[sword-devel] some more new Bible modules

[Harry Plantinga]

I think that you all have a major decision brewing. Given the
nature of Christians and Christianity, it will be impossible
for a diverse group of developers to agree on a set of "theologically
sound" documents.  Especially since none is without error
except for the Word of God, whatever that means.

You'll have to agree to become a software developer only -- without
endorsing a particular set of documents -- or a publisher, giving
some stamp of approval to certain documents and not others.

The latter course has much value -- weeding out the weeds from
the wheat -- or even just giving notice that certain documents
are generally held in high regard among "orthodox christians" --
whatever that means.

It would also be highly political.  It probably mean electing
an editorial board, and fending off constant challenges to their
decisions.  It may not have happened much yet, but the difficulties
will grow as the user base grows. It might split the developer base.

It would seem to me to make more sense to separate the software
project and the publishing project. Let the software group be
truly non-sectarian, and let as many publishing groups start as
would like to. Let the publishing groups decide on their own
publications policies -- ideally, clearly and openly describing
their criteria, but that would be up to them.

Blessings to all,

Harry


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sword-devel@crosswire.org
> [mailto:owner-sword-devel@crosswire.org]On Behalf Of Paul Gear
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 4:46 AM
> To: sword-devel@crosswire.org
> Subject: Re: [sword-devel] some more new Bible modules
>
>
> Jerry Hastings wrote:
>
> > ...
> > >I don't really see an intentional act of deception in this
> translation.  I
> > >see a number of poorly and non-literally translated words as its primary
> > >defects.
> >
> > I have a copy and use it. It has not lead me into any weird doctrines.
>
> That is indeed true.  I have 40 or so translations on my shelf,
> and there are
> far more bad ones than good ones!  :-)
>
> > ...
> > Whether it should be labeled questionable depends on what people expect
> > from translations being split into questionable or not. If they
> expect that
> > a translation, accurate or not, by people outside of the doctrinal
> > mainstream should be labeled questionable, then I think it should be.
> > ...
> > Just take these as suggestions. I am glad it is you and not me
> that has to
> > make the choice.
>
> No translation is unquestionable - i don't agree with everthing in
> the KJV, NIV,
> GNB, WEB, etc.  They all have their good and bad points.  So i
> think perhaps the
> easiest thing to do would be to treat them all as "questionable".
> That is, make
> an explicit statement that we do not guarantee the orthodoxy of anything
> provided on the site.  How about something like this:
>
> "No translation is infallible, therefore we make no special claims
> as to the
> orthodoxy, accuracy, or helpfulness of any of the translations
> provided here.
> Each reader should use the guidance of the Holy Spirit when using
> the materials
> provided and compare the translations against each other in their personal
> study."
>
> What think ye, brethren?  :-)
>
> Paul
> http://www.bigfoot.com/~paulgear
>
>