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

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:08, 21 May 2025
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.		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===		===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 Louis Klopsch 1901 KJV is used for red-letter markup for 2.10 and later.
			A scanned copy is available at https://archive.org/details/rubricated-american-heritage-bible-e-book

	The 1769 KJV facsimile is used for text, front-matter, notes, cross-references, titles, .... for versions after 2.11.<BR>		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 – 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 following 4 quarto volumes are print on demand Gale ECCO editions<ref>These "high quality" facsimile reprints contain numerous words with dotless letter ı – 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].
	* 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 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]		* 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.		* 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.

	~~A scanned copy of the 1769 KJV<ref>Currently this is only for the books Genesis to Jeremiah.</ref> is also available at http://www.originalbibles.com/1769-king-james-bible-benjamin-blayney/~~

	'''Notes:'''		'''Notes:'''

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>

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:42, 8 February 2025
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)		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>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"		{\| width="100%" border="1" class="sortable"

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>

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:37, 8 February 2025
Line 238:		Line 238:
	\|-		\|-
	\| '''3.2''' ?		\| '''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.		\| 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'')		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'')

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>"

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:29, 8 February 2025
Line 280:		Line 280:
	* Review and further update conf file where required.		* Review and further update conf file where required.
	\|-		\|-
	\| '''3.1'''~~<ref>Currently in CrossWire Beta for testing.</ref>~~		\| '''3.1'''
	\| 2023-07-19		\| 2023-07-19
	\| Several textual/markup corrections.		\| Several textual/markup corrections.

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.

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:43, 7 February 2025
Line 441:		Line 441:
	* 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>		* 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]		* 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]
			* 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.
	* In '''I Kings 4:13''', the two numbers for '''Ramoth–gilead''' are in the wrong order compared to the other 18 instances.		* In '''I Kings 4:13''', the two numbers for '''Ramoth–gilead''' are in the wrong order compared to the other 18 instances.

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>

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:40, 7 February 2025
Line 439:		Line 439:
	''Include any new issues here.''		''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 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]		* 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.		* In '''I Kings 4:13''', the two numbers for '''Ramoth–gilead''' are in the wrong order compared to the other 18 instances.

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.

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:32, 7 February 2025
Line 441:		Line 441:
	* There are no Strong's Hebrew numbers missing.		* There are no Strong's Hebrew numbers missing.
	* 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]		* 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.

	'''Notes:'''		'''Notes:'''

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>

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:43, 28 January 2025
Line 99:		Line 99:

	=== Hyphenated names ===		=== 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>		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>

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>

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:39, 28 January 2025
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>		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:'''		'''Note:'''

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

2025-01-28T10:35:08Z

Hyphenated names: Twelve instances of

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:35, 28 January 2025
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>		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>

	~~All~~ 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.

	'''Note:'''		'''Note:'''