Talk:CrossWire KJV

Spelling issues in Blayney's 1769

Though modern editions of the KJV claim to be essentially the same as the 1769 standard, Blayney's work still contained some archaic spellings and some inconsistent spellings. Most of these were unified amd corrected in works such as the Scofield Bible that was used as the Reference Text for the earlier editions of the KJV module. Though there is much to be gained by examining the Blayney's 1769, it would be a retrograde step to revert the KJV module to his spellings.

For further details please visit my user page: User:David Haslam/Benjamin Blayney's 1769 KJV.

David Haslam 10:37, 25 January 2016 (MST)

I don't think it'd be a backward step. But if so, maybe we fork the KJV as what we have now is not the 1769 Blayney, but rather Old Scofield? There is considerable value in having an accurate text for the Blayney edition. --Dmsmith 11:11, 25 January 2016 (MST)

Rather than forking the module (which would lead to a lot of extra work), I would prefer to use OSIS markup to record spelling (and punctuation) variants in the various printed editions 1769 to present. David Haslam 04:26, 27 January 2016 (MST)

It's not as if we don't already have another related module which has become outdated compared to the KJV, namely the KJVA module with the Apocrypha included. The Protocanonical Books for that should ideally have been made to track the KJV module in terms of updates. David Haslam 04:29, 27 January 2016 (MST)