Re: Bible websites

[stevertigo-2]

> In a message dated 7/8/2009 11:51:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> peter_jacobi@... writes:

>> There are two thousand years of
>> struggling factions of christianity and libraries full of
>> interpretations of bible verses. You cannot ignore this
>> and propose that the bible verse can speak for itself.>>

No, but we can call those two thousand years worth of
interpretationalistic scribblings "original research."

:)

-Steven

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Charles Matthews wrote:
> The use of transclusion by section on Wikisource would make it
> technically simple to bring the existing verses (or chapters) together
> on pages for parallel reading. Of course it would be a lot of work ...
> and I suppose it should be done chapter-wise. (Verses are at best a
> convenience - chapter divisions have I think a wider acceptance, and are
> at least historically older.)
>  

The really glaring exception to the chapter divisions tradition
being hard and fast fixed is Book of John. In that case there
is a scholarly argument that not only are the chapters not
unambiguously divided, but that there is plausible evidence
that the order of textual passages has been re-arranged.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Magnus Manske-2]

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Jussi-Ville
Heiskanen<cimonavaro@...> wrote:

> Charles Matthews wrote:
>> The use of transclusion by section on Wikisource would make it
>> technically simple to bring the existing verses (or chapters) together
>> on pages for parallel reading. Of course it would be a lot of work ...
>> and I suppose it should be done chapter-wise. (Verses are at best a
>> convenience - chapter divisions have I think a wider acceptance, and are
>> at least historically older.)
>>
>
> The really glaring exception to the chapter divisions tradition
> being hard and fast fixed is Book of John. In that case there
> is a scholarly argument that not only are the chapters not
> unambiguously divided, but that there is plausible evidence
> that the order of textual passages has been re-arranged.

No problem, Rome just has to look at the edit history, revert to the
last sensible version, and start again...

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l