[sword-devel] clean bible or bad phantasy?
Troy A. Griffitts
Thu, 05 Dec 2002 09:57:02 -0700
*** OK, Please end this thread. ***
On a few concluding notes...
As Martin mentioned in his _not so polite way_ :) We already have
modules that allow you to toggle vowel points.
Victor wants to do more than this. His module includes all strongs
numbers of any word that can programmatically be derived by removing
vowel points and ignoring context. Most people on this list feel that
this is bad scholarly practice and also feel that it will confuse more
intermediate readers than it will help.
Currently, Victor is welcome to publish this work on his own. I don't
even have a problem possibly linking to his sight with a disclaimer
notice. But CrossWire doesn't currently have a 'We disagree with the
scholarly approach, but here's the module anyway' category.
If you'd like to continue the discussion further, please email privately.
Patrick Narkinsky wrote:
> Thus spake "Daniel Russell"> :
>>If that is the attitude that is being adopted by this group, then i
>>wholeheartedly disagree with it. I find it absurd that the group would
>>fail to endorse the original unvoweled text, especially considering that
>>that is how Jewish people actually read nearly all of their text today!,
>>nevermind the fact that God Himself allowed the authors of the text,
>>---- wait, scratch that, this does not have to include God ---, but the
>>BIBLE AUTHORS THEMSELVES actually wrote the text that way.
> What precise "endorsement" do you visualize? What I hear everyone saying is
> "let's go ahead and include it, but let's also include the other Hebrew
> texts for reference." Consider a parallel case: at least some on this group
> regard the King James version as the best available English Translation. I
> regard it as a very nice translation done in 1611, and think that we have
> many much better translations available, even out of copyright. (In
> particular, the RSV is IMNSHO an excellent translation, if a bit dated.)
> Does this mean I should run off in a huff because I don't like the KJV? No
> ... I just let them do their thing and I do my own. If you produce a module
> that doesn't have vowel points, I'm SURE you could put it on your own
> website, and I imagine that Crosswire would put it in the modules list. Even
> if it required a software mod to work, you could still do it, because sword
> is GPL.
> However, it seems like you want someone else to do the work for you.
> That's not how open source software works: you have to scratch your own
> itch. I don't "feel an itch" for an unvoweled Masoretic text, so I'm
> unlikely to volunteer to work on one. I do feel "an itch" for an aspirated
> Westcott-Hort with UBS4 variants (contrary to popular belief, Paleographers
> think that the earliest Greek texts WERE aspirated, just not accented), so I
> might well work on that one. I don't "feel an itch" for a Windows version
> of Sword, so I don't mess with it. I do feel an itch for a Mac OS X
> version, so I scratch it. I also don't feel an itch for a Mac OS 9 version
> of sword - so I do all my development in cocoa. If you don't know how,
> learn! That's what all the rest of us had to do.
> Patrick Narkinsky - Apprentice Pastor, Hope Community Church - 757-652-9540
> "Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons
> exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten." - Chesterton