Or hold Ctrl and scroll with the mouse wheel.
Printable View
Or hold Ctrl and scroll with the mouse wheel.
I strongly second this one. It would be amazingly useful to be able to have a setup created for one particular project, and another for a different project, and return to each of these as needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Cobb
Thanks, Michael,
Yes, that is what I am thinking of.
However, why not make that the standard action with the up and down arrows?
Morten
I imagine there's a good reason for it. It probably would make some people unhappy if it were changed. A lot of different people use the search results in different ways so I can imagine this way appeals to some people. Sometimes if I have a particular verse in the browse window and I don't want to lose it, I turn on pop ups in the search window (right click in the search window to toggle that on) or you can toggle the search results so that the full verse shows up. In those cases, I like the current behavior because I can quickly move through the verses and uncheck the ones I don't want, while not losing the original verse that I had in the Browse Window.Quote:
Originally Posted by MortenJensen
I prefer it the way it is. It makes it more flexible.Quote:
Originally Posted by MortenJensen
obviously I (we?) would like to see the NA28 incorporated. the sooner the better. I think that whenever a critical ed. such as this comes out, than soon after a new BW's edition should as well.
as stated by Morten - more Grammars, text critical works etc. to the Open Res. Summary Window. I'd also like to see things like a tagged ed. of Bullinger's figures of speech added.
- a reading of the Greek and Hebrew text. Specifically, an audio file of the entire BGT and WTT - whereas someone can follow along in the text.
perhaps the published volumes of Biblia Hebraica Quinta
and an eclectic critical edition of the Hebrew Bible, perhaps by my b-day ;-)
I missed Deissmann, because it is listed under "Greek Grammars." That seems odd. I guess it cannot be listed with the Greek lexicons, because it does not use the lexicon browser. But perhaps it should have a different category, such as "Word studies." Then someone could digitally produce "Light from the Ancient East" to go with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Hanel
Mark Eddy
I suppose that is only working for BW 9 or am I missing something? Using BW 8.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Hanel
Blessings,
Steffen
That's possible. I don't have BW8 installed any more, but if it's not there (Show verse popups) when you right click in the search results list, there may be something in the Options menu, but I doubt it.Quote:
Originally Posted by christlove
That's a recent update since BW 9.Quote:
Originally Posted by christlove
Well, one more reason to upgrade soon...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
Steffen
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.
I know, I know, not the place to engage in matters theological. (So please forgive me.)Quote:
Originally Posted by basilides
But it is interesting to think about how Paul might have answered this question.... ;)
You bring up good points, basilides.
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. MikeQuote:
Originally Posted by basilides
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).
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?
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
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by basilides
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.
Basilides,Quote:
Originally Posted by basilides
You, thought right! So, no need for apologies.
But translations in BibleWorks currently are not, "modules...add-ons, add-ins,..."
Could, BibleWorks add the NETS as an add-on module?
.(link)Quote:
Why Doesn't BibleWorks Offer Bible Texts as Extra-Cost Add-on Modules?
Our company feels that offering Bible texts as extra-cost add-on modules is counterproductive for three main reasons. One is that we want to be positioned as far as possible for charging money for the Word of God itself, and putting all offered Bible texts in the BibleWorks base package is so far our best avenue to accomplish this. The second is that offering Bible texts as modules is more expensive, both for the customer and for us. It’s more expensive for the customer because publishers, having a much lower volume on modules, charge more per module in an attempt to make up the difference. And it’s more expensive for us because the administrative overhead in preparing and licensing individual modules is much greater than that on the prorated administrative cost of having the text in our base package. Those extra module administrative costs would also have to be passed to the customer, driving up customer Bible text module prices still more. The third reason is that customers ordering Bible texts as modules will necessarily order only the few with which they’re familiar and thus lose a chance to become exposed to other texts with which they might have profitably acquainted themselves if browsing had been available. Publishers support us in this, eager to have their texts exposed to a wide audience
However, basilides if you and others petition Oxford and there is enough demand maybe Oxford could change their minds and allow BibleWorks to package the NETS Bible with their software at no extra charge. If, you do petition count me in, too.
Surely they meant that to read
Otherwise, it's kind of saying the opposite of what I think they mean.Quote:
we want to be positioned as far as possible from charging money for the Word of God itself
Well, it looks like NETS is dead and buried, as far as BibleWorks is concerned, for three frankly hard to understand business / theological reasons.
It would be useful to have access to the Göttingen LXX vs. Rahlfs LXX textual variants. Some of them are "available" online at IOSCS (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/text/religion/biblical/lxxvar/), but it would be nice to have them rendered more user-friendly and included in BibleWorks 10.
It, really would!Quote:
Originally Posted by basilides
BibleWorks has some nice resources for NT textual critics, but not much for Hebrew Bible/OT.
If, the GBS were willing to work with BibleWorks I am sure it will be possible. However, currently I have the feeling this might be difficult:
See posts #14 and #19
https://www.bibleworks.com/forums/sho...ight=apparatus
See post #5
https://www.bibleworks.com/forums/sho...ght=#post28382
Well, then, because a huge amount of LXX variants were compiled at U of Penn (and are available online, but are hard to use), wouldn't it be easy (esp. cheaper) to work out some mutually advantageous arrangement so that a user-friendly edition of the LXX variants could be incomporated into BibleWorks 10? Just a thought.
That, is a good thought and it should be a possibility after all BibleWorks already has the, CATSS/Tov Hebrew-Greek Parallel Aligned Text as part of their base-package So, BibleWorks must have some type of working relationship with U of Penn already.Quote:
Originally Posted by basilides
We hope to have some good news soon to report on this front. Sorry to be so cryptic. MikeQuote:
Originally Posted by bkMitchell
Exciting! Very exciting!
(My original post was just, "Exciting!" but I see it has to be at least 10 characters.)
Thanks, for the update!Quote:
Originally Posted by MBushell
My curiosity is piqued!Quote:
Originally Posted by MBushell
Is the news that Mike B. suddenly inherited a small fortune and has decided to buy German Bible Society?? Cuz that would be pretty neat :D
Mike Bushell is... The Crypt-Keeper!Quote:
Originally Posted by MBushell
I know there is already the "Summary" sub-tab under the Resources tab. I would really like to have a Summary (or "custom" or "personal" or whatever) tab that allows me to choose a host of resources to put in there based on my type of study at the time. Commonly, I would love to study with my analysis tab open, along with my personal notes, without giving up a context or browse view.
I often wish I had one tab that updated like the analysis tab with a couple of lexicons + X-refs + personal notes + Strongs + audio pronunciation + maybe even Matthew Henry scrolling off the bottom of the tab.
My suggestion may go against the very clean screen format that BibleWorks has maintained though. I want to cram all my short tools together and go get the more verbose tools with clicks when I need.
You can already do almost all of this!
When you are in the Resources tab, notice the sub-tabs: "Lexicons, Grammars, References." Click on each of those tabs and uncheck any resources which you do not want to see in the Summary tab. Then go back to the "Summary" subtab, and all the unwanted reference works are no longer listed. This procedure also works for the "floating" Resources window (see next).Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkmiami
Open a "floating" or "secondary" Resources window. (Click the stack-of-books icon on the button bar, titled "Open Resource Summary Window".) Move this floating window to where you can see the rest of BW as you like it, and leave your other tabs (Analysis and Notes or Browse), where they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkmiami
Your floating references window should do most of this this (lexicons & Matthew Henry), though you still have to get the cross-references, notes, and pronunciation elsewhere. Strongs numbers can be turned on in the Browse window.Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkmiami
You can open as many of these floating windows as you wish to "cram" on your screen. You can size them any size you want. Some you can minimize and call up at will, though you cannot minimize the floating Resource Summary Window.Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkmiami
Enjoy!
Mark Eddy
Here's another suggestion for the next or some future version of BibleWorks. Currently in Greek lexica such as BDAG references to biblical verses are hot links; hovering the mouse pointer over them can pop up the biblical text and clicking on them will load the verse(s) into the Browse Window. Nonbiblical references are not linked in this way, even ones that are part of BW, such as Philo, Josephus, and the Apostolic Fathers. I'd like to see these hot links include all texts available in a standard installation of BW, so that one could easily look up a usage in Philo or the Shepherd of Hermas. It's so important when doing studies of words to include as much of the Greek context as possible, not just the NT and LXX.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidr
Amen!!! Preach it!!!
I loooove having Pentecostals in the forum! :)
- The new The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Danker
- NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint)
- Tagged Vulgate
I tried to post this before but somehow it failed, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by dribex
NETS has been requested by several people in this thread. I also requested a searchable tagged Vulgate, and learned that a tagged, but non-searchable, version (VULM) is part of the BW9 package already. See my response to Mark Hoffman's post. Pending more information about the VUM that Mark mentioned, a seachable tagged version is still a desideratum.
The Peshitta OT would be extraordinary,
since it's a Ist to IIId century witness,
and it would allow complete concordances inside the PES display version.