the other. Logos has come a long way, but Bibleworks is still easier for a quick search when I am reading a paper book alongside it.
The above is a good explanation. Another factor: the original-language databases do not inspire 100% confidence, the way it should be.
You both said it all. [Y][Y]
