CrossWire KJV - Revision history

Dmsmith: /* Reference text */ Added full archive.org links to full scans of 1769 Blaney and 1901 Louis Klopsch

2025-05-21T16:08:30Z

‎Reference text: Added full archive.org links to full scans of 1769 Blaney and 1901 Louis Klopsch

David Haslam: /* Module versions */ Therefore the KJV release after version 2.10.2 jumped straight to 3.1 - missing out 3.0 - as the KJVA module was made from the same XML file[s]. KJVA is currently version 3.1 also.

2025-02-08T09:42:55Z

‎Module versions: <ref>Therefore the KJV release after version 2.10.2 jumped straight to 3.1 - missing out 3.0 - as the KJVA module was made from the same XML file[s]. KJVA is currently version 3.1 also.</ref>

David Haslam: /* Module versions */ The changes were overtaken by the release of v3.1. It would therefore be necessary to re-implement them from that later starting point.

2025-02-08T09:37:52Z

‎Module versions: <ref>The changes were overtaken by the release of v3.1. It would therefore be necessary to re-implement them from that later starting point.</ref>

David Haslam: /* Module versions */ removed "Currently in CrossWire Beta for testing."

2025-02-08T09:29:49Z

‎Module versions: removed "<ref>Currently in CrossWire Beta for testing.</ref>"

David Haslam: /* Strong's numbers errata / A further study has begun to compare the Strong's Hebrew numbers of the KJV with those of the '''THOT''' module available from STEP Bible.

2025-02-07T12:43:28Z

‎Strong's numbers errata: * A further study has begun to compare the Strong's Hebrew numbers of the KJV with those of the '''THOT''' module available from STEP Bible.

David Haslam: /* Strong's numbers errata / It was thought that there were no Strong's Hebrew numbers missing.It's since been reported that H05048 is missing from '''Obadiah 1:11'''

2025-02-07T12:40:32Z

‎Strong's numbers errata: * It was thought that there were no Strong's Hebrew numbers missing.<ref>It's since been reported that H05048 is missing from '''Obadiah 1:11'''</ref>

David Haslam: /* Strong's numbers errata / In '''I Kings 4:13''', the two numbers for '''Ramoth–gilead''' are in the wrong order compared to the other 18 instances.

2025-02-07T12:32:41Z

‎Strong's numbers errata: * In '''I Kings 4:13''', the two numbers for '''Ramoth–gilead''' are in the wrong order compared to the other 18 instances.

David Haslam: /* Hyphenated names */ These occur 798 times in the KJV mdoule.

2025-01-28T10:43:58Z

‎Hyphenated names: <ref>These occur 798 times in the KJV mdoule.</ref>

David Haslam: /* Hyphenated names */ These being: God-ward 3, Maran-atha 1, joint-heirs 1, thee-ward 1, us-ward 3, you-ward 3.

2025-01-28T10:39:29Z

‎Hyphenated names: <ref>These being: God-ward 3, Maran-atha 1, joint-heirs 1, thee-ward 1, us-ward 3, you-ward 3.</ref>

David Haslam: /* Hyphenated names */ Twelve instances of

2025-01-28T10:35:08Z

‎Hyphenated names: Twelve instances of

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 One criteria was finding a text that the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement KJV-only] adherents felt was more accurate 1769 KJV text. Using various listings of differences between current and "true", dozens of dead tree texts in several stores were examined. Also, it was important to avoid copyright claims based upon minor changes in the text. Both combined to come up with the Public Domain [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scofield_Reference_Bible Old Scofield Study Bible]<ref>The use of the Scofield in no way implies our endorsement of the extensive non-canonical study notes therein.</ref>. The Biblical text was thought to be one of the most faithful copies of the 1769 Oxford Edition.<ref>i.e. Even by those in the KJV Only movement.</ref> It was published in 1917, which was important in terms of USA copyright law. It was also considered to be a faithful red-letter text.
-We have obtained a hard copy facsimile of the "Blayney" 1769 KJV text. This will be the reference text going forward.
+We have obtained a hard copy facsimiles of the "Blayney" 1769 KJV text folio and quarto editions. And the full pdf is available on the Internet Archives at https://archive.org/details/kjv-1769-oxford-edition-full-bible. These will be the reference text going forward.
 ===Need for a reference red-letter text===
@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 The Louis Klopsch 1901 KJV is used for red-letter markup for 2.10 and later.
 The 1769 KJV facsimile is used for text, front-matter, notes, cross-references, titles, .... for versions after 2.11.<BR>
-The following 4 volumes are print on demand Gale ECCO editions<ref>These "high quality" facsimile reprints contain numerous words with dotless letter ı &ndash; we must therefore assume that the publisher  applied some undeclared clean-up process to the page scans to remove "blemishes" that has had the unfortunate effect of changing dotted i to dotless ı in many words.</ref><ref>That clean-up process may also explain why some full-stops are missing where they would usually be expected.</ref> published by [https://www.gale.com/ Gale].
+A scanned copy is available at https://archive.org/details/kjv-1769-oxford-edition-full-bible
 * The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments: Volume 1 of 4, [https://www.amazon.com/dp/1171169825 ISBN-13: 9781171169826]
 * The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments: Volume 2 of 4, [https://www.amazon.com/dp/1171169817 ISBN-13: 9781171169819]
@@ Line 59: / Line 62: @@
 * The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Volume 4 of 4, [https://www.amazon.com/dp/1171169795/ ISBN-13: 9781171169796]<br/>Translated Out of the Original Greek: And with the Former Translations Diligently Compared and Revised, by His Majesty's Special Command. Appointed to by Read in Churches.
 '''Notes:'''

@@ Line 226: / Line 226: @@
 While the KJV was a module at CrossWire prior to version 2.0, this is the earliest for which dates can be determined.<BR>Dates prior to version 2.3 are best estimates. (For changes in versions 1.x, refer to the file kjv.conf)
 <BR>The revision from 2.6 onward is a link to the released source (where available).
-<BR>It is preferred that both modules KJV & KJVA should henceforth have the same version number.<ref>Therefore the next KJV release after version 2.10.2 will now jump straight to 3.1 - missing out 3.0 - as the KJVA module will be made from the same XML file[s]. KJVA is currently version 3.0.1 but with 3.1 in beta.</ref>
+<BR>It is preferred that both modules KJV & KJVA should henceforth have the same version number.<ref>Therefore the KJV release after version 2.10.2 jumped straight to 3.1 - missing out 3.0 - as the KJVA module was made from the same XML file[s]. KJVA is currently version 3.1 also.</ref>
 {|  width="100%" border="1" class="sortable"

@@ Line 238: / Line 238: @@
 |-
 | '''3.2''' ?
-| ''Being prepared''
+| ''Being prepared''<ref>The changes were overtaken by the release of v3.1. It would therefore be necessary to re-implement them from that later starting point.</ref>
 | Improve the OSIS markup. Minor textual changes to notes and titles.
 Details<ref>Many of these changes were being implemented (in an unreleased eXperimental '''KJVX''' module) by [[User:David Haslam|David Haslam]] in 2014 onwards and were discussed with [[User:Dmsmith|DM Smith]] at the time.</ref><ref>That was then known in-house as '''KJVX''' version 2.10 being before the release of the unrelated version 2.10.2 </ref>: (''with progress marker'')

@@ Line 280: / Line 280: @@
 * Review and further update conf file where required.
 |-
-| '''3.1'''<ref>Currently in CrossWire Beta for testing.</ref>
+| '''3.1'''
 | 2023-07-19
 | Several textual/markup corrections.

@@ Line 439: / Line 439: @@
 ''Include any new issues here.''
 * There are 108<ref>This figure now ''excludes'' the 100 consecutive numbers from G3203 to G3302 that were not present even in the first edition of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Strong_(theologian) Strong]'s Concordance.</ref> Strong's Greek numbers<ref>These are listed in the [[Talk:CrossWire_KJV|Talk]] page.</ref> missing.
-* There are no Strong's Hebrew numbers missing.
+* It was thought that there were no Strong's Hebrew numbers missing.<ref>It's since been reported that H05048 is missing from '''Obadiah 1:11'''</ref>
 * A study has begun to compare the Strong's Hebrew numbers of the KJV with those of the [https://github.com/openscriptures/morphhb OSHB]. See [https://gitlab.com/crosswire-bible-society/kjv/-/issues/31 issue #31]
 * In '''I Kings 4:13''', the two numbers for '''Ramoth–gilead''' are in the wrong order compared to the other 18 instances.

@@ Line 99: / Line 99: @@
 === Hyphenated names ===
-In the KJV module, for compound Hebrew '''names''', the corresponding names in the OT use the '''en dash''' U+2013.
+In the KJV module, for compound Hebrew '''names''', the corresponding names in the OT use the '''en dash''' U+2013.<ref>These occur 798 times in the KJV mdoule.</ref>
 A '''hyphen''' is used by SWORD to split words as if it were a word boundary punctuation symbol. An '''en dash''' is not. <ref>It is actually '''not''' the case that an '''en dash''' in such names corresponds to a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_punctuation#Hyphen_and_maqaf maqaf] in the Hebrew!</ref><ref>A discussion began in January 2025 about whether to use the '''non-breaking hyphen''' U+2011 instead.</ref>

@@ Line 103: / Line 103: @@
 A '''hyphen''' is used by SWORD to split words as if it were a word boundary punctuation symbol. An '''en dash''' is not. <ref>It is actually '''not''' the case that an '''en dash''' in such names corresponds to a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_punctuation#Hyphen_and_maqaf maqaf] in the Hebrew!</ref><ref>A discussion began in January 2025 about whether to use the '''non-breaking hyphen''' U+2011 instead.</ref>
-Twelve instances of other English hyphenated words in both testaments use the ordinary hyphen/minus character.
+Twelve instances of other English hyphenated words in both testaments use the ordinary hyphen/minus character.<ref>These being: God-ward 3, Maran-atha 1, joint-heirs 1, thee-ward 1, us-ward 3, you-ward 3.</ref>
 '''Note:'''