Page 6 of 22 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 211

Thread: What would you like to see in BibleWorks 10?

  1. #51
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lee View Post
    That's a recent update since BW 9.
    Well, one more reason to upgrade soon...

    Steffen

  2. #52

    Default NETS: New English Translation of the Septuagint (2009 edition)

    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.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    105

    Default What Would Paul Quote?

    Quote Originally Posted by basilides View Post
    By the way, is BibleWorks endorsing the so-called LXX as the inspired Word of God?
    I know, I know, not the place to engage in matters theological. (So please forgive me.)

    But it is interesting to think about how Paul might have answered this question....

    You bring up good points, basilides.
    Last edited by AbramKJ; 02-22-2013 at 11:20 AM. Reason: (gasp! forgot a comma before a vocative address in my last sentence)

  4. #54

    Default Heaven Forbid!

    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.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    838

    Default Nets

    Quote Originally Posted by basilides View Post
    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.
    I am sorry if our failure to license the NETS translation upsets any of our users. While there are some books in the LXX that I would not consider canonical, it is nevertheless for the most part a translation of Scripture (and quoted by Paul as such). It is in some ways like the English translations that we include which contain the Apocrypha. I know that there are a lot of people who do not understand or approve of our philosophy in this regard, but it is a core belief and I do not see it changing. The making and marketing of "new" Scripture texts has become a very lucrative enterprise and one that we do not feel is pleasing to the Lord. Our policy on selling Biblical versions as modules is the only way we have of bucking the trend. It also has the nice side effect of allowing us to put a large number of translations in our base package. If we moved to module pricing no one could afford such a collection. There is no doubt that this policy has hurt us as a company, but there are people out there who appreciate what we are trying to do. In the end the Lord will determine whether we are being foolish or faithful. BW10 is a long ways off but we do have some nice new additions planned. Mike

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    376

    Default

    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).
    Last edited by DavidR; 02-22-2013 at 11:44 AM.
    David Rensberger
    Atlanta, Georgia

  7. #57

    Default Am I missing something?

    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?

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    186

    Default

    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.

    Morten

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    471

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by basilides View Post
    ... couldn't BibleWorks offer NETS that could be purchased as a module, an extra, an add-in, ...
    What, about the other publishers whose translations come with BibleWorks? Wouldn't they too want a piece of the cake if BibleWorks did what you suggest?
    Brian K. Mitchell
    חפשו בתורה היטב ואל תסתמכו על דברי
    http://www.adfontes.mitchellbk.com/


  10. #60

    Default Good Grief!

    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.

Posting Permissions

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