View Full Version : BW7 vs Logos

03-23-2007, 07:43 AM
I'm currently at a conference where a vendor is trying to convince everyone to use Logos.

Does anyone here use Logos and BW? What are it's advantages and disadvantages? Is there anyway to interface the two programs to use them together?

I guess it boils down to: If I've already got BW7, is Logos worth the money?

Thanks for the help,

03-23-2007, 08:45 AM
The benefit of Logos over BW is a more diverse set of books in your library. I also like its reports. You type in your passage or topic and hit go and it finds a huge bunch of stuff. One is an exegetical study guide which does what BW does in a very different way. The other is a passage guide report which lists every commentary you have, ever topical reference, ever cross reference, and more. It is neat.

If you are only doing exegetical stuffy (original language study and diagramming) don't bother. If you want to add commentaries, then I recommend it highly.

03-23-2007, 09:09 AM
I have both and use both. I find that Logos and BW are built around different metaphors. In Logos, you're working fundamentally with books. Yes, you can search across books and across groups of books, but just like your office in the middle of a major project you end up with books open all over the place. BW seems to be built on the metaphor of a concordance. You can generate a concord in Logos, and you can work with books in BW, but it just never quite feels right to me. When I'm doing detailed exegetical work, I'm in BW because I'd be in printed concordances at that point in the process. Logos has those tools, but simply not as polished or efficient as BW. When I'm writing sermons, I'm often in in Logos because I'm working across books (commentaries and dictionaries) at that point. I like the "feel" of the Logos book metaphor at that point.

One place I particularly love BW (and another reason I'm wed to it when I'm doing exegesis) is the way the lexical tools are laid out. Simple, elegant, often very much superior to the printed version.

That's my humble two cents worth.

Clint Cozier, Ph.D.
Cherry Valley Presbyterian Church
Caledonia, MI

Michael Hanel
03-23-2007, 09:33 AM
Another factor for me anyway is that BW is a much more cost-effective program. BW tries to give you as much stuff as they can in the base package. For instance Philo, Apostolic Fathers, Josephus all being included, not to mention Robertson's grammar, Gingrich's lexicon, Holladay's lexicon etc. Except for the tools whose copyright holders require full price (BDAG/HALOT), BW tries to keep its costs to consumers as low as possible. It may mean BW doesn't have as many modules etc. overall, but what they have is pretty solid.

03-23-2007, 10:07 AM
I have a lengthy comparison of BW7 and Logos3 posted here:
There are also links to other reviews of the two programs as well as advice on setting up each.

My review is the advice I give to my students, and you will see that I recommend both depending on your goal. If your focus is on the Biblical text and directly related tools (and especially if you are working with foreign language Bibles), BW7 is best. If you are wanting to pull together a biblically oriented, linked, digital library, Logos is best.

Logos cannot link to BW7, but BW7 can link to Logos, and I do use this feature to access some books. E.g., the Bible dictionaries in BW7 are lousy, but one can buy the HarperCollins Dictionary (or even the Anchor Bible set) and right-click on a word in BW7 to cause a search for a word in Logos. I also use it to link to the NA27 and BHS critical editions (which are only available in Logos format) or to things like Luther's Works, etc. Links can also be set up in BW7 to other online resources and the ever-growing collection of addons being created by pasquale and others that are really wonderful.