Do I need to buy Logos 7?

Long, Long, Long time Logos user here. I have spent so much with Logos I would be embarrassed if it wasn't for the learning the Bible.

I am currently a Logos Now member and plan on continuing this for a good length of time. As such I have gotten the Logos 7 core application and have access to the new features.

Now my question is, since I already have the new features with Logos Now, why should I purchase a Logos 7 package. I have looked at the possible books that I would add and honestly have no great desire for them especially since at this moment my money is extremely tight.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Rick

In your case, there is no need to buy anything. Logos Now gives you Logos 7. The only reason to buy a library would be if there were resources that you wanted. The additional resources would be just that. It sounds as if you have a large enough library to use Logos 7 without any loss of ability.

JT (alabama24)

Do I need to buy Logos 7?

since I already have the new features with Logos Now, why should I purchase a Logos 7 package. I have looked at the possible books that I would add and honestly have no great desire for them especially since at this moment my money is extremely tight.

Based on your situation, no you don't! There really are three things being offered at present:

New Library - These are a good way of picking up volumes of resources at a "low" (relatively speaking) cost. If you aren't in the market for new books, there is no reason to get a new library.
Full Feature Set - This is the purchase of features & datasets to own. If your thing is primarily "new books," this may not be for you, especially if you don't mind renting the features through a Logos Now membership.
Logos Now Membership - Although many users view this as simply "renting features," it is more than that. It is Faithlife's membership program. It does include a rental of the "Full Feature Set," but it includes many other member benefits. It is cheaper for users in the short term... and perhaps in the long term to. If someone will want to stop updating, but continue to use the features, the Full Feature Set might be a better option. For me, the primary use of Logos is a "research library." I like the new features, but could live without them. For me , LN is the best option.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/844597#Comment_844597

New base packages - These are a good way of picking up volumes of resources at a "low" (relatively speaking) cost. If you aren't in the market for new books, there is no reason to get a new base package.

Clarification: In Logos/Verbum 7, a base package = a Library (books) + a Feature Set (features).

So Alabama probably means "New libraries" here, since you have Logos Now (which provides all of the features in the Full Feature Set, and more besides)

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/844877#Comment_844877

So Alabama probably means "New libraries" here

Probably. [:)]
(I will change it above for clarity).

EnochBethany

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/844597#Comment_844597

IMHO, a big problem w/ Logos is that it has no way to easily make a library -- it has no library at all! Logos is like a big room with many, many books, but just scattered around on the floor in a mess. Accordance has a library with categories and subcategories.

& it looks like Logos 7 still has NO LIBRARY -- just a mess.

I bought Logos because it has so many books available, like many Greek books in which I can search for a vocabulary item, a big advance on a Lexicon to be able to see so many example of a word in context. But as to Library, Logos is a bummer.

And it is not intuitive enough on how to use it. You are offered to go to a camp on it or pay money to learn how to use it. How to use it should be up front included with your purchase.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/865923#Comment_865923

How to use it should be up front included with your purchase.

Recommend taking the free 10 Day Challenge to learn Bible Study using Logos => https://www.logos.com/10-day-training

Logos wiki => https://wiki.logos.com includes link to => Pro Training Videos with many free professional videos about using Logos

Logos Help includes Library plus much more:

Logos resources tend to have Subject metadata, which is helpful for sorting:

Logos wiki has => Library and => Collections

Forum Thread => Collection rules for sorting commentaries has many collection rules "virtual book shelves" for commentaries.

Thankful for Faithlife groups so Collections can freely be shared. Logos Collections has 319 Collections shared.

Thankful for many friendly forum discussions; have learned a lot plus have a lot to learn.

Keep Smiling [:)]

delete12066188

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/865932#Comment_865932

Hey Bob

I'm in the same Situation with Money. Logos Now is a great help for me...but I decidet to build my Libary with Books I need and want...anyway if there would be Books in a Base remember you just have to buy the Books as Logos Now Member, that means L7 Bronze just costs me 68 €.

Greetings

Sascha

EnochBethany

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/865932#Comment_865932

Thanks, but having the word "library" does not constitute a library. I require an organized library, categories, sub-categories, sub-sub categories, etc. Incidentally, as a rule a list should not have more than 7 items. IF you have more than 7 items, the need to be put into categories. So a long grocery list, is not what I call a library. Compare the Accordance Library. It is so easy to organize & make rational; you can see what you have got. There should be categories like "COMMENTARIES" sub:Whole Bible Commentaries, OT Commentaries, NT Commentaries, Individual Book commentaries & the like. "LEXICONS" sub: Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic. VERSIONS: sub English, Spanish, Other Modern languages. JOURNALS, BIBLE DICTIONARIES, THEOLOGY sub: Systematic Theologies; Sub-sub: Calvanistic, Arminian, Liberal Hair-Brained, etc.; sub Biblical Theologies, sub: Individual Topic theologies. Library organization should not require jumping through hoops, hard work, blood/sweat/tears.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/865940#Comment_865940

a list should not have more than 7 items. IF you have more than 7 items, the need to be put into categories. So a long grocery list, is not what I call a library. Compare the Accordance Library. It is so easy to organize & make rational; you can see what you have got

Well, I read an independent review of both (linked from another thread) and the writer wrote succinctly that Accordance has some hundreds of titles, Logos some tens of thousands. Much easier to organize on that small scale to make you "see what you got".

There should be categories like "COMMENTARIES" sub:Whole Bible Commentaries, OT Commentaries, NT Commentaries, Individual Book commentaries & the like. "LEXICONS" sub: Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic. VERSIONS: sub English, Spanish, Other Modern languages. JOURNALS, BIBLE DICTIONARIES

But did you read the reply of KS4J at all? The subject field will give you exactly that: Bible Commentary -- NT -- Pastorals -- 2nd Timothy or such will give you those smaller packets. However, even then you may end up with much more than 7 in your list. Language is a separate field, Type (for Lexicons, Dictionaries, Journals etc) and there's much more to explore in the fields that are categorizing your library - and you can make your own, if you still want more. Maybe you want to read up on http://wiki.logos.com/Library

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/865940#Comment_865940

Library organization should not require jumping through hoops, hard work, blood/sweat/tears.

Thankful for Library collection rules that can be freely copied, which reduces amount of hard work; getting to know what's in a library with thousands of resources does take effort.

Different people have various ways of grouping and prioritizing resources. Logos provides flexibility for custom collections plus prioritization that fit your organizational preferences. Logos wiki => Prioritizing

Personally use a mixture of resource meta-data plus my tagging for organizing my library. One use for my tagging is to identify resources that have interlinear tagging. Note: every tag is a collection, which can be included OR excluded from other collections.

There should be categories like "COMMENTARIES" sub:Whole Bible Commentaries, OT Commentaries, NT Commentaries, Individual Book commentaries & the like.

Logos wiki => Canonical Commentary Collections has example rules for Individual Books plus One Volume along with some alternatives.

Faithlife offers thousands of commentary resources, which have Subject tagging so can create your own collections of categories and sub-categories.

My library has 3,555 English Bible Commentaries with 109 for the individual book of Genesis. Yet Logos.com shows 6,666 resources are available for my purchase => https://www.logos.com/products/search?Status=Live&unlocked=no and Vyrso shows 20,260 eBooks available for my purchase => https://vyrso.com/products/search?q=&Status=Live&unlocked=no so my Library could be expanded significantly.

Value of expansion depends on the resource(s). A larger library has more digital text that can be searched. One Hebrew forum thread discussion mentioned gentilics so my search for article(s) found one in chapter 16 of => Hebrew for Reading Comprehension that is included in two collection bundles, but not in any Logos 7 base package.

Did not know content of Hebrew for Reading Comprehension until search for articles about gentilics; now am reading this resource and working through exercises since target audience matches my learning desires. Being able to right click on exercise 1 Hebrew names to open a Hebrew Lexicon was useful for learning (and validating several of my guesses). Note: one name שָׁאוּל has a vowel point that is different than Lexicon entry שְׁאוֹל

Most Bible Commentaries for an individual book includes the Book name in Subject field.

"LEXICONS" sub: Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic.

Library can be filtered by Type:Lexicon then sorted by Language field:

English lexicons have definition/discussion in English with headwords for other Languages. The German and Spanish lexicons have definition/discussion auf Deutsch und Español.

THEOLOGY sub: Systematic Theologies; Sub-sub: Calvanistic, Arminian, Liberal Hair-Brained, etc.; sub Biblical Theologies, sub: Individual Topic theologies.

Observation: what is "Liberal Hair-Brained" to one Logos or Verbum user can be "Brilliant" for a different user. Also some authors have changed their position over the years so appropriate theological grouping is challenging.

Thankful for resources not being living people because passionate discussions from different view points would be intense.

Keep Smiling [:)]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/865976#Comment_865976

THEOLOGY sub: Systematic Theologies; Sub-sub: Calvanistic, Arminian, Liberal Hair-Brained, etc.; sub Biblical Theologies, sub: Individual Topic theologies.

Observation: what is "Liberal Hair-Brained" to one Logos or Verbum user

Actually, this is a typo ... they meant to say "Fundamentalist Hare-brained" ...[:P] Such accidental typos are why it is best to avoid using this sort of judgmental term in the forums although it may be absolutely appropriate among friends in your living room.

[quote]

Hares are known for their jumpiness, and they’re also not the smartest creatures on Earth. This is how we get the adjective harebrained, which refers to these perceived qualities of the hare and usually means flighty, reckless, or badly thought out. Some writers hyphenate it—hare-brained—but the one-word form is noted in dictionaries, for what that’s worth, and is more common.

Most authorities on these things regard hairbrained as a misspelling. It has been a common one for centuries, though, and it does sort of make sense when we consider that someone with hair in their brain probably isn’t much smarter than a hare. Still, harebrained is the conventional spelling.

P.S. I know several self-proclaimed fundamentalists who are very well thought-out and certainly not harebrained. I also know several self-proclaimed liberals who are harebrained and more who are not.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/865940#Comment_865940

Incidentally, as a rule a list should not have more than 7 items.

This is an appropriate rule in some contexts as it is a common limit of human memory. However, for myself, I find the limit of a "library shelf" to be a more useful limit. I have the commentaries and monographs "shelved" in 3 intersecting ways: historical era, theological stream and methodology. This results in groups shorter than and much longer than 7 ... but they are all small enough that I can easily find the resource I am seeking. I understand your desire for "automatic classification" for which Logos supplies some. However, I prefer being able to make categories that are useful to me rather than those that are standard. A very simple example: most users find apostolic fathers-church fathers-reformation to be a useful historical division. I prefer to expand the church father section to go up to the Great Schism giving me apostolic fathers-pre-schism-reformation.

Frequently the groupings that you use as illustrations are quickly achieved via dynamic collections e.g. type:lexicon lang:spanish ... but you are correct, just as organizing a paper library is primarily a user task, so much of organizing a large Logos library is primarily a user task. If you have specific problems in doing so, please ask. We're here to help.

Bootjack

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/865982#Comment_865982

Excellent reply MJ. Smith.

EnochBethany

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/865982#Comment_865982

I have made a lot of my own categories. But IMHO, it is not for me to be jumping through hoops, studying these or those complicated directions. LOGOS should make it simple & intuitive to create a library with categories, simple to edit & change. Accordance has done that. I still need Logos for its large library of ancient Greek texts. But organizing it is a pain in the neck which the seller should do for its customer -- IMHO.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/866054#Comment_866054

EnochBethany, I agree and disagree.

Disagree:

- I can never predict where Accordance will stick non-obvious books in a category. On the mobile app, I almost always guess wrong, and then use bad (used to be, but now ok, since King David used it) language.

Agree:

- Here, I'd say JoshRI (another Logosian) is correct. Logos delivers a very flexible blank slate. Ergo, hours and hours to organize. Why not a button to push, and Logos creates a first blush that folks can edit.

- Now I'm certain our Logosian apologists will yell 'Type!!' or 'Subject!!!'. Or even better, 'hold the shift key down!!!' (to create sub-sorts). In response, I invite the apologists to see what is in type: monographs ... basically your library. Then take a look at the resource count for Subjects: ... one-sy, two-sy's. Almost a subject for each resource, unless a journal. I just got the IVP 2nd edition, whose subject (of course) doesn't match the 1st edition. And is missing the series assignment.

So, yes, a bit of an on-going mess.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/866056#Comment_866056

Agree:

- Here, I'd say JoshRI (another Logosian) is correct. Logos delivers a very flexible blank slate. Ergo, hours and hours to organize. Why not a button to push, and Logos creates a first blush that folks can edit.

I agree that a first cut would be useful for the low-end packages or for certain categories of books. I would prefer that more metadata be exposed and that common collection groupings could be selected and downloaded. The latter approach scales better.

- Now I'm certain our Logosian apologists will yell 'Type!!' or 'Subject!!!'. Or even better, 'hold the shift key down!!!' (to create sub-sorts).

I disagree. [;)]