![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Error, packet resend and version control
You know, I think I'm able to read the bible much faster than most people because I'm a computer nerd.
Seriously. This thing reads like a raw datastream with a lot of packet resends. There's a little bit of new text as it progresses and then there's a chunk that you just red 10 lines ago or in the previous book. It's some seriously glitched up data.
I'm looking at it as a stream because it is a linear progression with a bunch of packet repeats.
However, the other possible way to look at it is as the edit file of a document under revision control.
As the story was written, someone went back and changed a part of something already existing, and then maybe they liked it and kept the original wording or maybe they changed the wording or maybe they just did a cut and paste of a section and changed some names.
It would be an interesting project to re-assemble the bible this way. Start at the front and every time there's something that's repeated, edit the earlier bit of text to reflect the current passage, and instead of recapping whatever was said, when God says, "remember, I did blah blah blah', change it to, 'See Also:' and a link to the parable location in the preceeding text.
It would make the whole document much more readable and you could check the revision history on any passage if you wanted to see the other variations of it. It would also cut the linear reading time of the book by probably 70%.
I'm sure someone has already probably done this decades or even centuries ago. A condensed and less redundant version likely as not has to exist. The advantage of a version under version control would be that you wouldn't have to take any one interpretation of a single passage. If it interested you, you could look at the history for all the variants of it.
Storing them chronologically with the latest one being the 'primary' definition makes the most sense to me, but you could argue a variety of sort orders.
Seriously. This thing reads like a raw datastream with a lot of packet resends. There's a little bit of new text as it progresses and then there's a chunk that you just red 10 lines ago or in the previous book. It's some seriously glitched up data.
I'm looking at it as a stream because it is a linear progression with a bunch of packet repeats.
However, the other possible way to look at it is as the edit file of a document under revision control.
As the story was written, someone went back and changed a part of something already existing, and then maybe they liked it and kept the original wording or maybe they changed the wording or maybe they just did a cut and paste of a section and changed some names.
It would be an interesting project to re-assemble the bible this way. Start at the front and every time there's something that's repeated, edit the earlier bit of text to reflect the current passage, and instead of recapping whatever was said, when God says, "remember, I did blah blah blah', change it to, 'See Also:' and a link to the parable location in the preceeding text.
It would make the whole document much more readable and you could check the revision history on any passage if you wanted to see the other variations of it. It would also cut the linear reading time of the book by probably 70%.
I'm sure someone has already probably done this decades or even centuries ago. A condensed and less redundant version likely as not has to exist. The advantage of a version under version control would be that you wouldn't have to take any one interpretation of a single passage. If it interested you, you could look at the history for all the variants of it.
Storing them chronologically with the latest one being the 'primary' definition makes the most sense to me, but you could argue a variety of sort orders.
no subject
IIRC, the KJ was written in language that was archaic at the time, to give it that Portentious Flavour of Oldeness. I dunno how much of the redundancy and repetition and redundancy of the KJ is from faithful translation of the "original" texts* and how much is a deliberate choice on the part of the people who put it together.
* caveats about (bad) editing of oral traditions, and editorial choice of which stories "belong" in the book do, of course, apply when talking about the "original text", but on the other hand how many Americans really do have the attitude of "If English was good enough for Jesus..." and think the KJ is the One True Version?
no subject
no subject