At 09:46 AM 1/16/2003 +0000, Martin Gruner wrote:
Consider Rev. 16:15. Some red-letter editions have it in red, but some red-letter editions have it in black. If it is red in a red-letter edition it is apparently the words of Jesus. If it is black in a red-letter edition it is apparently not the words of Jesus. Either way, if you turn red-lettering off it becomes, you determine by context or what have you. (Not that our confusion or editorializing can change who really said what).> Turning on and off red letters may just be > "presentation," (changing color only), but in theory it could be changing > from "saying" these are the words of Jesus," (red), to "maybe these are the > words of Jesus," (black).Not really. It is changing between "highlight the words of Jesus according to the Author of this work" and "do not highlight the words of Jesus according to the Author of this work".
I agree with that philosophy, but it was suggested by another that there should be no philosophies stopping the addition of features that give users power. That opinion was stated unconditionally. I am just pointing out that we need philosophies that set some limits. As I said before I really don't care about red-lettering. That was just how this topic got started by others. However, why not blue-letter all the words and phrases that are mistranslated? Or better yet, provide a toggle to toggle translation error correcting on or off. :-) Perhaps we would need to be more careful than those making red-lettering, and copyright holders may not like it, but it would give the user power.There is no doctrinal filter in sword, and there will be none.
Jerry
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
