Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bible API

bible-api.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 308 posts

Re: Bible API

#201

Post by jfk13 »

wcarey wrote: post #116
karaterobot wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good observation, but I think it's overstated. I don't know many people who read the bible as a series of disconnected logical propositions, they mainly read it in much longer sections covering some topic. Chapter and verse come in when you want to quote something, or shorthand something, or refer someone to a specific and narrow section. In this usage, it's very similar to the way we cite Shakespeare, Homer, Chaucer…

I'm thinking, for example, of the RCL, which often breaks passages mid chapter and occasionally omits individual verses. What sort of Christian community do you mostly know? If you said "The St. Crispin's day speech" I'd immediately know what you mean. I'm definitely a Shakespeare fan, but would have no idea which act, scene, &c. that speech occupies. I'd wager that's much less true of the scriptures in many circles.

To some extent probably, but I wonder if that's as true as you assume.

I'd guess that many people in vaguely Christianized communities would be familiar, to some degree at least, with passages like "Daniel in the Lion's Den", "The Sermon on the Mount", "The Plagues of Egypt", "The Good Samaritan", and so on, without being able to tell you the chapter and verse (or even book) in which they're found.

Re: Bible API

#202

Post by dang »

hu3 wrote: post #56
natch wrote: post #42

Edit: my bad, I literally clicked on an example link provided in the page, which clearly shows the same URL format I used in my post, and edited the URL to have the strings for the Luke passage. I see that's the wrong syntax. Safari must be doing something funny… nope, that wasn't it. It was me, not noticing that %20 was an encoded + since it was mashed together with another number which threw me off. Earlier questio…

I have the impression you purposefully messed the URL so you could leave that snarky comment.

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Bible API

#203

Post by dang »

battery423 wrote: post #77

So absurd how people are really reading this. How can you take so much time on this Text while ignoring all issues this Text contains? All the contradictions? All the advise which is either sexist, rassist, homophobe, non homophobe etc.? I really really want to know, what other people think, when they read the bible every week like in a bible study, just to either: - Following it - Not following it but finding an exc…

Religious flamewar is not allowed on HN. I'm sure there are good reasons for why you feel this way, but you can't post like this to HN. It destroys the commons. We ban accounts that post like this, regardless of how wrong other people are or you feel they are.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Bible API

#204

Post by dang »

jacquesm wrote: post #128
Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has been years since I last looked at the Skeptics Annotated Bible, but when it launched there were a number of claims based purely on the standard English translations of the Bible. I remember especially how it was claimed that Jesus was "disrespectful of his mother" (and therefore not a morally good person) by addressing her as "woman", even though gunê in Greek was a totally normal form of address with no disre…

Spending time on annotating it either in English or the original is giving it too much credibility to begin with. If we're going to go to the source let's look at the Torah instead, not at a bunch of pull requests with bug fixes against the original.

Please, Jacques, this is pure flamebait. Please don't.

Re: Bible API

#206

Post by ars »

bjourne wrote: post #198
eeereerews wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That hermeneutic - texts are collections of independent logical propositions - was essentially unknown in the ancient world On the contrary, the atomization and recombination of the text into new meanings is highly characteristic of Midrash. Of course, this isn't the same as the "prooftext" hermeneutic I think you're criticizing.

Even Jesus himself often referred to specific verses in the Old Testament: "Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’” (Matthew 4:7; cf. Luke 4:12)" "“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’” (Matthew 5:38)" So the Scripture must have been "Balkanized" before Christianity existed. Which is not so strange given that it served both…

> You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’”

That's a great example, because that verse is saying only punish an eye for an eye, and not a life for an eye. It's a verse requiring proportional punishment. (On top of that it means the value of an eye, not an actual eye.)

So quoting it that way actually does remove necessary understanding, which is making the OP's point.

Re: Bible API

#207

Post by jacquesm »

dang wrote: post #204
jacquesm wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spending time on annotating it either in English or the original is giving it too much credibility to begin with. If we're going to go to the source let's look at the Torah instead, not at a bunch of pull requests with bug fixes against the original.

Please, Jacques, this is pure flamebait. Please don't.

As you wish.

Re: Bible API

#208

Post by op03 »

TomMarius wrote: post #186
op03 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give us a better story then. Or point at one that produces Hope and Faith in you, when you have experienced suffering. All religious text give us story, imagery and ritual. Why? Because they are the tools available to produce Faith. Faith in those suffering, that tomorrow will be a better day. The tools evolve and change. New tools are discovered. Yet with all the tooling and knowledge we still have, producing Faith…

Harry Potter. It sets a great example of friendship and love and teaches faith in better tomorrows - and does a better job at that than the bible. It also does not teach magical bullshit as if it was real and does not tell people how to behave or what is right or wrong.

Just point at the story you like. No need for any attacks. If its a better story and it helps people it's all good. When they come at you with their story show them your story. Tell them how it has helped you. You will make a bigger impression.

People need stories. Elon Musk needs some story about Mars. Zuckerberg clings to some story about how the world needs Facebook etc etc. What is important is you offer a better story if you find they are clinging to the wrong ones.

Re: Bible API

#209

Post by chrismorgan »

CivBase wrote: post #197
chrismorgan wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a default does actually make sense: if you don’t provide one, people will start by getting confused, and if they get past that will try to decide which version they should use, and probably go with the KJV as a name that they recognise—but the KJV is simply not a good translation any more, mostly because English has changed and it hasn’t but also by reason of its textual sources. The WEB family¹ is superior i…

Your post is a perfect example of why I think it's a bad idea to have a default. There is a lot of debate over which translations are the most valuable and very little concensus. A lot of organized denominations still lean heavily on KJV, regardless of its relative accuracy. A lot of them take strong opposition to KJV. Even if we all agreed KJV was bad, what do we use instead? NIV? ASV? WEB? There is no sensible defa…

If considering all English translations, you would certainly get a wide variety of opinions about what should be the default for everyone, if default there be; yet I suspect that the substantial majority of informed opinions would support the KJV, NIV and ESV, with all others trailing far behind. As regards user-facing systems, BibleGateway.com has long used the NIV as its default. I certainly wouldn’t; I’m not fond of what the NIV has become. All in all, for an API I would agree with you and recommend no default.

But for a site like this, you’re only considering public domain translations. Given that, I think that the WEB is a reasonable default, specifically because of the paucity of available options. And when you have fewer options, I think a default is more useful—“you don’t have the one I want, so what should I use instead?” will cause paralysis that a default resolves.

On the available public domain English BIbles: you’re generally limited to the KJV, a variety of more obscure translations older than the ASV, the ASV, and the WEB. (Fun fact: the old testament of the RSV and the first edition of the new testament are now public domain for most of the world, including Australia where I live. I grew up with the RSV and still use a second edition RSV as my primary Bible.) Out of these, I don’t think there’s much contest: the KJV is popular for historical reasons but a poor default for the aforediscussed reasons; of the obscure translations, most or all are either unconventional in some significant way, or would be widely acknowledged to be superseded by the ASV, by direct or indirect lineage; that leaves the ASV and the WEB which is mostly just a linguistic update of the ASV. That leaves the WEB as a sensible default public domain translation.

Re: Bible API

#210

Post by TomMarius »

dang wrote: post #199
TomMarius wrote: post #7

Meh. I would really love to see the day when religion stops being more than a fantasy fictional story. The project is nice, but I dislike its promotion of religion, and christianity in particular. This story has caused way too much suffering already. I wonder who will first use this project for children indoctrination.

Religious flamewar is not allowed here. It's tedious, nasty, and predictable. You didn't only start this flamewar, you perpetuated it. Not cool—no more of this please. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

OK, but why is promotion of religion allowed then? I don't think it's OK to talk about religion without mentioning the wrongs it caused and continues to cause.

What if this was about Scientology API - would you react the same?

Post reply on HN