Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: Search for ... in ESV

  1. #1

    Default Search for ... in ESV

    The other day I was reading the ESV and spotted in 1 Samuel 13:1 that the translators have chosen to use three dots to represent the uncertainty in the original texts.

    Saul was... years old when he began to reign, and he reigned... and two years over Israel. (1Sa 13:1 ESV)
    I was kind of blown away that they would do that. I mean how are you meant to read that kind of translation aloud in church or memorise it? So I was interested as to how many times the translators chose to do it.

    But I can't seem to work out how to do the search in Bibleworks because both times in 1 Samuel 13:1 the '...' is joined to the previous word. Any suggestions?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,122

    Default

    I couldn't find a way to do this search from within BW, so I exported the ESV to an RTF file using BW's "export" feature. I then loaded the RTF file into Word and searched on "..."

    As it turns out, this instance in 1 Samuel is the only one.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kitwalker View Post
    The other day I was reading the ESV and spotted in 1 Samuel 13:1 that the translators have chosen to use three dots to represent the uncertainty in the original texts.

    I was kind of blown away that they would do that. I mean how are you meant to read that kind of translation aloud in church or memorise it? So I was interested as to how many times the translators chose to do it.

    But I can't seem to work out how to do the search in Bibleworks because both times in 1 Samuel 13:1 the '...' is joined to the previous word. Any suggestions?
    I have not done punctuation searches of my own, but I do know that you can do them, but you have to use the GSE. If you open it, I think there are examples of punctuation searches that perhaps you can modify. Otherwise search the forums, I believe others have talked about this in the past as well.
    Michael Hanel
    PhD candidate Classics Univ. of Cincinnati
    MDiv Concordia Seminary
    MA Classics Washington University
    Unofficial BibleWorks Blog
    LibraryThing!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,218

    Default

    I wonder if it would be searchable if the '...' weren't appended to the previous word. It strikes me that something like this ought to be searchable in BW. Scott, your method was definitely resourceful. Kudos to you. But, intuitively, we shouldn't have to export something from BW in order to search on it. Even in the case of unusual characters such as these (i.e., '...'), BW ought to have a means for searching on them.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,122

    Default

    I considered doing a punctuation search but I didn't want to mess with the GSE.

    It took all of about 30 seconds to export the text to an RTF and then find it in Word. Literally.

    Also, while I agree that as much as possible should be searchable, yet the capability of BW to export bible versions should not be overlooked, IMO. So that if you can't do it one way in BW, you can almost always do it another way. I think that's pretty commendable.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    506

    Default

    "...if you can't do it one way in BW, you can almost always do it another way. I think that's pretty commendable."-Adelphos

    That, is probable Bibleworks most salient point!

    Bibleworks rarely locks it's users into one way of executing a search or doing anything else. For me, there is a thrill of discovery in figuring out ways to manipulate the command line and GSE/ASE to run more complex queries. With a little bit of cognitive elbow grease(time and effort) Bible Works is capable of answering inquiries that necessitate a very high level of sophistication.



    Below is 'an' example of a Punctuation search in this case for the "?" mark:

    Quote Originally Posted by John Fallahee View Post
    Punctuation Searches

    First,

    1) Go to the menu: Search > Set Search Limits
    2) Choose the Limit the Search using a custom search range
    3) In the box labeled range enter Job
    4) Choose the OK button

    Second,

    1) Go to the menu: Search > Advanced Search Engine
    2) Choose from the menu: File > Open
    3) Open the file: PUNCTN.QF
    4) Left mouse click on the box all words agree
    5) Press the delete button, and click on the yes button

    Third,
    1) Choose from the Advanced Search Engine menu: Queries > properties
    2) Choose the flag tab
    3) Check the box so that cross verse boundries is checked
    4) Click on the OK button

    Fourth,
    1) Double left mouse click on box labeled exactly 0
    2) Choose required at the bottom
    3) Check the box custom punctuation
    4) Put a ? the box and nothing else
    5) Choose the ok button
    6) Choose the Go button

    Note: If you see the first word highlighted, it is because the previous verse ended with a ?

    Grace and Peace
    Brian K. Mitchell
    חפשו בתורה היטב ואל תסתמכו על דברי
    http://www.adfontes.mitchellbk.com/


  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    I couldn't find a way to do this search from within BW, so I exported the ESV to an RTF file using BW's "export" feature. I then loaded the RTF file into Word and searched on "..."

    As it turns out, this instance in 1 Samuel is the only one.
    Good one! I should have thought of that, considering the query (...) is pretty unusual.

    Also glad to know it is pretty rare in the translation. But still, for me it would definitely be a factor against placing ESV bibles in church pews.

    Thanks again.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kitwalker View Post
    Also glad to know it is pretty rare in the translation. But still, for me it would definitely be a factor against placing ESV bibles in church pews.
    Fully agreed. This move by the ESV in this verse has to be one of the biggest bone-headed moves in the entire history of Bible translation. I am sure they have a "reason" for it, but whatever "reason" they have for it, it is a bone-headed reason through and through, so much so, that it might just be THE biggest bone-headed move in the entire history of Bible translation.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,156

    Default

    1) This was NOT a move by the ESV. The ... were introduced in the RSV, and are included in the NRSV as well. The idea was adopted also by NAB, NJB, TNK, and JPS substituted -- .
    The fact is that the Hebrew text, literally translated says: "Saul [was] a son of years," which normally is translated "Saul was years old." How many years? Nobody knows. The LXX totally omits the verse. So, you either conjecture (which the RSV elsewhere notoriously did), or you translate honestly, and let people know that we don't know how old Saul was, nor exactly how many years he reigned.

    2) I'm sure that there are plenty of candidates for "THE biggest bone-headed move in the entire history of Bible translation." If this were not a BibleWorks forum, I could come up with many more theologically-significant misleading translations. But, to be hyperliteral, consider the "translation" "Calvary" in Luke 23:33 in KJV, etc. which in no way translates the meaning of the Greek KRANION, but puts an English ending on a Latin word. That, literally, is bone headed. Think about it.

    Mark Eddy

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,122

    Default

    Well, I'm not going to get into a debate about it, but the Masora has a lot to say about things in the OT, which the translators of modern "bibles" have shown themselves completely ignorant of, but which the KJV translators were absolute masters of, which sheds much light on passages such as this, and also Calvary is a perfectly good translation of that verse in the KJV, just as Diana is in Acts, when one actually understands all of the factors that go into it.

    Notice that I didn't bring up the version issue. I was simply commenting on this one factor within the ESV translation. You notified me that other "bibles" did this as well, and that would have been good enough. I was not making an issue of the version debate.

    But since you saw it necessary to do so, I will now briefly explain, and then I'll be done with it.

    In short, the Jesus who indwells me doesn't indwell those who are aware of the distinctions and who yet accept the removal of "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16, or the removal of "which is in heaven" in John 3:13, or the removal of "by Jesus Christ" in Ephesians 3:9, and all the other verses that disparage the glory of Jesus Christ, as the Holy Spirit HIMSELF INFALLLIBLY TESTFIES to those who are indwelt by him, at least the Holy Spirit, and thus the Jesus, who indwells me.

    Succinctly put, those who disagree with me are simply not indwelt by the same Jesus I am indwelt by. I happen to know this for a fact, because the Jesus who indwells me has borne witness to me EMPHATICALLY on the matter. And I do mean EMPHATICALLY, as he does to ALL that are indwelt by the Jesus I am indwelt by.

    Therefore, either me or them is FATALLY -- and I do mean FATALLY -- deceived. Either I am indwelt by a false Jesus, or they are.

    It's that simple, and just so there's no misunderstanding about it, before I ever studied the issue at all, MANY years ago when I was FIRST made aware of the issue, and was shown the distinction in 1 Tiimothy 3:16, the Jesus who indwells me -- that is, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, the Christ who indwells me, the SAME Jesus Christ who personally introduced himself to me and indwelt me and made me a new creature on Easter Sunday, April 22, 1973 when I was alone in my bedroom at about eleven o'clock in the moring reading the book of Mattew in the King James Bible -- indeed, the VERY SAME JESUS bore EMPHATIC INSTANTANEOUS WITNESS to me that the Traditional Text was true in this verse and that the Critical Text was false. And the same with the other verses.

    And as I said, that was the FIRST time I was ever even made aware of the issue, and before I had ever collated the first manuscript, or read the first book on the subject.

    Moreover, the Jesus who indwells me does the EXACT SAME for ALL who are indwelt by the Jesus I am indwelt by and who have been made aware of the distinction.

    So one of us -- either me or them -- is FATALLY deceived.

    Notice I am not directly asserting that another person is saved or not, or making any personal attacks on any single person, but rather, I am putting myself in the same box.

    That is, I am saying that the Jesus who indwells me speaks to me, as he does with ALL whom he truly indwells, a la John 10 and other passages, and therefore you or anybody else are perfectly welcome to accuse me of being indwelt by a false Jesus.

    I have no problem with that whatsoever. It wouldn't be the first time.

    Nevertheless, I know whom I have believed, thus let everyone know of a certaintity that the Jesus who indwells me does not indwell those who are aware of the disctinctions and who yet accept the Critical Text.

    So again, one of us is indwelt by a false Jesus, and thus one of us -- either me or them -- is FATALLY deceived.

    And if the Jesus who indwells me is the true Jesus, I won't have to retract a single, solitary syllable of what I've just written come judgment day.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •