[sword-devel] some more new Bible modules

Paul Gear sword-devel@crosswire.org
Tue, 22 May 2001 05:49:37 +1000

Bruce Ramsland wrote:

> > ...
> > 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.

If i had written more of the code in Sword, i would find that statement very
offensive.  (As it stands, i've only written one unused file, so i can hardly
be called a "software developer". :-)

Who is qualified to make a theological assessment?  I don't know what your
answer is, but mine is that every believer is.  Together as a community of
believers (virtual though we may be) we are qualified to make such assessments
by virtue of the presence of the Holy Spirit in us.  It makes no difference
whether we are software developers or not.

Now i agree that not everyone's opinion on these matters should have equal
weight, but this is a matter of experience and gifting, not a matter of
position in the project.  (Not to mention that some software development types
are qualified in biblical studies as well. ;-)

> 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.

I think you're misunderstanding my statement (and reading too much into my
philosophical system :-).  I was not suggesting that we publish anything, but
simply that for those documents which we do publish we should make the same
disclaimer.  I agree that "spurious" documents should not be put on the same
level as orthodox ones.

However, one man's trash is another man's treasure.  Personally, i have found
the CLV to be rather spurious (or maybe "questionable" or "oddball" might be a
better word in this case), but Jerry has recently testified that he has used it
and found it helpful in his study.  Thus, i think it warrants being published.
(Although in this case it is not an issue, since it is still in copyright and
won't be released to the general public.)

If we choose to start classifying documents, we open up the whole can of worms
that Harry mentioned.