Hello bengland, welcome to the forum.
bengland wrote:
I'm sorry but you have the DRC or Douay-Rheims Challoner revision listed. This is a very specific revision to a very specific translation that does in fact have the deuterocanonical books. I did not see where it was suggested that the Bibles are misrepresented and incomplete. I would not have replied to this except for the attitude regarding these books and this specific post.
Thank you for the suggestion.
I think you have a good point here: i should mention in the downloads area that this module does not include the deuterocanonical books.
What is the attitude you refer to? There is no 'attitude' here, just opinion, which has been stated clearly and with every respect to people with a different opinion.
The Septuagint, which is not the MT and which everyone knows to have these books, is incomplete.
Correct.
I understand you suffer technical difficulties, but you're not giving people the Septuagint. You're giving people your personal private version of the Septuagint, minus a substantial amount of text.
Well, as i said elsewhere, the issue is not primarily technical.
Furthermore, it would be misleading to say that this is 'my' version (as if i edited the text there). This is the version of the Septuagint minus the deuterocanonical books (at least for the module in the 'Bibles' downloads). This gives me the idea to also include the whole Septuagint as a book module.
This software is not free.
This software is free.
It took time to download, install and install the Bibles only to find out that they're missing 20% or more of the Old Testament text because of your personal prejudices.
It took me 7 years and thousands of hours to make this software. It takes time for me to answer your comments. I do so without requesting money. I don't know of any other way to do something for free, sorry. If you do, please tell me and i will do.
This was not mentioned next to the Bibles.
Correct. I will fix this, thank you for your suggestion.
You're deciding what is and is not Scripture for people.
No, i decide what is Scripture and what is not
only for my software. People are free to disagree.
Since you're not charging, that's fine, but that still doesn't mean that it's free for the people who use it.
With any reasonable definition of 'free', this software is free, sorry.
It would be interesting to understand how the definition of 'free' varies depending on the inclusion or not of the deuterocanonicals. Would the software be free if it included them?
Unless your point is that there is nothing free since just by examining something, it takes time (which is money). With that definition, it's not even free to breath. But, i am pretty sure that when i write on the site 'Free Software', i give EXACTLY what people have in mind with the word 'free'. If not, help me out and suggest what i should say.
If you want to insert your personal prejudice and change the texts of Scripture to suit yourself you're certainly allowed to do that since it's your software,
I inserted my personal prejudice on the day i wrote the first line of code for this software. My prejudice was this: i decided to do a software for the Bible, as *I* understand it. I didn't create a software for any 'Bible'. This would have made the software more popular, and i would surely have pleased more people (like you). I would also have avoided bitter comments for people that step by, install the software, don't find the deuterocanonicals and then come back and downplay the whole program claiming that it's not free; surely this is discouraging, believe me (let me say that i have also worked about 2 months on the installer and uninstaller, to make sure that once you uninstall it, no trace will be left behind).
Anyway, I didn't make this software for money. I could have made more money if i have given my time in any other way.
but you should at least make it clear in the Bible listing that the books most people expect to find in those translations will not be there because you think that they don't belong, and so that they don't go looking for the Douay-Rheims Challoner Revision only to find out that it's really the Douay-Rheims Costas Revision.
Correct. I agree, i will state it more clearly. Honestly, it never occured to me that i should do so, but now that you bring it up i totally agree with you.
Moreover, i see that it would be useful to also include the Bibles with deuterocanonicals as Books, so people do have the whole 'Bible' the way they expect it, but in the Book view.
Costas