PDA

View Full Version : Accordance verses bible works



andrew short
05-25-2006, 07:27 PM
Dear Mac Users,

I have a 2003 Emac and I run library 6 (Accordance)
Should I keep Accordance or try to use bibleworks 6 on my mac?

D Leavins
05-26-2006, 06:00 AM
Accordance is a fabulous program and it runs natively on your mac. I have used it for years and love it. I would consider keeping it. (They just released an upgrade to version 7, by the way.)

Ben Spackman
05-26-2006, 11:06 AM
I don't think you'll get many responses. Most of us who post here seem to be PC users, and thus have probably not used Accordance at all. Good luck comparison shopping.

Michael Hanel
05-26-2006, 11:32 AM
I don't think you'll get many responses. Most of us who post here seem to be PC users, and thus have probably not used Accordance at all. Good luck comparison shopping.
Not only that, but most of us can't really afford to invest in multiple sets of programs that do so many similar things. Granted I'm a die-hard BW user, but part of the reason I'm not going to invest in Accordance or Logos is because I've already made my major investments in BibleWorks, I'm not going to go out and spend $600 for resources I already have. So if you have a lot of money invested in Accordance, you're probably best to stick with it. If you haven't invested a lot, but are looking to do major investing in the future, well then give BW works a try, there's a 30-day trial period, you can give it a run and if it doesn't suit you, go with something else.

But for the beginner or for someone who is just starting out, I don't think you're going to find a better investment for your money than BW. Recently new versions of Logos and Accordance have come out and these programs do have some features or databases that BW doesn't have, but BibleWorks also has features included in the program cost itself that these other programs charge a great price for. Ultimately, you as the consumer have to decide what you want to invest in. But remember no matter which program, newer and better databases and features are always around the corner. Database additions to BW7 are still in the works I've heard such as adding Robertson's Greek Grammar, so there are always exciting new things happening on this end of the Bible software world.

MGVH
05-26-2006, 12:14 PM
I get asked this question a lot, so I have put together a page that points to reviews and such by others. A couple of the links specifically deal with Accordance, BW, and Logos.
http://www.gettysburgsem.org/mhoffman/other/bw7&logos.htm

jkragenb
05-26-2006, 11:03 PM
Hey, Andrew. You've asked a very complex question, one which does not have a simple yes/no answer. Fortunately, whichever way you choose to go, you are choosing from two excellent software packages!

I thought I'd take a few minutes to answer your question because I own both BibleWorks and Accordance. I recently became a Mac user at home, and was liberated to do so because I can run BW7 on Parallels Desktop. (If you'd like, you can follow a couple of us in our experiment at http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1529)

Hopefully other folks who use both packages will offer their opinions to you as well.

To me, there are several things to think about.

(1) First and foremost, what will you use the software for?

I don't think any of the BibleWorks folks would object to me saying that BW "majors" in original language exegesis. :) My opinion is that BW is still the leader of the pack for such study; BW is, in fact, "the premier original languages Bible software program." (I could site all my reasons here, but you can find plenty of thorough reviews on the internet with either Google or with BibleWorks users' websites.)

I also don't think the BibleWorks folks would mind me mentioning that other packages (e.g. Accordance) currently offer more English-language resources. So, if doing resource-driven English-language Bible study is your goal, then Accordance (or perhaps Logos) may make more sense for you, as their libraries of resources are currently larger. (In fact, you may already own all the resources you need for English-language Bible study in Accordance Library 6 ... it's a robust package.)

(2) Cost, if it is an issue.

You already own Accordance, and that is significant. If you don't feel like you need more resources to study with, then that makes your decision easy. If, on the other hand, you find yourself needing more resources (particularly original languages resources), then you have a decision to make. In that case, your investment in Accordance is a sunk cost; you can't make your forward-looking decisions on the basis of your past investment. The question then becomes, "what will it cost me to build the software package I need if I add on to Accordance VERSUS what will it cost if I start from scratch with BibleWorks?"

Only you can answer those questions, and once you do I'm sure you'll see the implications and make the "right" decision.

There is no doubt that the folks at OakTree have done a very nice job. Accordance is an excellent all-around software package for Biblical studies; I'm sure you've enjoyed much fruitful study with it. But also know that the BibleWorks folks have done an unbelievable job of creating an intuitive, highly customizable, language resource-intensive tool for original language exegesis. And all of the BW goodness comes at an outrageously low price. (I'd encourage you to check me on that by pricing other software packages to include all the modern-language Bibles, original language texts and original language resources you get with BW ... you'll see my point ... and you'll realize it's an issue of multiples.)

How great is it to live in the 21st century where God has given us such powerful tools to understand His word? Both of these tools are remarkable providences - thanks to both BibleWorks and OakTree for their faithful labor, and to God for his abundant grace.

All the best with your decision....

andrew short
05-27-2006, 02:56 AM
Forgoting what you already own, which is better?
Do you feel to spent your money well buying BW already having accordance?
Do you use both, it is a waste owning both?

I want BW because they have a few versions not on accordance? Is understanding Greek better on BW?

I only have library 6(and the cd of most English translations). so bw may be cheaper than upgrading anyway.

Your answers to these questions will help me.
This is what I want to do, compare Tyndale Young KJV Bishop etc to the textus receptus.

And thankyou BW for letting me join this forum.

ingosorke
05-31-2006, 12:07 AM
See also this comparison, which seems to favor Accordance: http://anduril.ca/PDFs/SC-GreekTexts.pdf

I'm a happy BW user nonetheless!

Ingo

MGVH
05-31-2006, 09:40 AM
Nice review that focuses mainly on Accordance, but there are some inaccuracies regarding BW.

In that review it says:

By contrast, morphological databases in BibleWorks 7 are separate texts, unsuitable for reading, that display lexical forms with single character codes appended to each form. This approach is inefficient insofar as it separates the textual and morphological databases, requiring users to have two databases open in order to search with the latter and read with the former.

In fact, I never have a morphological version open. There is an option flag to keep those versions hidden. The textual database is completely integrated, and it only takes a right click on a word to do either a form or lemma search without needing to call up the morphological database at all. One can do a command line search on the morphological database without actually activating that database as well.

In that review it says:

Unfortunately, failed searches are immediately deleted from the command line, preventing users from making minor corrections and running a modified search again quickly and easily without unnecessary hassle.

Actually, all searches are recalled. Just click in the command line and use the "up arrow" to scroll back through all the recent commands. (This is different than using the "Successful Search History" button just to the right of the command line.)

Adelphos
05-31-2006, 09:55 AM
See also this comparison, which seems to favor Accordance: http://anduril.ca/PDFs/SC-GreekTexts.pdf

Like Mark, I also noticed a number of inaccuracies in that review. Furthermore, it is patently clear that the reviewer is highly biased toward Accordance, not to mention the highly subjective nature of his assertions.

For example, he rates the interface of Accordance as superior to BW, when in fact, I would rate the interface of Accordance as palpably mediocre, while I would rate the interface of BW as outstanding.

Et cetera.

He also gives a full-blown review of Accordance from his web page and not a single line to BW, other than his opinion sheet, and I emphasize the word "opinion."

In short, anyone who desires an objective view between BibleWorks and Accordance would do themselves a favor by steering well clear from this reviewer, as he has little or nothing objective (or accurate in many cases) to offer, in addition to displaying an ignorance of even some of the basic fucntions in BW, as Mark demonstrated above.

Conversely, Ruben has (I believe) reviewed both products, and as he exhibits an intimate familiarity with BW, I will assume (always dangerous) that he also knows Accordance equally well, so if I wanted a fairly objective view, I would consult Ruben's site (perhaps someone can provide the link?) in order to get a better idea of the capabilities of both programs.

anduril
05-31-2006, 01:48 PM
Let me address the criticisms of my review mentioned here.

First, the review is a review of Accordance not BibleWorks, though I do put my review in a comparative context (as I do for all my reviews). As to Adelphos' criticisms concerning my website and the considerably greater attention I give to Accordance there, this is because OakTree has been generous in its provision of review copies. BibleWorks supplied me with a review copy of BW 5 but not BW 6 and so I never completed a full review of the latter. I do not provide extensive reviews of software for which I have not received a review copy. This is the same policy adopted by many review sites. End of story. I did recently receive a review copy of BW 7 though and I am very thankful to Jim Barr for that. Consequently, you can expect a thorough review of BibleWorks 7 on my site in the future.

Now, concerning Mark's points... (and thank-you Mark for emailing me):

(1) Regarding the display of the morphological search version, Mark has pointed out the option flag and I did overlook this. However, the point remains... the BNT and BNM are separate databases. It is impossible to search the BNT morphologically. On the other hand, in Accordance, the GNT-T basically combines the two. The GNT-T is a fully integrated module which you search and display together. Objectively, one is integrated, one is not. Subjectively, we may differ about which approach is better. As my review stresses the issue of user-friendliness, I believe the integrated module is simpler and easier to use. This is not an unreasonable conclusion (contra Adelphos) and I stand by the assertion. On the other hand though, there is no ability in Accordance to display the coded text (at least in the search window; you can ask Accordance to parse any text and display it as code) and this is arguably a disadvantage if there are people who genuinely make use of the coded text per se.

(2) Regarding the command line, Mark misses my point as he himself has acknowledged in email correspondence with me on this issue. The fact is that BW 7 deletes the command line on a failed search while Accordance does not. I am well aware that BW 7 has a search history (as does Logos). The problem from my vantage point is that it requires an extra, unnecessary step to recover the failed search. I would rather have my failed search remain in the command line so that I could make the necessary changes right away. I have rarely found myself in a situation where I did not return to a failed search. At the very least, BW could add the option.

As to Adelphos... I have made considerable arguments in favor of my position on the interface. My reviews are independent and I have no financial interest or stake in any of the companies. You may subjectively disagree with me and that is fine... indeed, do you regularly find that you otherwise agree with every product reviewer you ever read? I would think not. So, instead of impugning of my integrity as a reviewer, something I take very seriously, perhaps you could simply recognize that you have a subjectively different experience than I do with BibleWorks and Accordance.

Incidentally, you mention Ruben... you'll notice we are co-bloggers at his site. He respects my work as I respect his. You'll also notice that he has several blog entries that draw attention to the ease-of-use of Accordance vis-a-vis BibleWorks too, notably on graphical searches. Indeed, though my opinion is certainly subjective, I'm struck that most Bible Software reviewers, who are independent of any of the companies and have extensive experience in all the products, essentially agree that at many points Accordance has the advantage on ease-of-use; it is only ever committed users of one or the other--like yourself--who mount objections on this point and try to then impugn reviewers who disagree with your self-evident bias. Unfortunately, users such as yourself seem to take this all very personally when, as reviewers, we are only interested in encouraging positive development in the field of Bible software generally. I believe, for one, that BibleWorks 7 is one of the best products on the market and I applaud the product on many counts but I also will not shy away from criticisms. Indeed, I am certain that the past criticisms of BW 5 and BW 6 by reviewers such as myself were an important reason for some of the changes made in BW 6 and 7 respectively. In all of my reviews, whether Accordance, BibleWorks, or Logos, I air a laundry list of criticisms because all of these products can improve significantly. At the same time, I praise each and in particular, my more extensive review of BW 7 to appear later this year will observe that BibleWorks is indeed very praiseworthy. I am, so far at least, quite impressed with the new version! Still, I will criticize it, especially where I see another product (whether Accordance or Logos) delivering something better.

Adelphos
05-31-2006, 02:16 PM
indeed, do you regularly find that you otherwise agree with every product reviewer you ever read?

No, but I don't pretend to review a product of which I'm ignorant of its capabilities.

You apparently have no problem in that sphere.

Fact is, I'm not qualified to even begin to write a review of BW, and I clearly know a lot more about BW than you do, and thus, A=B=C.

Figure it out.

If I were going to write a review of these programs, I would first apply myself to learning them inside out. Next, I would triple check my facts. Following that, I would submit my review to expert users in the products under my review. Following that, I would correct any errors made, as well as incorporate whatever I felt appropriate from their comments and suggestions. Then, after all that, I would re-submit my work to those same experts.

That's the bare minimum for an objective review.

You haven't even accomplished step 1.

Accordingly, your review has no viability for anyone who is interested in the facts.

anduril
05-31-2006, 02:46 PM
In writing my review, I did overlook the option flag but, in point of fact, both of my criticisms of BW that Mark has identified are essentially accurate. BNT and BNM are two databases; in Accordance the equivalent is one database. On the other point, Mark did not understand what I meant. My point was accurate and he acknowledges it. As Mark wrote to me, "I now understand what you mean about the failed searches. Yes, it does disappear, and it is in an extra keystroke or so to recover them." So, Adelphos, you are impugning me without evidence simply because you disagree subjectively with my opinion of the interface, even though you admit you have virtually no substantial experience with Accordance, relying on Ruben's reviews to that end.

I am the Coordinator of Bible Software and Technology Reviews for RBL and an experienced reviewer. I used BW 5 quite extensively, having received a review copy of it. I did not use BW 6 much except to help users who had their own copy. I never received a review copy for myself and in any case was satisfied to wait until the next revision given my personal schedule. Consequently, I accept that I am no expert on BW 6, though I'm certain I can use it more effectively than many out there. Still, I never released a major review of BW 6 because I did not want to deal unfairly with a product that I did not use regularly as I now do BW 7. I have received no major complaints about unfairness or inaccuracy from BibleWorks as to my comments on their software. Indeed, BibleWorks graciously provided me with a review copy of BW 7, which I am presently using. I have had my review copy for about two weeks. It will undoubtedly take some time to become fully aware of its many options and consequently I have not released a review on BW 7 yet. My comments on BW 7 in the review of Accordance's morphologically tagged Greek texts are minimal and specific to the issues. They are all accurate but for a minor aspect of a point Mark has identified, which doesn't even invalidate the point of the criticism. As a human being, I think I am entitled to such a small inaccuracy, which I will correct in due course. If you see another inaccuracy, by all means, bring it to my attention and I will make a correction. But, at this point, you are simply being wildly unreasonable in your criticisms without even one specific example. Your comments are out of line and unsubstantiated.

Adelphos
05-31-2006, 03:01 PM
But, at this point, you are simply being wildly unreasonable in your criticisms without even one specific example. Your comments are out of line and unsubstantiated.

If we were talking about nuances within BW we could attribute that to merely overlooking the issue, or to human error, but when we're talking about the basics, the only thing that's out of line is your inflated view of your critical abilities.

Unsubstantiated? As Mark demonstrated, you stated --

"...requiring users to have two databases open in order to search with the latter and read with the former."

False.

"...preventing users from making minor corrections and running a modified search again quickly and easily without unnecessary hassle."

False.

As I said, both of these are basic.

Adelphos
05-31-2006, 03:21 PM
I might also add, it bothers me that certain people get free BW software simply becasue they are labeled as a "reviewer" or what-have-you, while I and others have to pay for it, especially the modules, and especially when the "review" is inaccurate and superficial with the "reviewer" demonstrating an ignorance of even the basics of the program.

I'll be happy to write a review and spread it all over the internet if I can get all the BW software free, and I'll even go a step further...

I'll acutally learn the program inside out and do a genuine, critical, objective review.

anduril
05-31-2006, 03:21 PM
No. Both points are not false, especially not the latter. You are not reading my posts are you?

(1) BNT and BNM are two different databases. This is not changed by unchecking the option flags for the browser window and the search window. The option flags only address a minor aspect of my criticism and really do not invalidate it. Nevertheless, I agree that the wording of my review obscures this and so I will make a suitable correction when I am able in order to clarify this.

(2) There is an unnecessary hassle that prevents users from making minor corrections to a search and running a modified search again quickly, especially in relation to Accordance. In BibleWorks, you need to have focus on the command line and then use the arrow key to go back to the failed search before you can make your minor corrections and run the modified search. In Accordance, you can make the corrections right away. Relatively speaking, therefore, my statement is accurate and Mark has accepted that.

Clearly, you are rather intransigent character so I will trust I have clarified myself sufficiently for the sake of others in this forum and leave you to your unrelenting nature. Otherwise, thank-you to Mark for your helpful feedback and thank-you also to Ingo for calling attention to my review. I appreciate it and please, to everyone else, I welcome your comments. I am always open to suggestions and contrasting opinions.

Adelphos
05-31-2006, 03:31 PM
No. Both points are not false, especially not the latter. You are not reading my posts are you?

The problem is, I am reading your posts, and the problem is, you apparently can't understand your own words. Looks like I'll have to explain your own assertion to you. Do you know what require means?

"...requiring users to have two databases open in order to search with the latter and read with the former."

False.

I'll let the rest go, including the personal attacks, although I can see why you would make them seeing as how your reputation as a slovelnly reviewer has been exposed.

anduril
05-31-2006, 03:35 PM
I might also add, it bothers me that certain people get free BW software simply becasue they are labeled as a "reviewer" or what-have-you, while I and others have to pay for it, especially the modules, and especially when the "review" is inaccurate and superficial with the "reviewer" demonstrating an ignorance of even the basics of the program.

I'll be happy to write a review and spread it all over the internet if I can get all the BW software free, and I'll even go a step further...

You have to publish your reviews Scott and then I imagine BibleWorks might be open to it, depending on the circulation of the publication and the availability of review copies. I received a review copy of BW 5 because I published multiple reviews in major national newsmagazines in Canada. I received BW 7 because I am a reviewer for the Review of Biblical Literature, the leading scholarly review of the Society of Biblical Literature, the largest scholarly association in biblical studies. My Internet reviews are a further service that I provide because I believe in the importance of computer technology for biblical studies. I try to give the software producers added value for the generosity they have showed me.


I'll acutally learn the program inside out and do a genuine, critical, objective review.

This is what I do Scott. The review you read is not a review of BW 7. It is a review of Accordance's morphologically tagged Greek texts and it is one of the most thorough and substantive of its kind. So rarely do Bible Software reviewers actually look substantively at the nature of the morphological databases themselves.

My comprehensive review of BW 7 will only come out after I have put BW 7 through its paces over the course of my ongoing research in professional biblical studies.

If you have ever visited CNET or other major review sites, you will see that reviews are released in stages. Articles covering first impressions are released first; these are followed by datasheets; and, finally, after some time, a comprehensive review, which is then updated periodically to reflect new opinions shaped by ongoing developments in the marketplace. I follow this model.

anduril
05-31-2006, 03:41 PM
The problem is, I am reading your posts, and the problem is, you apparently can't understand your own words. Looks like I'll have to explain your own assertion to you. Do you know what require means?

"...requiring users to have two databases open in order to search with the latter and read with the former."

False.

I have admitted to this mistake and agreed to post a correction. There is no more I can do than that. Moreover, this is relatively minor in the overall scheme of things. It does not justify your attempts to impugn my reputation.


I'll let the rest go, including the personal attacks, although I can see why you would make them seeing as how your reputation as a slovelnly reviewer has been exposed.

It's you who made unjustified attacks on me. You have proved yourself intransigent in the face of my clarifications and willingness to make a correction. I encourage you, Scott, to find a place to publish a review and when you do, you will learn that oversights happen, especially with programs as complex as BibleWorks, Accordance, and Logos. I am quite secure in my reputation as a reviewer; indeed, if I were not a good reviewer, I would not receive review copies nor have received my appointment at RBL.

Adelphos
05-31-2006, 03:55 PM
I have admitted to this mistake and agreed to post a correction.

This is almost funny. In the previous post you asserted that it wasn't false, now you're admitting it is. Further, in your initial reponse, you not only attempted to justify your assertions, but you then reaffirmed them, saying, "the point remains" when the point was that it was not required to have both databases open. Had you just calmly admitted the error the first time the term "intransigent" wouldn't have come up, would it?

As always, the real instransigence accuses the other of its own faults.

Fine.

In short, I didn't like your review, not for its conclusions, but for your lack of knowledge of BW, and your review doesn't even attempt objectivity.

Personally, I wouldn't sign my name to any published work unless I had taken the bare minimum steps I outlined above, and even then, I would go further. I have this thing about accuracy.

And yes, for the record, I am a published author in both the ABA and the CBA, novels mostly, and no, I have no interest in doing software reviews.

Finally, as a published author myself -- and publishing novels in the ABA is whole lot harder than publishing in some magazine -- I'm not impressed by someone who waves the "publish" flag as some sort of trophy.

Newspaper reporters screw up the facts habitually, nor can they -- generally speaking -- take correction. As a rule, they always attempt to justify their inaccuracies and shoddy investigative work. But they're basically untouchable, and the public has no clue that they're being presented with false or misleading information. Same with editors and such. Not all, of course, but more than enough.

So if nothing else, perhaps this little skirmish will make your next review of BW 7 accurate and substantial.

anduril
05-31-2006, 04:14 PM
If you had read my posts carefully, you would see that from the outset I did admit to this mistake. Every single one of my clarifications includes an acknowledgement that I overlooked the option flags. All I did was further observe that this did not invalidate my point, which is that the BNT and the BNM are equivalent to one database in Accordance.

I did not wave my publications in news magazines as a trophy, though I am proud of them (for what they are), but rather to indicate why I received review copies and so clarify that BibleWorks does not give out review copies willy-nilly. BibleWorks naturally wants exposure in national and multi-national publications. I helped facilitate that by writing my reviews in appropriate venues with substantial circulation. My reviews that are disseminated through personal websites are extras. I am not a journalist. I am in biblical studies.


So if nothing else, perhaps this little skirmish will make your next reivew of BW 7 accurate and substantial.
My interaction with Mark was useful and constructive. My interaction with you tedious, but perhaps worthwhile for others on the forum who may benefit from the additional detail in my clarifications and the information about the reviewing process.

Adelphos
05-31-2006, 04:37 PM
All I did was further observe that this did not invalidate my point, which is that the BNT and the BNM are equivalent to one database in Accordance.

Chuckle.

I was going to let this go, but it's turned so comical, and there's such a simple lesson in logic here, that I can't resist. Here's your original assertion --

"By contrast, morphological databases in BibleWorks 7 are separate texts, unsuitable for reading, that display lexical forms with single character codes appended to each form. This approach is inefficient insofar as it separates the textual and morphological databases, requiring users to have two databases open in order to search with the latter and read with the former."

And now you state --

"All I did was further observe that this did not invalidate my point, which is that the BNT and the BNM are equivalent to one database in Accordance."

Now, as one who has a pretty good grasp of the English language, I confess myself completely unable to see the point in the second assertion existing anywhere at all in the first.

True, it does say in the first quotation that the databases are separate in BW, but the point for even making this assertion is that it is "inefficient."

Why is it "inefficient" according to the statement?

Because it requires "users to have two databases open in order to search with the latter and read with the former."

But I'm probably just being intransigent.;)

anduril
05-31-2006, 05:02 PM
True, it does say in the first quotation that the databases are separate in BW, but the point for even making this assertion is that it is "inefficient."

Why is it "inefficient" according to the statement?

Because it requires "users to have two databases open in order to search with the latter and read with the former."
Actually you do have a problem in reading English, Scott. I wrote it is inefficient because it separates the databases. Then, after noting the separation, I put a comma that indicates a subordinate clause. The subordinate clause provides an example of the inefficiency.

As an example of the inefficiency, I noted, somewhat incorrectly as Mark points out, that BW requires users to have two databases open because you search in the one text (BNM) and read in the other (BNT). This part of my statement is imprecise because I overlooked the fact that you can suppress the morphological database in the browser window and so, as Mark correctly pointed out, does not require that both databases are open in the browser window. Still, the point that you search in the one and read in the other is true. Related to this, observe what is written in BibleWorks 7 Help (18 Command Line - Greek and Hebrew):


If you want to search the actual "printed" text you would need to search on the "text database". If you are interested in how particular lemmas or lexical forms are used and inflected, you would search on the morphology database.
You are welcome to try a morphological search in BNT if you like and discover the "problem" for yourself.

By comparison, in Accordance, you search in GNT-T and you read in GNT-T. There is no separation between the text database and the morphology database and consequently it is more efficient (but arguably not as versatile).

Adelphos
05-31-2006, 05:18 PM
...I put a comma that indicates a subordinate clause. The subordinate clause provides an example of the inefficiency.

Well now, you just keep digging yourself in deeper, don't you? Chuckle.

My, my, I keep having to explain your own assertions to you. More lessons in logic and grammar.

Your original quote --

"This approach is inefficient insofar as it separates the textual and morphological databases, requiring users to have two databases open in order to search with the latter and read with the former."

Notice the bold word?

In spite of you're beinig a "published" writer (congratulations, that's really something, being "published" and all) you really ought to go back and study participles, although not all ing words are participles, and not all participles function as participles necessarily, and vice versa, but in this case the function of the verb is about as clear as Denver ice water. In fact, for you, this should be required reading, I trow.;)

You see, according to the statement, it's inefficient because it separates the two databases. According to the statement, the reason the separation of the databases is a problem is because it requires "users to have two databases open..."

Now then, that's what the plain English clearly and absolutely says, no matter how much massaging one might attempt to perform because one is too -- uh, what's the word...

Ah-hah! Intransigent!

anduril
05-31-2006, 05:33 PM
Yeesh... you really don't read the posts do you? Comical... on that we can agree...

Bennett B. Wethered
05-31-2006, 10:32 PM
Dear brothers, let's all (both) go back to our respective corners, take a breath, and remember the words of our God, through the apostle Paul, when he said: Romans 12:18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.


Brothers, it is possible. And, beyond this, we must speak with one another in a spirit of love.


John 15:17 "This I command you, that you love one another."

MTan
06-01-2006, 03:53 PM
This thread is closed. Further discussion can be done off-line.

MBushell
06-01-2006, 06:54 PM
It is unfortunate when threads get so out of control that they have to be closed. I think Michael made the right decision in closing it, but since I have administrator privileges, I am going to insert a few comments. There are fewer advantages than you might think in being the head of a company. But one of them is that any time I want (at least in BibleWorks matters) I can have the last word.

I want to make it clear that we at BibleWorks have the greatest respect for Roy Brown and the rest of the crew at Accordance. They have done an incredible job over many years, and in many ways set the standards for the Bible Software industry. This assessment is based on my interactions with them on a personal level, as well as knowledge of the reputation for quality that they have had for 15 years. It is unfortunately not based on use of their software because I have never used it. I actually know very little about how Accordance works so I cannot compare the two from personal experience.

With regard to which is the "best" program, I do know that there are many people who have used both extensively and prefer BibleWorks. There are also many people who have the reverse opinion. Opinions about user interfaces are very subjective by nature. What is very intuitive for one person may not be so for another. That is why people should test drive and take the time to learn a product thoroughly before spending money on it. My advice is to take all assessments that any program is non-intuitve with a grain of salt. That assessment is very much in the eye of the beholder. The fact of the matter is that both Accordance and BibleWorks have devoted users who think their respective user interfaces are absolutely fantastic. That's why we offer a 30 day free trial period and I assume that Accordance does the same. Don't rely on comments made on this forum or any other. Try the packages out. BibleWorks may work for you. It may not. The same may be said for Accordance. Their capabilities are very close. BibleWorks does some things that Accordance doesn't, and vice versa. But they are comparable progams with different user interfaces. Our advice has always been: if you work on a PC get BibleWorks. If you work on a Mac get Accordance. I know that is an over simplification, but it is a good place to start.

With regard to the review that started this thread. I almost never read reviews of other products, even when BibleWorks is mentioned. But this one was sent to me today and I did read it. I know next to nothing about the Accordance program, so I cannot speak to that. But I do know BibleWorks, probably better than almost anyone else, since I wrote a very large part of the code and have tinkered with it on a daily basis for almost 15 years. After reading the review and comments in this thread I do believe that the review is inaccurate in a few places. Just to take two issues:

1. When the user enters an incorrect search, a message is displayed and the command line is cleared. If the user wants to edit the invalid search all he has to do is hit the up arrow and edit the text. It was done that way because I prefer it that way. For short searches it is usually quicker to retype the search than to use the arrow keys to move to the right place (for example) and delete or replace a character. Some people may not agree with this design decision but I beleve it is a judgment call and few pwople, I believe, see the way BibleWorks functions as a nuisance (I don't recall any complaints in 14 years). The way the review was written, it at least implied that the user has no choice but to retype the whole line, which is of course not the case.

2. With regard to the morphological databases - some of the statements made in the review and in this thread are not accurate. The BNT and BNM are not separate databases. They are a single database that is stored in two files. They are linked internally word for word and function as a unit throughout the program in literally hundreds of ways. Experienced BibleWorks users know that. What we have done is make it possible for the inflected forms and morphological constructs to be displayed separately, as an aid in visualizing what is going on in the database, so at first glance they may appear that they are separate. This, in my view, makes it easier for users to construct complex searches because they can see what is actually being searched. But as one user commented, the morphology part of the database does not even have to be displayed, though having it displayed is a powerful learning tool. The review says that "It is impossible to search the BNT morphologically." If I understand the comment, this is not the case. The review describes the GNT in Accordance as "a fully integrated module which you search and display together". The same is true of BibleWorks. The GSE has for many years permitted this kind of linking. In the GSE you can specify the inflected form, lemma and morphology of each search item. The integration appearsin numerous other places. If you do a text form search both the text and morphology are highlighted. You don't have to just search the form or the lemma. You can search the BNT and BNM together as a single entity, or separately. It's your choice. In the Word list manager you can gather the lemmas, forms and codes from the last search and build a word list based on all of them. I don't see how this differs from being "a fully integrated module which you search and display together".

When we were in beta testing for 7.0 we decided to change the Results Verse list default so that it displayed the text of the verses found rather than just the reference. This capability has been there for many years. But one of the testers, who had been a user for 14 years, was amazed that this wonderful new feature had been there all along. Everyone here was amused, but it made us wonder how many people out there were missing features that would really be helpful to them because they never dug beneath the surface. Reviewers can make the same mistake and that is, I think, what happened in this case. I do not fault him for that. No reviewer can possibly be an expert in every Bible Software program. We have full time tech support people who are still learning after several years on the job. And not infrequently someone tells me about a feature that I forgot was in there. I hope this doesn't sound like I am dumping on the reviewer. That is not the intent. I am just trying to correct some statements that appear to me to be inaccurate. I want to make it clear that I do not approve of tone of the discussion in this thread, at least at the end. There is no place on this forum for personal attacks. No review has ever been written that someone didn't disagree with. But we need to be able to express those disagreements in a civil manner without questioning the integrity of the reviewer.

Since this thread is now closed, you may contact me offline about the contents.

Thanks,

Mike Bushell
BibleWorks