TWOT Review needed

As I mentioned in this thread, Theological Wordbook of the OT is riddled with typos, and riddled is not an exaggeration. To me, it is one of the most important resources in the Logos stable, and to have it be in such miserable shape makes me "sic" to death. In my view, it is worthy of a focused page-by-page review with a hard copy in hand. Just pasting it into a word processor would turn up many of the typos. I realize there are many things on Logos's plate, but this issue has been festering for over a decade and needs to be addressed in the most desperate way.

Assuming that someone will jump right on it, I will say "thanks" in advance. [W]

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Hello David, can you point me some of the errors?

Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/465738#Comment_465738

Hans, if you can't literally SEE all the errors in TWOT, then probably you don't need to worry about all the errors. In recently reading Barr's book back in the 60s, I'm surprised anyone would even admit to using TWOT it's so error-prone.

But in a more serous vein, if I had to choose between the present typo-fixes approach, while adding major new dictionaries (vs stopping the presses to yield 'no errors'), I'd go with more dictionaries. 2nd century greek is a recent mention, Latin, coptic, plus all the ones Bob mentioned in his thread.

Yes, Crumm's would be a very 'supra' resource to have on Logos!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/465738#Comment_465738

In no particular order...(speaking of typos, NONE of the words I underlined in composing this post are showing as underlined now. Irritating.)...

467 הָגָה (hāgâ) I, utter, mutter, moan (mourn, KJV), meditate, devise, plot.

Derivatives

467a הֶגֶה (hegeh) a rumbling, growling, moaning (Job 37:2: Ezk 2:10; Ps 90:9).

467b הָגוּת (hāgût) meditation, utterance (Ps 49:3 [H 4], only].

467c הִגָּיוֹן (higgāyôn) meditation.

hāgâ occurs primarily in poetry, especially in Ps and Isa. It is used in the Qal, except for Isa 8:18 (Hiphil).

R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980). 205.

**The link for Is. chap 8 should be verse 19.

(sap) II. Threshold, sill, door. (ASV, RSV similarly.) sap II designates the threshold (cf. Akkadian sippu “doorpost,” Aramaic sippā “porch”), whether of a house (Jud 19:27), palace (I Kgs 14:17), or the temple (II Chr 3:7). The keeper of the threshold (I Chr 9:19, 22) held an important office. Theologically, it becomes a symbol of God’s presence in holy power (Isa 6:4) or judgment (Amos 9: l; Zeph 2:14).

R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980). 632.

**The Amos link is broken...there is a space between : and 1.

עָנָו (˓ānāw). Humble, meek. This adjective stresses the moral and spiritual condition of the godly as the goal of affliction implying that this state is joined with a suffering fife rather than with one of worldly happiness and abundance.

R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980). 682.

**The underlined word should be "life".

1759a פַּח (paḥ) I, bird trap (e.g. Hos 5:1; Amos 3:5). Often used figuratively for calamities and plots.

1759b פַּח (paḥ) ll, plate of metal (Num 17:3; Ex 39:3).

R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980). 722.

**The underlined ll should not be italicized.

1833a פָּרָשָׁה (pārāšâ) exact statement (Est 4:7; 10:2).

This verb is found five times in the or (or four if in Ezk 34:12 the mt is changed from niprāšôt to niprāśôt, “his sheep that are ‘scattered’,” that is from pāraś instead of pāraš).

R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980). 740.

**The first underlined word should be OT...both of these should be capitalized. This lowercase rather than uppercase is endemic throughout the book.

1425 נָשָׁא (nāšā˒) II, beguile, deceive. Occurs in the Niphal and Hiphil only.

Derivatives

1425a מַשָּׁאוֹן (maššā˒ôn) guile, dissimulation (Prov 26:26, only).

1425b מַשּׁוּאוֹת (maššû˒ôt) deceptions (Ps 73:18; 74:3).

Occurring just once in the Niphal stem, this verb is usee mainly in the Hiphil in the sense of “lead astray, seduce, mislead, deceive,” even for self-deception, as indicated in Jer 37:9 by addition of “your souls.”

R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980). 603.

**The underlined word should be "used".

482 הוד (hwd). Assumed root of the following.

482a הוֹד (hôd) splendor, majesty, vigor, glory, honor.

The noun is used twenty-four times in the ot, appearing most frequently in the Psalter (eight times). Quite often it is found in juxtaposition with the related word. hādār, also meaning “majesty” or “honor,” always in the order hôd wĕhādār:

R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980). 209.

**Another example of the lowercase "ot" rather than OT...also, there is an extraneous period after "with the related word".

During Solomon’s reign. mas was extended to include Israelites as well as foreigners and war prisoners (I Kgs 5:13–14 [H 27–28] and the parallels in Chr; but cf. I Kgs 9:22) in the labor force necessary to carry out Solomon’s extensive building programs (I Kgs 9:15). This unpopular measure. and Rehoboam’s refusal to moderate it, was the immediate cause of the secession of the ten tribes and the establishment of the northern kingdom.

R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980). 516.

**Two extraneous periods...one after "Solomon's reign" and another after "unpopular measure".

1424 נָשָׁה (nāšâ) I, lend on interest or usury, be a creditor.

Derivatives

1424a מַשָּׁא (maššā˒) lending on interest (Neh 5:7, only).

1424b מַשָּׁאָה (maššā˒â) loan.

According to the context in which the verb form occurs, a man either has a creditor or he acts as a creditor against another. He “makes exactions” of the person indebted to him. often in the heartless manner implied in the old term “usury,” the modern “loan shark.”

R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980). 603.

**The period after "indebted to him" should be a comma.

עֶצֶם (˓eṣem). Bone, body, same, selfsame. (ASV, RSV similar.) A very common noun in the ot, ˓eṣem is cognate to Ugaritic ˓zm I, Arabic ˓aẓum^un, and Akkadian eṣemtu, all meaning “bone.” A Hebrew synonym is gerem (which see).

R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980). 690.

**MAJOR typo here...whole section of text in parentheses is missing.

2274f שְׂעֹרָה (śĕ˓ōrâ) barky (allegedly from its bearded grain).

R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980). 880.

**Underlined word should be "barley".

Many an Israelite cried as did Rachel, “Give me children or else,I die” (Gen 30:1).

R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980). 923.

**Underlined section has extraneous comma and missing space.

While the root is employed to convey the primary meaning, the very is predominantly used to illustrate the predatory nature of people who continually conquer and destroy others.

R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980). 353.

**Underlined word should be "verb".

Most often It is used adverbially and is coordinated with another verb.

R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980). 924.

**Underlined word should not be capitalized.

Even in the dss the use of the word “Messiah” is ambiguous. There is mention of a Messiah of Aaron and a Messiah of Israel, apparently two figures, a king and a priest, perhaps neither one the Messiah. But also in the dss there is expressed in the Tes-timonia and the Florilegium the hope of a coming great Figure not identified with their leader, the teacher of righteousness, nor called Messiah (except once in the quotation of Ps 2:2), but called the Scion of David, etc.

R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980). 531.

**Twice DSS is not capitalized and there is an extraneous - in Testimonia.

(˓āwel), עַוְלָה (˓awlâ). Injustice, unrighteousness. Like the antonyms ṣedeq/s^edāqâ there is little difference between the masculine segholate ˓āwel found twenty times. and its feminineequivalent ˓awlâ occurring thirty-three times.

R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980). 653.

**Extraneous period after "twenty times" and missing space between feminine & equivalent.

While the foes of God may roar in victory for a moment, the prophets speak of the Lord roaring back in judgment: Thus Amos 1:2 announces, “The LoRd will roar from Zion,” in judgment.

R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980). 890.

**"Thus" should not be capitalized (or the : after "judgment" should be a period) and neither should the "R" in Lord.

עָרִיץ (˓ārı̂ṣ). Mighty, oppressor, in great power, strong, terrible, violent. (ASV similar; RSV and NASB OCCR-sionally use “ruthless.”)

R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980). 699.

**The underlined word should be "occasionally".

How many do you want?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/465748#Comment_465748

עָרִיץ (˓ārı̂ṣ). Mighty, oppressor, in great power, strong, terrible, violent. (ASV similar; RSV and NASB OCCR-sionally use “ruthless.”)

Perhaps they OC(C)R'ed it. [;)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/465752#Comment_465752

Yeah, that was my thought, too. That makes 2-3 times we've been on the same page. I keep expecting Rod Serling to tap me on the shoulder... [:P]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/465755#Comment_465755

Found another wrong link...

The root ḥll is used to mark the act of doing violence to the established law of God (Zeph 3:4), breaking the covenant (Ps 55:21), or the divine statutes (Ps 89:31 [H 32]).

R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980). 289.

The Ps. 55 link should be v. 20 (probably 21 in H.).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/465914#Comment_465914

More reasons to update TWOT...in the excerpt below, I have the resources by both Gordon and Fisher, but neither of them are live links in TWOT. I suspect that is true for nearly all of the references in TWOT.

Gordon (UT 19: no. 595) holds that there is a baraḥ II meaning “be evil,” because of an Arabic root, but others question this, pointing out that the context of the Ugaritic reference is also unclear (L. Fisher, Ras Shamra Parallels, I, p. 36).

UT C.H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, 1965 (Grammar cited by chapter and section; texts cited by chap (16) and no. of line. Glossary cited by chap (19) and no. of word)

R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980). 131.

This resource is in desperate need of updating.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/466010#Comment_466010

UT C.H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, 1965 (Grammar cited by chapter and section; texts cited by chap (16) and no. of line. Glossary cited by chap (19) and no. of word) R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980). 131.

That would be the author's failure, not Logos although they could conceivably link to the proper location even though it wasn't properly cited, but you note that it isn't linked which leads me to suspect that TWOT was published before UT or Ras Shamra Parallels (I'm not sure since I've had all of them for some time). I don't often use TWOT.

This resource is in desperate need of updating.

You're repeating yourself. I think you said all that needs to be said.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention; we're moving it up in the maintenance queue.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/466021#Comment_466021

Wow...I'm surprised...pleasantly surprised. I'm kinda used to not having my suggestions get off the ground.

THANKS! [:D]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/466040#Comment_466040

Just out of curiosity...when typos are identified in e-format books and are faithful reproductions of errors in the hard copy book, do publishers allow the e-format books to be corrected, or do they tend to wait until the change is made in the hard copy in a subsequent edition? I've wondered about this for some time.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/466041#Comment_466041

Another typo just found...

284 בָּרַח (bāraḥ) flee, run away, chase, drive away, put to flight, reach, shoot (extend), hurry away.

Almost all sixty-six uses of the verb refer to fleeing from an enemy, enemies, or a place. The first exodus is described as a “flight” from Egypt (Ex 24:5).

R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980). 131.

The Exodus link is incorrect. 24:5 (and the verse before) says...

4 ^aMoses wrote down all the words of the Lord. Then he arose early in the morning, and built an ^baltar ¹at the foot of the mountain with twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel.

5 He sent young men of the sons of Israel, ^aand they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as peace offerings to the Lord.

New American Standard Bible : 1995 Update (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995). Ex 24:4-5.

...nothing there.

So on a hunch I checked Ex. 14:5...

5 When the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, ¹Pharaoh and his servants had a change of heart toward the people, and they said, “What is this we have done, that we have let Israel go from serving us?”

New American Standard Bible : 1995 Update (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995). Ex 14:5.

...and BINGO!

The folks correcting this resource have their work cut out. [:S]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/466294#Comment_466294

Another one:

Such translations as “miss,” “lack,” “want,” and their passives (altogether about sixteen occurrences) seen at first sight to suggest quite a different idea, but on examination prove to come [Page 732] under the general meaning of the verb.

R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980). 731.

"seen" should be "seem".

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/468418#Comment_468418

Once you get into this resource, the typos just keep coming...

פִּקּוּדִים (piqqûdı̂m). Precepts, statutes, commandments (used only in pl.) (RSV “precepts” in all twenty-four occurrences), used only in Ps (all but three of its occurrences are in Ps l 19), is a general term for the responsibilities that God places on his people.

R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980). 732.

It should say, (all but three of its occurences are in Ps 119)...so there is a space typo that messes up the link. For some reason it brings up Psalm 50:19.

Odd.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/468419#Comment_468419

Once you get into this resource, the typos just keep coming...

Understood. I suggest that you report them via the normal typo report procedures and not report each instance to the forum.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/468421#Comment_468421

1344 נָחַם (nāḥam) be sony, repent, regret, be comforted, comfort. Not used in the Qal, nāḥam occurs chiefly in the Niphal and Piel.

R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980). 570.

Hmmm...I wonder which Hebrew word means "be cher"???

[^o)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/474776#Comment_474776

Hmmm...I wonder which Hebrew word means "be cher"???

Very cute. Use Report Typo though, if you want it to actually get fixed.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/466041#Comment_466041

Just out of curiosity...when typos are identified in e-format books and are faithful reproductions of errors in the hard copy book, do publishers allow the e-format books to be corrected, or do they tend to wait until the change is made in the hard copy in a subsequent edition? I've wondered about this for some time.

I'd actually like to know the answer to this.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/474782#Comment_474782

Just out of curiosity...when typos are identified in e-format books and are faithful reproductions of errors in the hard copy book, do publishers allow the e-format books to be corrected, or do they tend to wait until the change is made in the hard copy in a subsequent edition? I've wondered about this for some time.

My understanding is that they do not "correct" errors in the original nor would I particularly desire them to do so since any quotation of the text made would therefore not reflect the original (what would happen to "Sic !" ? [;)]). Please use the "Report Typo" function.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/474782#Comment_474782

Just out of curiosity...when typos are identified in e-format books and are faithful reproductions of errors in the hard copy book, do publishers allow the e-format books to be corrected, or do they tend to wait until the change is made in the hard copy in a subsequent edition? I've wondered about this for some time.

I'd actually like to know the answer to this.

I believe Logos does pass the typo report on to the publisher who may choose to release an updated edition with errata fixed at some point in the future, and Logos would get the updated files and update them for us as well. But the print publishing world is fairly slow to produce new editions in comparison to digital, so don't hold your breath. However do still report the typos even if you know it's wrong in the print edition too.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/466021#Comment_466021

Thanks for bringing this to our attention; we're moving it up in the maintenance queue. [Dated 2/24/13]

I'm guessing the maintenance queue was reeeeeeeeallllly, really long?? I don't think anything has been improved up to this time. Here is another error issue...don't know if it was in the original hard copy or not. Does anyone have a hard copy of this? Is it as riddled with ridiculous errors as the Logos version is? I certainly hope this wasn't left for dead when the Moody fiasco took place...

בָּהוּר (bāhûr) II. Elected, chosen. A Qal passive participle used almost entirely in military parlance, e.g. Jud 20:15–16, “Seven hundred thousand chosen men.” It is used fifteen times thus, all but two in conjunction with enumeration.

Harris, R. L., Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. (1999, c1980). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) (101). Chicago: Moody Press.

A quick hover over the RefTag shows that "thousand" is erroneously inserted in TWOT's quote of Jdg. 20:15-16.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/574454#Comment_574454

They really did write heh instead of cheth ! Amazing.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/574460#Comment_574460

Good catch.

Jannie van Niekerk

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/574454#Comment_574454

בָּהוּר (bāhûr) II. Elected, chosen. A Qal passive participle used almost entirely in military parlance, e.g. Jud 20:15–16, “Seven hundred thousand chosen men.” It is used fifteen times thus, all but two in conjunction with enumeration.

Harris, R. L., Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. (1999, c1980). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) (101). Chicago: Moody Press.

A quick hover over the RefTag shows that "thousand" is erroneously inserted in TWOT's quote of Jdg. 20:15-16.

David,

Sorry for the delay on this resource. When you say "thousand" was inserted in error, do you mean in the Logos edition or by the author in the print? It seems our Logos resource do match the print on this entry, so we do not regarded it as a typo:

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/579607#Comment_579607

Any idea if this will ever be coming back to Logos for those of us who don't have it?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/579607#Comment_579607

Jannie, I do not have a hard copy to compare against what I see in Logos. Whether the error is in the original bound text version, or was inserted in the conversion process into a digital resource, I really can't say. If you say the word "thousand" is in the hard copy of TWOT, I take your word for it. However, the word "thousand" does not exist in Jdg. 20:16 in the Bible. It is for that reason that I bring it to the attention of Logos. I would expect publishers to want digital versions to be correct(ed) even though the paper version is not. I don't know what your policy is in this regard, but I certainly would prefer it to be fixed. I know for certain that I will quote this passage from TWOT in a forthcoming book. I would really prefer not having to include a sic along with a footnote explaining that, for some totally inexplicable reason beyond comprehension, the editors of TWOT chose to insert a word for no good reason into the Biblical text, seeing as that isn't particularly helpful when trying to establish confidence and credibility in readers. I would think Moody would want their reputation to not be sullied by a forest of sics. I hope you will remove the word "thousand" and fix the hundreds of other errors you encounter. I think I used the phrase "fine tooth comb" to describe what TWOT needs. Indeed, it needs to be extra-fine.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/579663#Comment_579663

I think the problem is that TWOT allows the אֵלֵף to slip in from Jdg 20.17 where it speaks of אַרְבַּ֨ע מֵא֥וֹת אֶ֛לֶף אִ֖ישׁ from ALL of Israel in addition to the 400 slingers from Benjamin.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/579663#Comment_579663

Just one more example of the absurd sardine compactness of the errors in this book. Notice each of the verse references in bold below...

2314a שֵׁבֶט (šēbeṭ) rod, staff.

Thus it is the symbol of rulership. Whereas the prophets predicted that the sceptre of Israel’s enemies will be removed (Amos 1:5; Zech 10:1 l), Jacob predicted that “the sceptre shall not depart from Judah … until Shiloh come … ” (Gen 49:1), and the psalmist predicted that the rule of Israel’s ideal king would endure forever (Ps 45:7).

Harris, R. L., Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. (1999, c1980). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) (897). Chicago: Moody Press.

The Zech. 10 verse is supposed to be Zech. 10:11 but it says 10:1 I...the Gen. 49 verse should be Gen. 49:10, not Gen. 49:1...and the Psa. 45 verse is correct, but only if you are following Hebrew versification--the English verse should be Psa. 45:6 instead of Psa. 45:7.

If someone quoted this passage of TWOT, they would have to use 3 sics(!) for errors in three successive Bible references, one due to a stray space insertion, one due to a missing character, and one due to misapplication of Hebrew vs. English versification. I've never seen a resource figure out how to get so much wrong in so many different ways. It is a truly staggering display of ineptitude.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/580730#Comment_580730

If you're looking to find an error, search your library for "Cod" sometime. Something fishy going on there.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/580815#Comment_580815

If you're looking to find an error, search your library for "Cod" sometime. Something fishy going on there.

I did. Everything on the first page of results looked perfectly legit. It's a common abbreviation for the very common word Codex.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/581023#Comment_581023

If you're looking to find an error, search your library for "Cod" sometime. Something fishy going on there.

I did. Everything on the first page of results looked perfectly legit. It's a common abbreviation for the very common word Codex.

I'm aware of cod being an abreviation - what I meant was that there are times (and apparently decreasing in frequency) where "God" was ocr'd and the result was "cod" or "Cod".

See below:

Now its possible I am wrong, but I'm virtually 100% certain that there has never been a "cod" (or any other piscine) that has ever foreordained anything.

Some context for the fish "god".

The same grand truth which pertains to the whole of creation applies with equal force to all the workings of Divine Providence. The beginning and the end, and the whole intervening career, of each person has been determined by his Maker. So too the rise, the progress, the height attained, and the entire history of each nation has been foreordained of Cod. “For of him, and through him, and to him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen” (Rom. 11:36)

Arthur Walkington Pink, Spiritural Growth Growth in Grace, or Christian Progress (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2005).

Apparently the previous "Cod" is also faithful and covenental.

there are more, but I digress. Yes I've reported both these and others

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/579663#Comment_579663

I would expect publishers to want digital versions to be correct(ed) even though the paper version is not. I don't know what your policy is in this regard, but I certainly would prefer it to be fixed.

Everyone would like it fixed. However, the Logos/Moody relationship (whatever it is) might prove problematic. Logos cannot change a publisher's work without permission. You might be better served addressing the problem to Moody instead of Logos.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/581689#Comment_581689

I'm kinda hoping Logos will forward my forum posts to Moody in all their fed-up irritability. If Moody values their reputation, they will give Logos full rights to correct the TWOT text. Just to be clear, if the error lies at Logos's feet because of poor OCR (some of the errors give this impression, but many others seem to be of a different sort), then Logos needs to patch this up ASAP. This has been a festering problem for about a decade and a half, if not longer.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/581663#Comment_581663

All of which reminds me of the story - I borrowed this illustration - of the preacher who complained that Billy Graham stole one of his sermons. "Billy Graham must have read my sermon. He preached it practically word for word, and hundreds came forward to receive Christ." Someone asked him, "Really, what was the response when you preached it?". He replied, "Oh, not much. It was an ordinary Sunday, what can you expect?" The other man said, "Better let Billy have that sermon. He can do more with than you can."

How about Jonah? [;)] [:D]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/581689#Comment_581689

I would expect publishers to want digital versions to be correct(ed) even though the paper version is not. I don't know what your policy is in this regard, but I certainly would prefer it to be fixed.

Everyone would like it fixed. However, the Logos/Moody relationship (whatever it is) might prove problematic. Logos cannot change a publisher's work without permission. You might be better served addressing the problem to Moody instead of Logos.

Logos should not change a publisher's work with or without permission. The reason for this is that any quotation should be consonant with the publication—whether print or digital. Therefore, Logos should only change the text when the original publisher does so.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/581701#Comment_581701

I would expect publishers to want digital versions to be correct(ed) even though the paper version is not. I don't know what your policy is in this regard, but I certainly would prefer it to be fixed.

Everyone would like it fixed. However, the Logos/Moody relationship (whatever it is) might prove problematic. Logos cannot change a publisher's work without permission. You might be better served addressing the problem to Moody instead of Logos.

Logos should not change a publisher's work with or without permission. The reason for this is that any quotation should be consonant with the publication—whether print or digital. Therefore, Logos should only change the text when the original publisher does so.

I agree that Logos ought to change only what the publisher consents to...that is, IF the error is the publisher's. If the error was Logos's, I don't think they require the publisher's okay.

That said, I disagree that the electronic version of a publication is somehow "ethically obliged" to be a character-for-character copy of a corresponding print counterpart, warts and all. It strikes me as rather retrograde, sort of like requiring automobiles to travel no faster than a horse and buggy can "on principle". Electronic changes can be instantaneous and effectively accomplished with little or no cost, whereas equivalent changes of tangible products can be hopelessly mired in logistical costs that disallow the needful process of rectification. Considering the "train-has-left-the-station" inevitability of current digital realities in the publishing world (and the world in general), I see no reason to hamstring digital resources with outmoded requirements. Fix the digital versions as well as can be, call it "digital" in the citation (perhaps even giving a most-recent digital edit date, if someone is really that anal-retentive about it), and let's move along.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/581707#Comment_581707

That said, I disagree that the electronic version of a publication is somehow "ethically obliged" to be a character-for-character copy of a corresponding print counterpart, warts and all. It strikes me as rather retrograde, sort of like requiring automobiles to travel no faster than a horse and buggy can "on principle". Electronic changes can be instantaneous and effectively accomplished with little or no cost, whereas equivalent changes of tangible products can be hopelessly mired in logistical costs that disallow the needful process of rectification. Considering the "train-has-left-the-station" inevitability of current digital realities in the publishing world (and the world in general), I see no reason to hamstring digital resources with outmoded requirements. Fix the digital versions as well as can be, call it "digital" in the citation (perhaps even giving a most-recent digital edit date, if someone is really that anal-retentive about it), and let's move along.

The digital copy should be precisely that, a copy. If someone cites a work, it should be the same whether in print or digital form else how can the legitimately be said to cite the work?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/581713#Comment_581713

If the publisher makes the correction to the work in digital, and the correction is a clear error--not the addition or elimination of substantive information--I don't think it makes sense to say that the corrected text of the work ISN'T the work. It is, in a manner of speaking, a truer representation of the work. That said, I don't really have a desire to get into a Platonic discussion of reals vs. actuals.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/581713#Comment_581713

The digital copy should be precisely that, a copy. If someone cites a work, it should be the same whether in print or digital form else how can the legitimately be said to cite the work?

I agree. In academic citations it becomes very important. I prefer Logos to be as close to the print edition as possible, warts and all.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/581697#Comment_581697

I'm kinda hoping Logos will forward my forum posts to Moody in all their fed-up irritability. If Moody values their reputation, they will give Logos full rights to correct the TWOT text. Just to be clear, if the error lies at Logos's feet because of poor OCR (some of the errors give this impression, but many others seem to be of a different sort), then Logos needs to patch this up ASAP. This has been a festering problem for about a decade and a half, if not longer.

Rather than beat a dead horse, why not make a list of every issue in a given chapter, and (hitching your wagon to a new horse) email moody and politely ask for a revision that also includes the other chapters.

Some googling will usully turn up an authors email too, perhaps (should the authors still live) an email to them showing the thread and the lack of QC on Mood's part might embarrass them into issuing a new revision.

Or else send the link to moody your self, to ensure that they do see it since this seems to be so important to you.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/581663#Comment_581663

what I meant was that there are times (and apparently decreasing in frequency) where "God" was ocr'd and the result was "cod" or "Cod"

I knew that's what you meant. That's why I was surprised not to find the multitude of errors you seemed to hint at.

Logos should not change a publisher's work with or without permission.

So if there are errors in the first print edition, the second printing must leave them intact? And if the publisher doesn't intend to make a second printing, but let all further "printings" be electronic, the electronic versions must leave them intact? That's ridiculous! The copyright holder has the right to make any alterations he wishes, whenever he wishes, and if they make the book better, that's a good thing. If you want to quote, either check with the print edition, or include the electronic file version. It's a far worse problem when the most relevant book doesn't turn up in a search because the search word happens to be misspelled in that book.

I have a suggestion somewhere that they should correct the error in the text, leave the incorrect print version afterwards within [ ]'s, and give us a filter that allows us to show or hide the [ ] part at will. That would solve both the search and the quote problems.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/581919#Comment_581919

Yep ... that's what I do on my Bible software. Whenever the Bible translator got it wrong, I just put his translation in brackets and put the corrected one (mine of course) in its place. Of course, I don't have a contract with the translation owner either (or as they say in country circles 'shaving a dead man').

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/581937#Comment_581937

The variety of botchedness endemic in this book is astounding. Behold...

Solomon’s marriage with Pharaoh’s daughter signifies, possibly, Egypt’s inferior status as a political power is-a-is Israel at this time.
Harris, R. L., Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. (1999, c1980). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) (737). Chicago: Moody Press.

Yeah...somehow or other...believe it or not...feast your eyes...it really, actually says, "is-a-is". [:^)] Obviously, this should be vis-à-vis.

Incredible. [^o)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/587301#Comment_587301

370 גָּעַר (gā˓ar) corrupt, rebuke, reprove.

Derivatives

370a גְּעָרָה (gĕ˓ārâ) rebuke.

370b מִגְעֶרֶת (mig˓eret) rebuke.

This root indicates a check applied to a person or peoples through strong admonitions or actions.

Jacob rebukes Joseph v. hen he relates the dream of sun, moon, and eleven stars bowing to him (Gen 37:10).

Harris, R. L., Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. (1999, c1980). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) (170). Chicago: Moody Press.

"v. hen" should be "when"

[^o)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/611835#Comment_611835

Mine reads "Jacob rebukes Joseph when he relates the dream of sun …"

You might consider reporting using the "Report typo" system rather than posting each on the forum.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/611838#Comment_611838

Is it possible that you are reporting this from an L3 resource? That would possibly explain the difference between our resources.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/611838#Comment_611838

Mine reads "Jacob rebukes Joseph when he relates the dream of sun …"

I confirm that reading.

I agree with the title of this thread though. I would go further: there are quite a few major reference works that suffer from such a lot of typos that Logos should take an active review role rather than sit and wait for users' corrections. And by typos I mean deviation from the (corrected, later) printings of the work.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/611840#Comment_611840

Is it possible that you are reporting this from an L3 resource? That would possibly explain the difference between our resources.

Yes, I am, but it is very encouraging to hear that the L5 version is corrected. When I encounter these in the future, I'll be sure to check the L5 version to see if it has the correction. Thanks.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/611852#Comment_611852

No, the typos haven't been fixed...at least not completely. This is still present in the L5 version (499a)...

The God of Israel is not enthroned on Saphon; he reigns from heaven itself (cf. hêkāl). Any interpretation of Isa 14 which does not take into account the mythological allusion does i justice to what is said there.

Harris, R. L., Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. (1999, c1980). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) (217). Chicago: Moody Press.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/611899#Comment_611899

No, the typos haven't been fixed...at least not completely. This is still present in the L5 version (499a)...

The God of Israel is not enthroned on Saphon; he reigns from heaven itself (cf. hêkāl). Any interpretation of Isa 14 which does not take into account the mythological allusion does i justice to what is said there.

Harris, R. L., Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. (1999, c1980). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) (217). Chicago: Moody Press.

So you should report it using the "Report typo" function.

Quick Links