Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 54

Thread: BibleWorks 9 vs Logos 4 Original Languages

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    383

    Default

    Just to address one of the original questions briefly, regarding the "cluttered" looking main window, one of the strengths of BibleWorks (which may or may not also exist in Logos, I don't know) is the ability to view text in a variety of different ways.

    If you just want to look at a stretch of Greek or Hebrew text, say, without search and analysis windows, you can open a new browse window, which will "float" above the original BW window, and read in it, mark it up, etc.

    If you want to look at the Hebrew and LXX of a particular passage side by side, with no other complications, you can open a parallel versions window with just those two versions (or any other versions you want), again separate from the main BibleWorks window.

    If you want to look at parallel biblical passages side by side, from the gospels, say, or from Kings and Chronicles, there are predefined synopsis views, or you can create one of your own fairly easily. Again, this is in a window separate from the main window.

    So you can pretty well customize your viewing and study of the text to your needs and preferences. You can have multiple instances of these types of windows open, and parallel and synopsis window setups can be saved to use again later.

    You also mentioned at one point studying the use of the Jewish scriptures in the NT. BW comes with Gleason Archer and Gregory Chirichigno's Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament, which is fairly useful for this. It also comes with the NET Bible notes, which include cross-references to Hebrew Bible quotations; hovering the mouse over the reference will pop up a window with the text, and you can configure what versions appear in the popup.

    So, from a user-interface perspective, there is just a lot of configurability in BibleWorks. I have no idea how that compares to Logos, not having used the latter, but I think it's a real strength of BW.
    David Rensberger
    Atlanta, Georgia

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    471

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robrecht View Post
    Hi, all.

    One of my concerns is that the very cluttered 'look' of BibleWorks. Is there a full screen toggle where the menu bars can be eliminated from the screen? Does one always need to have three windows (search, browse, analysis) open all the time? Is the size of each of three these windows adjustable?
    Does this answer your first question?
    Name:  BW9.jpg
Views: 286
Size:  463.3 KB




    Yes, the windows are adjustable and the analysis window can be hidden or stacked below the main window, too.
    Name:  BW09.jpg
Views: 285
Size:  447.7 KB
    Last edited by bkMitchell; 06-10-2012 at 01:01 AM.
    Brian K. Mitchell
    חפשו בתורה היטב ואל תסתמכו על דברי
    http://www.adfontes.mitchellbk.com/


  3. #13

    Default

    Thank you very much, Brian. That is very helpful. Someone should make a movie about you and call it The Life of Brian.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    383

    Default

    WRT the use of the Jewish Scriptures in the NT, I should also have mentioned the X-Refs tool in the Analysis Window, which allows the viewing of cross-references found in various versions and tools plus a consolidated list for each biblical verse compiled from those versions and tools. I just used it to locate uses of Ps 34:8 in 1 Pet 2:3 and Heb 6:5 very quickly.
    David Rensberger
    Atlanta, Georgia

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    23

    Default

    I use both programs because they both have different strengths. One advantage BW has that no one has mentioned yet is that the note taking ability works well. Logos has made strides to improve their notes, but if you want to take notes within the program, BibleWorks is better.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    471

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robrecht View Post
    Thank you very much, Brian. That is very helpful. Someone should make a movie about you and call it The Life of Brian.
    My roommate in University used to, to use the same joke.

    In terms of Morphologies esp for the Greek New Testament I feel BibleWorks is the best. Why?

    (1) It has far more Greek Texts in the Basepackage

    (2) Over 20 years BibleWorks puts a lot of effort into correcting their texts. And, they take errors very seriously. Report an error and you'll find out that within 24 hours it will either be correct or someone will talk to you about it. I recall on thought there was an error in the BDB a while back and the posted about it here on the forums and in less than a few hours someone from BW got back to them about it. For, the release of version 9 they did a lot of updating of all their original language texts.

    (3) The Version Datebase Compiler. BibleWorks allows you to input your own Hebrew, Greek, tagged texts (as well any other language) and have then act and be search like text native to it. You will have to compile Greek and Hebrew in the CCAT format.

    BibleWorks does not yet have any searchable Syntactical Database.
    The only 'commercially available' programs that have those are Accordance and Logos at the moment

    Here is the reasoning behind that:
    Quote Originally Posted by MBushell View Post
    We have avoided syntactical databases because when push comes to shove they have limited value for advanced scholars and tend to be very difficult to use for beginners. By nature they are very subjective. In order to understand a complex verse an interpreter needs to immerse himself in the Greek text and syntactical databases quickly become just one opinion among many. Like commentaries, they are useful to consult, but should never be relied on. That does not mean that we won't add any such databases. This just explains why we have not seen it as a priority. We have investigated alternatives and they tend to be too expensive to put them in the base package and to expensive as external modules for most of our users. We decided not to do it until we could do our own so that it could be incorporated in the base package and made available for everyone. This is really important to us. It is on our list but we have no idea at this point how much Windows 8 will gum up development works.
    Last edited by bkMitchell; 06-10-2012 at 06:46 PM.
    Brian K. Mitchell
    חפשו בתורה היטב ואל תסתמכו על דברי
    http://www.adfontes.mitchellbk.com/


  7. #17

    Default

    Thanks, Brian. Very helpful.
    Last edited by robrecht; 06-10-2012 at 10:15 PM.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    471

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by robrecht View Post
    ... learned this when helping to correct the GRAMCORD morphological database to bring it into line with the standard published works. Paul Miller was very accommodating with poor doctoral students for this kind of help and provided many of us with free versions. I may even still have the floppy disks somewhere!
    Now, that's cool!
    I was required to use Gramcord for Windows back in the 90's.
    I still have a lot of respect for the Gramcord program and it's offshoot Accordance.
    Brian K. Mitchell
    חפשו בתורה היטב ואל תסתמכו על דברי
    http://www.adfontes.mitchellbk.com/


  9. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nord Zootman View Post
    I use both programs because they both have different strengths. One advantage BW has that no one has mentioned yet is that the note taking ability works well. Logos has made strides to improve their notes, but if you want to take notes within the program, BibleWorks is better.
    I use both programs, too, and I agree about the notes feature in Bibleworks. I do not use notes at all in Logos. There are users who complain about typing lag in notes and overall, that the more notes you take, the more you may slow down L4. Another consideration to be made is the hardware demands. L4 demands far more in hardware to run the program at a speed the user may term "snappy".
    These are all observations that I have distilled from the Logos forums. Check out their wiki to see the numerous ways users try to get L4 running acceptably. Hope this helps. I like books so I need the library features in Logos. I do the original language study in Bibleworks and then link to L4 for commentary use.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    159

    Default

    The two features of Logos that I find valuable (and would love to see on BW) are the reverse interlinears and the expanded graphing of word and text results (Logos' interactive word study graphs are quite instructive). Beyond that, Logos is simply a library reader (the syntax analysis tools are still pretty weak).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •