NEW! NIV Zondervan Study Bible notes

[sChen77]

Hi Rick and Dan,

 

Thank you for sharing more info on the NIV ZSB module offered by Accordance.

 

Yes, I am aware that I can use the iOS screen capture method to snap pictures in the SB and then edit them, even though it can be rather tedious.

 

 

I participate in a bible study group, and at times have found it useful to copy and paste the summarised introduction and share it with my fellow study mates.  This helps give us some context to what we are reading in scripture.

 

So while I could copy and paste text out of OliveTree, it gets pretty frustrating doing so for the images.  Paying US$20 for a copy and paste function that works with high resolution images seems worth it.

 

At the same time, can you advise what is the difference in the copy and paste capabilities between Accordance and Logos 6 for resources common to both platforms (like maybe the NIV ZSB module, which costs US$40 on the Logos platform)?

 

 

Thanks,

sChen

[Daniel Francis]

 

 

At the same time, can you advise what is the difference in the copy and paste capabilities between Accordance and Logos 6 for resources common to both platforms (like maybe the NIV ZSB module, which costs US$40 on the Logos platform)?

 

 

Thanks,

sChen

 

Accordance and Logos have similar citation options, Logos will automatically paste the footnotes, I have noticed some study bibles in Logos have page numbers and others do not, I am not currently aware of any study bibles in Accordance having the page numbers but I do not miss them as I tend to do my best to ignore the numbers when they are there. Here are two same item from both. Accordance first then Logos.

 

RACA   An expression of reproach used as an example by Jesus in one of his teachings (Matt 5:22). The RSV translates this term as “insult.” In Matt 5:22a “raca” (Gk rhaka) is basically parallel in meaning to mōre (Fool!) in v 22b, and is thus a term of abuse or contempt. The key difference is that while the second of these is a Greek word, the first is not. It seems in fact to be the emphatic state of Aram r(y)qʾ, meaning “empty,” and hence “worthless,” “good for nothing.” As a term of contempt, it is found in the Talmud and Midrash, e.g., b. Ber. 22b, “… she said to him, Numskull! (= ryqʾ) … ;” and Eccl. Rab. to 9:15, “Woe to you, worthless fellows (rqyyʾ), tomorrow the Flood is coming …” (that is, these are the men of the flood generation). The word was first noticed as a Semitism by John Lightfoot (1684), who gave a series of examples from Talmudic and Midrashic literature. The context in Matt 5:22 supports the identification of “raca” as a Semitism, in that it refers in turn to the person who is wrathful with his fellow, calls him “Numskull” (raqāʾ) or “fool,” as worthy of “the judgment,” “the Sanhedrin,” or “the Gehenna of fire.” The use of “raca” in Matt 5:22, without any following explanation or translation in Greek, was held by Jeremias to indicate that Matthew’s audience could cope with some Aramaic.

MAX WILCOX

 

 

AYBD, s.v. “RACA,” 5:605.

 

 

RACA. An expression of reproach used as an example by Jesus in one of his teachings (Matt 5:22). The RSV translates this term as “insult.” In Matt 5:22a “raca” (Gk rhaka) is basically parallel in meaning to mōre (Fool!) in v 22b, and is thus a term of abuse or contempt. The key difference is that while the second of these is a Greek word, the first is not. It seems in fact to be the emphatic state of Aram r(y)qʾ, meaning “empty,” and hence “worthless,” “good for nothing.” As a term of contempt, it is found in the Talmud and Midrash, e.g., b. Ber. 22b, “… she said to him, Numskull! (= ryqʾ) …;” and Eccl. Rab. to 9:15, “Woe to you, worthless fellows (rqyyʾ), tomorrow the Flood is coming …” (that is, these are the men of the flood generation). The word was first noticed as a Semitism by John Lightfoot (1684), who gave a series of examples from Talmudic and Midrashic literature. The context in Matt 5:22 supports the identification of “raca” as a Semitism, in that it refers in turn to the person who is wrathful with his fellow, calls him “Numskull” (raqāʾ) or “fool,” as worthy of “the judgment,” “the Sanhedrin,” or “the Gehenna of fire.” The use of “raca” in Matt 5:22, without any following explanation or translation in Greek, was held by Jeremias to indicate that Matthew’s audience could cope with some Aramaic.

MAX WILCOX

 

 

Max Wilcox, “Raca,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 605.

 

 

Explanation

 

This is one of the great passages of the OT. It, like Amos 5:24 and Hos 6:6, epitomizes the message of the eighth-century prophets. The passage opens with a beautiful example of a covenant lawsuit in which the prophet summons the people to hear the charge Yahweh has against them. The mountains and hills are the jury because they have been around a long time and have witnessed God’s dealing with Israel. Rather than directly charging Israel with breaking the covenant, God asks Israel if they have any charges against him. “What have I done? How have I wearied you?” In the face of injustice some of the poor people may have become “weary in well doing.” In the face of opportunities to get rich quick some of the land-owners might have grown weary of keeping the covenant laws. In reality it was God who had a right to be weary. Isaiah asked unbelieving Ahaz, “Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also?” The prophet of the exile accused Israel of wearying God with their iniquities (Isa 43:24). Malachi said, “You have wearied the Lord with your words” (Mal 2:17).

Instead of wearying Israel, Yahweh redeemed her. There is a play on words here, “I have not (הלאתיְך) wearied you, I have (העלתיְך) brought you up from Egyptian bondage.” The prophets were always reciting the great redemptive acts of God to their people. They constantly reminded them of what God had done for them. God ransomed them; he sent spiritual leaders, “Moses, Aaron and Miriam” (v 4). Balaam attempted to curse their ancestors as they marched through the wilderness, but God thwarted all of Balaam’s efforts and safely led them from Shittim on the east of the Jordan to Gilgal on the west (v 5).

If vv 6–8 are related to vv 1–5, they supply Israel’s response to the implied charge against her. She had displeased Yahweh but she claims ignorance. She asks God what he wants. What must she bring with her when she comes into his presence that will make her acceptable? This question represents one of the two basic ideas about religion. How can a man approach God? One answer is: with sacrifice, things, good works. The other answer is reflected in v 8. God requires not some external gifts from his worshiper, but a humble communicant who loves to serve God and practice justice toward his fellow-man.

The questions about sacrifice are comprehensive. Burnt offerings represented total dedication. Calves a year old represented the most desirable kind of sacrificial animal. Thousands of rams and ten thousand rivers of oil represented lavish sacrifice. One’s first-born represents one’s most valuable possession.

The implied answer to all of these questions is that none of these things is required. Then what about the whole sacrificial system and cultic worship? Sacrifices were required in the Mosaic law (Lev 1–6). Is there no need for sacrifice? Yes, there is. What Micah was speaking about, and Isaiah (1:11–17), and Amos (5:21–24), and the Psalmist (40:6–8; 50:7–11; 51:16–17), was not that sacrifice was wrong, but in and of itself without a proper relationship to God and neighbor, sacrifice is useless.

God has told man what he seeks from him. He has told him what is good: “To practice justice”; “to love devotion”; and “to walk humbly (wisely) with one’s God.” So when we come before God we must remember that it is not so much what is in our hands but what is in our hearts that finds expression in our conduct that is important. Norman Snaith said (104), “To say that God requires ultimately nothing that men can bring does not mean that men ought not to worship Him. Worship is necessary for man, because it is the outward expression of true humility before God, of that humble trust which is essential. It is when worship ceases to be this that it is a hindrance and not a help; so long as it is the outcome of true and humble conscious devotion to God, it can and does strengthen those bonds which bind God and man together through Christ. Worship is also necessary because a man should be full of praise and thankfulness to God; but as soon as the aim of hymns and songs and music generally becomes aesthetic, it is the time to beware.”

 

Ralph L. Smith, Micah–Malachi, vol. 32 of Word Biblical Commentary. Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 50-51.

 

 

 

Explanation

 

This is one of the great passages of the OT. It, like Amos 5:24 and Hos 6:6, epitomizes the message of the eighth-century prophets. The passage opens with a beautiful example of a covenant lawsuit in which the prophet summons the people to hear the charge Yahweh has against them. The mountains and hills are the jury because they have been around a long time and have witnessed God’s dealing with Israel. Rather than directly charging Israel with breaking the covenant, God asks Israel if they have any charges against him. “What have I done? How have I wearied you?” In the face of injustice some of the poor people may have become “weary in well doing.” In the face of opportunities to get rich quick some of the land-owners might have grown weary of keeping the covenant laws. In reality it was God who had a right to be weary. Isaiah asked unbelieving Ahaz, “Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also?” The prophet of the exile accused Israel of wearying God with their iniquities (Isa 43:24). Malachi said, “You have wearied the Lord with your words” (Mal 2:17).

Instead of wearying Israel, Yahweh redeemed her. There is a play on words here, “I have not (הלאתיךְ) wearied you, I have (העלתיךְ) brought you up from Egyptian bondage.” The prophets were always reciting the great redemptive acts of God to their people. They constantly reminded them of what God had done for them. God ransomed them; he sent spiritual leaders, “Moses, Aaron and Miriam” (v 4). Balaam attempted to curse their ancestors as they marched through the wilderness, but God thwarted all of Balaam’s efforts and safely led them from Shittim on the east of the Jordan to Gilgal on the west (v 5).

If vv 6–8 are related to vv 1–5, they supply Israel’s response to the implied charge against her. She had displeased Yahweh but she claims ignorance. She asks God what he wants. What must she bring with her when she comes into his presence that will make her acceptable? This question represents one of the two basic ideas about religion. How can a man approach God? One answer is: with sacrifice, things, good works. The other answer is reflected in v 8. God requires not some external gifts from his worshiper, but a humble communicant who loves to serve God and practice justice toward his fellow-man.

The questions about sacrifice are comprehensive. Burnt offerings represented total dedication. Calves a year old represented the most desirable kind of sacrificial animal. Thousands of rams and ten thousand rivers of oil represented lavish sacrifice. One’s first-born represents one’s most valuable possession.

The implied answer to all of these questions is that none of these things is required. Then what about the whole sacrificial system and cultic worship? Sacrifices were required in the Mosaic law (Lev 1–6). Is there no need for sacrifice? Yes, there is. What Micah was speaking about, and Isaiah (1:11–17), and Amos (5:21–24), and the Psalmist (40:6–8; 50:7–11; 51:16–17), was not that sacrifice was wrong, but in and of itself without a proper relationship to God and neighbor, sacrifice is useless.

God has told man what he seeks from him. He has told him what is good: “To practice justice”; “to love devotion”; and “to walk humbly (wisely) with one’s God.” So when we come before God we must remember that it is not so much what is in our hands but what is in our hearts that finds expression in our conduct that is important. Norman Snaith said (104), “To say that God requires ultimately nothing that men can bring does not mean that men ought not to worship Him. Worship is necessary for man, because it is the outward expression of true humility before God, of that humble trust which is essential. It is when worship ceases to be this that it is a hindrance and not a help; so long as it is the outcome of true and humble conscious devotion to God, it can and does strengthen those bonds which bind God and man together through Christ. Worship is also necessary because a man should be full of praise and thankfulness to God; but as soon as the aim of hymns and songs and music generally becomes aesthetic, it is the time to beware.”

 

 

Ralph L. Smith, Micah–Malachi, vol. 32, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 50–51.

 

 

PLEASE note there are many settings to choose from for your options as to the style of citation in Accordance and Logos in accordance Turabian is my presence and Chicago in Logos.

 

I only have a few resources duplicated in both. I have noticed that in some cases Accordance has colour photos where Logos only has B/W.

 

-Dan

[sChen77]

Hi Dan,

 

Thanks very much for this!

 

Doing a quick comparison of the unformatted text (eg. checking the first and last word of each line on the webpage), it seems the clippings are identical be it copied from Accordance or Logos, except for the citation line.

 

However, I did notice something interesting when it involved Hebrew characters.

 

In the WBC clipping from Accordance, the Hebrew words are rendered as:  “I have not (הלאתיְך) wearied you, I have (העלתיְך) brought you up from Egyptian bondage.”

 

But in the clipping from Logos, the Hebrew words are rendered:  “I have not (הלאתיךְ) wearied you, I have (העלתיךְ) brought you up from Egyptian bondage.”

 

The leftmost letter in the Hebrew word looks to be different?  Maybe because the Accordance edition of WBC dates from 1984, and the Logos edition dates from 1998?

 

 

Otherwise, for copy and paste functions, both Accordance and Logos seem very similar.

 

 

Thanks and regards,

sChen

[R. Mansfield]

Heads up! Introductory pricing on the NIV Zondervan Study Bible ends at midnight EDT tonight!

[Ιακοβ]

Heads up! Introductory pricing on the NIV Zondervan Study Bible ends at midnight EDT tonight!

 

Oh, thats a bit sad. Maybe next time. (: