NASB in Paragraph Format

Thanks Ben!

I'm happy that my old NASB95 will be my new NASB95. If others get what they want, too, I'm happy for them.

This being said, my gut reaction to your proposed course of action is that it cannot be good that two versions of the same product will be produced and can coexist in one's library. We have had difficulties in similar situations with SESB texts for instance.

I can foresee that one may accidentally open one text and annotate it and only realise later that they would have wanted to work with the other. 

I really don't mean to be a naysayer here, but it just does not seem like the right solution.

So those who want the original format of the NASB95 which they specifically purchased it for should be punished and have it taken off their shelf because of a vocal group who wanted it to be in a paragraph format Francis ?  

The issues you raise while not ideal are actually are not that big of a problem in today's Logos environment. Depending upon the need notes are attached to verses at time rather than specific words in a translation so those notes attached to a verse will seamlessly work with the new NASB95 paragraph format. In instances where notes have been attached to specific words (a selection) in a translation FL have indicated corresponding notes and highlights will come into play. And given the text is exactly the same I don't see how this is really an issue at all if one accidentally adds a notes or highlights the text in the wrong version.  For those who don't know how corresponding notes and highlights works please see one or all of  following tutorials by Morris Procter on the feature.  It is well documented and easy to use - see the end of this post to a link to tutorials and explanations of the features.

Personally, I am not sure that it is practical in the long term to try to reproduce printed Bible formats (unless there is something particularly distinctive about it and it would denature the product to change the format). I am wondering if it would be best to standardise format. Have two options in settings: lines or paragraphs applicable to all Bibles. Then the visual filter for Bible text only, one line at a time, can be used in addition to it (after all, it is not redundant in relation to the original NASB format)

Cleary Francis your suggestion here shows you dont' understand the issue.  The format of the NASB95 verse per line was distinctive.  FL tried to standardise it through a Visual FIlter like you are suggesting but they were not able to get back to the format that some people specifically paid when they originally bought the resource. This is not just about preference for a single verse per line or a paragraph arrangement but about the whole experience of the distinctive format that users of this resource were accustomed to and was part of their bible study work flow. 

I can't presume to speak for everyone who is happy to be getting the original format that we paid for being given back to us but I don't expect their to be two version of every bible moving forward.  I see this as a one off exception for this particular product because it is a distinctive product.  I specifically purchases it for the formatting it offered.  Other bibles I have purchased in paragraph format and I don't expect FL to bring out a second version in the same single verse per line format that the NASB95 offered. 

Buyers will most likely be confused by the choice and keep asking the same question about it over and over again. 

That is not a valid reason for FL to not do the right thing and restore what they took away in haste.  We regularly see Buyers and User ask the same questions again and again about this resource or that feature.  Once again why should those who specifically purchased something be punished by having it taken away form them because a 'buyer here or there might be confused about the choices they are being offered.  We all have to do due diligence in our purchasing decisions and if we as a  individuals within this user community can not cope with the same question about a resource or feature of the software coming up every now and then from different buyers / users.we should be asking some hard question of ourselves rather than saying choice should be taken away from people because it is easier than having to deal with questions about the choice.

Thanks for the hard work.

That we can agree on Francis.  The team at FL do work hard. Sometimes I don't agree with the what they are working hard at because I believe they have made a poor decision but in this instance I believe they have made the right decision because this is a distinctive scenario which I don't believe they fully understood initially and that original decision by them lead to  a serious divide amongst users. The decision they have made allows for everyone to have their needs meet and the catalyst for the divide has been removed as a result of the decision.  There was no other reasonable action they could have taken.  Thank you Bob Pritchett and the team at FL for doing the right thing on this occasion. 

Links to Tutorials on Corresponding Notes and Highlights

https://blog.logos.com/2016/09/sync-highlights-across-multiple-bibles-5-clicks/ 

http://mpseminars.com/logos-tips-and-tricks/corresponding-notes/ 

http://mpseminars.com/logos-tips-and-tricks/corresponding-highlights/  

https://blog.logos.com/2016/03/how-to-highlight-passages-across-multiple-bibles/ 

And this is a blog post to the original announcement of the feature back in December 2015 for more information.

https://community.logos.com/forums/p/120644/789280.aspx 

OK I hope both sides are happy now and we could go on and get ready for the second coming

I hope that the new paragraph resource will continue to have the One Verse Per Line VF.

Why wouldn't it? It wasn't a new feature. You can use it with any of the other bibles!

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be removed. I just wanted to make it explicit along with my hopes that it will continue to improve as time and resources allow. 

It's been a feature of the Software for many years. Nobody on either side of this issue have said it should be removed or that is should not be improved. And nobody has suggested their should be two versions of each bible. The only thing that has been said by those who wanted back what FL removed from their libraries was the distinct formatting of the NASB95 original format that could not be replicated via a standardised a VF. Both sets of customers are getting their needs met. FL is honouring our original purchase and those who want a paragraph format are getting their desire and corresponding notes and highlights is an eloquent solution for those who want to use the NASB95 paragraph formatted version as their preferred option.

This being said, my gut reaction to your proposed course of action is that it cannot be good that two versions of the same product will be produced and can coexist in one's library. We have had difficulties in similar situations with SESB texts for instance.

Thanks for your feedback. Without wanting to speak for everyone in the company, I can say that most of us who worked on a solution for this issue shared your gut reaction. Not only is it potentially confusing for the user, it also means we have to maintain two resources instead of one.

We went through every option we could think of (within reason) and determined that this was the only viable solution at this point. Rather than say "we'll get to a solution one day," we decided this was the best way forward.

The products will have different names (one will say "paragraph version"), which should help a bit.

Again, thanks everyone for your feedback and your patience on this. We've certainly learned a lot about how to handle an issue like this in the future.

Thanks, Ben! I was pleasantly surprised to see the NASB available with paragraph formatting.

I hope the forum uproar won't dissuade you from adding paragraph formatting to the BHS and/or BHQ (more fascicles as well!). [;)]

I may have mentioned this earlier in this thread (or another?), but here goes anyway...

NASB95 has a method of marking pericopes or, if you will, paragraphs. The verse number is bolded for "new" thought streams. Occasionally (more so in the NT than the OT--Paul's extended ramblings, for instance), they will choose to mark a new thought stream in the midst of a verse, in which case the first letter of the first word in that new stream will be bolded. Which is all well and good, I suppose. But a couple of points...

First, this is all IMPOSED upon the text, not part of the text. While a few folks may realize this, many don't and won't. For me, the line-per-verse method of presentation is much more amenable to not clouding this point. I am often able to recognize transitions that aren't handled properly, either by the versification bosses of yesteryear or the present day translation committees. For instance, NASB95 uses topic subheads in various places, and these are occasionally misplaced, which can cause confusion and even doctrinal error if not recognized. Even so, the 95's line/verse presentation provides an experience more conducive to proper textual recognition.

Secondly, in my own writing I often quote extended passages from the NASB95, and for the sake of space, I format the 95's verse/lines into paragraphs. I frequently find myself setting paragraph breaks in different places than those identified by the bolded verse numbers. I sometimes even split a particular verse with a new paragraph. The take away is that these things are ultimately a matter of opinion and judgment. But many people will be robbed of the recognition that such a judgment is required of them if their Bible is preformatted for them. 

My point is...whether you, Dear Reader, prefer the look and so-called "readability" of paragraph presentation or not isn't the most germane consideration. You now have paragraphs in most all Bibles in Logos, but unless you are particularly critical in your study, even extraordinarily so, you are probably paying a price for your precious "readability". Enjoy.

LOL this getting 😝 

But, I learned something... I never thought the format was a purchasing decision. In my case, I purchased the NASB not for the format, but for the translation - the more literal translation.

Bill when I first purchased the NASB library many years ago for Logos 2.0 I had never heard of the translation. I purchased it because it allowed me to engage with the text differently than my other bibles. I purchased it because it removed the artificial boundaries placed on the text by translators and allowed me to step back and think about the flow of thought in the text in a new way.  Personally I see this as a valuable step in the bible study process, particularly when I am studying it inductively. 

Since those days I now no a lot more about bible translation philosophlies and I appreciate the value of the NASB95 as one of the translations I use to study the scripture but having it in its original format is still very much an important part of the way I engage with the text. I only purchase translations to increase the scope of translation philosophies I have on hand for engaging with the text. 

At other times paragraph format is also valuable particularly when I just wanted to sit down a read a bible or am reading aloud in a group. But for getting into the text, engaging with it so I can start to ask questions of the text the one verse per line is the most helpful format for me.

I am concerned about losing my notes in the reversion... But, I am sure I will make do again.

Bill you will not loose any notes. Corresponding Notes and Highlights feature will ensure these work seamlessly between the two resources. The feature has been around since the end of 2015, works well and I have provided links in a post above to tutorials on the feature if you are not familiar with it.

I did not like the one verse per line format at all. But, I dealt with it. And, I certainly did not understand the uproar this issue has caused.

Bill i respect the fact that you did not understand why for some of us this is a big issue, we all have different ways of doing things, even how we read the bible for the purpose of studying it. And Bill I want to thank you for not laughing at us, calling us names ( at one point I was likened to Satan), or simply telling us we were wrong for wanting something different. Although you do not understand and have some concerns you choose to never respond in any of these ways.  Bill even though you did not like the one verse per line format you dealt with it because that was the way it always was formatted. Whether you thought about it or not you purchased the translation in that format.  For those of us who purcashed and used it because of its format we had something taken away from us we paid for, we had our bible study process disrupted and FL had no ready made solution - they were scrambling to build a solution after the fact but failed to understand their user - if they understood all of their users they would never had acted with haste and unprepared.

I was glad for the paragraph version. I did not like the one verse per line format at all.

 

Bill when the new paragraph formatted resource comes out, since this will be your preferred choice don't forget to prioritise it and if you have the NASB95 on your shortcut bar, update that too. 

I am glad we are now both being looked after with this decision.

Petah this was not a situation that could wait for a fix someday. FL created the pressure in the first place by taking away something that was not broken. The pressure they got in response was their own doing. FL's premature removal of the orginal NASB95 bible, which people paid for, impacted upon some users bible study workflow, it could not wait. The pressure was warranted because FL did the wrong thing. And they had no choice but to correct their mistake.

We went through every option we could think of (within reason) and determined that this was the only viable solution at this point. Rather than say "we'll get to a solution one day," we decided this was the best way forward.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't accrue technical debt. Sadly, we either have to live with the solutions we implement, or eventually spend much more time and money correcting our mistakes of the past.

I'm sorry that there was so much pressure to fix this now, Ben, as this may be something that can't easily be changed in the future.

The original Hebrew of the Old Testament would have been written from right to left and without vowel points. The Masoretes added the vowel points much later for "readability." The original Greek texts of the New Testament would have been written without punctuation and without spaces between words. wouldyoufindsuchatextunderstandable. At times the Greek was written from left to right and then at the end of a line back the other direction from right to left on the next line. All of us need help in making the text readable. It is just a matter of how much help and who supplies it.

[;)] As I have followed the passionate opinions about verses and paragraphs in recent weeks, I have often recalled this anecdote - https://goodquestionblog.com/2013/02/26/0226/