[sword-devel] clean bible or bad phantasy?

[Daniel Russell]

Leon Brooks wrote:

>On Thursday 05 December 2002 01:41 pm, Daniel Russell wrote:
>  
>
>>Regardless of whether or not that tool is deemed necessary from a
>>*religious* point of view, include it if nothing else than for the sake
>>of scholastic authenticity.
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>You yourself may not use the tool, but others will,
>>and the work has already been done.
>>    
>>
>
>I think these are the bottom lines. Just because a tool exists doesn't mean 
>that you or I *must* use or endorse it. Have a look at some of the other 
>stuff we've already packaged and tell me if you don't think the vowels 
>dispute isn't majoring on minors compared to that.
>
>Cheers; Leon
>
>  
>
If that is the attitude that is being adopted by this group, then i 
wholeheartedly disagree with it. I find it absurd that the group would 
fail to endorse the original unvoweled text, especially considering that 
that is how Jewish people actually read nearly all of their text today!, 
nevermind the fact that God Himself allowed the authors of the text, 
---- wait, scratch that, this does not have to include God ---, but the 
BIBLE AUTHORS THEMSELVES actually wrote the text that way.

If the project chooses to go the route of neglected something THAT 
fundamental, and calling it a majoring in the minors, then i think the 
project has a fundamental flaw in its goals and assumptions and this 
will likely lead to further censorings and omissions on the grounds that 
"we don't like it" or "we don't think it is necessary".

This is fustrating because this project is, right now, the de facto 
Bible software project, which is too bad, because projects where leaders 
limit the features even when they are readily available never reach 
their full potential.

I hope you will reconsider this position.