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

#41 Julie Falling

Julie Falling

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,402 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tennessee
  • Interests:Numerous!
  • Accordance Version:11.x

Posted 19 November 2013 - 09:33 AM

David – I do a lot of comparing of texts and mostly don't have the Compare box checked.  The window I use for my daily reading always has at least two English versions open in parallel in each tab.  I always have the NAS95 as my search text.  When I run into differences and want to see what a bunch of versions say, I will amplify to a custom window that has 16 texts.  I use the NAS95 as my search text there, too.  This screen shot may be hard to make out unless you blow it up, but you'll able to see the set-up.

 

Attached File  Screen Shot 2013-11-18 at 5.44.12 PM.png   517.43KB   1 downloads

 

Each translation team has to decide what to do with the phrases/verses that are not found in the NA28th (or whichever modern Greek text they're working from).  The NASB/NAS95 team decided to include the extra stuff within the text and just put it it brackets w/footnote to let the reader know that the textual support for the phrase/verse is poor.  If one is sitting in a group and the teacher or preacher has a KJV or NKJV in front of him, the NAS95 reader is looking at a similar text.  The ESV/NRSV/NIV reader will be seeing a couple of dashes and some extra space but will find the text in his footnotes.  

 

The ESV committee (and many others) decided to put the poorly supported words/verses in the footnotes.  Frankly, I wish the NASB/NAS95 had done the same.  I have marked the poorly supported parts of the English text in the versions I most often use.

 

Since I have become aware of the differing approaches of the various committees, using the NAS95 as my search text avoids the issues you have been running into.  Accordance functioning the way it does has not caused any difficulties for me.  I find using the Compare box is much more useful when I'm examining closely related texts:  KJV & NKJV, NASB & NAS95, GNT28-T and GNT-TR.  Using Compare with the NIV and KJV doesn't give me much help.

 

That said, it would be helpful if, when starting with one of the texts that takes the ESV/NRSV approach to poorly supported readings, the words would still be displayed in the NAS95, NKJV & others, or that there would at least be an indication that the text differed.


Julia Falling

 

Accordance 11

MacBook Air Yosemite

mid-2013 1.7 GHz Intel Core i7 (2 cores)

8 GB RAM; 512 G SSD

 

Mac mini Yosemite Acc 11

late-2012 2.3GHz Intel Core i7 (4 cores)

16 GB RAM; 1.12  TB Fusion Drive

 

iPad Air 1 iOS 8.1

64 GB

 

 

 

 


#42 Daniel Semler

Daniel Semler

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:11.x

Posted 19 November 2013 - 09:45 AM

Hey Joel,

 

  Thanx for this. I had not considered CONTENTS. Its certainly a better way to match tab behaviour to current pane behaviour. I was suggesting LINK to indicate the behaviour possible in tabs which is not possible in panes. In any case what you suggest sounds fine to me though I would still suggest the doc tweaks to clarify what the user sees when and where.

 

Thx

D


Accordance Configurations :
 
Mac : 2009 27" iMac                 Windows : HP 4540s laptop
      Intel Core Duo                          Intel i5 Ivy Bridge
      12GB RAM                                8GB RAM
      Accordance 11.0.1                       Accordance 11.0.1
      OSX 10.9 (Mavericks)                    Win 7 Professional x64 SP1


#43 davidmedina

davidmedina

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 543 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Juan, Puerto Rico
  • Interests:God, my family, the Bible, photography and film.
  • Accordance Version:11.x

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:39 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.

 

 

I am fine with that. My only reservation is that the use of the word "Parallel" is not precise as it does not match the genera usage of the word, except for long time Accordance users that have absorb the "accordance way".

 

I did some research to see if I was the one mistaken. This is what I found:

 

Bible Gateway defines Parallel Bible as:

 

One of the advantages of having access to more than one Bible translation is that you can read them side-by-side. Comparing and contrasting how different Bible translators render the same Scriptures can help you grasp the nuances of a Bible passage, or can shed light on a difficult-to-undestand verse.

You’ve always been able to view multiple versions of the Bible in parallel (side-by-side comparison) on Bible Gateway, but it wasn’t the easiest feature to find. At Bible Gateway, we’ve worked to make it simple to read more than one Bible side-by-side. Here’s how to do it.

 

 

 

And CBD:

 

Parallel Bible consist of different Bible translations placed side-by-side in one volume. Each page contains a complete Scripture portion from each of the versions so that the reader may easily compare the differences and similarities between the versions.

 

 

 

If the purpose of Parallel Bible is to compare Scripture portions side by side, doesn't then follows that each version has to be shown in its totality? Just pick any printed Parallel Bible and that is the way publishers print those Bibles. Why? because I want to compare how the ESV translate the text and how the NASB translate the text and what are the difference and similarities between them. According to the industry standards usage, that IS the meaning of Parallel Bible. Otherwise, how can I compare translation?

 

Now, I know that Accordance uses Parallel text and tools just to sync between them. And that each software can choose how they want to do things. But don't you guys see how that is confusing and misleading this is?

 

Even Accordance itself in it's help files leads me to believe that if I put two different Bible version next to each other as Parallel and click in the Compare switch I will see the difference. This is from the Help files:

 

Compare Text: You can compare the differences between the first two texts, or multiple texts...

 

 

 

Doesn't stand to reason that if I am going to compare two text I need to have the full text of each translation?  

 

Keep in mind that the ONLY WAY the Compare switch is on is when the different Bibles are open as Parallel in the same pane.

 

And still, there is no easy way to accomplish what I need to do. This is my dilemma: What In Logos I can do with a simple use of a function key (f7)  is going on three pages of discussion and it seems like what I ask has become something controversial subject. 

 

 

I would welcome what Joel suggest as a solution. 


Edited by davidmedina, 19 November 2013 - 10:41 AM.

"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.

#44 gplawhorn

gplawhorn

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Accordance Version:8.x

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:58 AM

I agree in part with David's point. The issue is not one of manuscript integrity, but of how Accordance handles variations between texts. 

 

For instance, in Matthew 6:13 the NASB95 brackets

 

[For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.],

 

while the ESVS eliminates it altogether. The bracketed portion appears regardless of which text is the search text. Accordance, obviously, does not redact that portion from the NASB95 when the ESVS is dominant. 

 

I gather from this that as long as a variation extends to an entire verse, Accordance redacts the secondary text, but not if the variation is contained within a verse.

 

So, in David's example Accordance leaves the bracketed portion within the NASB95 in John 5:3,

 

[waiting for the movement of the waters;

 

but removes verse 4. This seems inconsistent to me. Why remove only a portion of the variant text? Why not either remove the full variant from the secondary text, or else leave all variants in place regardless of the search text?

 

I say this as a non-programmer who has no idea at all of the underlying complexities of what Accordance has managed to do for us, and, thinking the best, I believe that they have reasons for their decisions. The good folks at Accordance have a harder job than we can comprehend in making decisions like this. As users we have the right to comment; let's not assume that they make ANY decisions in haste or out of a lack of care. 

 

For what it's worth, David, I've used Accordance for a long, long time. It gets more use than any other single program on my Mac. For me, whatever little quirks it has are greatly outweighed by its usefulness. I've found enough printing mistakes in traditional books to know that nothing is ever prefect. 


Edited by gplawhorn, 19 November 2013 - 11:00 AM.

  • davidmedina likes this

#45 Julie Falling

Julie Falling

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,402 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tennessee
  • Interests:Numerous!
  • Accordance Version:11.x

Posted 19 November 2013 - 11:29 AM

 

 

For what it's worth, David, I've used Accordance for a long, long time. It gets more use than any other single program on my Mac. For me, whatever little quirks it has are greatly outweighed by its usefulness. I've found enough printing mistakes in traditional books to know that nothing is ever prefect. 

 

Gplawhorn — That's where I am.  Perfection will not be found this side of heaven.  I have found workarounds when things don't operate exactly as I would have expected.  I am satisfied with the Accordance engine & interface as they are and yet welcome the improvements and features that have come steadily since I came onboard in 2003 with Accordance 5.  We have new resources available to us regularly.  When I run into problems I can always get the answers in the Accordance Help or here.


Julia Falling

 

Accordance 11

MacBook Air Yosemite

mid-2013 1.7 GHz Intel Core i7 (2 cores)

8 GB RAM; 512 G SSD

 

Mac mini Yosemite Acc 11

late-2012 2.3GHz Intel Core i7 (4 cores)

16 GB RAM; 1.12  TB Fusion Drive

 

iPad Air 1 iOS 8.1

64 GB

 

 

 

 


#46 davidmedina

davidmedina

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 543 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Juan, Puerto Rico
  • Interests:God, my family, the Bible, photography and film.
  • Accordance Version:11.x

Posted 19 November 2013 - 11:51 AM

 

Gplawhorn — That's where I am.  Perfection will not be found this side of heaven.  I have found workarounds when things don't operate exactly as I would have expected.  I am satisfied with the Accordance engine & interface as they are and yet welcome the improvements and features that have come steadily since I came onboard in 2003 with Accordance 5.  We have new resources available to us regularly.  When I run into problems I can always get the answers in the Accordance Help or here.

 

Julie, I agree with you, I do not expect perfection. Logos, Accordance, whatever software out there are just tools. But would't you agree that things should work as expected? If they do we can concentrate in Bible study instead of having to find work arounds. 

 

Consider how much time has been spent in this issue. 

 

Just trying to do a simple text comparison which I cannot do unless I use work arounds. My point is if Accordance choose to have a compare switch, should we expect to works as one expect it to work?

 

But this is the problem I am having: every time I run in to something that either does not work as expected or it's is more complicated to do or its is a unique way of doing things, I just close Accordance and just open Logos. How many times I have to do this until I just stop using Accordance and only use Logos? 

 

I do like Accordance, it is fast, it is clean and straightforward. I would love to use it more. But I find myself fighting with the software more than actually using it.

 

The biggest example is the mobile app. I had to stop using it and deleted it from my iPad. In general it is not a bad app. But the selecting of text or highlights or notes, it is backward and a deal breaker for me.

 

Again, I find myself using Logos on my iPad. 

 

It is clear that long time Accordance user loves Accordance. They love and prefer the way it works. I do not want to blow things out of proportion either, but new users like me may be having a tougher time adapting to Accordance because of many unique way of doing things. To me it has been a bitter sweet experience. Sometimes it feels like many features are not complete or done in a backward way dating back to the 1990's technology.

 

This is what I would love to do: I would love to use my time and Accordance to study the Bible instead of having to come here to spend many hours discussing this. I want to be able to use the software as expected. I want to be able to compare Bible text and not having to second guess Accordance. That is what I would love to do.


Edited by davidmedina, 19 November 2013 - 11:52 AM.

"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.

#47 Rick Bennett

Rick Bennett

    Platinum

  • Accordance
  • 1,879 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tampa Bay, FL
  • Interests: gadgets, coffee, running and cycling, Rays baseball
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 19 November 2013 - 12:22 PM

 

This is what I would love to do: I would love to use my time and Accordance to study the Bible instead of having to come here to spend many hours discussing this. I want to be able to use the software as expected. I want to be able to compare Bible text and not having to second guess Accordance. That is what I would love to do.

 

Unless I'm mistaken, I believe you should now be able to do just this. We've answered your original concern as best as we can, with Joel (and possibly I) suggesting an enhancement, which you indicated your support of. And you should now understand how this currently works so you aren't surprised again. You're free to continue to voice your opinions on various things, but as far as this thread's original concern, I think we've covered it.

 

Thanks again for the feedback and support.


  • Joe Weaks, Michael J. Bolesta and Julie Falling like this

Rick Bennett
Director of Content Development
iOS Working Group





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users