Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 54

Thread: BibleWorks 9 vs Logos 4 Original Languages

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nord Zootman View Post
    ... One advantage BW has that no one has mentioned yet is that the note taking ability works well.
    Er, ahem: that should be "that no one other than Dan Phillips has mentioned yet, and he made a big extended deal about it in the linked article."
    Dan Phillips
    Books:Web presence:
    tfo+[]l;w> hw"hy> tr:AT-ta, vArd>li Abb'l. !ykihe ar"z>[, yKi

    s `jP'(v.miW qxo laer"f.yIB. dMel;l.W

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bobvenem View Post
    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).
    Hi, Bob.

    What are advantages of the Logos interlinears over the BibleWorks parallel texts?

    Thanks, Robrecht

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Phillips View Post
    Er, ahem: that should be "that no one other than Dan Phillips has mentioned yet, and he made a big extended deal about it in the linked article."
    Sorry Dan! I didn't go to your linked article. You are actually the person who got me interested in BibleWorks to begin with. It is on every time my computer is on and I use dropbox to keep my notes current between my desktop and my lap top. Can I be forgiven if I also mention your two great books? I am teaching proverbs on Sunday nights and have recommended your commentary to the congregation. My deacons don't know it yet, but they will be reading "The World Tilting Gospel" this next year.
    Last edited by Nord Zootman; 06-11-2012 at 11:58 AM.

  4. #24

    Default

    Wow, Nord: I make a snarky little quip, and you reward me with three very kind, encouraging, day-making remarks. Thank you so much.

    (c:
    Dan Phillips
    Books:Web presence:
    tfo+[]l;w> hw"hy> tr:AT-ta, vArd>li Abb'l. !ykihe ar"z>[, yKi

    s `jP'(v.miW qxo laer"f.yIB. dMel;l.W

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    471

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by robrecht View Post
    7. I've read that searches on BibleWorks are much faster.


    Yes, normal Boolean searches take less than a second.
    There is more that one can think about, too. For example the flexibility of building Morphological queries(at least for me) is much greater in BibleWorks.
    For, example searches(normal, lema, regular expressions, etc) can be conducted by:
    (1) Mouse click
    (2) Command line
    (3) The GSE = Graphic Search Engine

    With the GSE one can construct syntax like queries. One can specify the location in the verse of individual elements and the phenomenon he/she is searching for. One can build very complex searches with intervening elements, morphological features, proximity, location, and more. It is also easy to use to compare an Original language text with/or against a translation. The GSE isn't very pretty, but it is very powerful! And, it's one my favorite features of BibleWorks.
    Brian K. Mitchell
    חפשו בתורה היטב ואל תסתמכו על דברי
    http://www.adfontes.mitchellbk.com/


  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robrecht View Post
    What are advantages of the Logos interlinears over the BibleWorks parallel texts?
    First, they are true interlinears, in that the translated words are directly under their original language sources (BW displays either parallel lines or parallel columns, but not word-for-word interlacing). Second, several different resources can be turned on at will depending on the level of detail required for each word (BW also has the resources available, but they are in the analysis window, not embedded in the interlinear as Logos does). And finally, the reverse interlinear uses the English as the base text rather than Greek or Hebrew as in a traditional interlinear, making Biblical language use more accessible to the English Bible student with limited grasp of Greek and Hebrew (BW does not at present have any reverse interlinear modules).

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bobvenem View Post
    First, they are true interlinears, in that the translated words are directly under their original language sources (BW displays either parallel lines or parallel columns, but not word-for-word interlacing). Second, several different resources can be turned on at will depending on the level of detail required for each word (BW also has the resources available, but they are in the analysis window, not embedded in the interlinear as Logos does). And finally, the reverse interlinear uses the English as the base text rather than Greek or Hebrew as in a traditional interlinear, making Biblical language use more accessible to the English Bible student with limited grasp of Greek and Hebrew (BW does not at present have any reverse interlinear modules).
    Although I question the real usefulness of interlinears, I would point out that BW does have something quite close to a reverse interlinear: several English versions (KJV,NASB) and other language versions (Segond in French, etc.) are fully tagged so that by simply hovering your mouse over a word, you get a complete parsing of the Greek or Hebrew word behind it. You can also do that with the "word tips", which immediately give you the parsing, plus the Strongs number and a basic gloss. So the the only real difference from a reverse interlinear is that you don't have the two rows with the English translation directly above the Greek/Hebrew text.

    Having said that, I personally wouldn't recommend an electronic interlinear (especially a reverse one) to anybody. The long-term usefulness of any Bible program is the ease with which you can access the Biblical text (as well as other Greek/Hebrew texts from the same period) and, through regular reading, become comfortable with reading the original text itself. The problem with interlinears is that they strongly inhibit that regular direct contact. BW is particularly suited for building familiarity with the original languages, since it comes, not only with the NT and LXX but also, as part of the base package, Josephus, Philo, the Apostolic Fathers, and the OT pseudopigrapha (did I mention that all these are fully tagged and searchable?). These alone in Logos, as separate add-ons, would cost your far more than the base package of BW9. Plus, in BW9, you also get photo-facsimiles of several of the major NT manuscripts and full electronic transcriptions!

    Donald Cobb
    Aix-en-Provence, France

  8. #28

    Default

    Thanks, Bob. I agree with Donald, however, the disadvantages of interlinears for those who have at least a basic familiarity with the original language. That said, I'm wondering if Logos allows one to customize the display of the reverse interlinears so that the original language is displayed first. More generally, is there any other usefulness at of the reverse interlinears, if one wants to prioritize one's interactions with the original language. Obviously, you can get a quick assessment of the character of a specific translation.

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joan Korte View Post
    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.
    I suppose the pro's and con's have been flushed out pretty thoroughly, but I figured I'd add a +1 to what Joan Korte said. The notes feature of BW is a big bonus for me. And the overall speed of BW over logos in every respect is ginormus.

    Dave
    David Spear
    Calvary Chapel of Manassas
    Manassas, Va. 20110
    http://www.calvarychapelmanassas.org/
    KJV Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without (apart from) the deeds of the law.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robrecht View Post
    Thanks, Bob. I agree with Donald, however, the disadvantages of interlinears for those who have at least a basic familiarity with the original language. That said, I'm wondering if Logos allows one to customize the display of the reverse interlinears so that the original language is displayed first. More generally, is there any other usefulness at of the reverse interlinears, if one wants to prioritize one's interactions with the original language. Obviously, you can get a quick assessment of the character of a specific translation.
    Answering your second comment first, to make the original language display first would create a standard interlinear.

    As for the first point (inhibiting familiarity with the original language), I teach a course on using original language tools to those who use only the English Bible. It gives the students a taste of the original without requiring them to learn another language. Learning Greek and Hebrew is preferable.

Posting Permissions

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