Bible(doesn’t)Works

So, I’ve recently been working alot with BibleWorks, in getting the NETS version imported into it properly (no, don’t ask me for it), and then getting the verse mapping properly aligned with the Rahlfs Septuaginta Greek text and with the NRSV. Of course, if I had Accordance, I might’ve simply paid a nominal fee. Instead I’ve had to do it myself, because BibleWorks has run into licensing issues with Oxford, whatever they may be. (Maybe it’s because Oxford doesn’t want its text mangled!) I have had such a headache for a week. Anyhow, here are some notes on what I did.

First, because I am something of a perfectionist, I was unsatisfied with having the names of the books be the same as they are in the NRSV and just about every other version in BibleWorks. After all, we have in NETS 1-4 Reigns, not 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings, Makkabees not Maccabees, Esaias not Isaiah, and so on. But there is unfortunately no version-specific titling. So, this means I added entries to the master book name files, so that I could name them whatever I want. This also means that I had to make up some new book abbreviations. This is because BibleWorks is limited to a three-character alphanumeric code for all booknames. It’s a poor design, and this is a workaround.

Then, having imported the text, I wanted to be able to read it in the order in which is occurs in the actual NETS (or even LXX), but this is another thing you can’t have in BibleWorks (except as a help file, which is useless as it is not part of the usual toolset). The order is determined entirely by verse numbering. Of course, for various historical reasons, the versification of the Septuagint is an absolute nightmare. But throwing the text into the order of the versification is not an acceptable solution. There is also the serious drawback that sub-verses cannot be included (1a, 1b, 1c, etc). This results in several verses in the version being extremely lengthy, including the sub-verse numbers in brackets [a], [b], [c], etc. This latter is a disaster for mapping.

So, on that mapping thing. BibleWorks can only map one verse to another. A range of verses to be mapped to another range must have the same number of verses, and those verses must be valid, existent verses in their version. (Note also that in the stupid map files, you can only enter a maximum of one chapter’s range of verses; you can’t enter a range of chapters and verses, like 10:1-20:23.) However, if there are some verses which are not included in the version (and this happens alot in the LXX, where you might be missing a whole string of verse numbers, because they either sit somewhere else or were simply not included in the translation of the Hebrew/Latin tradition of versification on which the verse numbers are based), they display as blanks. This is annoying, but bearable when dealing with the version in browse mode. However, if your book name is the same as one in another Bible version, even if those blanks are not included as mapped to some other verses as parallel to some other version, you’re going to see those versions in parallel, even if you’ve specified that they’re actually parallel to something else. That’s just atrocious. So, you have to work around this by creating new Bible book codes and name. Then it’s almost bearable, except you’ll have to remember whatever weird abbreviations you were forced by this nightmare of bytes to utilize. As I said, it’s almost bearable, except in the case of those lengthy verses with sub-verses. This is truly unacceptable: all the parallels to those sub-verses end up aligned not in the order of the sub-verses to which they’re parallel, but in the order in which they occur in their own version. So it is completely useless to map these at all.

Now, in my specific mapping situation, I wanted two things: 1.) accurate mapping of the NETS to Rahlfs LXX text, and 2.) accurate mapping of the NETS to the NRSV. I put everything in the mapping file, had everything correct, and then looked at the results. It was a total mess! In Jeremiah, although my mapping file didn’t state for any of this to happen, I would see the NETS verse aligned properly with its NRSV equivalent, but then often also the NRSV equivalent of the same chapter and verse number of the NETS (which is completely wrong more often than not in Jeremiah). In a window displaying the Rahlfs, NETS, and NRSV, things were even more unpredictable. Fortunately, I discovered another workaround: keeping the two sets of mapping separate. I keep two separate files of the Rahlfs and NRSV maps and copy into the NETS version map file the mapping which I want to use. This will suffice, but I am nowhere near happy about it. I really am incensed that I have to do such a thing.

I should not have had to spend so much tiime to get this working properly. I should not have to work around so many limitations in the software itself. And in a program which is specifically designed for presenting parallel Bible texts, I should not run into any instance (much less dozens of them!) in which I cannot meaningfully present those parallels due to the software’s own seemingly arbitrary limitations. There should not be a case in using this supposedly powerful software that my sitting with two books and comparing the text “manually” happens to be easier and more accurate than using Bible(doesn’t)Works. My notes I put together for entering the mapping are more useful than the result of the mapping itself!

So, Accordance users, do you have problems like these? Do these problems exist in Accordance? Can Accordance do the following?:
1.) Present a version in its own proper order within the normal context of searching and display
2.) Include subverses as full verses for searching, etc
3.) Accurately align all verses and subverses without mysterious glitches
4.) Utilize any system of book names one wishes

At this point, I’m seriously considering a complete switch. I could go Mac, and then have Accordance. I’ve heard it’s a zillion times better, anyway. My recent experience has pretty well pushed me over the edge. If anyone has any experience with importing and mapping Bible versions in Accordance, I’d love to hear from you.

This entry was posted in Biblical Studies. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Bible(doesn’t)Works

  1. Helen Brown says:

    I have responded on our own blog,
    http://www.accordancebible.com/Importing-Bibles-Challenge
    and encouraged our users to come and post their comments here.

  2. Wieland Willker says:

    “BibleWorks is limited to a three-character alphanumeric code for all booknames.”

    Wrong.
    I am using versions with 4 letters.

    Regarding the mapping: If you have a certain specific problem why not asking the BW stuff? They are very helpful and will certainly find a solution for you.
    Their web forum is here:
    http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/index.php?

    I LOVE BIBLEWORKS!
    :-)

  3. Steve T says:

    Makes you rather long for the day of printed concordances and index cards, huh.

  4. Nick Norelli says:

    Don’t go to the dark side, stay with PC Kevin, stay with PC!

  5. John says:

    I have used Logos (Windows and Mac) and I have used Accordance. Accordance is by far the best software available. I’ve only heard and read about Bible Works, and from what I can tell, it doesn’t even come close to Accordance. There’s a reason Bible translators use Accordance in their work.

    I encourage you to make the switch. You will be much happier with a stable, secure operating system and with the best Bible software.

  6. Rejecting the whole of BibleWorks and moving over to Accordance is a huge over-reaction to this problem. It’s a bit like throwing out one of the best encyclopedias in the world, because you don’t like the size of the margin – judge it on the contents, surely? BibleWorks is a fantastic piece of software, it is as fast as lightning for searching, extremely feature-rich, has access to all the original language texts you could want, and has a huge fan base that will work with you to solve problems. It also happens to be several times cheaper than Accordance. *Please* stick with BibleWorks a bit longer, until you get to know it better.

  7. Mike Bushell says:

    Kevin,

    A faithful user of BibleWorks alerted me to your post and suggested that I respond. So here I am. I am the owner and lead programmer at BibleWorks.

    Most of the problems in your complaint have quick and fairly easy solutions. Users can, for example, customize the book sort order and create mapping files for any version, even user created versions. I would encourage you to contact BibleWorks for assistance. If you do not get satisfactory answers you can ask to have your request escalated. To my knowledge we have not heard from you. We also have a forum where many long time BibleWorks users are available to help you avoid reinventing the wheel.

    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. A large part of your problem is, I think, that you have tried to solve problems yourself rather than seek help from us or our forum community. That’s a shame because BibleWorks is a robust, affordable and capabale platform. What you are trying to do is not that hard and it can be done with capabilities that no other program has.

    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.

    With regard to what you have been doing to import NETS into BibleWorks, I am not sure it is legal. I don’t have a copy of the Oxford license terms, but it is something you should look into.

    If you really want to switch to Accordance, feel free to do so. Contact BibleWorks support and send them your purchase date and information. Tell them that I told you to contact them. WHen they get back with me I will authorize a refund for you. Once you send us your original disks and verify that you have completely uninstalled BibleWorks from your computer, we will send you a refund. This is an exception to our usual 30 day return policy but we don’t want your money if BibleWorks is not meeting your needs.

    God bless,
    Mike

  8. Mike Bushell says:

    Kevin,

    I just heard from Glenn Weaver, one of our content developers. He said that he has had contact with you trying to resolve the issues that you raised. BibleWorks allows users to create their own versions and control mapping to other versions in a way that no other program can. But is is apprently not to your satisfaction. We try very hard, but we can’t possibly keep everyone happy. I would therefore encourage you to remove BibleWorks from your system, buy a Mac and take us up on the offer of a refund. Accordance is a fine program developed by a fine group of believers. I hope that it meets your needs.

    God bless,
    Mike

  9. Nick Norelli says:

    Hebrew Scholar: I’m sure Kevin will share this with you when he returns to comment, but he’s been working with BW for years and has created modules for the program in the past, which is what he’s attempting to do here but having some problems that have been brought on by the limitations of the program itself. I’m sure that he’s well aware of the many features and benefits of the program.

  10. Thank you for all the comments, everyone.

    I’ve been using BibleWorks since version 4, I think it was. I’d have to dig around for the package to see which it was, but I do think it was version 4. The problems that I’ve run into with the various texts of the Septuagint are, apparently, insuperable.

    Helen, thank you for the link. I hope that someone who uses the Accordance NETS can chime in. I’ll take a look over there, too. I’d like to hear how it functions.

    Wieland, mine too (version 7) includes a number of more than three-character codes, particularly in the Qumran titles, but this over-three length is unavailable for user-generated databases. I should have been more specific.

    “Hebrew Scholar”, I am not precipitous, but exasperated. I’ve been working on this for the last three weeks, and of course I’ve asked for help. BibleWorks works for many other things, but not for what I need it to do. In that case, I’ll need something else. It’s as simple as that.

    One concrete example is that of the NETS text of 3 Reigns 12:24 and 12:24a-12:24z. In BibleWorks, all of these verses need to fall under 12:24. The verses of the NRSV which these verses are parallel with are, in order, 1Kgs 11.43, 14.22, 11.26-28, 11.40, 11.21-22, 14.1-4, 14.6, 14.11, 14.17-18, 12.3, 12.4-6, 12.8-11, 12.14, 12.16, 12.21-24. All of these appear in a lump, just as all of the various NETS 12.24 verses appear in a lump. Additionally, they do not occur in that order, but in the order in which they appear in the NRSV. There is no way to achieve the mapping accurately and preserve the correct verse numbers in BibleWorks. I think this is a serious drawback, or rather a failure, that needs to be addressed in future versions. It is simply the case that there are a number of works that don’t utilize a simple, plain chapter and verse, but include sub-verses (1a, etc). If BibleWorks cannot accomodate these, then that’s a serious problem. In this case, in NETS, it makes an unwieldy mess.

    Mike, thank you for your offer. I don’t, however, want a refund. What I want is for the software to work. This is not a matter of my satisfaction, it’s a matter of having the program work for this version as it works for other versions. When the software becomes an impediment to scholarship rather than an aid to it, as it has in this case, then it needs to adapt. Is the entire Septuagint tradition meant to suffer such awkward treatment? The four questions I asked of Accordance users above also connote suggestions for the improvement of BibleWorks:
    1.) Provide a way to map the presentation of the display order in Browse mode. This is preferred to including the text in a help file, which cannot utilize the searching and analysis tools.
    2.) Provide also for the inclusion of sub-verses (1a, 1b, etc) as proper verses. This would solve all the mapping issues.
    3.) Allow user-generated databases to utilize any length of book name codes desired.
    I see number 1 as the most difficult to implement. 2 and 3 would certainly not be as hard. Even number 2 alone would be sufficient to solve the problems I’ve had. It would, however, be ideal to have solutions for all three. The peculiarities of the development of the Septuagint and of the versification of the Bible mean that many passages are in a different order than they are in the Hebrew/Latin/English/etc tradition, and this order is telling. My perfectly ordered source text should be exactly what is spit out by the export feature, with the sole difference being book names, but it is not. That seems to me a greater problem than not, as it misrepresents the text.

    Nick, thank you, yes, you’re right, of course.

  11. Lorinda Hoover says:

    I’m no expert in Septuagint studies, but I do have the NETS in Accordance, so I did some checking.

    NETS can be set so you can see the “native” NETS book names (i.e. 3 Reigns 12:24, but for searching you must use the “English” names (i.e. 1 Kings 12:24).

    When I search for that verse in NETS, the “subverses” are part of verse 24, although they are marked, and the parallel verse numbers (for NRSV, etc.) are also listed in the NETS text.

    When I open a parallel NRSV pane, only 1Kings 12:24 appears, there are no paralell verses for the “subverses.”

    I was able to paste your list of parallels into a separate NRSV search window, and the verses appeared in the order of the list. I can arrange my windows so it is next to the NETS window, to see them together, but it’s not the same as having them in the same pane.

    I don’t have any experience with importing User Bibles, so I can’t comment on that process.

    • Thanks very much, Lorinda! That’s very good to know that a list of searched verses will come up in order in the window.

      Perhaps someday, hopefully soon, all the various programs will be able to deal properly with sub-verses. It’s really important for some works, like the Septuagint, and several pseudepigrapha I can think of. Such would be a great aid to scholarship.

  12. Luke says:

    Kevin,

    For one, I think contemplating a switch simply because of a modern English translation of the LXX is rather naive. Bibleworks is geared for original language study, and any serious study of the LXX must deal with the Greek. In this case, Bibleworks is just as good as any program. For me personally, who is an intermediate Greek student, I can get by with the English translation included along with the Greek LXX just fine, and then if I definitely need the NETS I can just look at it online (or download the pdf files to my computer). In other words, I just don’t see how the exclusion of NETS, or even the difficulty of making it a user-created database, warrants you throwing out the program altogether.

    As far as Accordance being a “zillion times better,” I think that’s a gross overstatement. Actually, I have spoken with many Accordance users at my seminary who were formerly pc owners who had Bibleworks and switched to Mac because it was “cool,” and now they fire up Bibleworks on their Mac because they say it’s a lot easier, and not to mention about 1/10th of the price. The price Accordance charges is completely unjustifiable and they look no different than any other capitalistic software company, but the same cannot be said of Bibleworks, as evidenced by Mr. Bushell’s willingness to refund your product even though you’ve been using it so long. Sure, Accordance may be prettier, and sure, you may have more “add-on” options, but as far as bang-for-your-buck value, and customer support, and philosophy of business, you can’t go wrong sticking with Bibleworks even if they don’t get a deal with Oxford worked out in the near future (I hope they do, and Mike Bushell, I would look at the NETS in a different way that you do for other Bible versions since it’s not part of the inspired canon, so you would technically not be “charging for the word of God”…many would purchase this as a $20 or so add-on module).

    If you stick with Bibleworks, I recommend upgrading to BW8. You will not be disappointed with the mass of resources that are new, and some of the new features I use on a daily basis.

    • Kevin P. Edgecomb says:

      Luke, you’ve obviously not been paying attention. In addition, your comment is not only insipid, but offensive. How dare you claim that the Old Testament of the Eastern Orthodox Church is “not part of the inspired canon”! The Septuagint was good enough for the Apostles and Church Fathers, but not for you? Fortunately, I don’t really care what you “think”….

      The problem is not that I need the NETS as some kind of crutch. That’s your own facile misprision. My complaint applies to failure of the BibleWorks software itself to account for anything outside of some routine King James Bible versification. That makes it useless not only for the presentation of the NETS and the Septuagint in parallel with Hebrew and Hebrew-based translations, but it also makes it useless for the display of various works included in Charlesworth’s Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, which is another project I’m working on, and for several others that I was intending to import, for another project. Since BibleWorks is not useful to me in these writing projects, I’ll go with Accordance, the only other real alternative.

  13. Nick Norelli says:

    It’s amazing, dare I say almost idolatrous (!), how people defend things like Bible study software.

    Luke: I think you’re being a bit presumptuous with some of your statements, and others just seem silly (e.g., “gross overstatement”? Yeah, it was hyperbole, which kind of is “gross overstatement”). What do you mean when you say that “NETS… [is] not part of the inspired canon”? Whose canon would that be? The Protestant canon? You are aware that the NETS contains all of the books in the Protestant Old Testament, right? And exactly what is “inspired” about the canon? Are you of the opinion that the process of canonization was ‘God-breathed’ in the same way that the composition of Scripture was?

  14. Pingback: On Defending Bible Software « Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth

  15. Luke says:

    My bad, I completely forgot that the NETS was a translation of the OT and thought it was only one of the Apocrypha. It completely slipped my mind. I actually knew that it was a translation of the LXX because I have used it in many papers, my mind was just completely not thinking at the moment. For that, I apologize.

  16. Luke says:

    And Nick, what kind of response do you expect from such a degrading and provocative post? The title itself, not to mention the last paragraph, is enough to breed heated remarks from faithful users of the program who find it more than sufficient day in and day out. Maybe you’re calling out the wrong person, brother. It would be akin to me speaking about how terrible some author is whom is your favorite articulator of the Trinity. Bibleworks is great, cheap software made by people who sacrifice their lives for the kingdom. When I see blog posts talking about how it doesn’t work, or how some other program is a zillion times better, when I’ve used that other program and found it lacking and have heard testimony to the contrary, then I will voice my opinion just as you would if I were to post on how crappy some author is who is your favorite Trinitarian author. Or maybe you’re just as “apologist” for the Bible and don’t care when people say provocative remarks about products or authors you use/read?

    I could care less if a person switches programs, but only if they do so for the right reasons. It appears that I thought Kevin was taking a near-sighted approach to this, but his further explanations indicate that he’s not. He’s attempting projects that are above my head and beyond what I want Bible software products to do, so I respect his remarks so long as he is fair to both sides and is not so degrading. The Accordance program would not help him any more than Bibleworks if it did not have NETS as an “add-on” module, which Helen indicates in her post above. So maybe, Kevin, both Bibleworks and Accordance should change their versification procedures for add-on modules. Helen’s testimony should be enough to at least admit that Accordance would be no more useful to you for user-created modules, which is what your post is griping about in the first place. Am I wrong about this?

  17. Luke, yes, I’ve suggested to both that they implement some changes to their programs that would implement the possible use of sub-verses (1a, 1b, 1c, etc). This is necessary for a truly useful presentation of all Septuagint-based texts in relation to Hebrew-based texts. That is only one of the issues. The other problems I mentioned with BibleWorks are not present in Accordance. Furthermore, and most importantly, Accordance simply has more available modules (particularly the Dead Sea Scrolls Biblical Texts), even if they may cost more, and more capabilities. One which will be very useful to me is the ability to construct a concordance out of any text. Accordance’s concordancer has been used to construct several published concordances. BibleWorks doesn’t have that capability at all, which is rather striking. And since all of this effort of mine is precisely in regards to preparing a concordance to the NETS for publication, BibleWorks is only partly useful in that respect, for there are areas where it simply doesn’t work in the way that I need it to. The areas where it does work, it doesn’t work well.

    For other, more mundane usage, BibleWorks is just fine. But for this work of mine, and some other work on the horizon, it’s an only partly useful tool at best, so I’m going to use another tool that is more useful: Accordance.

  18. Luke says:

    Kevin,

    You’re obviously a student who wants to do far more advanced things than I do with Bible software, so I realize that I’m way out of my league here. As to what you mentioned about Bibleworks, it appears to me that they have the Dead Sea Scrolls texts (English translations and manuscripts) as add-on modules, or are these not what you’re talking about? The price is even cheaper for them than Accordance. As far as more “capabilities,” I keep hearing that said and have yet to see it demonstrated. Both have capabilities that the other one does not, but no single unique capability puts it over the edge, IMO. The “concordance” thing I am uncertain about and struggle seeing the relevance and why you think it should be a no-brainer in Bible software. Can you help me see why this could be so useful, given that the program itself is more powerful than any paper concordance than money can buy? Why should Accordance users need this tool? I know Bibleworks was used for the new Reader’s Greek-English lexicon by Burer and Miller. You mention how Bibleworks doesn’t work well in the areas it does work, I would like to ask, which ones? It works very well for me.

    If you are planning on preparing a concordance for NETS, then go broke for a season and buy Accordance since it has the tools you need for that particular project. With a new Mac and Accordance, that’s quite a hefty price tag. Although maybe you could just buy a cheap Accordance package and keep your Bibleworks and run it on Mac for the other things (I know people that do this). Hopefully it will be published and you will get the money back (or just contact Accordance to do a review on your blog and maybe you can get a gratis copy). However, just because Accordance would be better for that project does not make it a zillion times better overall, and it certainly does not mean that Bibleworks doesn’t work, which are two things you said in your original post. Just because it does not work for one thing does not mean that it doesn’t work for all things (fallacy of composition). If it didn’t work then so many scholars wouldn’t use it.

    Sorry again for my comments above about the NETS. I feel like an idiot. Strange it slipped my mind and I thought it was just the Apocrypha even though I used it on a couple of Hebrew exegeticals this past semester. I believe the LXX is imperative for studying the OT and early Christianity, and I rejoice in the NETS translation (it was much needed). I would love to see it come to Bibleworks and think it’s so important that Mr. Bushell at least needs to consider making it available as an add-on module for maybe around $20 or so. I noticed it’s $40 for Accordance, so maybe trying to cut that in half would suffice for Bibleworks (which in general is usually about half the price of Accordance). I would purchase it in a heartbeat long before I would purchase the print version.

    Godspeed to you and your concordance journeys!

    • Luke, the problem here is not with I wrote, but with your reading of it. I never said BibleWorks doesn’t work for everything, only for those specific items that I listed, which are all related to user-created databases. It works well enough in the usual versions, but there are issues with the Septuagint-based ones that need to be addressed properly (which haven’t been to this point, and perhaps never will be). As this is my primary usage of BibleWorks at the moment, of course I’m frustrated to have to correct much that is wrong with it personally, and to find some serious limitations that will require reprogramming the software itself for them to be solved. And then to find that these solutions are apparently not particularly important to the software developers is even more frustrating.

      There are people who actually do want concordancing software in their software, not just for Bible versions, but for any literature. The utility of such is simply obvious to them. If you don’t need it, that’s fine, too. But it’s an extremely useful tool, and particularly useful for people who don’t want to drop the dime for Bible software. It’s a wider world than that of mere computer users that some of us live in. Printed concordances are typically not simply a printout of the location of all the words, their locations and contexts. Mine, for instance, will be including an index comparing proper nouns in the NRSV and NETS, which you wouldn’t be able to generate accurately electronically no matter what you tried to do in BibleWorks. That takes a brain. Likewise the organization of the text and the determination of which words to leave out of the main concordance (“skip words”) are something that require personal supervision and input. Building a printed concordance is simply not something that any software alone can do. In any case, as I mentioned in an earlier post (which it appears you haven’t read), I have other software that I’m building the concordance with. It’s not limited by the issues of sub-verses, thankfully. But it would have been very nice to have the concordancing software as part of the software that I’m using to do prepare the NRSV-NETS name comparison index. Also, some people simply prefer to work offline.

      In regards to the Dead Sea Scrolls, BibleWorks offers the Dead Sea Scrolls sectarian texts (which I have, and have found useful), which are the non-Biblical ones, but they don’t offer the Biblical texts. Accordance offers the DSS sectarian and Biblical texts, in two separate modules that combined are still far less expensive than the printed editions.

      Thanks for your good wishes. Good luck with your own work.

  19. Nick Norelli says:

    Luke: I expect the kind of response that takes into account the entire post, not just the last paragraph or the title. Kevin’s explained his reasons for his dissatisfaction with the program and that shouldn’t have been dismissed to simply defend it because you like it (btw, I like it too and use it daily with great profit). Had you made an informed statement regarding the substance of Kevin’s complaint rather than a snap judgment because he said BibleWorks doesn’t work [for what he needs it to work for] I’d have no problem with you voicing your opinion (in fact I have no problem with it now). So to take your analogy, if you were to say something about my favorite author or whatever, I’d weigh it before rushing to judgment. I’d have to see if your complaints were valid or at the very least informed. To just say that someone sucks as an author is fine, but it’s just an opinion. Nothing for me to get riled up over even if I disagree. But if I can give an example from real life, I recently proof-read a PhD thesis for a friend and he takes to task three of my favorite authors, but at the same time he makes some very good points and those points have forced me to reconsider my agreement with those authors on certain points. The point it that I can’t get mad because someone thinks someone I agree with (or even me) is wrong. Just like I can’t get mad that someone thinks the Bible study software I use doesn’t work or is just downright horrible. I can disagree, sure, but that’s something else. In any event, all the best to you, and while I’m dying to answer the question you asked Kevin about the concordance thing, I’ll leave him to explain it seeing as how he can do it far better than I can.

  20. Kevin,

    We’re late throwing our two cents in. Hope its still worth something to you.

    BibleWorks is a good program that does exactly what it has set out to do. It will only help those who use it. In fact, both of us used it for about a year and half (BibleWorks 6). It was our first Bible software.

    However, we both got Macs and switched to Accordance (when it was version 6), and the experience has been much more pleasant. The greatest advantage (as opposed to BibleWorks) is the user interface which is very simple. We found BibleWorks’ interface too bulky and it took a while (too long in our view) to learn. Accordance is much more user-friendly. We’ve never owned a copy of Logos and by the way they keep BibleWorks and Accordance from obtaining copies of certain digital books (shady!), we plan to never give them money.

    And as far as your specific NETS problem, its not a problem in Accordance, as Helen notes.

    Join the dark side!

    D&T

    • Thank you for your input, Daniel and Tonya. Someone sent me some very clear screen shots, demonstrating the layout. It’s very nice, and very clear. I like the fact that it’s not cluttered with menus and buttons and boxes and such.

      I don’t use Logos for the Bible software aspect, so I wouldn’t know how well it works in that regard. But as a tool for keeping an electronic library of past issues of journals, and various other books, it works just fine. I see they have a Mac version now, too. I see some overlap in their coverage with Accordance, at least for all the things that I have. I hope they’re not holding onto anything you really want, though. That would be too bad.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>