just_mike_y at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 17 07:30:37 MST 2010
I'd really like this list of references as a commentary that can be watched next to the text, However, adding material into texts that are not present in the dead tree version is scary and deceptive to me. It will reduce the value of the texts maintained on Crosswire. If I'm following cross references in a Wyclif bible (circa 1380 in England), and find out that they aren't the original, but something from circa 1800 in Latvia, and added into Wyclif's work in 2010... I'd at least like to be able to know the reference is a revision and not original before I make public claims on the references. I'm just guessing, but I would think their is a fair number of crosswire users who are students and pastors who will publicize their work in some way and rely on the texts representing what they claim to represent.
I do see the value in making some study aids available within texts, but they shouldn't replace the original texts, but rather be additional texts available (similar to the 3 different NET bibles, of which one has no aids, and one is fully filled). The one that is a Crosswire creation should be clearly marked as such to prevent misinterpretation.
As an example: If you read the reasons behind the death of Tyndale, His crimes weren't the words chosen to represent the scripture, but the commentary added into the texts by his hand. If, as a bible student, I read that, and then go into the Tyndale new testament and find study aids present, I'd study it closely to see what the Church found so offensive. If the references are accurate, I can accurately study that subject, and will eventually find a note in Revelation 13 about the Pope that would explain a little anger on the part of the Church. However, If the references are revisionist, I'm going to form a completely innaccurate opinion of both Tyndale and the Church of his day.
I'd recommend to every one on this list that the value of the various texts does not lie in adding Y2K views of study helps into the texts (red letters, x-references, addon tags about who was speaking when it isn't there), but in accurately representing what was put down on paper when the texts were created. If Wyclif didn't use red ink for Jesus words, I don't want to see Wyclif's bible displayed that way, it's just not helpful, and can be deceiving. I'm not about to go print out a whole Wyclif text and carry it around with me as my primary text, and I doubt anyone would. However, When I refer to it, and I do frequently, I want to see what 1380 saw the Bible as. The same goes for every text available in the Crosswire repository.
--- On Mon, 8/16/10, Jonathan Morgan <jonmmorgan at gmail.com> wrote:
As a generalisation, if all we are dealing with are a set of cross-references for a verse, what benefit is gained from making it part of an individual Bible rather than a commentary? Better display in frontends? Localised references? [I sometimes wonder whether we should be allowing that for all books anyway]
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the sword-devel