Hi Logos (and Chinese) team,
I am running Logos 7 with Chinese bronze package. I did a text comparison on my various Chinese Bibles:
中文聖經和合本－神版（繁體）
現代中文譯本(上帝版)
中文和合本修订版聖經 (上帝版)
中文聖經新標點和合本(上帝版）
呂振中繁體中文新舊約全書
Only the second bible is highlighted with the difference. Please check if this is an error on my part or it is something that Logos can fix in a future minor update. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Michael
I was able to get meaning comparisons between CUV, RCUV, and LZZ, but not Today's Chinese Version 現代中文譯本 - see screen shot below.
PL: I was able to get meaning comparisons between CUV, RCUV, and LZZ, but not Today's Chinese Version 現代中文譯本 - see screen shot below.
Hi, Peter and Michael,
Thank you for testing this. Yes, you are right. The 現代中文譯本 is not showing the difference. I will let our team to check it and fix it as soon as we can. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Best regards,
Philip
Hi Peter and Philip,
Thank you for your help. It seems the problem is more complicate than that. I do not know how to grab the screen shot, otherwise I can show you my screen. On the other hand, if you do the text comparison using bibles in the following order:
中文聖經和合本－神版（繁體）, CUV, LZZ, TCV-TRF, RCUV
You will see that there is no highlighted difference in LZZ and RCUV.
In addition, should 上帝 be a highlighted difference if my first bible use 神?
Thanks and good luck in hunting down the problem.
Where can I get 呂振中繁體中文新舊約全書 for Logos 7?
Philip Peng: Thank you for testing this. Yes, you are right. The 現代中文譯本 is not showing the difference. I will let our team to check it and fix it as soon as we can. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Philip,
Just want to point out that it is not only issue with 現代中文譯本, The order of the Chinese Bible selected makes a difference for "differences" not showing. I have tried doing comparison for Simplified Bible and Traditional Bible, the results are unpredictable ... Your testers can try all the permutation of order for Simplified and Traditional, he/she should be able to see the challenges reported here.
JK
MacBookPro Retina 15" Mid 2014 2.5GHz RAM:16GB SSD:512GB macOS Mojave 10.14.1 | iPhone X iOS 12.1
I guess 呂振中繁體中文新舊約全書 is a Personal Book (PB) built from docx..?
One example: using Chinese Bible (Traditional Only)
The first screen shot shows that it works as expected
Second screen shots simply by reordering the first 2 CUVs. I only use official Logos Published Chinese Bible. I excluded PBBs for the test (I think it works)
3rd Screen Shot, by moving 3rd Column to the first, and shift the 1st and 2nd column right. Not that CUV(traditional) in 3rd column is not working as it should.
LimJK: Philip Peng: Thank you for testing this. Yes, you are right. The 現代中文譯本 is not showing the difference. I will let our team to check it and fix it as soon as we can. Sorry for the inconvenience. Philip, Just want to point out that it is not only issue with 現代中文譯本, The order of the Chinese Bible selected makes a difference for "differences" not showing. I have tried doing comparison for Simplified Bible and Traditional Bible, the results are unpredictable ... Your testers can try all the permutation of order for Simplified and Traditional, he/she should be able to see the challenges reported here.
Hi, LimJK and other users,
Thank you for pointing out about other Bibles. Our production team is also aware about other Chinese Bibles that do not show the difference properly. They are investigating now and will fix them soon. Sorry for the inconvenience and thank you for the patience.
We were able to see this problem using the 7.3 version of the software, but not when running the 7.4 version that was just released yesterday. Please update and see if the problem is resolved. Or let us know if it is still a problem with 7.4.
Hi Andrew,
The problem is not solved by 7.4 yet. You will know what I mean if you try the following order:
CUV, TCV-TRD, RCUV, LZZ, 中文聖經和合本－神版（繁體）
Also I posted the question of whether 神 and 上帝 should be counted as a difference or not, but no one has commented. I think it should but would not argue about it. Thanks.
Can you please paste the support information from your CUV and TCV-TRD Bibles? Open the Bible, click the "i" button in the upper right corner of the panel, then scroll to the bottom. It should look like:
LLS:ZH-CUNPTRD2017-01-05T19:38:36ZC:\Logos\DiscoveryPath\ZH-CUNPTRD.logos4LLS:ZH-TCVTRD2016-12-07T00:58:22ZC:\Logos\DiscoveryPath\ZH-TCVTRD.logos4
I have:
LLS:ZH-CUNPTRD2017-01-20T13:51:25ZZH-CUNPTRD.logos4RVI:ZH-CUNPTRD-NT2017-01-20T13:44:38ZZH-CUNPTRD-NT.lbsrviRVI:ZH-CUNPTRD-OT2017-01-20T13:44:38ZZH-CUNPTRD-OT.lbsrvi
LLS:ZH-TCVTRD2016-12-07T00:58:22ZZH-TCVTRD.logos4
Hope that helps to locate the issue. Thanks.
Andrew Batishko (Faithlife): We were able to see this problem using the 7.3 version of the software, but not when running the 7.4 version that was just released yesterday. Please update and see if the problem is resolved. Or let us know if it is still a problem with 7.4.
Andrew,
Thanks for your reply the problem still exists in 7.4, my earlier post was based on Logos Bible Software 7.4 (7.4.0.0032), the versions of resources I used are:
Traditional Versions
Simplified Version
EDIT: PS: Just noticed a 1.08 GB downloading
Update with the new Resources. Looks like there are now working, except for LLS:HLYBBLSMPSHNDTN that does not show differences; (1) if it is in first column, no differences for all, (2) if it is 2nd and subsequent column, no difference shown for itself.
LLS:ZH-CUNPTRD 2017-01-20T13:51:25Z ZH-CUNPTRD.logos4
RVI:ZH-CUNPTRD-NT 2017-01-20T13:44:38Z ZH-CUNPTRD-NT.lbsrvi
RVI:ZH-CUNPTRD-OT 2017-01-20T13:44:38Z ZH-CUNPTRD-OT.lbsrvi
LLS:RCUV 2012-06-01T15:24:11Z RCUV.logos4
LLS:ZH-TCVTRD 2016-12-07T00:58:22Z ZH-TCVTRD.logos4
LLS:HLYBBLTRDSHNDTN 2016-12-20T21:26:32Z HLYBBLTRDSHNDTN.logos4
Simplified Versions
LLS:ZH-CUNPSMP 2013-05-31T16:41:43Z ZH-CUNPSMP.logos4
LLS:RCUVSMP 2016-10-10T16:30:16Z RCUVSMP.logos4
LLS:HLYBBLSMPSHNDTN 2016-12-20T21:27:05Z HLYBBLSMPSHNDTN.logos4
Now if I do my comparison between CUV, TCV-TRD, RCUV, and LZZ again, only LZZ is showing any differences. RCUV used to show differences but it doesn't anymore.
What's going on? Why is this functionality so unreliable?
Peter
PL: Now if I do my comparison between CUV, TCV-TRD, RCUV, and LZZ again, only LZZ is showing any differences. RCUV used to show differences but it doesn't anymore.
Peter,
This is what I get comparing all Chinese Bible with traditional Chinese (My Resource Dates are in an earlier post for comparison).
The text from two resources will only show differences if those two resources use the same language. In the library window you can turn on the Languages column and you might see three different Chinese languages: Chinese, Traditional Chinese, and Simplified Chinese (or the localized equivalent).
There was a problem with the resource LLS:ZH-CUNPTRD where the language was corrected from (Chinese to Traditional Chinese), but we forgot to make a change that would cause current users to download the updated language. This was fixed yesterday, and now the Languages column in your library should show that this resource is "Traditional Chinese".
There are still a couple of Chinese language resources that I'm aware of that may need to have their language corrected, but this will require rebuilding those resources. I don't have a timeline for when exactly this will happen.
Finally, you can currently only select "Chinese" as the language for PBB resources. "Traditional Chinese" and "Simplified Chinese" are not available. This means that you may not be able to compare those resources as desired. We are still investigating how to handle this issue.
Thank you for the quick investigation and determining the cause.
Of the Chinese Bibles I currently own, the following two have "Chinese" as the Language tag:
1. Lu Zhen Zhong (should be Traditional Chinese)
2. 中文和合本修订版圣经（上帝般）(should be Simplified Chinese)
When will these two be corrected?
Thanks,
PL: Of the Chinese Bibles I currently own, the following two have "Chinese" as the Language tag: 1. Lu Zhen Zhong (should be Traditional Chinese) 2. 中文和合本修订版圣经（上帝般）(should be Simplified Chinese) When will these two be corrected?
I'm sorry, but I don't have a timeline for when this change will be made, but it is being investigated.