View Full Version : Van Der Watt's Logos Review

08-01-2005, 10:10 PM
Here a link to Jan Van Der Watt's recent review of Logos:


I support the philosophy of Bibleworks; just thought the review from across the fence would be of interest to this audience.

(If it's not appropriate to supply competitor info here I'd be happy to remove my post.)

Roy S. Miller
08-02-2005, 12:01 AM
The review was so superficial that it was worthless.

Despite such reviews it is impossible to believe that any discerning user would use Libronix for intense Bible study. Any credible reviewer would note that BibleWorks is a couple of orders of magnitude more efficient for real Bible study (not just being used as a digital library (the find all references to a verse in all resources is Libronix's best feature!)) as far as usability (human factors), power and speed. BTW, this is NOT being said as some moronic BibleWorks sycophant.


David Kummerow
08-02-2005, 06:49 PM

I hope you might find my review not quite so "superficial":


Note well: the searches that appear in the review CANNOT be performed with BW. I tend to use BW for "everyday" stuff, but use SESB in conjunction with BW for more complex OT searching. The BW auto-info widow really stands out, and my feeling is is that if one has used or gotten used to it you really can't go back to something else.

David Kummerow.

08-02-2005, 07:18 PM
I hope you might find my review not quite so "superficial":
Well, I don't know about the review of the software, but the section on Mal. 2:16 gave me a headache. For the Hebrew lightweights here (that would be me), what is the conclusion? What is 2:16 supposed to be saying, in English, as opposed to how it is translated?

And you should probably reply in the non-BW forum, as we've drifted a bit off-topic (well, actually, the thread was off-topic from the beginning).


David Kummerow
08-03-2005, 08:16 AM
The point I wished to make on Mal 2:16 is that since a predicative participle in BH requires an explicit subject, we can thus rule out translations (and interpretations) such as "I hate divource..."

However, this by no means solves the difficulty with the verse, as a quick glance at any commentary should testify. Personally, I think the most satisfactory solution is to point שנא as a participle. שלח can be left as is and taken as a piel infinitive functioning as a main verb. The verse could therefore be rendered: "For the hater divorces," says Yahweh the God of Israel, "and covers his garment with violence."

As Shield's says, Mal 2:10-16 addresses the faithlessness of the people of Judah. This is being expressed in (1) syncretistic worship (vv.11-12) and (2) in the divourcing of covenant wives (vv.13-16). He argues that the juxtaposition may indicate a link - either idolatry contributing to divorce or divorce had promoted idolatry. Such faithlessness is being condemned by Yahweh.