Show HN: Minimal Reader for the ESV Bible, Written in Janet
github.com
github.com
Cool project though, I like the idea of being able to read the Bible without accidentally pressing play on an audio version.
So I think a lenient copyright would be fine such as it expires in 30 years at the most and it allows for copying whole chapters but perhaps not whole books. Even with current copyright restrictions the only people that are impacted are authors using lengthy direct quotes, but with allowing whole chapters to be included that shouldn't be an issue. I would be for a shorter copyright term, but it does take time for new translations to be adopted.
gopher://gopher.black/1/bible
I'm not linking to it directly, because his site is a candy store that deserves exploring.
"echo -n /bible/Jonah/jonah-1.txt | nc gopher.black 70"
Very cool ^
Other religious books may have been standardized so you can't compare different versions, but that does not diminish the versions studied today.
Those same scholars would say the same thing: You can not understand the original intent from a single translation. (For example some words have multiple meanings, and all the meanings are intended.)
Translations have different purposes, some are intended for smooth reading, or poetic language, or literal direct translation (never mind if it's hard to understand), or easy comprehension.
And ALL of them are valuable! If you have a specific need, pick the translation that matches your need.
But, for study, to really understand the material you need more than one, and in particular you need notes and explanation.
Especially a brilliant translation like the ESV.
For example, Peter J. Williams (https://www.crossway.org/authors/peter-j-williams/) is just one of the PHDs who worked on the ESV Translation Oversight Committee. I once listened to a talk Peter gave at St Helens' Bishopsgate (https://www.st-helens.org.uk/resources/talk/51892/audio/) on how translating has improved his confidence in the textual reliability of the manuscripts. I've never heard someone speak so well before.
It's true that reading more than one translation helps, but I find that even just reading a formal equivalence translation such as the ESV, together with a dynamic equivalence transalation such as the old NIV, will get you 98% of the way there, and there are commentaries to help with the rest.
It would be a real shame to never read the Bible in your mother tongue, when so many translators have sacrificed so much to make that possible, simply because one feels it can't be understood unless "you read it in a 100 languages". I think the question then becomes, well, do I want to read and truly understand, am I open-minded or am I just filibustering?
Something few people know:
The greek translation of the old testament, might be more accurate than the hebrew version.
The reason is that the complete hebrew version we have (I mean, ignoring fragments found in archeological digs recently), was written about 700 years after Jesus, by a group of people that were strongly biased against the idea that Jesus was the Messiah, also their version has explicit editor notes, and commentary, and obvious errors (for example "alphabetic" psalms that are missing letters, while the greek translation still have them).
Some of my favourite translations are ones that did research to find what was probably closest to originals, instead of reliance on the language of manuscripts, there are even some ethiopian texts (in ethiopian language!) that are reputed to be more reliable than more recent texts that are supposed to be copies of originals in original language.
That's a common misunderstanding of textual criticism, when it comes to the Bible, often peddled by pop-scholars writing for the masses, who make out that the sheer number of minor textual variants is a major stumbling block in getting back to the original text.
On the contrary, the more copies you have, the better. It's the same with Google, you hope they make thousands of backups, and at different points in time.
With textual criticism, you don't need the originals if you have thousands of copies to compare, in different languages.
Likewise with ancient history, you don't need to have been there, to know that an event happened in the past.
I would encourage you to read people like Bruce M. Metzger, F.F. Bruce, or Paul Barnett if you want to understand the logic of ancient history and textual criticism, or if you want to balance your perspective.
I bought a subscription to Logos (Faithlife) a while back - it's some amazing software, and the books they sell have a, frankly, jaw-dropping amount of cross-references linked both into most any bible translation you could imagine, but other books as well.
It's a pretty great language
Edit: fix typo in name
I made this project for myself, so I'd be unlikely to use much else for reading/quick reference, but if you find the xode helpful, you're welcome to dork it! You migh also check out: https://www.notion.so/About-Theographic-bb40cb93b1ac43bd9825...
It should be easier to use than Heroku and you can encrypt your API keys using SealedSecrets too.
Reach out? alex@openfaas.com
https://github.com/openfaas/community-cluster/tree/master/do...
https://docs.docker.com/develop/develop-images/multistage-bu...
Console: (index):247 Uncaught (in promise) TypeError: Cannot read property 'length' of undefined at search ((index):247) search @ (index):247 async function (async) search @ (index):245 (anonymous) @ (index):130
Edit: should be good now.
Thanks, author.
I like this website because it lets you compare different bibles and translations side by side:
https://www.bibliacatolica.com.br/la-biblia-de-jerusalen-vs-...
The fact that this book happens to be a book of which there is a copy in every hotel room makes it a bit paradoxical.
The fact that this book is the scripture for a religion which considers usury a capital sin makes it the best example of artificial scarcity i can think of.
On the other hand, it's hard to argue that Bible publishers' spammy newsletters and aggressive copyright protection amount to much more than Simony.
The idea that people wish to be compensated for spiritual effort is perfectly capitalist. I may need to take a look. But if the tone of the ESV resembles the NIV, the ESV may be lacking bass in the mix for my taste.
You just can't improve on Ecclesiastes in the KJV:
"Consider the work of God: for who can make that straight, which he hath made crooked?"
"Siehe an die Werke Gottes; denn wer kann das schlicht machen, was er krümmt?"
"Aanmerk het werk Gods; want wie kan recht maken, dat Hij krom gemaakt heeft?"
"Regarde l'oeuvre de Dieu: qui pourra redresser ce qu'il a courbé?"
A better translation that will be more readily understood by readers of Dutch born in the last 70 years reads:
„Bezie het werk van God: wie maakt recht wat hij krom heeft gemaakt?”
I hope my point still stands, that what's important ultimately in Ecclesiastes is not so much any superficial style or dialect, but the substance being conveyed.
Of course, Ecclesiastes is full of beautiful poetry, and I appreciate it on that level, but the book is my favorite because of the ideas and lessons being taught, which I think transcend language and culture.
For Ecclesiastes 7:13, the ESV reads: “Consider the work of God: who can make straight what he has made crooked?” With the subjective exception of the word “for”, I would consider this an unqualified improvement on the KJV, inasmuch as it is modern English rather than what was already overly formal English 400 years ago.
You mean "co-science" truths such as... morality?
Or to take it one step at a time:
* You have proposed a moral precept.
* By attempting to apply it to people who clearly disagree with it, you imply that this moral precept is an objective truth -- that like physics and math, it applies to everyone whether they like it or not (as opposed to personal preferences or conventions such as whether to drive on the right or left-hand side of the road)
* But science itself does not deal in moral precepts. Therefore, the moral precept you propose would count as "co-science".
* So if you teach your kids any morality, then you are violating the moral precept you propose.