43 replies to this topic

[DSaw]

those links do not work for me 

 

what we are looking for is the original not the Challoner version the challoner version is already an e_sword module

 

I use omnipage pro for OCR an I'm very happy with it

[Searcher]

These are not the Challoner versions, but maybe the others are.  I double-checked, hand my links work.  Here is (I hope) a screen shot.  You must be logged in to get to them, however.  Hope this helps.  I am new enough to this board that there may be something I am doing wrong . . .   If so, sorry,  Max

 

 ScreenHunter_29 Feb.gif   136.92K   28 downloads

 

 

 

 

 

[dauex]

I have searched for the Douay-Rheims but all I find is the Challoner version

 

I also came across a site that was charging 85$ or more for a cd of it

Dr Peters spent 10 years retyping the 1609 1582 versions. In those the word star looks like ftar  where I used 'f' as in efg they had a letter that looked like 'f' but did not have a bar . in those days 's' had a short version and a long version.  Just like today we have short and long vowels.  That version, in PDF fromat, can be found on the web - but they all violate Dr. Peters format copyright.   I have found a couple of errors in his work. Minor, small, hidden, hard to notice.  I think that Dr. Peters put them in on purpose so that if he ever takes someone to court on copyright his known errors will prove that they stole his work.  he calls it the Real Rheims [he has both OT and NT]

 

On churchlatin.com there is a $20 PDF CD of the original. It is in facsimile format  [That is it is photos of an original] Have fun re typing it. 

[dauex]

those links do not work for me 

 

what we are looking for is the original not the Challoner version the challoner version is already an e_sword module

 

I use omnipage pro for OCR an I'm very happy with it

 

If you do get an original copy in PDF the letter 'w' as in 'wxyz' is printed as two 'v' as in 'rstuv'  and looks like vvas  'v' 'v' 'a' 's' for was

And the short s  that looks like f (see prior post)  ftar is star  [I am not an expert in Old English - there maybe other differences]

 

Who ever does the work - read all of the comments at the start of the Bible - the ones used had the 'magic' word 'Challoner' hidden in them

and the publisher of the files stated that they were 1582 files (so what was Challoner's name doing in their introductions?)

 

Also every Challoner version that I have seen uses the dates 1609 / 1582 as if they were not Challoner's work.  

 

I have failed to find any version of the 1582 / 1609 in modern type except for the Dr Peters Real Rheims - I could have missed it.

[dauex]

I have searched for the Douay-Rheims but all I find is the Challoner version

 

If we are to have the original Douay-Rheims in esword we need to first find a source for the oringinal version

 

a couple years back there was a gentleman from the UK that wanted the Newberry study bible in pdf and could not find it anyware in the version he wanted he did have it in book form though I offered to scan it and now it's in the pdf section of this site 

 

so here is the question is someone willing to give up there copy so that everyone who wants to can read the original

 

I found a site that is selling pages from the 1609 / 1852 at $200 each - that makes the 1582 NT cost over $160,000

And the OT is more then twice as long.  Maybe some BIG e-publisher can get their hands on a copy but WE don't have that kind of money.

 

How well will the facsimile work for OCR? http://www.churchlat...ouayrheims.aspx   $20 for facsimile CD

 

OR Some one needs to contact Dr. William von Peters at http://www.realdouayrheims.com/ and ask if he is interested in publishing his work in E-book format.  We might have to pay $85 each to get it into E-Sword 

 

[Will check back here from time to time to see your progress]  [sorry for being the one that voided the prior file - that was a LOT of work]

Edited by dauex, 20 February 2013 - 07:31 AM.

[DSaw]

I think I found both old and new together

 

Is this the original http://www.scribd.co...eims-1610-Bible

 

 

the file is 239 mbs so it will need split into at least 3 PDF's to upload

 

edit:

If this is the original I'm thinking if David did not mind someone could use his labor of love and change his version to match the oringinal

 

Dauex you seem to know where the differences are do you have a list of verses where there are differences

 

that would cut the production time down also

Edited by DSaw, 20 February 2013 - 08:56 AM.

[Josh Bond]

On the one hand, I'm not sure I see the value of an archaic English Bible. On the other hand, is this what you're looking for?

 

http://www.just1word...heims-bible_drb

[dauex]

""On the one hand, I'm not sure I see the value of an archaic English Bible. On the other hand, is this what you're looking for?""

I am not sure that anyone is going to want to do the needed editing to get the archaic English into a readable format Very good OCR and good spell check might do the trick - but you also might have to check every change made - by hand  - [and then you will know why someone is charging $84 for the results] 

See post 12 [on page 2] and post 10 [on page 1]

They show the needed tests for OT Gen 1:5 [Volume one] and Psa 1:1 [Volume two] and NT Mat 2:1  

 

Also that the files are in OLD ENGLISH   see post 11 [on page 2]  And other comments in some of my other posts  our 'w' 'wxy'  is 'v' 'v'  vv 'tuv'  and requiring two of them.  

 

Challoner was 1750 (or so) - if it is in Old English and it passes those three verses I think we have found the real thing

 

DSaw looks like the correct file - it passes the tests and is in Old English

 

Sorry Josh Bond but there are lots claiming to be but are not [Check out the three tests and find a known Challoner and test my proposed tests]  Gen 1:5  ends " that made one day."   Psa 1:1 " hath not gone" [not walked] and Mat 2:1 sages [not wise men] 

 

Note that if you find one in a modern English font that passes the tests above it may have been stolen from Dr. Peters in violation of copyright.  And should cost $84 or so.

 

[Josh Bond]

Why would you want to OCR the text when it's already been OCR'd?

 

A derivative copyright does not attach to works that have been digitized (or typed in). Updating spelling also does not cause a derivative copyright to attach. What does cause a derivative copyright to attach is changes to the text involving creative thoughts and ideas. 

 

One way of learning when a derivative copyright attaches is: did you merely clarify the text or did you add new, creative meaning/concepts to the text?

 

Translations from one language to another do trigger a copyright. But, it's hard to see a derivative copyright qualifying under a "translation" when the editing involves systematic (and therefore, by definition, uncreative) changes in spelling. 

 

But if you did all that, wouldn't you be fairly close to translations we already have?

[BaptizedBeliever]

Basically what Josh is saying is this:  Just because he copied it and typed it doesn't mean it is under copyright.  In fact, it ain't!