Jump to content


Photo

Why is John 5:4 missing in all English Bible translations?


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#21 Joe Weaks

Joe Weaks

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,035 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Raytown, MO (outside KC)
  • Interests:I like things that are Orange, and possibly Blue.
  • Accordance Version:8.x

Posted 18 November 2013 - 03:03 PM

I think I've always understood your desire. You state the program should function a certain way. I'm just a user who disagrees with you, and is happy Accordance works the way it does.


Joe Weaks
The Macintosh Biblioblog

Sometimes I'm so helpful even I can't stand it.

#22 Rick Bennett

Rick Bennett

    Platinum

  • Accordance
  • 1,734 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tampa Bay, FL
  • Interests: gadgets, coffee, running and cycling, Rays baseball
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 18 November 2013 - 03:20 PM

I see both sides here. David, you're an experienced Logos user; you know it better than Accordance. You like the way it does things in a lot of cases. That's fine, and expected. We see that a lot. And in a lot of cases I've seen features changed, or even added to accommodate some of these expectations. My advice is not to give up. You've spent a lot of time learning Accordance, but it's still been, what, a couple months at max? Surely there are some positive reasons to continue learning.

 

I also want to push back a bit to a point you've made here and in at least one other forum thread: that we assume scholar-level knowledge. We do not. Maybe 10 years ago that may have been a valid assumption, but today the majority of our users (at least the active ones here on the forum) are just like you: pastors or serious students of the Bible. I'd say the vast majority of features are developed with you in mind.

 

Lastly, on this point of the differences in the texts, I actually think we could improve it. Here's why: When you compare the NAS95S to the ESVS in a parallel pane, you will see a double-dash in the ESVS pane indicating that verse 4 is missing in the ESVS. 

 

Attached File  Screen Shot 2013-11-18 at 3.11.10 PM.png   550.87KB   0 downloads

 

When you reverse that, you have no visual indication that verse 4 is contained in the NAS95S. I think we could change this to include a double dash to show it has been hidden (or maybe include the verse in brackets). Double dashes would at least alert the user to know that they need to look further. However, I still agree with the logic of comparison in parallel panes: when the ESV is the base, it is illogical to compare verse 4 since verse 4 does not exist in the base text. There's nothing to compare it to (or nothing to sync with).

 

So maybe there's a happy medium to discuss?


  • Alistair, Michael J. Bolesta and JonathanHuber like this

Rick Bennett
Director of Content Development
iOS Working Group


#23 Randy Cue

Randy Cue

    Gold

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 243 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Plano, Illinois
  • Interests:Teaching adult Sunday School, baseball
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 18 November 2013 - 03:21 PM

Jonathan, I appreciate the way you answered the original poster's concern. You showed grace and kindness in your response.

 

Soli Deo Gloria,

Randy



#24 Matt Fredenburg

Matt Fredenburg

    Gold

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 307 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 18 November 2013 - 03:24 PM

Hi Matt,

 

  ... One test I ran which was a simple verse search for John 5:4 with context of 0 which returned John 5:3 with no annotation (I will rerun the test to make sure I wasn't imagining anything tonight). ...

 

Thx

D

Hi Daniel, that's the same test I ran, and I agree it is a bit confusing!

 

Matt


Specs:

  • Windows 7 SP1 x64
  • Accordance 10.3.4.2
  • Quad Xeon 2.83 GHz x2
  • 16 GB RAM
  • Nvidia 580 GTX 2GB VRAM

#25 Matt Fredenburg

Matt Fredenburg

    Gold

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 307 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 18 November 2013 - 03:50 PM

Matt, the behavior there is consistent in Accordance. It will display the nearest lowest available verse reference.  Search for

John 5:99

and you get 5:47. This freedom has had applications in past searches, to not have to "know" the ending verse for each chapter while searching.  I would not welcome a dialog box choking the search... by what it is displaying I can tell there's no verse 5:4.

Hi Joe, I'm just a newbie when it comes to Accordance, so I do not have the broad understanding that a long-time user would have. From my inexperienced perspective, I find the fact that searching in the LXX-B for Romans 3:10 gives me a dialog stating that the book of Romans does not exist in my target search text to be helpful. I would also find such a dialog to be helpful for the same reason if I searched for John 5:4 in a text that does not have John 5:4. That being said, I would not expect that Accordance throw all established paradigms to the wind simply because I, as a new user, didn't understand how Accordance is meant to work. Perhaps, this could be handled via a user preference?

 

Matt


Specs:

  • Windows 7 SP1 x64
  • Accordance 10.3.4.2
  • Quad Xeon 2.83 GHz x2
  • 16 GB RAM
  • Nvidia 580 GTX 2GB VRAM

#26 davidmedina

davidmedina

    Gold

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Juan, Puerto Rico
  • Interests:God, my family, the Bible, photography and film.
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 18 November 2013 - 04:09 PM

 I am not talking about searching things but about comparing text.  That is where everyone seems to get stuck at, tho king that I am searching for the verse. I am not. I am comparing text. This is very frustrating.

 

Bottom line, I still cannot do what I need to do. I cannot compare bible text properly with Accordance.  So I am throwing the towel and just use the tool that does what I need.

 

What Joe suggest I do is not the proper way not even the way Accordance helps tells me to do it. It renders useless some of the tools like Difference list and compare feature. 

 

Rick, if the NASB has the verse, Accordance should show the verse. That is the only way I can compare difference. I do not see what it is gain by omitting the verse in a comparison just because the primary search bible does not have it. The ESV may not have it but the NASB has it.

 

Thanks to everyone.


Edited by davidmedina, 18 November 2013 - 04:22 PM.

"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." Rom. 12:2
 
Blog: The Renewed Mind.

#27 James Tucker

James Tucker

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 636 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 18 November 2013 - 04:23 PM

David:

 

To conceive of this as a 'battle' is probably not the best cognitive frame in which to view things. After all, Rick concedes your point above and mentions there may be some ways to key the user into the differences. I concur with you that comparison between panes is logical—after all it is the only way of viewing of texts that enables the user to select "Compare" texts. This feature doesn't exist when two texts are in Zones. Consequently, Accordance does seem to build the expectation that comparison is done best with two texts in pane view. But a comparison is adjudicated by means of a predominate text (e.g., your Search Text).

 

I would like to see you continue to use Accordance. After all, the Accordance folk have responded to you and have taken notice. 


  • Michael J. Bolesta likes this

#28 Joe Weaks

Joe Weaks

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,035 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Raytown, MO (outside KC)
  • Interests:I like things that are Orange, and possibly Blue.
  • Accordance Version:8.x

Posted 18 November 2013 - 04:26 PM

David,

I am entirely unhelpful to you, so will stop trying.

 

I find the fact that searching in the LXX-B for Romans 3:10 gives me a dialog stating that the book of Romans does not exist in my target search text to be helpful. I would also find such a dialog to be helpful for the same reason if I searched for John 5:4 in a text that does not have John 5:4. 

Hi, Matt,

I agree, it's helpful to tell me I'm asking for a book that doesn't exist. But that dialog is the one for misspelling or making up any book name in any module. It has nothing to do with the handling of searches at the verse-level.

I think dialog boxes are unhelpful and annoying, and very old-school. If you wanted something different from the current behavior "which is show the next closest verse to the one you designated", I'd prefer a blank or --. But only if you searched only for the single verse that was missing.

 

I wouldn't welcome this if I search for John 5:1-48. I don't want a dialog box telling me I'm an idiot because there is no verse 48. I will see that in the result I get.

And, I don't want the result to show "--" at 5:4 as if the text is missing material there, because it's not missing anything.


Joe Weaks
The Macintosh Biblioblog

Sometimes I'm so helpful even I can't stand it.

#29 davidmedina

davidmedina

    Gold

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Juan, Puerto Rico
  • Interests:God, my family, the Bible, photography and film.
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 18 November 2013 - 04:28 PM

Thanks James, the mention of the battle was just a figure of speech just to say that I was quitting because I am failing in my attempt to explain it. I actually removed it one of my edit as I was already accused of being rude I wanted to avoid any further misunderstanding.


"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." Rom. 12:2
 
Blog: The Renewed Mind.

#30 Matt Fredenburg

Matt Fredenburg

    Gold

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 307 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 18 November 2013 - 04:29 PM

Hi, Matt,

I agree, it's helpful to tell me I'm asking for a book that doesn't exist. But that dialog is the one for misspelling or making up any book name in any module. It has nothing to do with the handling of searches at the verse-level.

I think dialog boxes are unhelpful and annoying, and very old-school. If you wanted something different from the current behavior "which is show the next closest verse to the one you designated", I'd prefer a blank or --. But only if you searched only for the single verse that was missing.

 

I wouldn't welcome this if I search for John 5:1-48. I don't want a dialog box telling me I'm an idiot because there is no verse 48. I will see that in the result I get.

And, I don't want the result to show "--" at 5:4 as if the text is missing material there, because it's not missing anything.

Hi Joe, I think you make a valid point as an apparently longtime Accordance user.

 

Matt


  • Alistair likes this

Specs:

  • Windows 7 SP1 x64
  • Accordance 10.3.4.2
  • Quad Xeon 2.83 GHz x2
  • 16 GB RAM
  • Nvidia 580 GTX 2GB VRAM

#31 davidmedina

davidmedina

    Gold

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Juan, Puerto Rico
  • Interests:God, my family, the Bible, photography and film.
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 18 November 2013 - 04:34 PM

And, I don't want the result to show "--" at 5:4 as if the text is missing material there, because it's not missing anything.

 

 

But Joe, IT IS MISSING in the NASB! And it should not be if I am comparing Bibles using the method Accordance tells me to use to compare translations. That is the POINT. I am not asking Accordance to do anything its not suppose to do. 

 

You may think is not missing. You may prefer not to be included, You may think that the NASB, NKJV and the KJV are wrong. But the people that put the NASB, the NKJV and the KJV felt that John 5:4 was part of the Bible and should be there when I use those Bibles, specially comparing versions.

 

Yo may be mistakingly thinking that I want it to be included in the ESV. I ado not. I want Accordance to faithfully and accurately display my Bibles as they were printed. That is all I want, specially when I am comparing them.


Edited by davidmedina, 18 November 2013 - 04:35 PM.

  • PhilT likes this
"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." Rom. 12:2
 
Blog: The Renewed Mind.

#32 JonathanHuber

JonathanHuber

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 731 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Englewood, CO
  • Interests:Bible study, Greek
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 18 November 2013 - 04:48 PM

 I am not talking about searching things but about comparing text.  That is where everyone seems to get stuck at, tho king that I am searching for the verse. I am not. I am comparing text. This is very frustrating.

 

David,

 

One helpful thing I had to learn when starting to use Accordance was that everything is a search. When I first bought Accordance, I panicked because I couldn't find a browser tree so I could navigate to a passage; eventually I realized I had to "search" for it. Even just reading is a search- you are telling Accordance to FIND a given passage (ie. John 5:4) and display it. You may not think of it that way, but that's what the app is doing.

 

Back up a step: searching for John 5 doesn't mean that the ESVS contains nothing before or after John 5; it just means that material isn't displayed. Likewise, material inside John 5 that is absent from this translation won't be displayed. If the ESVS (to use your example) doesn't have it, the app doesn't find it and doesn't display it. Adding another pane doesn't change that. Comparing text doesn't change that. Comparing text isn't a separate mode; it's just a set of visual marks in the current display and is thus limited to the verses contained in the main search text (in its current implementation).

 

Having said all of that, I have run into the same problem you found and think that the compare text function could be improved. Rick's comments above (such as implementing the double dash when comparing text) indicate that the Accordance folks see the problem and can address it. I'm sorry this is so frustrating for you, but your voiced concern will hopefully result in improved implementation for everyone, so thank you.

 

Jonathan


Edited by JonathanHuber, 18 November 2013 - 04:49 PM.


#33 Joe Weaks

Joe Weaks

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,035 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Raytown, MO (outside KC)
  • Interests:I like things that are Orange, and possibly Blue.
  • Accordance Version:8.x

Posted 18 November 2013 - 05:05 PM

Hi Joe, I think you make a valid point as an apparently longtime Accordance user.

 

 

I think your idea of a dialog box error (or a blank or --) has merit too, Matt.

(But, only if it's triggered only when searching a specific verse that doesn't exist.)


Joe Weaks
The Macintosh Biblioblog

Sometimes I'm so helpful even I can't stand it.

#34 Jonathan C. Borland

Jonathan C. Borland

    Silver

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 18 November 2013 - 07:32 PM

Don't feel bad. I made the same mistake a couple years ago when I first bought Accordance. I started searching and playing around with NA27, then switched the text to BYZ (but the search thing was still on NA27), and I really thought the BYZ module was missing lots of verses! Then I posted here and realized how stupid I was.

#35 Daniel Semler

Daniel Semler

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,120 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 19 November 2013 - 12:35 AM

Hi ya,

  I've been playing with this and would like to describe a few things I've seen and thought about. Please bear with me as this might be long and confused - I'll try to avoid the latter. In the end I think it all boils down to just a few small things but it took me while to get there so I’ll visit the journey on you also :) Also remember I'm only about coming up on my first birthday as an Accordance user.

  I have realized that I use both tabs and panes and yet I cannot articulate why I choose one over the other necessarily. Often there is no choice - whatever it is just works that way. Other times I use tabs because they stack and I only need to have one thing visible in that zone at a time. Sometimes I do it because I'm in a text or tool and amplify pops a new tab in another zone. I tend to use panes within a tab to compare translations when I'm working in writing my own. I happily use the search box to locate to a verse in either case and have the context slider set to all, usually. But here is something I did not know about parallel panes until now - even if you do not search the search pane controls what verses are visible in the parallel panes. So if I want texts showing all content I must use tied or linked tabs. That I didn’t know.

  Some things appear to work the same way in parallel panes and linked tabs but in fact do not. So I can try the example David started with and do it in parallel panes and get no indication of one text containing something which is missing in my search text. If I instead do this with a pair of tabs, one with a [link <first tab>] I can see that the two are different. Why is this ? Well I believe the reason is that in the tab case the search is run against both texts. In the parallel pane case the search is run against the text identified in the pull down by the menu. Then the selected verses drive the displayed content in the parallel panes. This all sounds reasonable enough but I think the doc on the latter case could be updated. For example see http://accordancefil...with Accordance|The%20Search%20Tab|_____1 where there is a parallel pane which could be labelled with a numbered circle and the derivation of the content could be explained.

  But then David goes on to point out that Difference Lists don't work with tabs, and because of the way the parallels work, don't work properly in the parallel panes case. I tried this out and I agree. If I take a search for Jn 5:4 with ESVS and NAS95S and get a difference list 5:4 which exists in NAS95S is not listed as a difference though in fact it is one. I do not claim to fully understand difference lists or collation, but difference lists appear to be a collation - roughly. As Rick points out it works in one direction. So it appears that I cannot do a truly accurate text diff, which is a surprise to me, unless I know beforehand that one text contains all the verses in the other text, and which one it is.

  Now I come to another thought - given that tabs and panes have different functionality what ought each to be used for, what are each ones strengths and limitations ? Where they do not overlap its a no-brainer - just use the one that does what you need. Where they appear to overlap its a bit harder - and that’s really in parallels and [link]ed tabs it seems. Perhaps there are other cases. The above would be one case - are there others ?

  Next another thought - I decided to look for the text contained in Jn 5:4 in a word search. This was instructive. In the NAS95S it pulled up Jn 5:4. In the ESVS I got an error dialog saying that "There are no verses in the current range of the ESVS text, which fit the current search entry". Hmmmm..... that seems a mite inconsistent. Why doesn’t it do that for verses ? But consistency comes in various flavours ...

  Then there is the other issue of doing a verse search for 5:4 and getting 5:3. It seems that this a bit like flex vs exact searching, only there is no such option for verse searches.

  So where does that leave us ? Not sure, but it seems that :

  1. a little tweak here or there in the doc would help clarify for people how the content of parallel panes is determined, and what users might expect as a result. Is my assertion above that it derives from the verses contained in the searched text correct ? I don’t know but it sure looks like it. If this is already in the doc could someone point me to it ? But its really worth being clear how panes and tabs differ in this respect.

  2. some sort of exact versus approximate verse search support might be helpful. In exact mode one could throw errors. Not having a separate mode would cause issues for people who use “book 99:99” to get to the end. A pref might control default behaviour as Matt suggests. There is already a ch:vs-ch:vs format and so on, so syntax extension for this would seem possible. It seems we already get errors for an unknown book. But for a simple typo of a ch or vs not.
Oh this is more complicated than I thought. I tried to go to Jn 99:99 and got to the end of the book. I tried John 25:1 and got to 21:1. What ?! Yep did it again. Hmmm… turns out it was going to the last chapter and then to the verse if it exists. So 25:15 takes me to 21:15. Hmmm….. that was a surprise. Could/Should we have a book:start and book:end syntax ?

  3. offer the option of having panes behave like parallel tabs with regard to the application of search - more like they use LINK rather than the search panes list of found versus. I do not even know if I like this idea entirely and it would have to be controlled by a pref and default to existing behaviour etc. Perhaps simply allowing context to be separately derived in each pane might be enough.

  4. If not 3 then in some way make a true text to text diff possible without requiring prior knowledge of the content.

For the brave who got this far my apologies it really probably wasn’t worth the time you’ll never now get back :)

OK I’m done I think … I hope … err … back to Greek.

Thx
D
 


Accordance Configurations :

 

Mac : 2009 27" iMac                 Windows : HP 4540s laptop

      Intel Core Duo                          Intel i5 Ivy Bridge

      12GB RAM                                8GB RAM

      Accordance 10.4.2.1                     Accordance 10.4.2.2 and Aleph 10.4.3b1

      OSX 10.9 (Mavericks)                    Win 7 Professional x64 SP1


#36 PhilT

PhilT

    Bronze

  • Active Members
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 19 November 2013 - 12:45 AM

David,

 

May be interested in this. 

I like you was interested in your orginal post, but was at work, live in Sydney.  John 5:4, I seemed to remember from my time at Moore College, was an edition to the text; this is reflected in the ESV and some other translations. 

 

I post the discussion from Comfort Text commentary. 

John 5:3b-4.  While other translations have kept this in.    
 
WH NU     omit 5:3b-4
P66 P75 ℵ A✱ B C✱ L T cop
NKJVmg RSV NRSV ESV NASBmg NIV TNIV NEB REB NJB NAB NLT HCSBmg NET
variant 1     include only 5:3b
D Ws 33
none
variant 2     include only 5:4
A✱ L
none
variant 3/TR     include 5:3b-4, with different variations in later manuscripts—printed in TR thus:

[p. 273]

εκδεχομενων την του υδατος κινησιν 4 αγγελος γαρ κατα καιρον κατεβαινεν εν τη κολυμβηθρα, και εταρασσεν το υδωρ· ο ουν πρωτος εμβας μετα την ταραχην του υδατος, υγιης εγινετο, ω δηποτε κατειχετο νοσηματι
“waiting for the movement of the water. 4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool and stirred up the water; whoever then first stepped in, after the stirring up of the water, was made well from whatever disease he was afflicted with.”
A2 C3 L Θ Ψ 078vid Maj it
KJV NKJV RSVmg NRSVmg ESVmg NASB NIVmg TNIVmg NEBmg REBmg NJBmg NABmg NLTmg HCSB NETmg

This portion (5:3b-4) was probably not written by John, because it is not found in the earliest manuscripts (P66 P75 ℵ B C✱ T), and where it does occur in later manuscripts it is often marked with obeli (marks like asterisks) to signal spuriousness (so Π 047 syrh marking 5:4). The passage was a later addition—even added to manuscripts, such as A and C, that did not originally contain the portion. This scribal gloss is characteristic of the expansions that occurred in gospel texts after the fourth century. The expansion happened in two phases: First came the addition of 5:3b—inserted to explain what the sick people were waiting for; and then came 5:4—inserted to provide an explanation about the troubling of the water mentioned in 5:7. Of course, the second expansion is fuller and more imaginative. Nearly all modern textual critics and translators will not accept the longer portion as part of the original text. NASB and HCSB, however, continue to retain verses in deference to the KJV tradition.

 

Likewise Metzger's text commentary will have a note.

 

From memory the better commentaries may discuss this and the reading is marked as a possible edition in UBS text, remember because it was a class example.  Some versions, such as the KJV woulld retain this because they are based upon a different and much later text type.

 

The best place to get a brief outline of textual criticism is look at Daniel Wallace's stuff on U tube.  Type in textual criticism Daniel Wallace to u tube

 

Hope this goes a little way to help you understand why John 5:4 does not appear in the ESV text.  There should be a note at the bottom of the text stating it may be an addition.

 

Leaving you in God's Care and Grace

 

Phil 



#37 PhilT

PhilT

    Bronze

  • Active Members
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 19 November 2013 - 12:53 AM

David,

 

Just looked at my print edition of the ESV.  the text you want to compare is indeed a footnote in the ESV.  The committee on translation decided it was an addition  that was not in the earlier manuscripts.  Therefore, they placed it as a note.



#38 Joel Brown

Joel Brown

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 2,486 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 19 November 2013 - 12:56 AM

One thing that may help is to step back from the request and consider what you are asking.  If I say 'Compare John 5:4 in these translations', whose understanding of John 5:4 do I want?  A more clear example may be to consider the Psalms.  In many modern English translations, Psalm 3:1 lines up with the Hebrew bible's Psalm 3:2 (as the English puts the heading 'psalm of david' as verse 0).  So, if I wanted to say 'Compare Psalm 3:1 in these translations', the matter of whose Psalm 3:1 it is makes a huge difference!  For this reason, you always must specify the text in question to compare against, so there are no assumptions.

 

Taking this back to the current situation, if I ask the ESV to display the chapter of John 5, it has no idea what other translations have added verses there.  Perhaps another translation added a verse zero, or verses at the end, or verses in the middle.  (Or ESV took them out - the point isn't who to blame for adding or removing, but the fact that ESV doesn't know about it).  Since ESV is my text that does the understanding, the only verses shown will be the ones that make sense to ESV.

 

I hope this helps clarify why the search text matters, and why having ESV at the top means the other translations don't display it.  If we were to consider more drastic examples (such as the LXX and its Jeremiah), the differences and need to specify a search text become huge.

 

All that being said, I think there is a notable improvement that can be made here.  If we are using the Compare Text (or related List Text Differences) feature, we could at that point consider how both texts would interpret the request, including any verses either text would want.  So, we would ask both ESV and NASB to interpret John 5, collating the results as necessary.  I don't think this should occur if Compare Text is off, for many of the above reasons, but when doing a comparison it sounds reasonable to me.

 

Thanks for all of the discussion and feedback.  We do strive hard to make Accordance as ideal as possible for every user's working scenario.


One minor thing for Daniel's long post:

 

A better way to think of panes in terms of a search is the [CONTENTS] command, rather than [LINK].  Remember, Link copies the search argument, while Contents copies the found verses.  So, a parallel pane is like a text that always has Contents and Tie on.


Joel Brown

By day: Consultant for Oaktree
By night: Freelance Trombonist and Private Instructor

#39 Joe Weaks

Joe Weaks

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,035 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Raytown, MO (outside KC)
  • Interests:I like things that are Orange, and possibly Blue.
  • Accordance Version:8.x

Posted 19 November 2013 - 02:01 AM

All that being said, I think there is a notable improvement that can be made here.  If we are using the Compare Text (or related List Text Differences) feature, we could at that point consider how both texts would interpret the request, including any verses either text would want.  So, we would ask both ESV and NASB to interpret John 5, collating the results as necessary.  I don't think this should occur if Compare Text is off, for many of the above reasons, but when doing a comparison it sounds reasonable to me.

Joel,

After more thinking, and seeing Daniel's post, this is what I was going to recommend, as well, that if and only if the Compare Text option is selected, then verses present only in the second text should get placeholders. Couldn't get my head around how that interacts with the Show Context setting, though, so didn't add the suggestion.


Joe Weaks
The Macintosh Biblioblog

Sometimes I'm so helpful even I can't stand it.

#40 Julie Falling

Julie Falling

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,114 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tennessee
  • Interests:Numerous!
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 19 November 2013 - 08:06 AM

 

 

The best place to get a brief outline of textual criticism is look at Daniel Wallace's stuff on U tube.  Type in textual criticism Daniel Wallace to u tube

 

 

Phil 

 

Hey — You can also find Wallace's stuff on iTunes U.  (This link will open in your browser then take you to the correct page in iTunes.)  I've downloaded the series and watched much of it more than once.  I really appreciate what the folks at CSNTM are doing and now start all my Amazon purchases at CSNTM.org to help support them.

 

Julie


Julia Falling

 

Accordance 10

MacBook Air Mavericks

Mac mini Mavericks

iPad Air iOS 7

 

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users