<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 08/17/2010 10:30 AM, Mike Hart wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:159569.67256.qm@web53207.mail.re2.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="font: inherit;" valign="top">
<div>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. </div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<br>
I don't think you'll ever see a text at CrossWire modified to
include anything that is not in the upstream e-text. We try to find
the most faithful e-text for each of the modules. On occasion, we've
pulled modules because their upstream e-text has not been faithful
to the dead-tree version (e.g. BDB, if I remember correctly).<br>
<br>
I think the basic idea is that the application should have a mode
that will provide the cross references from one module as companion
to another. I imagine that it will be something that the user will
enable deliberately. Hopefully, it will also be visually
distinctive, such as verse end markers using a different format or a
parallel column.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:159569.67256.qm@web53207.mail.re2.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="font: inherit;" valign="top">
<div> </div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
--- On <b>Mon, 8/16/10, Jonathan Morgan <i><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jonmmorgan@gmail.com"><jonmmorgan@gmail.com></a></i></b>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote style="padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px;
border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255);"><br>
<div id="yiv1782557719"><br>
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]<br>
<br>
Jon<br>
</div>
<br>
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----<br>
<br>
<div class="plainMail">_______________________________________________<br>
sword-devel mailing list: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://us.mc532.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sword-devel@crosswire.org"
ymailto="mailto:sword-devel@crosswire.org">sword-devel@crosswire.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel"
target="_blank">http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel</a><br>
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at
above page</div>
</blockquote>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sword-devel@crosswire.org">sword-devel@crosswire.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel">http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel</a>
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>