I have just posted a new review of QuickVerse Mac. Hope you enjoy reading it.
I had mixed feelings writing the review, and I think this shows. I realize that other reviewers have expressed similar thoughts. So it seems to be a general thing. I’ve already mentioned that Mac users are a tough crowd to please, haven’t I? Well, there is your proof.
GMPSoft is offering a number of Bible With You products by subscription (for both Palms and Pocket PCs) at really competitive prices. Subscriptions range from 9 months to 1 year, depending on the collection chosen.
For all you iPod fanatics out there, Laridian has announced the release of the new iPocketBible New Living Translation. This product allows users to actually read and listlen to the complete New Living Translation. Looks really cool. Now I just need the iPod 
A few days ago, Rick Brannan posted an interesting example of a graphical search performed with Libronix. He wanted to find instances of the Greek adjective καλός (“good”) followed or preceded by a noun. The conditions were that they had to be 0-3 words apart, and agree in case and number. The search was restricted to the Pastoral Epistles, and he used a grammatically tagged version of NA27. The whole article explains, step by step, how to build this search, and the end result is shown below.
The Graphical Query Editor was introduced not so long ago, and its features are explained in some detail in this tutorial.
Later that same day, David Lang, member of the development team of Accordance, compared Rick’s procedure with the Construct Window that has been available in Accordance from the very beginning. His post (number 6 in the thread) glossed the simplicity and intuitiveness of Accordance when compared to Libronix.
Last Monday, Tyler F. Williams — without previous knowledge of David’s comments –, blogged about this, comparing the graphical search capabilities of these two programs.
The original query presented by Rick would look thus in Accordance:
The thread caught my attention from the start, and I was planning on writing some comments on it, but both David and Tyler drew their guns faster than me, so to speak 
Nonetheless, I would like to introduce another element that has not been mentioned yet.
There is another contestant in this area of graphical searches: the Advanced Search Engine in BibleWorks. The same search discussed above would look like this in the ASE:
As one would expect, all three programs yield the same results. They use the same databases, but their user interface and workflow are vastly different.
I decided to test the same search in Libronix, Accordance, and BibleWorks (in this particular order). If you look at the screenshots you will immediately realize some of the differences. Let me summarize them for you:
1. Libronix uses more “cryptic” language than both Accordance and BibleWorks, and requires the user to go through far more steps, in the form of dialog boxes and drop-down menus.
2. In Libronix, “At most 3″ allows for up to 2 intervening words, just like “WITHIN 3″ in Accordance. However, BibleWorks allows up to 3, so I had to use “At most 2″ in order to get the same result.
3. Both Libronix and Accordance have a Sentence search field. BibleWorks lacks a specific field, but can look for sentences and clauses by allowing or disallowing certain punctuation marks and crossing verse boundaries. Incidentally, in 1 Timothty 6:11, the term πραϋπαθίαν found by BibleWorks is a wrong hit, since it is followed by a period and should not be counted. UPDATE (August 12): It has been brought to my attention that if one specifies which punctuation marks are NOT allowed, rather than the other way round, then the search yields the right results.
4. Libronix and BibleWorks have an option to ignore word order. Accordance does not, hence the need to duplicate the Construct window, invert the search terms, and perform an OR search.
5. Each one of the programs return different statistics, but they are all right, since they follow a slightly different logic. Thus, Libronix finds 47 occurrences (hits) in 19 articles (i.e., sentences). Accordance yields 25 hits (containing the same 47 hit words found by Libronix) in 40 verses (but only 20 of those displayed contain hits). Finally, BibleWorks’ search results in 26 hits and 21 verses. Here the figures would be the same as Accordance, except for the false hit already mentioned in point 3 above. UPDATE (August 12): But see the Update. By reversing the logic of the punctuation settings one gets 25 hits in 20 verses.
My personal conclusion regarding this type of search is that BibleWorks requires slightly less steps than Accordance, and a lot less than Libronix. On the other hand, Accordance is considerably more intuitive and easier to set up than the others. As for Libronix, it’s catching up fast (considering it is only at version 2.1, and the Graphical Query Editor has been developed only recently compared to Accordance and BibleWorks).
Contributed by guest blogger Ken Ristau
OakTree Software, Inc. 498 Palm Springs
Drive, Suite 100, Altamonte Springs, FL 32701, 2001. http://www.accordancebible.com. (877) 339-5855.
Accordance Library, available at Introductory, Standard, and Premier Levels, is intended for use primarily by lay users with no knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. Most of the modules in these levels are based on public domain texts and available online for free at numerous Bible websites. OakTree, however, adds value to these texts by correcting them, adding mark-up and hyperlinks, and integrating them into a superior bible software program.
Introductory Level. The Introductory Level is a great value; the core program and the parallel databases are alone worth the low cost of $69. The most important research modules at this level are the KJV Bible with Strong’s numbers as well as Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries, the KJV Dictionary, and Wigram’s Hebrew Verb Parsings. These essential primary texts and tools are complemented by several additional reference tools and devotional titles; users can also choose one $30 Bible. I recommend users select a modern Bible, preferably the NAB, NIV, NJB, or NRSV.
At this price range, the collection, which includes traditional favourites such as Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary and Easton’s Bible Dictionary, is quite generous. There are also several useful tools that collect and organize Scripture references: Nave’s Topical Bible, Exhaustive Cross-References, Bible Outlines, Classic Bible Passages, Daily Bible Readings, and the Parables and Miracles of Jesus. These tools make it easy to locate Scripture passages and prepare Bible studies. I would, however, like to see the Revised Common Lectionary made available at this level as well as some of the modules of the Accordance Catholic Collection CD-ROM. These additions would correct the Protestant, non-liturgical bias in the collection.
Standard Level. The Standard Level is also a great value at $169. It includes everything in the Introductory Level and adds twenty-five modules. The centrepiece of this level is the NAS95 Group, which includes the modern NAS translation (1995) keyed to Strong’s numbers, NAS Notes, and NAS Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries. This group is a contemporary counterpart to the KJV research modules in the Introductory Level. At this level, users can choose two $30 Bibles. Again, I would recommend users choose from the NAB, NIV, NJB, and/or NRSV Bibles.
The Standard Level has improved considerably with the addition of the Bishop and Douay-Rheims Bibles, Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary, Barnes Notes on the New Testament, Vincent’s Word Studies on the New Testament, and Berkhof’s Introduction to the New Testament.
OakTree has also added a short essay by Adam Clarke on the Wesleyan doctrine of Entire Sanctification; in my opinion, OakTree should not develop tools such as this one as they add little value to the collection and users can easily import them from the Internet as user tools. In fact, it is misleading to advertise this short essay as a module as many potential users are likely to assume it is a significant resource. Clavis Biblica, also by Adam Clarke, would have been a more substantial and preferred addition to this level. Perhaps, if Clavis Biblica is added in the future, the essay on Entire Sanctification could be turned into an appendix of that work.
The new additions to the Standard Level are complemented by older modules in this level, such as Luther’s commentary on Galatians, the JFB Commentary of the Whole Bible, Webster’s Revised Unabridged 1913 Dictionary and various other Bibles, reference tools, and devotional classics. On the whole, the improved Standard Level is worth the upgrade from the Introductory Level. There is a strong New Testament bias, however, in this level. I would like to see that offset in future releases with the addition of Barnes Notes on the Old Testament and Keil’s Introduction to the Old Testament.
Premier Level. From the Premier Level, I only received review copies of two modules: the Greek New Testament Textus Receptus and Thayer’s Lexicon. These resources are both keyed to Strong’s Numbers, making them very useful complements to the KJV and NAS Groups. I highly recommend both resources, especially for users accustomed to using Strong’s Numbers to work in the original languages. Of course, these two new resources only whet the appetite for more. I hope OakTree will add Strong’s Numbers to a Hebrew Old Testament text and the Brown-Driver-Briggs Abridged Lexicon; and perhaps also add them to a Septuagint module and the LEH Lexicon. This will make all the major original language texts of the Bible accessible to all users.
Without a review copy, I will reserve my comments on the rest of the Premier Level, except to suggest some additional modules:
In addition to these new modules, I recommend that OakTree split the Selected Works of John and Charles Wesley into two separate modules: the Hymns of Charles Wesley and the Sermons of John Wesley. I also recommend that Accordance remove the St. Patrick of Ireland module from this level. Just like Clarke’s Entire Sanctification, it is misleading in my opinion to offer this module; it is too small and adds very limited value to this level.
Final Thoughts. As an aspiring scholar, these sorts of standard, public domain text collections irritate me. Knowing that Bible Software companies are simply responding to the demand, it makes me shudder that so many Christians, especially pastors, would rather refer to Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, or Albert Barnes than even reformation scholars such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, Huldrich Zwingli, and John Knox (of which only the former two are represented in these collections)–never mind referring to Karl Barth or contemporary theologians and homiliticians. Sadly, this is the state of Christian education in North America. Still, because Accordance actually puts the Bible front and center with its interface and search and amplify features, I, at least, take solace in knowing that those who buy one of the Accordance Library Collections will have, despite some of its resources, a program that can enable and facilitate a greater engagement with Scripture. In short, the Accordance Library 6 Collections are good value packaged with a premier Bible Software program and I can recommend them.
For those interested in learning more about the Accordance software engine, I have a thorough, newly updated review of Accordance 6 on my website. For those interested in a collection of books for Accordance that in general reflect better (still conservative) scholarship, please refer to my previous blog entry on the Essential IVP Reference Collection.
Believe me, I have tried. Not just once or twice, but many times. I usually install some Linux distro on one of my PC boxes every few months – all the way from live CDs or DVDs of various brands, or full Windows-like packages like Linspire, to more “orthodox” ones like Red Hat, or different Suse versions up to 9.3, you name it… -, and invariably I end up reformatting the Linux partition and thinking to myself, “Well, maybe next time…” (big sigh)
For one thing, I welcome any serious alternative that will relieve me from having to work with Windows. I could go on and on sharing my reasons for trying to avoid Windows as much as possible, but it’s not Windows-bashing time, so I’ll move on. Another reason is that Linux reminds me a little bit of the best current OS available (i.e., Mac OS X). But all my dreams have been shattered in view of the fact that, IMHO, Linux is not ready yet for mass consumption.
Now, what’s all this got to do with Bible software? Fair question. BibleTime 1.5 has been recently released. It looks good, and I’d love to test it, say, under Suse 9.3. But I’m still recovering from the last time I run Suse. So, if anyone out there has tried the latest release and wants to report back, I’ll be happy to post the comments here. Otherwise, I’ll have to wait for another moment of inspiration, take a deep breath, and download the software. But again, this may happen rather soon, relatively late, or never. You never know when love/hate relationships are concerned…
David Lang has written a useful comparison of different OS X Verse Insertion Utilities over at CMUG. There you’ll find a nice summary of the different tools available to OS X users for inserting Bible text in word processing applications.
Logos Bible Software has launched a new company blog, where different Logos employees will be writing about all things relating to their work in one of the leading names in the Bible software industry. Welcome to the blogosphere!
So far, you will find a couple of introductory entries by Bob Pritchett and Rick Brannan.
Contributed by guest blogger Ken Ristau
The latest edition of the RBL Newsletter reports that there is a new Bible Software review:
Scholar’s Library Silver Edition
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=4873
Reviewed by Jan Van Der Watt
While I think it is great that RBL is publishing reviews of Bible Software, I am disappointed by the nature of these reviews. This review and previous ones contain precious little information that couldn’t be gleaned from a quick perusal of the producing company’s website and, while this would be alright for a newspaper or a magazine review, a scholarly review should examine the accuracy and usefulness of the morphological databases and searches with them, provide benchmark tests, and display a greater awareness of the leading scholarly products from the competitors. The reviews by H. Van Dyke Parunak in JETS, which can be found through the reviews page of this website, are a good model for what I would expect from RBL and there are plenty of biblical scholars with the knowledge to do this sort of work.
