User talk:Dmsmith

From CrossWire Bible Society

Jump to: navigation, search

Please leave me messages here. When you do, I'll get email notification.

After reading and responding, I may delete the entry.

Project KJV2006

Project KJV2006 is your project. At the foot of the page, you refer to two KJV 1769 eTexts used for comparison. The criteria for choosing these is given under the earlier heading Faithful representation.

I have discovered what may turn out to be another independent eText for the KJV1769, though it is currently available on-line only as an e-Sword module.

The Spanish RVG downloads page has a box with the following description.

"The KJV1769 for e-Sword
The KJV for e-Sword is not the 1769, it is some other revision. Thanks to Pastor Art Dunham for putting this module together."

It is sometimes feasible to extract the text from an e-Sword user module, and then to convert the extracted text to VPL format. This could be useful as a third comparison with your KJV2006 module text, and might conceivably lead to even greater accuracy. I have already made substantial progress.

David Haslam 17:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

David, how is the effort going?
I need to get back to this topic, which has fallen between the cracks in my tasks list. David Haslam 10:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
No big deal. It's just anoher quality check.--Dmsmith 11:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Last month, I acquired a copy of The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611) - Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives, by F.H.A. Scrivener. ISBN 1-59244-634-5 (a recent reprint as p/b by WIPF and STOCK Publishers). David Haslam 10:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The main value of Scrivener's book is the English textual history behind the 1769 Authorised Version. More recently (and much more expensive!), yet partly based on Scrivener's book, is the 2005 book by David Norton. A textual history of the King James Bible, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521771005. See [1]. David Haslam 20:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
See also [2] "The KJV Bible that is used on this website was downloaded from the Oxford Text Archive and then was compared to the listings printed in the book above in order to determine which edition it was. The answer was the 1769 Oxford edition." David Haslam 20:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I have made some progress today, and found a significant number of places that require attention. I aim to compile a comprehensive structured list. Most of them concern either missing or misplaced <transChange>...</transChange> markers. David Haslam 21:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The lack of displayed italics for some translation changes is not due to missing markers at all, but linked to the use of an alternative method to mark a transChange within a <w> element. This occurs at 17 places within the KJV module. David Haslam 23:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I have reported my observations from the detailed comparison in new page User:Dmsmith/KJV2011. David Haslam 21:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

KJV 1611

Discussion moved from previous section.

cool. I'd like to get the 1611 up some time for it's historical value. BTW, I was once told that the KJV was the version that Jesus used.--Dmsmith 11:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I once made a KJV 1611 version for Go Bible, based on text from an e-Sword user module. David Haslam 20:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Was it actually the 1611 version? Most are actually 1769 or more recent. It appears that they are labeled such because of ignorance or because that's what the KJV-only crowd call it.--Dmsmith 11:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It looks much earlier spelling than the well known 1769 version. I have pasted Genesis 1 here. What do you think? David Haslam 17:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It looks like the KJV 1611 (ignoring the long-s)--Dmsmith 17:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I just rechecked what I did in 2007. I never got as far as making it into a Go Bible, I had merely extracted the text from the e-Sword module. Today I just ran some of my TextPipe filters to convert this to VPL and thence ThML. There are 73 books; it includes 7 from the apocrypha, which are listed after Revelation. David Haslam 17:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Please ignore the word "user" in the description of the digital source. Mea culpa. David Haslam 17:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Other Messages

Index management and indexed search are not teh same things - FB e.g can search on existing indeces, but can not create its own indeces. I am not objecting per se against del;etion of teh entry, but I think there is a difference. Maybe a footnote in FB under the search heading will do refdoc:talk Done. refdoc:talk 16:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, you are right! I've made the correction.--Dmsmith 11:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Miscellaneous
Toolbox