This resource should have been included in BibleWorks years ago. It is what many loyal customers have been, are, and will be asking for. See short discussion, below.
New English Translation of the Septuagint (2009 edition).
BibleWorks is being strangely stubborn about this refusal, but it's their company, so they can, of course, do what they want. But as written in a previous post:
Regarding NETS, Accordance, and BibleWorks, there was an interesting discussion on a thread at http://www.bombaxo.com/blog/?p=1542, where Mike Bushell posted this (28 July 2009):
While Accordance is a great program, it is very expensive and there are thousands of people who do not agree that it is a better solution for those seeking high-end Bible analysis tools.... With regard to the NETS version: we tried to get this version in BibleWorks and could have done so as an external (expensive) module. We have a long standing policy of not charging for the Biblical text. We never charge for the Word of God. That is why we have no Bible versions available as modules. It is a matter of conscience with us. We prefer to absorb the royalties and cut costs everywhere we can to pay the royalties. Most publishers understand why we want to do things this way and work with us to make it possible. A very small number do not and we do not carry their translations. This allows us to provide an extensive collection of Biblical texts that no one else can match. We were unable to work out a deal with Oxford that would allow us to put NETS in the base package, so we declined their offer. I am sorry that this is an inconvenience for some people but we believe this policy is pleasing to the Lord and have no plans for changing it, no matter how much it may hurt us financially.Well, it hurts us financially, too, because, as you said above, Accordance is very expensive, and we (who have been with BibleWorks since Hermeneutika days) have to mess with Mac emulators (though Accordance is coming out with a Windows version in 2013) and the like to have access to certain useful resources for biblical analysis (MH: who said anything about NETS being a sine qua non? It is simply useful, and much better than the current English translation done a century or so ago.).
By the way, is BibleWorks endorsing the so-called LXX as the inspired Word of God? If not, then NETS (a translation of a translation of ... ?) could be offered as a module, which would be better than nothing. Problem solved.
Yes, no theological discussions, please. But I said the above in the post because I am sure the "Bibleworks" authorities do not consider the LXX to be divinely inspired, therefore it would be kosher to include the NETS in the next version (10), so I will upgrade to it in a heartbeat -- especially if NETS is included, module or otherwise. Please make it so, Mike. See Luke 6:30 for details.
EDIT: This was written before I saw Mike's last post (Feb. 22, 10:27 AM). I do not wish to seem to be urging BW away from a serious moral and spiritual principle, but I do stand by the point (if it is a point!) that I'm making.
A fool rushing in here, but.... No doubt many ancient Jews did consider the LXX divinely inspired (which is the whole point of the story about 70 translators coming up with the identical translation), and that included the Greek-speakers among the Jews who founded Christianity. I'm not so sure about early non-Jewish Christians. Origen, at least, was aware of text-critical issues, and of other Jewish versions besides LXX.
But in a sense, that is neither here nor there. If BW wants to be broadly inclusive in its understanding of what constitutes the word of God in its business model (which ought to accord with one's theology, but is not necessarily the same thing), that is up to them. I'm inclined to apply Romans 14 on this (as on much else): "Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another" (v. 13a).
OTOH.... If this business policy causes aggravation and even harm to their customers, it could simply mean a loss of business. But perhaps ... ooh, this is getting theological, isn't it? ... it's also an occasion to "resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another" (Rom. 14:13b). IOW, be a little flexible, and "do not let your good be spoken of as evil" (Rom 14:16).
This isn't a big deal to me personally, since I wouldn't use NETS that much anyway. But clearly it's important to a number of people. I'm consistently amazed at the flexibility that the apostle Paul models in his Christian walk, and perhaps this is indeed an occasion to bend a bit. If Oxford is being intransigent (and I imagine there is no intransigence like that of an ancient British publishing house), and if people are willing to pay what an external NETS module would cost due to that intransigence, maybe a little holy and humble flexibility is in order. After all, "It is to peace that God has called you" (1 Cor. 7:15).
Not wanting very much to beat a dead horse, and perhaps what follows is due to my being dense in the head, but couldn't BibleWorks offer NETS that could be purchased as a module, an extra, an add-in, whatever, which would not, as I understand them, violate any of BibleWork's stringent policies?
Yes, a dead horse, I agree. Just two cents: While I personally would not mind, if BW stepped aside from the policy in this instance, then I can easily see how it would force them to do so many other times. For instance: The newest Danish version is presently not onboard due to this issue.
And if the choice is between the present policy and the Logos/Accordance price policy, I am one happy BW-customer! What we get in the package presently is beyond comparison. Take a look at how stuff like the Sinaiticus-manuscripts etc. are priced by Accordance - or Early Church Fathers.
My main worry is rather if BW can stay competitive with the present policy. My feeling is that many Logos and Accordance users get accustomed to add modules all the time. In the end, they (happily) spend far more money, than BW users do.
A thousand pardons. I thought BibleWork's modules were extras, add-ons, add-ins, or whatever they are called, items that could be purchased separately and voluntarily by customers with special interests and needs, but I am mistaken. Apparently. Errare humanum est, sed in errare perseverare diabolicum, as the expressions goes.