[sword-devel] Re: Re: Re: Offer help (portuguese module?)

DArio Matos dmatos0 at yahoo.com.br
Fri May 5 02:11:31 MST 2006

I had this same discussion with Leandro Dutra back in 2004/2005, but then was my word against him,  so it never went anywhere. Since then, I've tried to trace down how many different "Almeida" versions is out there "in the wild", and up till now I've found at least eight different versions (I'm still collecting them as personally I have a hard copy of only three of them: Almeida Revista e Corrigida, Almeida Revista e Atualizada, Almeida Contemporânea).

I'd like to know if such a research has ever been officially made, on how many different versions of this very same translation (that is, the Almeida translation), the main differences between them (translation options, doctrine, etc), their release date, their copyright holders, etc.

Actually, I thik it would be easier to make a new version of an Almeida-like portuguese translation of the Bible, released under GPL or other public license - that is, to make an entirely new  "Almeida Livre" - than to gain authorisation to distribute one copyrighted Almeida Bible on the Net. 

Again it is my opinnion, but it seems to me that brazillian Bible publishers see their business as mere business. They claim to distribute "x" thousand printed Bibles per year, but they refuse to even considerate or discuss free online distribution of their texts granted it is not allowed commercial use of it (and I mean distribution, not only acess, as SBB already has on their website).

Sorry for the rant...

date: Fri, 5 May 2006 09:52:16 +0200
From: Manfred Bergmann <bergmannmd at yahoo.de>


If you open PorAA in BibleDesktop you can see that each verse has two  
characters before the lineend that might not be UTF8.
At least MacSword can't deal with them.
To me it seems that there is a problem with the module. I guess the  
characters are in the source also (OSIS?) and I would suggest  
removing them from the source and making a new sword module.

Best regards,

Am 03.05.2006 um 16:24 schrieb DM Smith:

> Just my thoughts as one who doesn't know Portuguese.
> I have followed this thread and the prior ones for some time.
> If we continue to leave the current PorAA online, we should fix the  
> technical difficulties in it. In doing so, it should not be  
> compared to any version. That is textual problems such as missing  
> verses, misspellings, truncated words, wrong verse breaks and the  
> like should be ignored. The result will be a module that performs  
> better in the various SWORD apps, but has exactly the same content  
> as before. The copyright and naming issues will be exactly as they  
> are today: still unsolved.
> I also think that it is a good thing to seek permission to get a  
> good version online, perhaps replacing this one.
> Jónatas Ferreira wrote:
>> Em 2006/05/03, às 11:01, Sergio Queiroz escreveu:
>>>> Em Tue, 02 May 2006 11:23:44 +0200, Sergio Queiroz escreveu:
>>>>> Indeed, the PorAA has some problems with strange characters at  
>>>>> each
>>>>> verse ending and with some accents, like the "Ã ". But that it  
>>>>> is a
>>>>> corrupted copy of a copyrighted work is the personal opinion of
>>>>> Leandro Dutra.
>>>>   No, it is not.
>>> Yes It is (I will not extend this discussion).
>> I must agree with Leandro that the module is misnamed. I had  
>> access to a paper copy of Almeida Atualizada and it is NOT the  
>> same. Even if Unbound guys say it is OK to distribute, they must  
>> provide where they got it from. Besides, even if it is the Almeida  
>> Atualizada, that version is NOT Public Domain.
>>>>> It is normal that you cannot find any bible in print with the  
>>>>> exact
>>>>> text of this version, as the brazilian bible editors have  
>>>>> changed a
>>>>> bit the translation over the years to ameliorate it and also to  
>>>>> have
>>>>> copyright rights over the new text (and in this way preserve 
>>>>> commercial interests).
>>>>   Please stop spreading misinformation.  Just compare the PorAA  
>>>> with
>>>> the Versão Revisada.
>>> This means nothing, as they come from the same translation.
>> This has some meaning. It is theoretically possible that two  
>> versions from the same source end up exactly the same, but can you  
>> believe that? It is almost like believing evolution brought us  
>> here... And not even evolutionists would agree on that.
>>>>> If you look at the history of this list, you will see a message 
>>>>> think that by Chris Little) where he affirms that Crosswire  
>>>>> Society
>>>>> knows where this version traces to, and that it has no copyright
>>>>> problems.
>>>>   More misinformation.  All we know is the website it comes from
>>>> (UnBounded Bible if memory doesn’t fail me), and then the siteâ 
>>>> €™s
>>>> administrators never answered requests for clarification.
>>> Read the message by Chris Little here
>> I have read the Chris Little's message and the rest of the tread  
>> and he doesn't say nothing against Leandro's position. I think  
>> everyone is just washing hands. I know the President of the  
>> Portuguese Bible Society personally and I will contact him to know  
>> if I can evaluate the copies and, if needed, obtain the necessary  
>> permission. (If they don't hold the copyright they can help me to  
>> contact with the holder.
>>>>> Notice that the translation by Joao Ferreira de Almeida is very  
>>>>> old
>>>>> (dates from the XVII century--for the new testament at least),  
>>>>> so it
>>>>> has multiple revisions by different bodies, some free of  
>>>>> copyright,
>>>>> some others not.
>>>>   So what?
>>> So you say that it is the version by the IBB when it is not. They  
>>> may be
>>> almost the same as they came from the same public domain sources.
>>>>> The modifications of Leandro could not be accepted because he has
>>>>> not only solved the technical problems of the module, he has also
>>>>> updated the text to reflect the copyrighted work that he
>>>>> mentions. So it could no longer be distributed without the
>>>>> authorization of the copyright holders of that version.
>>>>   Sérgio, it is quite interesting how you phantasize the past  
>>>> to fit
>>>> your world view.  Problem is, it amounts to a lie, if  
>>>> unintentional.
>>> Refer back to the aforementioned message.
>>>>   I didn’t ‘update the text to reflect the copyrighted work  
>>>> that (I)
>>>> mention(ed)’.  I just fixed typos and missing text.  Do a diff
>>>> yourself.
>>> We cannot adding "missing text" based on a copyrighted version  
>>> and keep
>>> the module free.
>>>>> Saying that this version is corrupted is a very far cry. I use it
>>>>> frequently in a small group study group, where we are from  
>>>>> different
>>>>> nationalities, and we normally use the PorAA, the King James
>>>>> (english) and the Louis Segond (french) at the same time, to 
>>>>> the same text. I've never found a "corruption" in the PorAA text
>>>>> (I'm brazilian but also fluent in english and french). In fact, 
>>>>> is often almost the same as the King James version.
>>>>   So you haven’t read enough.  There are quite some missing  
>>>> passages,
>>>> sometimes starting or finishing at mid-sentence or even truncating
>>>> words.  Even passing PorAA thru a spellchecker will show you  
>>>> corrupted
>>>> passages.
>>> Show us them, and we will fix based on a public domain source.
>> Can I suggest that we start writing to the list every time we  
>> encounter errors?
>>>>> So, I think that you can use the PorAA without fears of having a
>>>>> corrupted
>>>>> version.
>>>>   Problem is, you ‘think’ too much but never check the facts.
>>> That is also your personal opinion.
>>>>> And it is much better to have a free portuguese module with some
>>>>> technical problems than no portuguese module at all.
>>>>   Not ‘some technical problems’ only.  Real missing text,  
>>>> real garbled
>>>> text.
>>> Again, show us them, and we will fix based on a public domain  
>>> source.
>>>>> I have at home a small shell script that I have used to correct  
>>>>> the
>>>>> problems with the "à " and the "À" as well as the strange  
>>>>> characters
>>>>> at the end of verses
>>>>   If you could be bothered to write a shell script to fix the  
>>>> errors
>>>> you see, how come you can’t be bothered to diff it against my  
>>>> files
>>>> and see for yourself PorAA is actually a corrupted Revisada?
>>> It is not worth the effort to compare with a copyrighted work, as 
>>> cannot adopt the differences. And comparing with other Almeida  
>>> will just
>>> show that they are "Almeidas". You can compare with the Almeida  
>>> Corrigida
>>> e Fiel, by the Trinitarian Bible Society, if you want to. Maybe  
>>> you can
>>> conclude we also have a "corrupted Almeida Corrigida e Fiel" too.
>>>> Please please please stop this nonsense!
>>> Again, in your opinion.
>> It is true that we cannot accept the differences if they come from  
>> a copyrighted work, but it seams that NO ONE has access to the  
>> Public Domain source. The only ones that should be able to do that  
>> are the Unbound guys and they don't know or don't bother.
>> But, again I say, the module is missnamed. I can give you the  
>> opinion of a scholar on that: my greek's professor at the  
>> theological seminar. He has been in several groups of translators  
>> for several portuguese bible versions and he told me that the  
>> version I have IS NOT Atualizada. If you compare several Almeida  
>> modified Bibles you will conclude the same that I did: you cannot  
>> read through without encountering differences at least in 1/3 of  
>> the verses.
>> Jónatas

 Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail - 1GB de espaço, alertas de e-mail no celular e anti-spam realmente eficaz. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/attachments/20060505/f53e8bcb/attachment-0001.html

More information about the sword-devel mailing list