It would be the major translations, NASB, NIV, Good News, KJV (or openly
developed equivilents), with a number of options. Maybe most of them
aren't sliders, just on or off, depending on how many combinations there
are.
Examples might be
Old English->Modern English (especially applicable KJV).
Us
> >
> Well if sufficient work was done If there was a slider that went
> from Interpretive to Literal,
> and that slider was in a particular position, then one would hope all
> the text would comply.
Pick a text, and try. Anything you like. Remember I will be the one trying
to mess it up, as a
On Friday 21 December 2001 00:17, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
>> Single translation line texts dont have that problem. I can say that the
>> Living Bible is less than scholarly, and show you why, but your notion
>> leaves no way of saying much of anything. If you cant fix the text when
>> it is wron
Michael Rempel wrote:
>>>You cant fix a problem that is intrinsic to the design method you
>>>
>suggest.
>
>>A
>>
>>>'path' might go from say interpretive to literal and back to poetic
>>>
>texts
>
>>to
>>
>>>suit some fool's idea of a good thing. It is easy to do anyway, but dont
>>>make it an
> At 08:26 PM 12/21/2001 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Who said anything about mixing styles? The main point is choosing styles.
>
> which can already be done by choosing versions... however, having
something
> that lets you more easily compare how certain phrases can be translated in
> a sid
> > You cant fix a problem that is intrinsic to the design method you
suggest.
> A
> > 'path' might go from say interpretive to literal and back to poetic
texts
> to
> > suit some fool's idea of a good thing. It is easy to do anyway, but dont
> > make it any easier please. To put texts together li
At 08:26 PM 12/21/2001 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Who said anything about mixing styles? The main point is choosing styles.
which can already be done by choosing versions... however, having something
that lets you more easily compare how certain phrases can be translated in
a side-by-side
> You cant fix a problem that is intrinsic to the design method you suggest.
A
> 'path' might go from say interpretive to literal and back to poetic texts
to
> suit some fool's idea of a good thing. It is easy to do anyway, but dont
> make it any easier please. To put texts together like that and
> >
> >
> >Nope, translations will exist, and lots is good. The problem you present
me
> >with your notion is that I cant get a handle on it with accurate
criticism.
> >I have to tell you what rabbit trail to run down first, and then you just
> >blame it on my combination of texts and throw your h
> Single translation line texts dont have that problem. I can say that the
> Living Bible is less than scholarly, and show you why, but your notion
> leaves no way of saying much of anything. If you cant fix the text when it
> is wrong, or badly interpreted it is a bad idea. Now do you see the s
>
>
>Nope, translations will exist, and lots is good. The problem you present me
>with your notion is that I cant get a handle on it with accurate criticism.
>I have to tell you what rabbit trail to run down first, and then you just
>blame it on my combination of texts and throw your hands in the
- Original Message -
From: "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 1:58 AM
Subject: Re: [sword-devel] GNU and OS ideologies applied to translation
>
> >Fast food Bible style. Have it your way! Interpretat
>
> > Depends what you mean by "reject". If someone wrongly believes that
> > Genesis creation is
> > some kind of metaphor or abstract description, it's not really a
> > salvation issue is it? Nor
> > is it profitable to try and force everyone else to believe your point of
> > view, (which could
>Fast food Bible style. Have it your way! Interpretation by feel good
>demographic preferences.
>
Why should it be that different styles of interpretation must equate to
"feel good" ??
>Heck lets vote on interpretation already! This is
>s slipery a slope.
>
People already choose their tran
- Original Message -
From: "Leon Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 3:51 AM
Subject: Re: [sword-devel] GNU and OS ideologies applied to translation
> On Sunday 16 December 2001 19:47, Chris wrote:
> &g
> Depends what you mean by "reject". If someone wrongly believes that
> Genesis creation is
> some kind of metaphor or abstract description, it's not really a
> salvation issue is it? Nor
> is it profitable to try and force everyone else to believe your point of
> view, (which could
> alienate pe
>I think it is safe to say that
>rejecting the Genesis creation account throws away the authority of the Bible
>and the Gospel - and if that is the case in someone's life, how can they be
>Christian?
>
Depends what you mean by "reject". If someone wrongly believes that
Genesis creation is
som
Hi Jerry,
> Because the Bible clearly states that death came because of Adam (Rom
> 5:12 and I Cor 15:21-22) Walt Brown makes this statement:
>
> "If evolution happened, then death was widespread before man evolved.
> But if death preceeded man and was not a result of Adam's sin, then
> sin is a
On Wednesday 19 December 2001 14:27, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
> > Errm .. at risk of being off topic - are you saying that you
> > can't believe in evolution AND be a Christian?
>
> No, while I would say anyone who accepts the authority of the
> Bible would surely accept the Genesis creation
> Errm .. at risk of being off topic - are you saying that you can't
> believe in evolution AND be a Christian?
No, while I would say anyone who accepts the authority of the Bible would
surely accept the Genesis creation account, my statement about RMS is not
based on his support of evol
Hi ..
On 19 Dec 2001 at 12:16, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
> > That would take a substantial miracle. RMS is a heavily committed
> > evolutionist and unlike many of his fellow travellers is willing to follow
> > that to its logical conclusions.
> That's one thing I can say for RMS, what ever
> Joy. We passed SWORD CDs out at his last GNU speaking engagement here
> in Phoenix :)
I love it. That is truly wonderful... how was the response?
-Tim
--
Timothy R. Butler | Universal Networks | http://www.uninet.info
[E
> That would take a substantial miracle. RMS is a heavily committed
> evolutionist and unlike many of his fellow travellers is willing to follow
> that to its logical conclusions.
That's one thing I can say for RMS, what ever it is that he says, he
believes every bit of it. He'd make such a
I've followed this thread on open source translation with interest. But, can
anyone tell me:
1. Is it possible for a private user to buy the rights to some of the most
common translations to be used with Bible Time? (I.e. the key to unlock)
2. If so, how and where?
Thanks for the help!
Dan
On Sunday 16 December 2001 19:47, Chris wrote:
> Maybe there would be various teams like Linux and BSD, each working on
> the type of translation they want. Maybe even a number of acceptable
> translations could be entered into a computerised system, each verse's
> translation rated on a number of
On Wednesday 19 December 2001 18:51, Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
>> RMS has abruptly ceased
>> conversing with me and with a number of other individuals at various
>> times at the point of discovering that the conversee was a serious
>> Christian, and more particularly a creationist.
> Joy. We pass
> That would take a substantial miracle. RMS is a heavily committed
> evolutionist and unlike many of his fellow travellers is willing to follow
> that to its logical conclusions. The best response I would expect from him
> would be disinterested neutrality. RMS has abruptly ceased conversing with
On Saturday 15 December 2001 01:25, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
>> But in these last times (c), bibles can be mass-produced by anybody
>> digitally, and the issue of licence is suddenly seems important. We need
>> a GNU translation!
> I agree. :-) Just so long as it doesn't operate on too many GNU t
> Hi,
>
> I see where he is called Paul but have failed to find a reference to God
> renaming him. The People's New Testament Commentary [handily available for
a
> rather excellent Bible study program I know of :) ] says :
>
> Acts 13:913:9 #Ac 13:9But Saul, (who also [is called] Paul). From t
mpel
Sent: 18 December 2001 00:41
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [sword-devel] GNU and OS ideologies and indulgences
I have taken all responses off line except this one since is is likely less
controversial.
The first reference is Acts 13:9 to Shaul being also called Paulos.
Interestingly
-Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Timothy R. Butler
> Sent: 17 December 2001 21:34
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [sword-devel] GNU and OS ideologies and indulgences
>
>
> > Rabbi Shaul,
> > alth
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Timothy R. Butler
Sent: 17 December 2001 21:34
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [sword-devel] GNU and OS ideologies and indulgences
> Rabbi Shaul,
> although Paul is also legitemate.
Although, wouldn&#
> Rabbi Shaul,
> although Paul is also legitemate.
Although, wouldn't it be *incorrect* to refer to Paul as Rabbi Shaul
(Saul), after he was renamed by God? Looking at my Greek Bible (some odd
verison, and also the UBS/Nestle-Aland 26th), I can see that Paul's name (I
checked a few of the E
I think I am just annoying you now, so this is not profitable.
In summary then, there is far more to translation than can be encompased by
one single text. To translate you need to know your audience, and understand
their needs. The rest is illustration.
God Bless,
Michael
I like the idea of having a tagged Bible, where several different kinds of
translation are there and the end user could selectively show or hide the
different kinds of translation they want in different situations. It would
be an excellent study tool. True some people wouldn't like it but hey
>
>
>
>Too many people go roamin in Romans for ever without understanding it well.
>
Would you acknowledge, that maybe, just maybe there is someone somewhere
who actually understands Romans? Would you further stretch your
imagination that this person also has an internet connection?
>You still
A little birdie suggested that mention you guys could move the
discussion that is sort of off topic over to the fireside newsgroup
(which was made for such discussions).
It's at news://crosswire.org/crosswire.fireside.
God bless,
Chris
- Original Message -
From: "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: [sword-devel] GNU and OS ideologies and indulgences
> >
> >
> >The democratic process is vital to writting
>
> There may be someone lurking on the net who has, perhaps,
> spent 10 years analysing say Romans, and while un-recognised,
> is capable of producing the most eloquent translation yet
> attempted. If the skills of the whole world of bible
> study could be brought to bear on this problem, you jus
> The democratic process is vital to writting software like SWORD. But it
> doesnt make great translation. Similarly the Wendys Bible (have it your
> way) is hardly an honest approach. All you propose is re-arranging the
> already available texts to make yet another fast food mess. Translation is
>
>
>The democratic process is vital to writting software like SWORD.
>
Actually pure democracy does not make good software either. Even more so
it has been observed
that the skill differential between programmers exceeds 10:1. Rarely is
free software a democracy.
It's more like a small inner c
>
> Holding little value also are the translations that push a doctrinal
> view and do damage to the clear meaning of the source texts in doing
> so. One such translation that comes to mind is the "Star Bible".
> JLK
>
I will just add to this notion the simple fact that TRUTH is not a matter of
On Sunday 16 December 2001 15:42, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
> Moving on to a point raised later on, that one-person
> translations hold little value... What about Martin Luther's
> original translation? More recently, another one that comes to mind
> might be the MKJV (which I believe was created
>
>
>That's brilliant, absolutely brilliant. A customized "living" (so to speak)
>translation. Perhaps what you could do, is let translators on the project
>rate the different translations of parts they aren't working on, and the
>highest rated (and most likely, most accurate, using Google-like
Hi,
> they want. Maybe even a number of acceptable translations could be
> entered into a computerised
[...]
> for all versions. Others might have 2 or 3 or 5 renderings, each better
> in some respect. All rated
> individually according to their benefit.
That's brilliant, absolutely brilliant.
> >The RSV is free because the copyright ran out on it.
> >
> I thought with the so-called "Disney", US laws that copyright doesn't
> even run out after 100 years.
> The RSV is a lot younger than that so I wonder how it can be
> it is run out??
Just to clarify-- The RSV is still copyright by th
> >...The millions of dollars paid for translating one version of
> >the scriptures does not get spent on expensive equipment, or high paid
> >salaries, it is spent carefully on rather inexpensive salaries for highly
> >trainned people who all but volunteer to do it, excepting that they need
to
>
>What kind of translation
>are you after, transliteration, inductive knowledge? Accepting tradition
>that differs from earliest texts or not? What is your audience?
>
Maybe there would be various teams like Linux and BSD, each working on
the type of translation
they want. Maybe even a number of
At 02:57 PM 12/15/2001 -0800, Michael Rempel wrote:
>...The millions of dollars paid for translating one version of
>the scriptures does not get spent on expensive equipment, or high paid
>salaries, it is spent carefully on rather inexpensive salaries for highly
>trainned people who all but volun
On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 20:12:30 +1100 Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:>
> In The Beginning (c), bibles were printed and nobody cared about the
> licence.> But in these last times (c), bibles can be
mass-produced by anybody> digitally, and the issue of licence is suddenly
seems important. We
> I agree. :-) Just so long as it doesn't operate on too many GNU tools,
then
> RMS would want us to call it GNU/Bible. ;-) Seriously though, if enough
> people who knew at least Greek and English or Hebrew and English signed
on,
> you could produce a GNU translation in a very short amount of t
Hi Chris,
> But in these last times (c), bibles can be mass-produced by anybody
> digitally, and the issue of licence is suddenly seems important. We need
> a GNU
> translation!
I agree. :-) Just so long as it doesn't operate on too many GNU tools, then
RMS would want us to call it GNU/Bible.
At this point RMS's insightful comments
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html )
come into their own...
In The Beginning (c), bibles were printed and nobody cared about the
licence.
But in these last times (c), bibles can be mass-produced by anybody
digitally, and the issue of licence is
Hi Jerry,
> retribution? Or, are you saying it is a sin to copyright God's Word
> in any form? The latter statement I agree with because all
> versions/translations of God's Word are "derived works."
I agree. I wish the Bible had included a license agreement, because surely
it would require
At 02:58 PM 12/11/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>On Tuesday 11 December 2001 12:01, Jerry Hastings wrote:
>
>Jerry The Older (assuming that you are not older than 60!)
In that case I am Jerry The Younger.
On Tuesday 11 December 2001 12:01, Jerry Hastings wrote:
> At 08:15 AM 12/11/2001 -0600, Jerry Kreps wrote:
> >I am not sure I follow you on this aksing payment of license
> >fees in exchange for permission to use copyrighted material is the
> >same as granting permission to commit sin withou
At 08:15 AM 12/11/2001 -0600, Jerry Kreps wrote:
>I am not sure I follow you on this aksing payment of license
>fees in exchange for permission to use copyrighted material is the
>same as granting permission to commit sin without fear of God's
>retribution?
If I was asked this question out o
On Tuesday 11 December 2001 10:07, Martin Gruner wrote:
> > I had done that, that's why I asked. But, I fired the make in
> > the root of the tree and ended up with a 19MB libsword.a file,
> > which was interesting, if not useless :)
> > My question was poorly phrased. What I was intending
> I had done that, that's why I asked. But, I fired the make in the
> root of the tree and ended up with a 19MB libsword.a file, which was
> interesting, if not useless :)
> My question was poorly phrased. What I was intending to ask was if
> you used KDevelop on a regular basis to do your
On Tuesday 11 December 2001 06:52, Martin Gruner wrote:
> > Did go as far as to compile with KDevelop, or just edit?
>
> Since compiling involves just a make call, you can use KDevelop to
> compile sword, too.
>
> Martin
I had done that, that's why I asked. But, I fired the make in the
root of
On Tuesday 11 December 2001 01:48, Jerry Hastings wrote:
[snip]
> And we don't buy and sell indulgences. Or do we?
> It has been said, by one of the pioneers of making free
> Bible etexts and study etexts, that the granting and accepting of
> permissions in the Church, for money or gratis, is a
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Jerry Hastings wrote:
> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 00:48:37 -0700
> From: Jerry Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> Leon Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [sword-de
> Did go as far as to compile with KDevelop, or just edit?
Since compiling involves just a make call, you can use KDevelop to compile
sword, too.
Martin
At 10:36 PM 12/9/2001 -0600, Jerry Kreps wrote:
> > Free-gratis is good for people who ``can't afford'' a Bible
>
>I am curious as to who cannot afford a Bible but can afford a
>computer? It seems to me that one of the Sword's (plus Bible modules
>& Bibletime) biggest advantages is that it can b
On Monday 10 December 2001 02:26, Martin Gruner wrote:
> > I noticed that a "sword.kdevprj" file is residing in the CVS
> > sword tree that I downloaded yesterday, but I did not find a GUI
> > to sword that was designed by the QT-Designer. What I did find
> > was QTEZ generated code for QT widget
> I noticed that a "sword.kdevprj" file is residing in the CVS sword
> tree that I downloaded yesterday, but I did not find a GUI to sword
> that was designed by the QT-Designer. What I did find was QTEZ
> generated code for QT widgets. QTEZ is long in the tooth. Was the
> use of generated code
On Sunday 09 December 2001 20:54, Leon Brooks wrote:
> On Monday 10 December 2001 07:07, Chris Little wrote:
> > the sort of person who cavalierly
> > brandishes the word "Linux" when referring to the GNU Operating
> > System. Please remember that GNU is the OS; Linux is merely one
> > of its kern
On Monday 10 December 2001 07:07, Chris Little wrote:
> the sort of person who cavalierly
> brandishes the word "Linux" when referring to the GNU Operating System.
> Please remember that GNU is the OS; Linux is merely one of its kernels.
Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. (-:
A lot of the too
68 matches
Mail list logo
