<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div dir="auto">Michael and I obviously differ in opinion on this
subject, and he knows that I love him and so appreciate the work
he does at ebible.org.<br>
<br>
I would like to propose that our differences are due to our
perspective in light of our primary ministries:<br>
<br>
Among many other things, Michael with ebible.org edits and
publishes the World English Bible and its variations and also
transforms every freely distributable Bible from the United Bible
Societies' (USB) Digital Bible Library (DBL) repository to many
formats, including SWORD, and for that we are so grateful and
blessed by his efforts.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">For his work, he needs to try to fit all these
Bibles into one of our versification schemes (actually maybe he
has punted on that and may use our NRSVA scheme which is one of
our largest supersets; I don't know these days). I can imagine the
frustration this must be for him, trying to automate this
conversion as much as possible. He has had much grace to convert
DBL markup to OSIS (a format he doesn't love) and select a
versification, which he sees many of his Bibles don't match
exactly. I am so grateful for his friendship and his partnership
in ministry over many decades.<br>
<br>
From my perspective, SWORD is focused on Bible research. In my
mind, I am need to define a finite set of unambiguous segments of
Scripture, and once defined, for each segment:<br>
<ul>
<li>show that same segment of Scripture in all Bibles which
contain that segment.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://crosswire.org/study/parallelstudy.jsp?del=all&add=KJV&add=NA28DBG&add=NASB&add=RST&key=Matt.16.28#cv">https://crosswire.org/study/parallelstudy.jsp?del=all&add=KJV&add=NA28DBG&add=NASB&add=RST&key=Matt.16.28#cv</a></li>
<li>even try to align individual words, if we can, within that
segment (try clicking on any word from the link above).</li>
<li>find the precise folio in all ancient manuscripts of that
segment and showing images of that segment:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://crosswire.org/study/fetchdata.jsp?mod=TC&key=Matt.16.28&srcMod=NASB">https://crosswire.org/study/fetchdata.jsp?mod=TC&key=Matt.16.28&srcMod=NASB</a></li>
<li>find the parallel passages of that segment across the Four
Gospels, using Eusebian Canon Tables, with 2 segments of
context before and after:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://crosswire.org/study/eusebian.jsp?key=Matt.16.28&context=2#cv">https://crosswire.org/study/eusebian.jsp?key=Matt.16.28&context=2#cv</a></li>
<li>find and show commentary about that segment:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://crosswire.org/study/passagestudy.jsp?key=Matt.16.28-28&mod=JFB">https://crosswire.org/study/passagestudy.jsp?key=Matt.16.28-28&mod=JFB</a></li>
<li>compute and show variation in manuscripts about that
segment:</li>
<li><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/community/vmr/api/collate/?baseText=ECM&indexContent=Matt+16%3A28&extraVerses=0&documentGroupID=-1&ignorePunctuation=true&ignoreSupplied=true&ignoreUnclear=true&ignoreAccents=true&format=graph&preferUser=undefined®UserID=intfadmin">https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/community/vmr/api/collate/?baseText=ECM&indexContent=Matt+16%3A28&extraVerses=0&documentGroupID=-1&ignorePunctuation=true&ignoreSupplied=true&ignoreUnclear=true&ignoreAccents=true&format=graph&preferUser=undefined®UserID=intfadmin</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<p>For my daily work, I need tightly defined, unambiguous segments
of the original Text. Michael is daily trying to get a
publisher's translation displaying the way the publisher desires--
with all the publisher's unique adjustments of the text, and
understandably he gets frustrated that a simple task isn't so
simple in SWORD because he needs to segment and fit each Bible
into a versification system with IDs which we can use to do all
our research. I get it. I understand. Simple things should be
simple, and right now they are not.</p>
<p>We have discussed alternatives for a more ePub/PDF like reader's
view of a Bible, where we preserve the imported data file's
ordering such that a reader oriented view could possibly ask for,
say 'chapter' chunks and just display what it gets, and then slice
things up into our indices behind the scenes as we do now. We've
had 'reader view' requests for our lexicon modules, as well,
because we order entries to allow fast binary search lookups, and
when a client of the SWORD library asks to step through a lexicon
module, they get an ordered list of entries instead of a the
published order in the original lexicon. We could do much better
preserving original publisher display; even simply to the point
that we support this use case as a first class citizen in the
engine and preserve a ePub or / PDF of the original with each
module.<br>
</p>
<p>I want to move forward with solutions for each task we each
individually feel called to work toward. I am sorry that I
prioritize my tasks I feel I am called to work toward instead of
helping others find solutions for their ministry. This might be
normal for a software engineer, but not for a good leader.</p>
<p>Serving together,</p>
<p>Troy</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>On February 19, 2024 18:12:55 MST, Kahunapule Michael Johnson
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:kahunapule@eBible.org"><kahunapule@eBible.org></a> wrote:</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear All,</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">If I understand Arnaud correctly, I
really like his ideas. The BEST part is that the next time a
Bible is submitted for processing with yet another unique
versification (after the changes are implemented), it doesn't
have to be either force-fit into a versification that doesn't
fit or wait for decades for someone to update the hard-coded
versifications in the Sword engine, and for those to be
incorporated into all of the front ends.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I regard the current minimalist
versification system to be seriously in need of an upgrade. It
is based on false assumptions (listed by Troy, no offense
intended) that seemed good at the time they were made.
However, with 1404 Bible translations (and counting) is that
(1) 90% success is an over-estimate of how well it works, and
(2) Sword versification is a complete failure for numerous
projects because none of the existing versifications fit, the
fall-back mechanisms fail and result in wrong outputs or
crashes in osis2mod, and nobody is actively fixing the
situation.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I have found the following to be
true:</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">The number of versifications needed
to represent all Bibles properly tomorrow is highly likely to
be more than the number that works today. Hard-coding
versifications into slowly-changing code that is only updated
in fits and starts is doomed to fail (and already has, in my
not-so-humble opinion).<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Verse numbers in a chapter don't
always proceed in numerical order. Several Bible translations
move the statement about the motion of the shadow on
Hezekaiah's steps to a more logical place in terms of
discourse, without changing the verse numbers. Indeed, they
split verses into segments and straddle other verses with
them.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Chapter and verse "numbers" aren't
always pure numbers. Letters get involved in the
Deuterocanon/Apocrypha. Some Bible translators like to use
verse segments (like 6a and 6b) heavily.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Verse bridges (like verse 1-3 with
everything from verses 1 through 3 but possibly rearranged and
with no other verse markings within them) are very common.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Mapping any arbitrary versification
to any other is NICE, but NOT NECESSARY. Displaying the text
as the translators intended is NECESSARY. If you can do both,
do it. If you cannot, at least display the versification of
the Bible translation as the translator intended.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I am fully aware of the changes in
architecture and code adapting to the realities I perceive
imply. At this point, I'm not sure if modifying the Sword
engine or rewriting it would be easier. Either way, it is a
lot of work.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">It is my understanding that JSword
is a bit better than Sword in this regard, in that it doesn't
assume fixed versifications.<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">As far as volunteering for pumpkin
holder for versifications, I nominate Arnaud. (I already bit
off more than I can chew by myself. Sorry.)<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/19/24 14:23, Troy A. Griffitts
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:761f3c36-7f21-4ab4-94f2-f606d968f6da@crosswire.org">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>Dear all,</p>
<p>These comments are a mix of background, history, and
thoughts:</p>
<p>1) VERSIFICATION (v11n):</p>
<p>Variation between reference systems sucks. Until you get
into the weeds of the details, it is normal to assume the
problems are not complex. SWORD tries to implement a simple
90% solution.<br>
</p>
<p>SWORD and JSword support defined abstract versification
schemes with 3 simple dimensions: [bookid :
chapterMax][chapterNumber : verseMax][verseNumber :
verseEntry]<br>
</p>
<p>Conceptually we also operate on these assumptions (I've
skimmed the proposal by Arnaud which differs here, but I
haven't given it the thought it deserves to comment yet):
that book order is defined in the v11n system; that chapter
and verse numbers are numeric and begin at 1 and increase to
verseMax. We also allocate a special slot '0' for: Module
Introduction; Testament Introduction; Book Introduction; and
Chapter Introduction (e.g., Matt.0.0 can hold an
introduction to Matthew).<br>
</p>
<p>Those who have been exposed to many Bibles will immediately
think of places these assumption fall short. But for
>90% of our Bibles, these assumption hold true, and these
assumption make many aspects of our work much simpler
(abstract parsing of verse lists and ranges, bookmark
ordering, etc.).</p>
<p>Historically, SWORD previously supported dynamic, per
module, versification, with a 3 phase lookup:</p>
index file .bks[book number] = book offset in next index;<br>
index file .cps[book offset + chapter number] = chapter offset
in next index;<br>
index file .vss[chapter offset + verse number] = verse offset
and entry size in data file.
<p>20 years or so, we made the decision to begin the hard work
to understand versification systems within Bibles so we
could begin to map them appropriately. This let us remove
the .bks, and .cps index files and store that data in
versification system definitions, leaving only the final
.vss index file which gave the offsets and entry sizes into
the data file.</p>
<p>Caring about versifications was a decision we made. Our
previous design let any Bible decide how many books, how
many chapters, and how many verses each chapter contained.
This had its merits because any new versification could be
defined in each module without anyone caring what it was.
But the drawback was the same: any Bible could decide how
many books, how many chapters, and how many verses without
anyone knowing why or what they were.</p>
<p>Some have pushed for dynamic definitions of v11n systems
again, and I understand why. I am in favor of moving
forward with a hybrid approach: a set of defined
versification systems, which a module will still need to
choose from, to which it most closely adheres, + the ability
for that module to specify its variation.<br>
</p>
<p>Toward 98%: We have tried to work around the cons of this
simple design and approach 100% support by accounting for
the most common types of problems, e.g.</p>
<ul>
<li>The engine allows common verse suffixes (e.g.
Matt.2.7b);</li>
<li>The engine skips verses in a Bible which are not
present-- this allows us to create v11n schemes which are
a superset of n number of closely related v11n schemes,
knowing that the engine will skip over the verses that are
not present in the module; We also have tools which print
out missing verses which has proven a good QA check for
our modules team.<br>
</li>
<li>When we run across a Bible which adds an odd verse here
or there or an out of order verse, our workaround has been
to append these to end of the verse just before where they
should appear, so the text flows the same as the printed
Bible, and we include for the reader an inline visual
separator and marker showing the publisher's verse number.<br>
</li>
</ul>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>These work arounds get us pretty close to being able to
support 98% of our Bibles exactly as the publisher wishes,
and the remaining 2% is supported "well enough" for no
complaints by publishers. Could we build a system which
allowed out of order verses, or which allowed any scheme a
Bible wished to follow? Sure, but the added complexity for
various tasks increases quite a bit for some of these
allowances-- e.g., think index math for book chapter verse
when we cannot assume numeric sequence; think abstract
ordering of bookmarks not tied to any specific Bible, search
results across Bibles, etc.<br>
</p>
<p>Our vision with v11n definitions is that they will be a few
as possible allowing us to map between them most easily; and
as many as necessary to allow us to represent well enough a
published work.<br>
</p>
<p>Chris Little previously was our versification pumpkin
holder and did some amazing work researching all this
material. As a demonstration of his thorough work and an
example of the difficulties with v11n, see his work on just
the LXX tradition:</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.crosswire.org/svn/sword-tools/trunk/versification/lxx_v11ns/"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.crosswire.org/svn/sword-tools/trunk/versification/lxx_v11ns/</a></p>
<p>Chris has left our community after many years of
volunteering massive time and effort.</p>
<p>We haven't had anyone step up who is willing to commit the
time and effort necessary and who holds our vision (as few
as possible, as many as necessary).</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>2) MAPPINGS:</p>
<p>SWORD and JSword support v11n to v11n mappings. Graciously,
Костя Маслюк worked with us for over a year to discuss the
problems and implement a versification mapping system which
has been included in the engine. He also added v11n
mappings for systems he was interested in supporting. If
anyone is interesting in the discussions, they can see the
archives, e.g.,</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/2013-July/040154.html"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/2013-July/040154.html</a></p>
<p>Historically, we called this topic alternate versification,
so if you see "av11n" in the archives, you'll be aware.</p>
<p>Registering v11n systems and mappings in the engine is
straightforward in our versification manager, and as you can
see, loading these dynamically from a file would be simple
to implement:</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.crosswire.org/svn/sword/trunk/src/mgr/versificationmgr.cpp"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.crosswire.org/svn/sword/trunk/src/mgr/versificationmgr.cpp</a></p>
<p>During the development of the mapping infrastructure, our
proof of concept was to see if we could concisely build a
parallel Bible HTML display across versification systems,
letting a user specify any number of Bibles, the first Bible
v11n being the primary ordering driver:</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.crosswire.org/svn/sword/trunk/examples/tasks/parallelBibles.cpp"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.crosswire.org/svn/sword/trunk/examples/tasks/parallelBibles.cpp</a></p>
<p>____<br>
</p>
<p>So, now to the issue with adding another Catholic
versification system. I would love to continue to delegate
ownership of v11n decisions! I trusted Chris. He said "no"
all the time, and only allowed new versification definitions
if we really couldn't support a set of Bibles using an
existing system with our work arounds. He spent the time
necessary to understand the traditions, which published
works would use the proposed versification, he had excellent
skills clearly delineating systems-- generally he made well
informed decisions from many hours of research.<br>
</p>
<p>I don't understand the complex details nor have the time to
do the research for each individual request. My first
thought is, where is Chris?! Next, my uninformed mind
thinks: we have v11n definitions "Catholic" and "Catholic2"!
Why do we need an additional Catholic versification system?
Did we do a bad job with the first two? Can we not follow
our principles and create a superset between 2 or more of
these? And of course, these are not proper responses.<br>
</p>
<p>So, if anyone is prayfully willing to take up this
pumpkin-- to put in the time necessary to research Bible
traditions and published works, to truly understands both
the pros and cons of the decisions we've made to go down the
path we are on, along with our workarounds for the cons, and
is willing to live wholeheartedly with where we are now, but
certainly always open to improve, I would love for that
person to take ownership of versification.</p>
<p>I appreciate the pointers to the Paratext v11ns and
mappings, maybe we compare where we are now with what they
have.</p>
<p>Thank you all for being zealous to improve things. Looking
forward the conversation to follow,</p>
<p>Troy<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>On 1/26/24 06:10, Arnaud Vié wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+kNJPg9QBgJihHAuXnoX4_LuUAW4jF_iv98+f5DCQRKopiwBw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hello everyone,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm the person Cyrille mentioned, and I just joined
the mailing list as I thought I could maybe explain a
bit more what I'm trying to do with this new
versification.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>1. Problem statement</b><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Simply put, my objective is to be able to align
verse-by-verse the contents of two bibles that use
different versifications.</div>
<div>For example :</div>
<div>- I open Daniel 3 in a Catholic bible, it has 100
verses because the Prayer of Azariah is included.</div>
<div>- I want to compare the translation verse by verse
with, for example, the KJVA. This means I want to see
the Daniel 3 from KJVA, with all verses from PrAzar
included in the corresponding place.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There was already logic to perform such mapping in
jsword, and I recently included it to support
deuterocanonical contents (on the AndBible fork, since
that's the only one where I got answers from the
maintainer) : <a
href="https://github.com/AndBible/jsword/pull/13"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://github.com/AndBible/jsword/pull/13</a> </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Now, the problem is to be able to do the same with
the deuterocanonical additions to the book of Esther,
because there are many different "strategies" adopted by
different bibles.</div>
<div>- Protestant bibles, when they have it, usually have
it a separate books (AddEsth in KJVA).</div>
<div>- Some catholic bibles have it as additional chapters
at the end of Esther, making Esther 16 chapters long :
that's the existing "Catholic2" versification, which
maps to KJVA easily : <a
href="https://github.com/AndBible/jsword/blob/develop/src/main/resources/org/crosswire/jsword/versification/Catholic2.properties#L392"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://github.com/AndBible/jsword/blob/develop/src/main/resources/org/crosswire/jsword/versification/Catholic2.properties#L392</a>
<br>
</div>
<div>- Most catholic bibles actually have the additions
integrated directly within the original text, using
lettered verse numbers (13A, 13B, etc., see here for
example : <a href="https://www.aelf.org/bible/Est/3"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.aelf.org/bible/Est/3</a>
)<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Currently, these catholic bible with the text
integrated use the "Catholic" versification, and ignore
all the lettered verses (or include the letters as raw
text) : basically, Esther 3.13 with these additions
becomes one single very long verse. This makes it
impossible to map properly with the AddEsth of KJVA.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>2. Proposed solution (Catholic3 versification)</b><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>With the proposed Catholic3 versification (except it
needs a few adjustments compared to the file proposed by
Cyrille), what I'd like to achieve is to give a unique
verse number to each of those.</div>
<div>For example, Esther 3 goes from 15 to 22 verses, with
the OSIS IDs becoming :</div>
<div>- Esth.3.13 for verse 13</div>
<div>- Esth.3.14 for verse 13A...</div>
<div>- Esth.3.20 for verse 13G</div>
<div>- Esth.3.21 for verse 14<br>
</div>
<div>(Basically, the OSIS ID identifies the position of
the verse; the actual numbering from the bible can be
preserved separately with the OSIS "n" attribute or the
"\vp" USFM keyword.)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">would
your use-case be served if canon_catholic.h was<br>
modified to increase the verse counts in Esther to 39,
23, 22, 47, 29,<br>
14, 10, 41, 32, 14?</blockquote>
<div>Since my objective is to allow mapping verse by
verse, you'll understand that I need the verse counts to
be aligned with the actual usage. Having the
"versification" allow more verses than what's actually
used defeats the purpose.</div>
<div>In addition, I believe it's a very bad idea to make
big changes to already published versifications : the
point of versifications is to give a unique ID to a
verse. Updating a versification will change all IDs for
the verses of already existing bibles that use this
versification.</div>
<div>I really believe the best solution for the time being
is to create a new Catholic3 versification, as
originally suggested.<br>
I can provide the full definition very soon (though
since I'm working with JSword it will be in Java format
first), and it should in theory be aligned with Catholic
and Catholic2 except for these differences in Esther.
(I'll check if there are more differences I missed).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>3. Modular versifications</b><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I
think at some point it would be nice to have per-book
versifications<br>
or some other way to deal with bibles that don't follow
a "standard"<br>
versification</blockquote>
<div>Agreed.<br>
</div>
<div>If everyone is open to the idea, I'd like to work in
the next few months on an extension of the OSIS standard
to define "modular" versifications, ie. versifications
that can be built by composing other versifications and
applying a diff.</div>
<div>Then each bible could, in its document header, not
only reference a standard versification with refSystem,
but include its own specific changes and how they map to
the standard.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Before I spend time on the topic though, is there
anyone in particular I should ask to approve the general
idea, and who would be interested in reviewing proposals
on the topic ?<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks all and best regards,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Arnaud<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le jeu. 25 janv. 2024
à 16:35, pinoaffe <<a
href="mailto:pinoaffe@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">pinoaffe@gmail.com</a>>
a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
Hello,<br>
<br>
I don't know much about catholic bibles or sword, but
just out of<br>
curiosity: would your use-case be served if
canon_catholic.h was<br>
modified to increase the verse counts in Esther to 39,
23, 22, 47, 29,<br>
14, 10, 41, 32, 14? Or would the decreases in verse
counts in other<br>
chapters of other books also be necessary?<br>
<br>
And would such a change be acceptable to others?<br>
<br>
The catholic bibles I've encountered "in the wild" are
the dutch<br>
Willibrordvertaling of 1975 and the neovulgate. Both of
these appear to<br>
follow canon_catholic3.h everywhere except in Esther,
where they have 16<br>
chapters<br>
<br>
I think at some point it would be nice to have per-book
versifications<br>
or some other way to deal with bibles that don't follow
a "standard"<br>
versification, but for now we'll have to make do with
what we got<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
pinoaffe<br>
<br>
Fr Cyrille <<a href="mailto:fr.cyrille@tiberiade.be"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">fr.cyrille@tiberiade.be</a>>
writes:<br>
> Hello,<br>
> Recently a person interested in the Catholic bible
in French told me<br>
> about the mapping problems between Catholic
versification and the kjva<br>
> concerning Esther. So I'm bringing up the question
of a new Catholic<br>
> versification that could better deal with this kind
of problem and at<br>
> the same time incorporate some of the errors in
current Catholic<br>
> versifications. I should mention that two
versifications for French<br>
> Bibles have been added since my proposal for a new
Catholic<br>
> versification, which was made long before these
versifications were<br>
> added, and which was not favorably received at the
time. In our case,<br>
> the number of Bibles that follow this versification
is simply<br>
> enormous, since the majority of Catholic Bibles do.
I would also add<br>
> that the LXX versification is not entirely correct.
There are no LXX<br>
> today that put 16 chapters to Esther. Ralph's
already uses letters to<br>
> integrate Greek passages into the text.<br>
> In fact, Catholic versification simply follows
Ralph's. So I suggest<br>
> that we seriously reopen this question with
concrete suggestions.<br>
> For my part, the suggestion is simple: convert the
numbers in the<br>
> Greek passages into verses and offset the numbered
verses in the same<br>
> chapters. I'll copy you on what that might look
like.<br>
><br>
> Br Cyrille<br>
><br>
> [2. text/x-chdr; canon_catholic3.h]...<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> sword-devel mailing list: <a
href="mailto:sword-devel@crosswire.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">sword-devel@crosswire.org</a><br>
> <a
href="http://crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel</a><br>
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at
above page<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:sword-devel@crosswire.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">sword-devel@crosswire.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel</a>
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:sword-devel@crosswire.org">sword-devel@crosswire.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel">http://crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel</a>
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>