-
Thanks everyone. I now have what I need.
-
Thanks, Dave. Can you explain the difference between how the two rules work?
-
Doc B - Thanks for thinking about it. Mark - Thanks for showing me the obvious. This is exactly what I wanted. Randy - Thanks for pointing to that thread. It gives me some ideas of other ways to play, as I explore what else I may be interested in.
-
Does anyone know whether there are example collection rules for Introductions? I've had a quick look and can't see any. I'm thinking specifically for books such as those listed under: https://www.bestcommentaries.com/ot-introductions/ and https://www.bestcommentaries.com/nt-introductions/ Thanks.
-
[quote user="Rosie Perera"] Six years later and still no sight of it. I've added a post on UserVoice about it, so throw your votes at it and see if that helps: https://suggestbooks.uservoice.com/forums/308269-book-suggestions/suggestions/37621678-new-cambridge-bible-commentary-series [/quote] Thanks for the suggestion, Rosie. I've happily voted for
-
[quote user="Francis"] Can you confirm that parsing is available for the titles you just got? I only got English translations and the text is not parsed (Polybius). [/quote] My original idea was just to check that hovering over words provided parsing of the Greek. This works in both Loeb and Perseus, and consequently morphological searches are available
-
Good news, Francis. These are indeed the Loeb volumes. The Greek and English volumes are available separately. I picked up both the Greek and English editions of Hippocrates this way. And, yes, dynamic pricing works with them. They're not exactly the same as the Perseus volumes, although at first glance there is little difference (e.g. they include
-
Any comments, Logos? Phil Gons? Anyone else?
-
[quote user="Randy W. Sims"] Andrew, Here is a small modification ... [/quote] Many thanks, Randy. That seems to work for the first collection I tested it on at least. I think ideally I would remove all references to publishers and series, leaving just authors. I would then add about another 1000 authors to cover Logos Ultimate (which incorporates all
-
[quote user="Bruce Dunning"] Thanks Andrew. I just added 3 votes. [/quote] Many thanks, Bruce.
-
[quote user="BillS"] [quote user="MJ. Smith"]and BillS away from what the request was for? [/quote] Nope. Support the original intent. But "fact checker" goes beyond that. What's fact? The view that most scholars support? Most scholars don't think one Isaiah could have written Isaiah, because they believe that no one could have predicted so accurately
-
In another push, I've added a few more reasons, here: https://community.logos.com/forums/t/171781.aspx, including a few examples from the big black IVP dictionaries here: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/171781/993822.aspx#993822 Please keep the votes coming at: https://logos.uservoice.com/forums/42823-logos-bible-software-7/suggestions/17871697
-
3. On Hermeneutics in Hebrews "There has been widespread disagreement over the hermeneutical technique used, with some interpreters arguing for a Philonic type (see Philo) of allegorical exegesis (e.g., Sowers, Spicq), but most recent studies (Hanson, Longenecker) have shown a much closer correspondence with Qumran pesher, Jewish midrash and typology
-
2. On Hellenists "If all academic questions were settled by vote, the clear winner in the precinct of Acts 6–8 would be Baur and his Hellenist party. All the same the choice would not be unanimous, and the incumbent’s future would not be assured. Scholars are asking new and substantial questions about the validity of Baur’s interpretation." Hill, C
-
I hope many of my comments above have illustrated that this is not just about checking statements that begin "most scholars say...". There are a whole host of different uses, but on a similar theme, I thought I'd add a couple more comments. Here are three examples from IVP's big black dictionary series that remains a bestseller in Logos. 1. On Hell
-
[quote user="Dan Francis"] [quote user="Andrew Baguley"] To clarify, if a user wanted to equate "Feminist" or "Dispensationalist" or "Catholic" or "Universalist" with 'unreliable' then that would be their choice. All the software would say is that a particular book by someone who is happy to self-define as "Feminist" agreed with such and such a view
-
[quote user="EastTN"] [quote user="Dan Francis"] Still feels over all like a slippery slope that may rob some people of valuable insight. Barclay for example at times verges on universalism. yet even in the moments he does i dare say he usually offers a great deal to chew on that is very good. I hate someone not purchasing or using Barclay's Daily Study
-
[quote user="Dan Francis"] Still feels over all like a slippery slope that may rob some people of valuable insight. Barclay for example at times verges on universalism. yet even in the moments he does i dare say he usually offers a great deal to chew on that is very good. I hate someone not purchasing or using Barclay's Daily Study Bible because it
-
[quote user="Gary Osborne"] [quote user="EastTN"] For me, it would still be very helpful if it were just limited to: Positions held Who holds/held them Scriptural basis appealed to by supporters of the position Links to resources supporting each position [/quote] This would be incredibly helpful to me. And while I'd appreciate having Scriptural documentation
-
[quote user="MJ. Smith"] [quote user="JRS"]Be a Berean and rely on the Spirit to be your fact-checker. [/quote] Er ... ah... Aren't you and BillS slipping away from what the request was for? It was not for determining the "true interpretation" of the text. It was for "most modern scholars say" .... I personally don't count on the Spirit for statistical