Broken Link? - Lexham Bible Guide: Colossians (Vine's)

Richard Villanueva said:

Is there something wrong?

The Resource ID is: LLS:VINES and the link provided sends you to https://www.logos.com/resources/LLS_VINES 

This is what I have - are these two different resources?

https://www.logos.com/product/1223/vines-complete-expository-dictionary-of-old-and-new-testament-words 

I think it's a bug - the resource you mention is currently the only dictionary resource by W.E. Vines and its filename is TN_VINES and it can be opened with LLS:TN_VINES (the resource identifier is LLS:46.10.8 and it has an index entry for rhuomai)  - on the other hand, it's named slightly differently (lacking the "Complete" in the title), so in theory there could have been another Logos work back in the day. The title exists for a paper book: https://www.thomasnelson.com/vine-s-expository-dictionary-of-the-old-new-testament-words (which is actually newer than the print version of the Complete Expository Dictionary), which may have been converted into Logos at some point.

Richard Villanueva said:

NB.Mick said:

it's named slightly differently (lacking the "Complete" in the title), so in theory there could have been another Logos work back in the day. The title exists for a paper book: https://www.thomasnelson.com/vine-s-expository-dictionary-of-the-old-new-testament-words (which is actually newer than the print version of the Complete Expository Dictionary), which may have been converted into Logos at some point.

Ok, cool - you are tracking with what I am thinking as well.  I was looking at the identifiers and the variation in the books titles.  I was wondering if the book was sold when the LBG was created, but not anymore?  Whatever the case, looks like it would need to be fixed or updated. 

My thinking that it's a bug also is supported by the course's bibliography which refers only to Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary from 1996, the one we own. And the LBG was created just recently (copyright 2013) so it's not the same as when the older Exegetical Summaries cite BAGD instead of BDAG.

EDIT: However, looking into the LBG Philippians, its bibliography cites both works (and the not-Complete version from 1981, i.e. 15 years older than the Complete one) and uses sometimes the one, sometimes the other in word studies. So it seems to be a BAGD/BDAG case. Still curious why they would do so in a recent self-produced resource and sad that we can't get the older Vines resource.