[sword-devel] some more new Bible modules
Mon, 21 May 2001 11:52:46 -0400
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Harry Plantinga
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 9:16 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: [sword-devel] some more new Bible modules
> I think that you all have a major decision brewing. Given the
> nature of Christians and Christianity, it will be impossible
> for a diverse group of developers to agree on a set of "theologically
> sound" documents. Especially since none is without error
> except for the Word of God, whatever that means.
> You'll have to agree to become a software developer only -- without
> endorsing a particular set of documents -- or a publisher, giving
> some stamp of approval to certain documents and not others.
I agree with at least some of what you said, most
software developers are not qualified to make a
theological assessment of what is "theologically
sound" and what is not. Therefore, the recent
suggestion that all documents be presented on the
same level would exceed the qualifications of
the same software developers that have made this
suggestion. Who are these post modern software
developers that would seek to elevate the spurious
documents to the same level as the accepted
documents? This leveling would only serve to
create a new "anything goes" orthodoxy.
> The latter course has much value -- weeding out the weeds from
> the wheat -- or even just giving notice that certain documents
> are generally held in high regard among "orthodox christians" --
> whatever that means.
> It would also be highly political. It probably mean electing
> an editorial board, and fending off constant challenges to their
> decisions. It may not have happened much yet, but the difficulties
> will grow as the user base grows. It might split the developer base.
> It would seem to me to make more sense to separate the software
> project and the publishing project. Let the software group be
> truly non-sectarian, and let as many publishing groups start as
> would like to. Let the publishing groups decide on their own
> publications policies -- ideally, clearly and openly describing
> their criteria, but that would be up to them.
> Blessings to all,
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: email@example.com
> > [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Paul Gear
> > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 4:46 AM
> > To: email@example.com
> > Subject: Re: [sword-devel] some more new Bible modules
> > Jerry Hastings wrote:
> > > ...
> > > >I don't really see an intentional act of deception in this
> > translation. I
> > > >see a number of poorly and non-literally translated words as
> its primary
> > > >defects.
> > >
> > > I have a copy and use it. It has not lead me into any weird doctrines.
> > That is indeed true. I have 40 or so translations on my shelf,
> > and there are
> > far more bad ones than good ones! :-)
> > > ...
> > > Whether it should be labeled questionable depends on what
> people expect
> > > from translations being split into questionable or not. If they
> > expect that
> > > a translation, accurate or not, by people outside of the doctrinal
> > > mainstream should be labeled questionable, then I think it should be.
> > > ...
> > > Just take these as suggestions. I am glad it is you and not me
> > that has to
> > > make the choice.
> > No translation is unquestionable - i don't agree with everthing in
> > the KJV, NIV,
> > GNB, WEB, etc. They all have their good and bad points. So i
> > think perhaps the
> > easiest thing to do would be to treat them all as "questionable".
> > That is, make
> > an explicit statement that we do not guarantee the orthodoxy of anything
> > provided on the site. How about something like this:
> > "No translation is infallible, therefore we make no special claims
> > as to the
> > orthodoxy, accuracy, or helpfulness of any of the translations
> > provided here.
> > Each reader should use the guidance of the Holy Spirit when using
> > the materials
> > provided and compare the translations against each other in
> their personal
> > study."
> > What think ye, brethren? :-)
> > Paul
> > http://www.bigfoot.com/~paulgear