Andrew G Posted September 26, 2017 Share Posted September 26, 2017 (edited) I know this is somewhat out of accordance's control and it depends if a tagged version exists, but just trying to consolidate various forum posts that are requesting tags and make it something like a sticky. I was looking into buying some English Bible versions, but realized some versions don't have tagged versions. of course, please add updates to potential releases when you hear about them and also let us know of other versions that you are hoping gets tagged (too bad we can't edit posts after a while, if it were possible, we could continually edit the original post with updates) New English Translation (NET) waiting for it to be finished to then try to acquire license www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/9388-tagged-version-of-the-net-new-english-translation Christian Standard Bible 2017 (CSB) being worked on www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/20781-csb-language-tags New American Standard Bible 1995 (NASB) already available on accordance, but complaints that lockman (not accordance) didn't do a good job of tagging it and that lockman has no plans on updating the tagging https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/21699-tagged-version-of-nasb/?p=106121 https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/19136-new-american-standard-currently-being-reviewed-for-a-second-update/?p=93030 update to NASB expected late 2018 early 2019 according to here www.facebook.com/TheLockmanFoundation/posts/773413149457166 who knows if tagging will be improved New Living Translation Second Edition (NLT SE) does it exist? Common English Bible (CEB) does it exist? The Message (MSG) I can dream, can I? Edited September 26, 2017 by gugu009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Bennett Posted September 26, 2017 Share Posted September 26, 2017 Translations like the NLT, CEB, MSG, etc. could be tagged now that we support "phrase-tagging" (see NIV11-GKE), but it would require a team of people to do the work with a very good understanding of the translation philosophy (difficult since the actual translators nor their hypothetical notes would be available) and the original languages. So, it's not totally without hope that more translations like these could be tagged, just a matter of someone directing and funding the work, which we do not have any immediate plans to do. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Weaks Posted September 26, 2017 Share Posted September 26, 2017 Just to point out, the Common English Bible (CEB) is not in the same category as The Message or NLT. It can be normally tagged just like NRSV or ESV, without "phrase tagging". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Bennett Posted September 26, 2017 Share Posted September 26, 2017 Just to point out, the Common English Bible (CEB) is not in the same category as The Message or NLT. It can be normally tagged just like NRSV or ESV, without "phrase tagging". Good point; thanks, Joe. However, if someone were to undertake tagging it, 'phrase-tagging' is the way to go. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Weaks Posted September 26, 2017 Share Posted September 26, 2017 Good point; thanks, Joe. However, if someone were to undertake tagging it, 'phrase-tagging' is the way to go. Phrase-tagging is superior for any translation, for sure. But, it's also potentially cost-prohibitive for y'all, as has been stated clearly. It is way less work to tag with the old method (a large % of which can be done programmatically). I think we'd all rather have a *S version of our favorite translation even if we had to intuitively ignore the untagged words, versus the alternative of having nothing because it'd be too much work. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew G Posted September 27, 2017 Author Share Posted September 27, 2017 i was so impressed by the NIV GKE w/ phrase tagging that I bought it. however, while phrase-tagging is superior (as joe points out), we would like to just HAVE a tagged English text in general. even for me, I would prefer to use the NIV GKE to do my study, but our church uses the ESV Bible translation so I have no choice but to use that as my default text, so I don't even take advantage of the phrase tagging available in the NIV since I'm not using that module as much as I would like. also just as an example, if a church used the CEB as their text, then that person would naturally use the CEB in accordance as their main text. But since it's not tagged, it makes studying and comparing the CEB to the greek/hebrew text much harder. that person might as well just use biblegateway to refer to the ceb text. there's no advantage of having it in accordance if it's not tagged. availability of a tagged text should be standard. in a sense, the tagging being phrase-tagging is more of a "luxury" 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
symbolcraft Posted June 23, 2018 Share Posted June 23, 2018 Bumping this topic. I fully agree that a *S version (CEBS! CEBS!) would be a giant step forward. Please. I'm waiting with my credit card. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Weaks Posted June 23, 2018 Share Posted June 23, 2018 Please. I'm waiting with my credit card. me too 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Simpson Posted June 23, 2018 Share Posted June 23, 2018 I Christian Standard Bible 2017 (CSB) being worked on www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/20781-csb-language-tags [ Perhaps I am being a bit slow here, but the CSB17 is available as a Strongs keyed text. https://www.accordancebible.com/store/details/?pid=CSB17S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helen Brown Posted June 24, 2018 Share Posted June 24, 2018 Yes, but not the CEB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Posted June 24, 2018 Share Posted June 24, 2018 I have said elsewhere that Strong's numbers are redundant and I think it unwise to continue to use them. I believe this is why Goodrick & Kohlenberger create their own, superior, system. Well, not exactly redundant because people still use them, obviously, but it dates from 1890! Is that the best we can do in 128 years? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricC Posted June 24, 2018 Share Posted June 24, 2018 I have said elsewhere that Strong's numbers are redundant and I think it unwise to continue to use them. I believe this is why Goodrick & Kohlenberger create their own, superior, system. Well, not exactly redundant because people still use them, obviously, but it dates from 1890! Is that the best we can do in 128 years? Some of us still like Strong's numbers. Some of us believe in the texts that were used when they were made (i.e., some of the changes made by G/K were because the Critical texts were the basis, not the TR). Some of us still believe in the TR. I think there is much that could be improved with Strong's data, but I actually like the numbers themselves and the texts they referred to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Weaks Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 And yes, +1, an updated Goodrick & Kohlenberger system. The >century old Strong system doesn't allow for displaying of some scholarship practices over the last 100 years. (dividing homographs, Hebrew/Aramaic, additional manuscript vocabulary, etc.) And, using GK doesn't negate someone still using/prefering the TR and the KJV. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricC Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 And yes, +1, an updated Goodrick & Kohlenberger system. The >century old Strong system doesn't allow for displaying of some scholarship practices over the last 100 years. (dividing homographs, Hebrew/Aramaic, additional manuscript vocabulary, etc.) And, using GK doesn't negate someone still using/prefering the TR and the KJV. Yes, Joe, this point is well taken. I think dividing homographs, splitting up Hebrew words into their elements, etc. would be nice. I'm sure there is much that could be improved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 The >century old Strong system doesn't allow for displaying of some scholarship practices over the last 100 years. (dividing homographs, Hebrew/Aramaic, additional manuscript vocabulary, etc.) And, using GK doesn't negate someone still using/prefering the TR and the KJV. This was what I was thinking of when I made my post, but Joe has put it so much better than I could have (and certainly better than I actually did) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.c3123c857d1029f98e39c9394adc358d.png)
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now