Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Extra Verses in ESV / CEV #5

Open
jnterry opened this issue Jun 1, 2020 · 1 comment
Open

Extra Verses in ESV / CEV #5

jnterry opened this issue Jun 1, 2020 · 1 comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@jnterry
Copy link
Member

jnterry commented Jun 1, 2020

This library uses the KJV versification scheme, compared to this:

  • ESV (and others?) split 3 John 1:14 of KJV in two, adding a new verse 3 John 1:15 (see

  • CEV (and others?) split Rev 12:17 into two, adding a new verse Rev 12:18

    • Other translations move last part of 12:17 to start of 13:1)
    • wikpedia

Using this library to generate a list of verses therefore misses out these - which can cause errors if we iterate over two data sources (one generated based on verses from this library, and other based on verses actually present in a translation).

We should fix outstanding versification issues (such as #1) - then I think the default versification should be a "superset" which would generate all verses in all reasonable translations. This prevents this source of bugs where we miss out data.

We should export specifiic versification schemes for KJV / ESV / CEV as well.

This would (probably?) be a breaking change, so would require a major version bump.

@jnterry jnterry added the enhancement New feature or request label Jun 1, 2020
@jnterry
Copy link
Member Author

jnterry commented Jun 1, 2020

WEB also moves last 2 verses of romans 16 to last 2 verses of romans 14 - therefore increasing number of verses in romains 14. wikipedia


A "superset" versification scheme wouldn't help generic APIs which would need to remap the results for these moved veres (and actually for those listed in above post) - which potentially limits the usefulness of that idea (at least, for use as the default versification scheme).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant