The Hard Questions

I started this section when I was at Parsons Technology to answer the kinds of questions that don't get answered at the public Web site. These questions tend to be personal or somewhat controversial. Answering them here saves me the trouble of answering them over and over by email.

I no longer provide any support for QuickVerse 4 beyond posting the QV4g update on my site (see below). If you're still using QV4 and need help, you're out of luck -- the company that owns it no longer supports it. There are no add-ons available. If you would like some current, supported Bible software for Windows from the same programmers who brought you QuickVerse 4, visit www.laridian.com.

I can't figure out how to get technical support for QuickVerse (or other Parsons products). Can you help?

In 2001 Findex took over tech support for QuickVerse and other church and Bible products. You can reach them at (402) 333-3075 or by email at help@findex.com.

I can't get QuickVerse 4.0 to run correctly under Windows XP.

You need the QuickVerse 4.0g update. I haven't been able to get Findex to post this on their Web site, but I did get permission from them to redistribute it to QuickVerse customers. Click here to download qv4gup.exe. Once you download it and save it to your hard drive, just run it to update your QV4 installation to the rev "g" version of QV4.

I have QuickVerse 4.0g and I get this error message: "C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\AUTOEXEC.NT. The system file is not suitable for running MS-DOS and Microsoft Windows Applications."

Some users have reported this error after installing spyware protection tools. One reported back that he had solved the problem as follows:

I discovered that certain spyware programs delete the "autoexec.nt" file out of c:\windows\system32. The solution is to go to c:\windows\repair and copy the "autoexec.nt" file and then paste it into c:\windows\system32. In order to not have it deleted again by the spyware program simply change the properties to "read only" and "hidden".

I have an older version of QuickVerse or an add-on product that says "Runtime error 200" when I try to install it.

The Runtime error 200 is caused by an issue in the Borland Turbo Pascal 7 compiler that was used to create the installation routine of the software affected. This error will only occur on Pentium II or faster systems. Following is a website and an explanation of the problem:

http://www.brain.uni-freiburg.de/~klaus/pascal/runerr200/#Cause

The solution to the problem is to slow the system down to a speed that will allow for the installation to work properly. There is a product titled Mo'Slo available on the Internet that will provide you with this capability. This product will provide a temporary speed change and affects only the application to which it is applied for as long as that application is being used for that session. An evaluation copy of the product can be downloaded from http://www.hpaa.com/moslo/moslotry.asp at no charge.

It's very easy to use. Download the self-extracting executable file. The title of the file will be MOSLO132.EXE. After the download is complete, double-click on the file to extract the files to C:\MOSLO. Then do the following:

1. Click Start, Run.
2. Type COMMAND and press Enter. This will put you at a DOS prompt.
3. Type C:\MOSLO and press Enter. This should put you in the MOSLO directory.
4. If installing an application, put the first disk in the drive. Type MOSLO /50 A:\INSTALL.EXE

The /50 will slow your computer speed to 50 percent. You can adjust the number as needed using 1-99. A:\INSTALL.EXE is the location of the application file that is to be run. Make the necessary adjustments if the installation file is a different name or if you are trying to actually run a DOS application with Mo'Slo. This will run EXE and COM files.

Thanks to Patty Brockett, Laridian Director of Customer Service and former Parsons Technology Tech Support Manager, for the answer to this question. 

Every time I run QuickVerse 4.0 or QuickVerse Library it asks for a registration code. Findex says it doesn't support the old versions. What do I do to get rid of this message?

I don't understand why Findex won't just provide this information. The whole idea of the code was to get you to call us so we could capture your name and address for future marketing purposes. Perhaps Findex doesn't think marketing its software is important.

The code for QuickVerse 4.0 is RAINBOW. The code for QuickVerse Library is QVW995. If anyone remembers the code for QV 3.0 let me know. (If you have QV 3.0 installed and it doesn't ask for the code, you can find the code in your qvwin.ini file.)

Where can I find old QuickVerse 3.0 or QuickVerse 4.0 CDs? I just want a couple new Bibles -- I don't want a full upgrade to 7.0!

These are getting harder to find. Some people have found used QV4 CDs at eBay (www.ebay.com).

Why did you leave Parsons Technology?

Now there's a good question! It was very difficult to leave Parsons after ten years. But keep in mind that the company I left was not the company I originally joined (both literally and figuratively)!

When I started with Parsons there were fewer than 30 employees. It was very entrepreneurial and exciting. We had giants to kill. I reported to the owner of the company and had responsibilities beyond just developing software. I set up the first large scale production facilities and later ran production and fulfillment. I helped set up Technical Support and later ran that group, too.

When I left, Parsons was an insignificant division of a huge company. It was valued mostly for its telephone sales capability and direct marketing department. The product development that went on there was not considered all that important to the overall success of the company. I reported into a sales manager, not product development. He reported to someone who reported to someone who reported to the CEO. And the CEO didn't own the company, he just ran it on behalf of (and for the benefit of) the shareholders.

The goal of the company was not to create great products and maintain great relationships with customers (Parsons' goals from the beginning) but rather to maximize sales and market share for the purpose of eventually selling the company to an even bigger company. That bigger company would also have the goal of maximizing sales and market share so it, too, could be sold to an even bigger company. In each sales transaction the major stockholders and officers are richly rewarded, while the people who create the great products that got the company the sales and market share that made it so valuable are terminated to reduce expenses.

My responsibilities were shrinking in scope. The direct marketing channel that I knew so well and that brought in 80% of our income was reduced in importance. Development was viewed as an expense, not an investment. With reduced responsibilities, and given my expertise in areas that were no longer important, nobody felt very obligated to keep paying me a reasonable wage. So I was left with the option of staying around to manage an unimportant area of the company for less compensation.

In addition to all this, and on a more positive note, the giant-killing that characterized the early days was over. We killed all our giants. We dominated the market. All that was left was to sit on the throne (which was more like a folding chair given the lack of respect being shown from above). In this area I felt a certain affinity to Bill Clinton: The campaign is the fun part. Governing, on the other hand, is boring. The difference between us is that I did the honorable thing and quit while I was ahead.

I'm sure Parsons' Church Division will continue to create great products [note: this was written before all the programmers quit!]. I just couldn't imagine continuing to do the same old thing for another ten years for a company that had no respect for me.  

Are you still involved in STEP?

No. 

I heard that Laridian makes all its money selling Palm OS products and spends it on Windows CE development. Why don't you do more Palm development?

This question is based on a misunderstanding of our relationship with the developer of our Palm OS product, MyBible.

Laridian provides support, marketing, and sales for MyBible. We don't do any development for MyBible. MyBible development is done by David Fedor, who is a full-time employee of Palm Computing (in developer technical support). 

In our spare time (between support, marketing, human resources, sales and other functions) there are a couple of us at Laridian who write code for our Windows CE products (mainly PocketBible and DailyReader). But most of our time is spent on non-development tasks.

So yes, here at Laridian we spend more time on CE development than on Palm. But that's because all our Palm development is done by the owner of MyBible.

With respect to where we make our money, there is the perception that since Palm owns 85% of the handheld market that we must make 85% of our revenue from sales of MyBible. Without giving you the actual numbers, let me just say that reality is not skewed that heavily in favor of Palm.

We are committed to both platforms (Palm OS and Windows CE) and could be committed to a third platform if market share justified it. You can be sure we're not slacking off on either platform in favor of the other. 

Why is Laridian publishing the heretical TNIV version of the Bible?

Most of the people who say this to me have never read the TNIV. They've only read the anti-TNIV Web sites. 

Most of the criticisms leveled against the TNIV are baseless. They usually center around the treatment of gender. The TNIV differentiates between biological and grammatical gender. Where the grammar is referring to people, it uses gender-neutral terms, not the archaic masculine pronouns to refer to people. But biological men are men, and women are women.

Critics argue that the translators have succumbed to feminist political correctness. But in the TNIV God is still our father, Jesus is still God's son, husbands are to love their wives, wives are to subject themselves to their husbands, and women are to keep silent in the churches. If I was a radical feminist, I would be burning the TNIV, not endorsing it.

I would urge anyone with questions about the TNIV to visit www.tniv.info and read more about it. Then download our free TNIV for your Palm OS or Windows Mobile Pocket PC device (you can do that from www.tniv.info) and read it for yourself.

Why do you charge more for the NIV? Are you just trying to rip people off because it's the most popular translation?

All the newer Bibles are owned by publishers who charge us a royalty to publish their Bibles electronically. Most charge a nominal percentage of our selling price that is so small that we just absorb it in the price.

Zondervan and the International Bible Society, owners of the NIV, charge us a flat dollar amount royalty that is over 50% of the suggested retail price for our Bibles. We can't afford to absorb such a huge royalty so instead we add it to the cost of the Bible text. Even then, Zondervan makes more money than we do on our sale of the NIV.

The same argument applies to The Lockman Foundation and the NASB text.

Why doesn't PocketBible (or MyBible) use the "Authorized" King James Version?

From time to time someone will send me an email asking why the spellings in our edition of the King James Version differ from their KJV. They usually cite the word "thoroughly" in our version of 2 Timothy 3:17 which is spelled "throughly" in other editions.

The truth of the matter is that there have been literally hundreds of editions of the KJV Bible in the 388 years since it was first published. Each edition has varied from previous ones in spelling, punctuation, footnotes and in some cases, translation. Most of the differences are inconsequential. Some fix obvious problems in earlier editions.

One persistent mistranslation is found in Matthew 23:24: "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." Our translation (quoted here) retains the error of the first edition of the KJV. The error? One doesn't strain at a gnat but rather strains out a gnat. The Greek diulizo means "to strain thoroughly" (throughly?). Before drinking a glass of water containing a gnat, you strain it out. You don't strain at it.

The point of all this is that there have been so many editions of the KJV that it's impossible to say which is "the" KJV. Even the first edition (which would be the most likely candidate for "the" KJV) contains errors that most people would say should be fixed. (Not to mention the fact that the 1611 KJV contained the apocrypha, which most readers of the KJV would reject as non-canonical.)

To solve this problem I went to two experts. The first was Dr. Peter Ruckman, the acknowledged leader of the "KJV only" philosophy. The second, Cambridge University Press, holders of the copyright on the KJV under the authority of the Queen of England. I asked each two questions: Which KJV is "the" KJV, and why that edition and not others?

After calling me an "idiot" Dr. Ruckman scrawled "any Gideon Bible" on my letter, wadded it up and returned it to me. He didn't offer any justification for his opinion.

The folks at Cambridge University said there was no specific advice they could give regarding which KJV was the right one. (Contrary to popular belief, the KJV is copyrighted but only in the UK. The copyright is held by the Queen and is administered by Cambridge. Companies publishing KJV Bibles for sale in the UK are required to hold a license from the Queen, though it's not clear that the rule is enforced to any great degree.)

I have offered to personally key in and proof any edition of the KJV which can be shown to be "the" KJV. In the meantime, each of the various Bible software publishers have different KJV texts which each have a different lineage. Most differ only in minor spelling variations. The PocketBible KJV has not been shown to have any errors which can't be accounted for by simple spelling variations.

Is Laridian a Christian company?

There's no such thing as a "Christian company." The only "Christian" institution in the Bible is the Church. Laridian is not a church, and is by that definition not a "Christian company." For that matter, there are no "Christian companies" in the Bible software business (or any business).

The owners of Laridian are all Christians in the "born-again", "evangelical" sense. We've placed our faith in Jesus Christ for forgiveness and eternal life. We attempt to apply Christian principles to the way we do business.

Why do I have to pay long distance charges for Tech Support? Why don't you have a toll-free number?

AT&T tells us that putting in toll-free customer service increases calls by three to four times. So the impact of putting in a toll-free Tech Support number would be that we would have to quadruple our staff plus pay the long-distance charges. These increased costs would have to be reflected in product prices. For many products this would add not a few pennies to the price but potentially double the price.

These price increases are doubly unfair because only a small percentage of customers actually call Tech Support. So those that do would be asking those of you that don't to pay twice as much for your software in order to support their calls!

Let me make on further observation, which I'm sure doesn't apply to any of you. Many Tech Support calls are honest questions which require a little expertise to answer. Some are the result of unclear instructions in manuals or installation programs, which we always tried to fix with the next printing. But the vast majority of calls are from people (again, I'm sure this isn't you) who simply refuse to read the manual or check the online help. In many cases they don't really understand how to operate their computer. Now I don't mind helping folks out. After all, we all started somewhere and at one time we were all "newbies" to this technology. But my point is that I think asking those who use the service to pay for it is not unreasonable, but asking the vast majority of people who don't use or need the service to pay more for their software is not fair.

What about a 900 number for Tech Support?

A lot of our Tech Support calls come from people who call from their office or church. Most businesses block 900 numbers for obvious reasons. I don't think it would be effective for us to do a 900 number, as many people would not be able to reach us.

I work for a ministry that relies on contributions for income. We can't afford your software. Will you please give us a copy of your software?

No.

When you're in the religious software business, all of your customers depend on contributions. If we gave our software to everyone who was on a budget, we'd go broke. Remember, we have to put food on our kids' table.

Your support of our business also allows us to keep producing useful software.

So here's my answer: God is big enough to give you a copy of our software if you really need it. Does he supply all of your needs except for software? I'm sure there's someone in your ministry who can buy you a copy of our software. (How'd you buy your computer equipment? Who pays for your Internet access? You have a lot of other computer-related expenses you seem to be willing to pay for. Why are you asking us to do what you apparently haven't asked others to do?)

What's with the pony tail?

I was saved in June 1980 in my third year at the University of Iowa. At the time my hair was fairly long, though not as long as it is now. I joined a fundamentalist Baptist church and was told that God wanted men to have short hair, so I got it cut ("above the ears and off the collar").

Then my Baptist church told me I couldn't listen to "rock music" because it was from the devil. So I stopped. Later they said I couldn't listen to "contemporary Christian music" either, so I stopped that.

Then they said I couldn't go to movies (even "good" ones) because the motion picture industry was of the devil. So I quit going to movies. Even stopped watching TV for a while.

Then they said I had to wear a tie when I came to church. So I did.

Then they said I couldn't ask questions in Sunday School, because it might cause new Christians to doubt their faith when they hear mature Christians asking questions.

Wait a second, I thought, what good is a faith that doesn't stand up to questions? Why shouldn't I be able to ask questions about what we believe and expect my elders to be able to answer from the Scriptures?

I looked at myself in the mirror and decided that, while they had asked me to wear ties, they hadn't specified what kind of ties. So I began to wear the loudest ties I could find. If ties draw you close to God, then I was going to blind him with my spirituality. 

I asked what was evil about movies and I found out it was OK to rent them for your home VCR, just not to go to the theater because someone might think you're really attending one of the "bad" movies there. Ah ha, so this is an appearance thing, not a doctrinal position. 

I asked what was evil about "rock music" and was told it was "of the flesh" but they couldn't give me any biblical basis for their arguments. So apparently they didn't know what God thought but expected me to comply because it was what they thought. Hmm... so this was about pleasing people, not pleasing God.

I asked why they believe stuff that they can't support from the Bible, but then they censor me when I ask questions about the nature of inspiration and the extent of inerrancy. So they could alter the Bible to suit their needs but if I asked what they really believed, then, about inspiration and inerrancy, I get censored. Ah ha, so this was  not a reasonable faith drawn from Scripture, but a man-made faith built on tradition.

One thing they knew for sure, that was I couldn't teach or serve in the church if I was going to ask hard questions during Sunday School!

Finding no place in that body to exercise my spiritual gifts, I left (after 19 years in fundamentalism).

When I left I decided that wherever I ended up, they were going to have to accept me the way God did: With long hair and without a tie. I haven't worn a tie to church since, nor have I cut my hair. I've been happy to be able to fellowship with a group of believers who aren't caught up in the way people look but instead are interested in serving God from the heart. 

So I guess you can say that my hair is a proclamation of Christian liberty, a doctrinal test for my new church, and a challenge to my old friends to throw off the bondage of human tradition. (Not everyone is up to the challenge. Check out this email exchange.)

On the other hand, God may have a different plan. As I grow it longer in the back he seems to be taking it away from the front. :-)

Footnote: For a period of about two years I wore a different tie every Sunday. Most were from the Rush Limbaugh collection, though I also have a collection of cartoon and special occasion ties (such as the Grinch, which was my favorite Christmas tie). Someday I'll have to post a "tie museum" with pictures from my tie rack.