[sword-devel] 1.7.2 release
dcowens76 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 16 01:39:33 MST 2014
On 1/16/14, 3:50 PM, Chris Little wrote:
> On 1/15/2014 3:51 PM, Daniel Owens wrote:
>> I agree. From a strategic point of view, I think it makes sense to place
>> a priority on mapping between KJV, NRSV, and Leningrad, but then LXX is
>> important too. Even if it is only approximate, there are some places
>> where it is very simple (most of the Psalms are offset by one chapter,
>> for example), and when it can be done, accurate (though maybe not
>> precise) parallel display should be sought after to make it easier for
>> the user. It does not have to be perfect, and certainly such mapping
>> does not need to reorder verses like the German Bible Society's Synopsis
>> of the Gospels. The user just needs to see in a parallel display that
>> the two Bibles are roughly lined up.
> Sure, and the KJV, NRSV, and Leningrad can be mapped between with good
> accuracy. Furthermore, the data is readily available and there's no
> variability to account for or work around.
> Mapping between the LXX versification system and another versification
> is impossible because there's no single LXX versification.
> Specifically mapping between Rahlfs' LXX and a KJV/NRSV or
> MT/Leningrad versified translation will work fine (and the data for
> that is available). Applying the same mapping between Brenton's LXX
> translation and the KJV/NRSV or MT/Leningrad versified translation
> will fail spectacularly. The versifications of Rahlfs' and Brenton's
> LXXes, despite using the same versification system definition in
> Sword, have about as much in common as either of them and the KJV.
> So this reduces to the point I keep making: translation to translation
> mapping will work well-enough; system to system mapping (as they're
> defined in/by Sword) will not.
> The data for all the LXX editions & translations used to create
> Sword's LXX versification definition can be found at
> and everyone is welcome to do their own comparisons to see the wide
> variability of versifications among texts using the same versification
I think in the flurry of emails I missed the distinction you were making
between mapping between translations and mapping between systems. That
is a useful distinction. I think I was hasty in reading you to be saying
that all mappings were a ridiculous waste of time—who would want them?
The answer many in the thread gave was, we all want them! I suspect we
were talking about different things (though I could be wrong). I hope we
can all agree that the end-user experience with parallel texts is
something we want to improve.
Having said that, mapping between the most important Bible modules is
what I hope can happen. In my mind this means the ability to
successfully read KJV/ESV-kind-of-texts in parallel with Leningrad and
Rahlfs' LXX. Brenton's LXX is much less important. Perhaps what I missed
is whether everyone else was advocating mapping between systems or
mapping between texts. But I would think that if mapping works well
between the four texts listed above, that would make a large number of
the texts in the module repository work with them as well. And that
would be a fantastic start.
More information about the sword-devel