Which publisher is more conservative, Eerdmans or Zondervan?

[Brian K. Mitchell]

Unix,

 

One, general speaking it is illegal to 'modify' a work under copyright.

If, you were to do so you could be found guilty of creating a 'derivative work'.

 

And two, there are many different transliteration systems.

Accordance, would have to be programmed to recognize various transliteration systems including those that an author has improvised and then convert them to Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Coptic, and so on. Could it be done? Sure, but it wouldn't be easy and it might create a lawsuit if a company like Accordance were to start editing copyrighted databases unless they had permission to do so.

 

 

However, if you find Beta-code transcribed Greek texts you can convert text into unicode here:

http://litot.es/unicode-converter/

Edited February 23, 2013 by bkMitchell

[Unix]

I didn't mean modifying the original work. Only that I would like to work with one word at a time, for personal use. And if I use the word publicly I wouldn't state that the book had it. I find it very surprising that Accordance can't do this. Is there no such kind of functionality or lexicon?:

One, general speaking it is illegal to 'modify' a work under copyright.

If, you were to do so you could be found guilty of creating a 'derivative work'.

[Brian K. Mitchell]

I find it very surprising that Accordance can't do this. Is there no such kind of functionality or lexicon?:

Unix,

 

There are programs that can convert from the standard ASCII Beta-Code to Unicode fonts.

 

But, I do not know of any program that can take into account the vast multitude of arbitrary transliteration systems and then convert them into Greek or Hebrew on the fly. The reason being is there are too many off them out there. You'd basically have to create a different converter for every single resource or module.

[Unix]

I'll return to the OP subject in this post.

Thanks bkMitchell, well it looks like (also because of a few less important reasons) that I should get a desktop computer to complement the laptop that I have, in order to get a large enough monitor and then there is something I could use as a sollution for those transliterated words:

But, I do not know of any program that can take into account the vast multitude of arbitrary transliteration systems and then convert them into Greek or Hebrew on the fly. The reason being is there are too many off them out there. You'd basically have to create a different converter for every single resource or module.

 

 

 

There's surprisingly little difference between these publishers discussed when it comes to the level of Gk used, at least from what I've noticed/been informed of so far. Or rather, I would have expected more Gk in the sets I'm considering. The Gk alphabet is so easy that in my opinion the transliterated alphabet is a bit uneccessary. If books use transliterated words I really think the non-transliterated form of some words should be given in the resource. Just like You pointed out bkMitchell there are differented "standards" for transliterating so it's certainly more work for the brain to convert between alphabets all the time.

 

My options are getting fewer because of reasons like this, so that's why I'm asking questions like the theological leaning and conservativeness, so that I would have more grounds to make a decision.

 

It would be VERY hard indeed to go for more expensive resources like the AYBD or the Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible. AYBD is a bit too liberal. ZEB has received somewhat bad reviews compared to other sets and the fact that it's the newest of all sets and for the price (it's the most expensive as AYBD often goes on a sale) I'd expect more.

[Brian K. Mitchell]

Unix,

 

What do you think about, Word Biblical Commentary?

It is available both in Accordance and in the other software platform you use.

[Daniel Francis]

Unix,

 

What do you think about, Word Biblical Commentary?

It is available both in Accordance and in the other software platform you use.

 

I personally think it is a fine series and use it regularly, but after skimming through the authorship maters in the pastoral epistles he may find it a bit conservative, since the conclusion seems to be Pauline authorship with assistance of a secretary. While I do not care too much one way or another more with what it says, trusting that the Spirit inspired it's preservation in Holy Scripture, makes it worthy of study and reverence.

 

-Dan

[Brian K. Mitchell]

Dan,

 

I think I am on the same page with you on this one .

 

Word Biblical Commentary series caught my interest after reading conflicting reviews about it. Some, say it's too liberal, others said it was too technical, and a few said it too conservative. I think, generally speaking, that it's a fairly balance series. I recently bought the set in electronic format (before I learned of Accordance move to Windows sadly ) and have been reading through the Hebrew Bible/OT volumes, but I haven't cracked open the New Testament volumes as of, yet.

 

Being that Unix finds, "AYBD is a bit too liberal" for his tastes I think he might like the word series. It, actually uses Greek and Hebrew script rather than simply using the transliteration that causes problems for him.

Edited February 26, 2013 by bkMitchell

[Daniel Francis]

Dan,

 

I think I am on the same page with you on this one .

 

Word Biblical Commentary series caught my interest after reading conflicting reviews about it. Some, say it's too liberal, others said it was too technical, and a few said it too conservative. I think, generally speaking, that it's a fairly balance series. I recently bought the set in electronic format (before I learned of Accordance move to Windows sadly ) and have been reading through the Hebrew Bible/OT volumes, but I haven't cracked open the New Testament volumes as of, yet.

 

Being that Unix finds, "AYBD is a bit too liberal" for his tastes I think he might like the word series. It, actually uses Greek and Hebrew script rather than simply using the transliteration that causes problems for him.

For me I would describe WBC as: Critical, Evangelical Moderate, slightly technical. Yes technical things are discussed but not to the point that most laity won't be able to follow or benefit. Unix complained about ISBE's defence of pauline authorship of the pastorals, which WBC does as well (although telling about other theories fairly well too). WBC does more often than not fall on a more conservative note, but it tends to be inline with my theology more than not. I can easily see how fundamentalistic types may consider WBC too liberal, but I have never found it so. Scholarly yes and willing to ask difficult questions but I do not consider that liberal.

 

-Dan

Edited February 26, 2013 by DWFrancis