MT-LXX Interlinear Questions

[why1942]

So, as I think I understand this, the MT-LXX Interlinear will display cross highlighting between the Hebrew text in one pane and the LXX in a parallel pane (according to this thread it will do both parallel cross highlighting and interlinear function). I can then bring up a third parallel pane (such as the NKJV (strongs)) and it will cross highlight all three, but only because the Hebrew text is displayed? I'm assuming as soon as I close the Hebrew pane the cross highlighting no longer works between the LXX and the NKJV?

 

What if I bring up all three, but move the Hebrew text into a separate tab (basically hidden from view) but in the same zone? I'm trying to find a way around displaying the LXX and English with cross highlighting without having to display the Hebrew text unless I want to. I typically use just the LXX and the Greek NT and only use the Hebrew to compare as needed. 

 

w

 

 

[Λύχνις Δαν]

So, as I think I understand this, the MT-LXX Interlinear will display cross highlighting between the Hebrew text in one pane and the LXX in a parallel pane (according to this thread it will do both parallel cross highlighting and interlinear function). I can then bring up a third parallel pane (such as the NKJV (strongs)) and it will cross highlight all three, but only because the Hebrew text is displayed? I'm assuming as soon as I close the Hebrew pane the cross highlighting no longer works between the LXX and the NKJV?

This is correct. If you close the Hebrew pane you lose the cross-highlight.

 

 

What if I bring up all three, but move the Hebrew text into a separate tab (basically hidden from view) but in the same zone? I'm trying to find a way around displaying the LXX and English with cross highlighting without having to display the Hebrew text unless I want to. I typically use just the LXX and the Greek NT and only use the Hebrew to compare as needed. 

 

w

I couldn't find a way to just show the LXX and the NKJVS which would cross-highlight. The parallel panes are within a single tab so moving the Hebrew to another tab in the same zone disconnects it from the first tab and cross-highlighting stops working. The best I could do is to shrink the width of the Hebrew pane to a minimum but then expanding it is more problematic.

 

Thx

D

 

[why1942]

This is correct. If you close the Hebrew pane you lose the cross-highlight.

 

 

I couldn't find a way to just show the LXX and the NKJVS which would cross-highlight. The parallel panes are within a single tab so moving the Hebrew to another tab in the same zone disconnects it from the first tab and cross-highlighting stops working. The best I could do is to shrink the width of the Hebrew pane to a minimum but then expanding it is more problematic.

 

Thx

D

Disappointing to say the least. I'm really surprised this limitation hasn't been resolved. It appears as if they got really close, but not quite all the way there. 

 

I have come up with a workable solution, though, at least for my situation. Since I don't use the Hebrew hardly at all, but it is required to be on screen and in the same pane (in parallel) with the others, I move the Hebrew box down to the bottom left, and make it as small as I can. Then I shrink the text size as small as it will go. This does limit the ability to bring it back up when needed, but I solved this with the Ctrl+Space to enter reader mode (which is what I use to read all the texts generally). I just click on the little box and use the shortcut and it maximizes the Hebrew, which I can then utilize the interlinear feature for comparison. 

 

At least, I think this will work. I will have to buy the MT-LXX Interlinear to make sure. It's not perfect, but it will work. Hopefully they will solve this and finally link the LXX with all the other texts instead of using the Hebrew as a kind of go between. 

 

I've attached a screenshot.

 

w

[Λύχνις Δαν]

I don't think I've seen this enhancement requested before. You might want post an explicit request (https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/forum/8-feature-requests/) for LXX to modern language crosshighlighting with display of the HMT being optional.  That will allow people to comment on whether they want it or not, which will help Oaktree gauge interest and prioritize the enhancement.

 

Thx

D

[why1942]

I don't think I've seen this enhancement requested before. You might want post an explicit request (https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/forum/8-feature-requests/) for LXX to modern language crosshighlighting with display of the HMT being optional.  That will allow people to comment on whether they want it or not, which will help Oaktree gauge interest and prioritize the enhancement.

 

Thx

D

I will do so. Thanks.

 

w

[dandennison]

I think a similar feature request would be in order for the Targums Wordmap + MT-LXX. If I have a Septuagint open, and then a Targum open, it should cross-highlight.

[miketisdell]

So, as I think I understand this, the MT-LXX Interlinear will display cross highlighting between the Hebrew text in one pane and the LXX in a parallel pane (according to this thread it will do both parallel cross highlighting and interlinear function). I can then bring up a third parallel pane (such as the NKJV (strongs)) and it will cross highlight all three, but only because the Hebrew text is displayed? I'm assuming as soon as I close the Hebrew pane the cross highlighting no longer works between the LXX and the NKJV?

 

What if I bring up all three, but move the Hebrew text into a separate tab (basically hidden from view) but in the same zone? I'm trying to find a way around displaying the LXX and English with cross highlighting without having to display the Hebrew text unless I want to. I typically use just the LXX and the Greek NT and only use the Hebrew to compare as needed. 

 

w

 

I think it is important to realize that the English is tagged to the Hebrew and the MT-LXX connects the Hebrew to Greek; there isn't a direct link between the English and the Greek LXX. There are many places where the Greek doesn't completely reflect the Hebrew text and an interface that appeared as a direct link could be very misleading. What I think you want (and what many others have requested) is a tagged version of the NETS (or similar) LXX translation which would provide direct links to an English translation of the LXX.

 

Also the MT-LXX DB allows for much more than just cross highlighting i.e. you can search the Hebrew text for places were a specific word is translated in the Greek as a specific word (including searching for specific inflections) or you can search Greek to Hebrew. For example, I have too often heard preachers compare ἀγάπη and חסד as if they were both equivalent terms (typically defined by them as "God's unconditional love"); using the MT you can check and see that the LXX never once translates חסד as ἀγάπη but frequently translates אהבה as ἀγάπη.

Edited April 23, 2020 by miketisdell

[Fabian]

I think it is important to realize that the English is tagged to the Hebrew and the MT-LXX connects the Hebrew to Greek; there isn't a direct link between the English and the Greek LXX. There are many places where the Greek doesn't completely reflect the Hebrew text and an interface that appeared as a direct link could be very misleading. What I think you want (and what many others have requested) is a tagged version of the NETS (or similar) LXX translation which would provide direct links to an English translation of the LXX.

 

Also the MT-LXX DB allows for much more than just cross highlighting i.e. you can search the Hebrew text for places were a specific word is translated in the Greek as a specific word (including searching for specific inflections) or you can search Greek to Hebrew. For example, I have too often heard preachers compare ἀγάπη and חסד as if they were both equivalent terms (typically defined by them as "God's unconditional love"); using the MT you can check and see that the LXX never once translates חסד as ἀγάπη but frequently translates אהבה as ἀγάπη.

Once again: The Apostolic Polyglot Bible is a LXX with Greek Strong's tagging. Not to mention that I have requested it for years. Or a similar one. Also the new user why1942 has requested it. 

[miketisdell]

Once again: The Apostolic Polyglot Bible is a LXX with Greek Strong's tagging. Not to mention that I have requested it for years. Or a similar one. Also the new user why1942 has requested it. 

 

Many of us have requested a TAGGED LXX however Strong's tagging will not work. Strong's tagging only includes NT vocabulary and the LXX vocabulary is much, much larger. There are many words in the LXX that do not appear in Strong's. 

Edited April 23, 2020 by miketisdell

[why1942]

Once again: The Apostolic Polyglot Bible is a LXX with Greek Strong's tagging. Not to mention that I have requested it for years. Or a similar one. Also the new user why1942 has requested it. 

I think the best solution here would simply be to get the ABP for Accordance. It would allow for the LXX, it's english gloss, Strong's/Strong's hybrid, a lexicon for the LXX words, and then this would allow for use of the ABP with the modern English translations in interlinear format. The author has given me permission in the past to use the ABP in commercial products without charge, so I'm not sure why a release or agreement couldn't be reached. But, I'm not behind the scenes there at Accordance so I'm not sure what the discussions look like.

 

If they can't get the ABP for Accordance, they already have an LXX tagged. I think the idea of adding tagging to the NETS English translation of the LXX would go a long way to bridge this gap. But, if you can do that, then why not likewise tag the other Modern English translations so they all cross-highlight with the LXX? 

 

Another solution (not ideal but workable) would be to use the cross highlighting with the MT-LXX, but just remove the requirement for the Hebrew text to be open. Even Dr. J in a podcast video makes the comment, "Why aren't the modern translations displayed in this view (interlinear with LXX on top)? It's because the modern translations use the Hebrew text as their base, not the LXX....Still, we have some pretty good programmers, and it wouldn't surprise me if they found a way around these limitations before too long." (Podcast #96 @ 6:45). 

 

I agree with Dr. J.

 

You people at Accordance have a great program and the coders are quite brilliant. I'm sure they could figure out a way to link the LXX and modern versions. I have faith. You can do it! You just have to...uhm...well...want to.

 

w

[why1942]

.....There are many places where the Greek doesn't completely reflect the Hebrew text and an interface that appeared as a direct link could be very misleading......

If this were the case, then you would not want to link the Greek LXX to the Hebrew either. Or, for that matter, the Hebrew to the modern English versions. There is no such thing as a word-for-word translation in any language. The English doesn't completely reflect the Hebrew or the Greek, ever. But, by linking the LXX to the Modern English versions so they all can be displayed in the Dynamic Interlinear format, you remove even the chance of the texts being misleading, simply because you can see where the texts differ. This is the whole point of interlinears in the first place. 

 

Cross highlighting is another form of interlinear on the fly. It allows the same comparison ability interlinears have, but while in a better reading mode (columns in parallel). It removes the misleading nature of translation for the general user. 

 

w

[why1942]

I think a similar feature request would be in order for the Targums Wordmap + MT-LXX. If I have a Septuagint open, and then a Targum open, it should cross-highlight.

In a perfect world, all texts available on Accordance would cross highlight will all the others. I realize this would be a difficult task given all the different modules available. Example: I have multiple modern English translations in Accordance. But, only three are really useful for comparison. Only three will work as interlinears. The others I rarely look at because they do not cross-highlight.

 

I thought about getting the NETS but then changed my mind because it does not have the ability to cross highlight and can't be used in the Dynamic Interlinear feature. I've included a screenshot of my tab where I compare English translations. Notice the highlighting on the first four, but the last two - nothing. It's helpful they scroll in sync, but it would be better if all text modules cross highlighted and could be used in the Dynamic Interlinear. But, again, this is a "perfect world." Not the one we actually live in.

 

 

w

Edited April 23, 2020 by why1942

[Fabian]

Many of us have requested a TAGGED LXX however Strong's tagging will not work. Strong's tagging only includes NT vocabulary and the LXX vocabulary is much, much larger. There are many words in the LXX that do not appear in Strong's. 

Yes thats why I requested to work with the G/K numbers. And then work with the publishers, so they can also bring a new version of the this. "NOW Expanded with the LXX"  or so. https://www.amazon.com/Strongest-Strongs-Exhaustive-Concordance-Larger/dp/0310246970or a similar Book. This would also allow to sell a new version. 

 

But honestly I'm so tired to write the same every year again. 

 

And don't forget once Accordance blocked a thread with this topic. So I see more hope I buy Logos than it come to Accordance.

Edited April 23, 2020 by Fabian

[why1942]

Yes thats why I requested to work with the G/K numbers. And then work with the publishers, so they can also bring a new version of the this. "NOW Expanded with the LXX"  or so. https://www.amazon.com/Strongest-Strongs-Exhaustive-Concordance-Larger/dp/0310246970or a similar Book. This would also allow to sell a new version. 

 

But honestly I'm so tired to write the same every year again. 

 

And don't forget once Accordance blocked a thread with this topic. So I see more hope I buy Logos than it come to Accordance.

I tried Logos the other day. I really didn't care for it. But it's disappointing to see this has been a request for that long and they still haven't solved the issue.  

 

w

[Λύχνις Δαν]

I'll ask a slightly, and probably only slightly, mad question. What is the value of cross highlighting ? And this probably ought to be qualified by "to the word". As you point out parallel verses give you a kind of cross highlighting in any case. The value for cross highlighting for me is in quickly locating the right portion of the text for comparison. It needs to be good enough but perfect is neither required nor possible, for the reasons mentioned in posts above. So while cross highlighting is helpful, I would think given that versification based alignment gets you most of what you need. So indirecting via the MT-LXX to get from Greek -> Hebrew -> Modern lang or vice verse is fine. I basically never use the interlinear support in Accordance but I use parallel texts all the time. There you have enough context to evaluate what you read. And verse by verse alignment is enough for most things.

 

And regardless of whether one pane is visible or not, I am not sure that how it works, is clear to all users. I get Mike's concern here, but when you have the Hebrew, Greek and English versions present and you cross-highlight but the tool that is actually making that possible is already not required to be displayed - the MT-LXX itself. So it is already unclear how this is working, just based on what you can see. So I think it's a useful tweak to save screen space to not have one text or another displayed.

 

Thx

D

I tried Logos the other day. I really didn't care for it.

 

w

 

I keep having that experience But my most recent attempt wasn't as bad as before. Regardless though I don't really want to have to learn it to the same extent I have with Acc.

 

Thx

D

[why1942]

I keep having that experience But my most recent attempt wasn't as bad as before. Regardless though I don't really want to have to learn it to the same extent I have with Acc.

 

Thx

D

This might have been the same reason my first experience with Logos was so...underwhelming. I've spent days and days now watching as many videos and reading help files and forum posts as I can stand trying to find out if Accordance is going to work for me. When I fired Logos up, I just saw a whole new system I would need to learn. It was likewise not very intuitive, and I'm sure it has its own problems that would drive me insane as I try to work around them.

 

Interlinears are useful (at least for me) because I have no command of the original languages. If and when I'm able to read Greek fluently, they will not be as important. Neither will the modern English translations for that matter. Cross highlighting between parallel panes provide the same kind of transparency as interlinears, but on the fly in a more readable format. I would wager its all a matter of trust. How much do you trust the translators of a particular translation? How much do you trust ANY translator? I introduced an interlinear to one fella I knew years ago and he got really upset with me. He didn't WANT to know what was underlining his favorite translation. He completely trusted the guy who published the work and translated from the original languages.

 

I'm not so trusting. In fact, I don't trust translators any further than I can throw them and I can't throw them very far - I have no measurable upper body strength!

 

Example: when I'm comparing all the English translations I have, 3 out of five have cross highlighting. There have been multiple English translations that I did not end up buying for Accordance because they were not tagged and did not have cross-highlighting. The ones I have that are not tagged came with the package I bought. I would really like to know, when comparing these on a word for word basis, how all the modern translators handled the word(s) in question. WEB. Yeah, I would like to see that. THE MESSAGE. Absolutely, I want to see, word for word, how the translator made a mockery of the text. KJV is tagged and, though I dislike this translation almost as much as the Message, at least I can use it to see where the NKJV translators or the NET translators made changes (and even compare all three against the Greek and the Hebrew). With cross highlighting this is very easy and quick and, in my opinion, this is what bible software is for. It allows you to do in one or two clicks what would normally take days or weeks to do in print format. If these technologies do not aid us one way or another, they are less than useless.  

 

But these tools are not perfect. No software ever is. We're pretty close to solving this problem, though. I think they could do it. 

 

w

[why1942]

Yes thats why I requested to work with the G/K numbers. And then work with the publishers, so they can also bring a new version of the this. "NOW Expanded with the LXX"  or so. https://www.amazon.com/Strongest-Strongs-Exhaustive-Concordance-Larger/dp/0310246970or a similar Book. This would also allow to sell a new version. 

 

But honestly I'm so tired to write the same every year again. 

 

And don't forget once Accordance blocked a thread with this topic. So I see more hope I buy Logos than it come to Accordance.

 

LOLOL I just looked at that book you linked. It's over 2000 pages and weighs over 5 lbs! I'm so glad for bible software. So much better than the back problems wielding this book would certainly cause! And, it's in 8pt font size. I now read typically at 22pt!

 

w

[Λύχνις Δαν]

This might have been the same reason my first experience with Logos was so...underwhelming. I've spent days and days now watching as many videos and reading help files and forum posts as I can stand trying to find out if Accordance is going to work for me. When I fired Logos up, I just saw a whole new system I would need to learn. It was likewise not very intuitive, and I'm sure it has its own problems that would drive me insane as I try to work around them.

 

 

Whichever way you slice it these programs offer an enormous amount of functionality and there is no way around spending time learning how to use it, if you want to get anything out of them.

 

Thx

D

[Λύχνις Δαν]

 

Interlinears are useful (at least for me) because I have no command of the original languages. If and when I'm able to read Greek fluently, they will not be as important. Neither will the modern English translations for that matter. Cross highlighting between parallel panes provide the same kind of transparency as interlinears, but on the fly in a more readable format. I would wager its all a matter of trust. How much do you trust the translators of a particular translation? How much do you trust ANY translator? I introduced an interlinear to one fella I knew years ago and he got really upset with me. He didn't WANT to know what was underlining his favorite translation. He completely trusted the guy who published the work and translated from the original languages.

 

I'm not so trusting. In fact, I don't trust translators any further than I can throw them and I can't throw them very far - I have no measurable upper body strength!

 

Example: when I'm comparing all the English translations I have, 3 out of five have cross highlighting. There have been multiple English translations that I did not end up buying for Accordance because they were not tagged and did not have cross-highlighting. The ones I have that are not tagged came with the package I bought. I would really like to know, when comparing these on a word for word basis, how all the modern translators handled the word(s) in question. WEB. Yeah, I would like to see that. THE MESSAGE. Absolutely, I want to see, word for word, how the translator made a mockery of the text. KJV is tagged and, though I dislike this translation almost as much as the Message, at least I can use it to see where the NKJV translators or the NET translators made changes (and even compare all three against the Greek and the Hebrew). With cross highlighting this is very easy and quick and, in my opinion, this is what bible software is for. It allows you to do in one or two clicks what would normally take days or weeks to do in print format. If these technologies do not aid us one way or another, they are less than useless.  

 

But these tools are not perfect. No software ever is. We're pretty close to solving this problem, though. I think they could do it. 

 

w

 

People get very attached to translations that they grow up with or use frequently. I don't read the KJV much now, but I love the language and I refer to it among others on occasion still.

 

Yeah, comparing translations is tricky but and it will run into more or less difficulty in various places. It is interesting to see in more difficult passages how the translations differ more than in other places. You also need to consider what the translation committee (even if of one) was aiming at.

 

Thx

D

[why1942]

People get very attached to translations that they grow up with or use frequently. I don't read the KJV much now, but I love the language and I refer to it among others on occasion still.

 

Yeah, comparing translations is tricky but and it will run into more or less difficulty in various places. It is interesting to see in more difficult passages how the translations differ more than in other places. You also need to consider what the translation committee (even if of one) was aiming at.

 

Thx

D

Yes, they all have their own agendas. Most are harmless. Several are inscrutable. A few could be described as nothing less than nefarious (or, maybe cultic). When I first started reading the bible at 17, I couldn't get past the KJV language. I hated Shakespeare in school and the KJV made just about as much sense. A missionary turned me on to the NIV and I bought a copy and wore it out. A few years later, I discovered textual variants, and after a detailed study of the controversy, I came out the other side using the NKJV. Since getting a laptop, I was able to use multiple translations simultaneously, so now I just use the NKJV as my devotional reader and do the rest of my serious studies utilizing all translations and original languages.

 

w