Tagging bible chapters about obsidian-bible-reference

[Xtremefaith]

I am so excited about this idea because I currently use https://github.com/Xtremefaith/BibleGateway-to-Obsidian which I forked and made adjustments so that users can easily setup an atomic note for every verse.

Here is a video I made at the time to help explain the enhancements. Alternatively I've described them below

Detailed Explanation

This script allows users to generate their own personal digital bible using the Bible Gateway API. There are several options involved with how a user might do this, but per my enhancements the following directory structure is created to allow for atomic Verse Notes.

Each Chapter Note then embeds all the necessary verse notes like this:

Additionally, it includes options to add features to the verse note. If you're an atomic note purest then you may not appreciate these specific features but you can choose to not include them when building your Personal Vault Bible.

As you can see from this sample, I like this for the purpose of keeping specific interpretation notes on the verse rather than a generating unnamed notes to link. Also when reading through I can use the breadcrumbs. Again not for everyone.

Therefore, there is a verse section link added when these features are added so that I can directly reference the verse without all the content of the note. For example, I often will link in my church/sermon notes with something like this [[Genesis 1.1^verse|Genesis 1:1-3]]

• Notice I can't actually link to all 3 verse with this method, but when reviewing my notes I know to read all 3 verses
• Also, my note only backlinks to the one verse referenced instead of all verse which again isn't ideal
• I could manually link all verse but determined that's too much effort

---

Now with all this said, I think it would be so amazing if your "Create Book/Chapter" options worked with this approach (especially with the popularity around BibleGateway-to-Obsidian and the growing desire to have offline/local PKM tools. Technically the setup I described above has some great capabilities, but in the process of note making it's too difficult to leverage, but your plugin could change that.

Ideally, if I could type:

--Gen1:1-3

And your generator could produce the following output:

> [!Bible] [Gen 1:1-3 - ESV](https://bolls.life/ESV/1/1/) 
>  <sup> [[Genesis 1.1|1]] </sup>In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. <sup> [[Genesis 1.2|2]]  </sup>The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. <sup> [[Genesis 1.3|3]]  </sup>And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

Look how nice that looks!

This now has the following benefits:

1. Links to an external/public URL

• Although technically it's possible to capture this all with local content and not even need a live API which would be great for offline. Your output would look something more like this:

> [!Bible] [[Genesis 1|Genesis 1:1-3]]
>  <sup> [[Genesis 1.1|1]] </sup>![[Genesis 1.1^verse]] <sup> [[Genesis 1.2|2]]  </sup>![[Genesis 1.2^verse]]<sup> [[Genesis 1.3|3]]  </sup>![[Genesis 1.3^verse]]

2. Easily jump to the exact verse note instead of the starting verse and navigating
3. My note now links to all verse notes which appear in the backlinks like so

If I knew how to do this myself I totally would. I just started using your plugin today and I'm very impressed with what it already does but I think this would be a great enhancement for local personal bible management.

[JTravisWatson]

In my personal setup I use nested tags to denote references. For example, Romans 12:2 becomes #Romans/12/2

These can be hidden in a comment block so they don’t clutter the note. I’m not too sure how multiple verses could be accounted for, unless you made a specific tag for a passage, such as #Genesis/1/1_3 for example.

Just a thought to give more options for formatting, though I’m not sure if that would make life easier on the backend or not.

[brennenputh]

Honestly, I think this feature is great and was definitely needed. However, formatting is a bit of an issue. It would be nice if, instead of editing the code to format a tag or link differently, the format could simply be in format-string form. For example, a string of {book}{chapter} could output a tag such as genesis1 (or a backlink of the same format). Allowing a system like this would give much more flexibility and decrease the amount of options in the GUI for different styles. I'm willing to make a PR to support this if desired.

[Xtremefaith]

@joey-kilgore I understand your preference and I'm sure you're not alone based on other members of the community I've spoken with. Coming from some in-depth tools in the past I really appreciate individual verse notes, this is my way of possessing a digital bible that I can really mark up in the margins sort-a-speak.

As for my graphview I just filter out the Bible directory and it no longer appears. Alternatively if there was a way to easily reference a separate vault from my PKM vault I would even opt to keep the bible in it's own vault to reduce the file count. It's definitely a tradeoff and I suppose the jury is still out since I only begun doing it this way this year. That said, so far I really like it. This Sunday I used your tool to generate the scripture block and then I inserted by references into the verse numbers and got the results I was expecting. Now if this worked without the extra editing that would be awesome.

I do believe that with the writing options/settings in place as you're suggesting, the write output could be made for every users preference.

[minermaniac447]

Just my two cents - I feel like it makes more sense to have a single tags field, where we put as many or as few tags as we want (or, alternatively, a list of tags that's able to be whittled down or expanded), rather than enforcing one tag per level. For example, I use a single (nested) tag for book and chapter, don't find the verse level practical, and don't find the overall "#bible" level necessary. Thus, I'd only want to use the one tag. Others may have a use case where they want to use multiple, for example, book-level tags (maybe they have multilingual bible notes? not sure).

Basically, I feel locking into 4 categories, one tag each, is rather limiting.

[micahmorgan1]

I think a templating system is the way to go. I personally would like nested tags, and to be able to tag each verse independently in a referenced passage. I think as noted above though there are too many permutations of preferences to appease everyone, so some kind of template would be great. It could possibly even include the callout feature. I understand there is a lot of added complexity added there, as referenced in #109 so I understand the reasoning behind rejecting the pull request, but I think the idea is solid.

[JPT62089]

Yup, I personally would prefer verses to be tagged as something like #bible-reference/{book}/{chapter} and spaces be replaced with dashes (e.g., #bible-reference/1-john/1). I usually do something similar for sermon notes so that I can go back and find my notes from certain chapters. imo verse tagging would be too much but I'm sure there are those who would love it.

[joey-kilgore]

@brennenputh This is really good suggestion. I had considered doing this, but I wanted to push an initial PR with the general idea to get it reviewed so we could have more of this discussion. If you would like to work on this and make a PR that would probably be worth starting, but one of the annoying things that still needs to be handled is standardizing book names (because sometimes the tag can be created using 'gen' instead of 'genesis'. Right now, there is some regex used for the book name, but I think we could create a much more robust standardization method in the utils to keep things more consistent. Unfortunately, this might be a bit trickier with the multi language support.

I'm wondering if there is a way to utilize some of the work already included in the abbreviations.ts script to help with this, but I'm not sure.

[joey-kilgore]

@Xtremefaith this is a very interesting setup! But I think this will be something that we should go about solving this after #99 is merged, and then we can look forward to custom formatting options as @JTravisWatson @brennenputh have suggested earlier in the thread.

Personally, I don't actually keep the text itself within my vault, since I find having all of the text already in the vault makes it too cluttered for what I like to do with the graph. I like to just have book and chapter notes, and everything links to those where I can keep notes on those verses as a whole (like historical references/additional commentary info).

I think with all this in mind, to give people the full control, we should take all of the options available and give a text box for custom formatting for each. We can have defaults for them, but allow people to enter their own at all 4 levels of tag/link (global, book, chapter, verse).

[tim-hub]

Just my two cents - I feel like it makes more sense to have a single tags field, where we put as many or as few tags as we want (or, alternatively, a list of tags that's able to be whittled down or expanded), rather than enforcing one tag per level. For example, I use a single (nested) tag for book and chapter, don't find the verse level practical, and don't find the overall "#bible" level necessary. Thus, I'd only want to use the one tag. Others may have a use case where they want to use multiple, for example, book-level tags (maybe they have multilingual bible notes? not sure).

Basically, I feel locking into 4 categories, one tag each, is rather limiting.

Makes sense to me too.

[joey-kilgore]

I think all of this is makes for some really good suggestions. I think the first iteration of the settings UI was a bit rough, but I've always been someone who would rather get a rough piece of UI out and running and iterating than just keep it in development.

I think moving to a single tag option in the settings and allowing for people to put in whatever custom tags is a great idea, and I'm just now seeing #109 which looks like it also might address some of the comments here, and @brennenputh and @tim-hub seem to be doing a great job with it. I'm wondering if it might be worth trying to get some sort of overall community response on how they would like/already use tags and backlinks in their notes (maybe like a google form) so that we can get an idea for how flexible we should aim to make these tags/backlinks. Or we can just aim to make them as flexible as possible, but as we make them more flexible it will become more cumbersome for users to configure (noting we will likely need more documentation for how to handle these from a user point of view).