Accordance verses bible works

[anduril]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

Yeesh... you really don't read the posts do you? Comical... on that we can agree...

[Bennett B. Wethered]

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]

This thread is closed. Further discussion can be done off-line.

[MBushell]

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