Errrr... just compare ESV and KJV

Please note this is not intended to say which version is better or to condone either's usage so please do not shoot me.
Rather we are just discussing differences between the 'editions' for comparison to the quote above.

KJV uses more older words of which some have changed in their meaningover the centuries and one almost needs a working knowledge of 17th century English to really understand the original intent.
And do not forget KJV had many known translation errors that they have been errataing for 400 years.

ESV , which is itself an updated form of the RSV, has switched to more modern English, but that means there can still be translation issues and they have *only* had 14 years to errata it since its creation in 2001 although they are supposedly sourced from a better source text. (aka the Alexadrian texts vs the KJV which used the Masoric texts )
And there are still debates about which version is more accurate.
Plus they dropped the Apocrypha entirely initially and you thought SR dropping Skinlink was a big issue! In 2009 they did finally get that added back in.
So they took 8 years to get their equivalent of Skinlink back in print.

Suddenly the Rigger's Handbook and Chrome Flesh books seems like they are right around the corner no?

And that is just two editions that are considered to be fairly close to each other and you will still see squabbles there about RAW vs RAI there.

So 'organized' is still a bit of a subjective term.

That's meaning, not sectional reference.
Both of those use the same method for organizing and referencing the vast mess that is caused from a religion trying to make a rulebook out of material from three textual cultures over 700 years in spread with hardly any intending to be combined with the others in the way so desired by the current form of the tome.

It's a successful method, I'll say that.
"John 3:16"
See? It's so easy people write several sentences on a poster board in 9 characters of information.

But it is relevant when the sectional referencing leads to contradictory verses.

Lets say we are sitting down to a game of 'Catacombs & Christians' and head on over to Chargen so we look up origins, but this leads us to two different verse sections.

Genesis 1:25–27, the story where God creates the world in seven days, clearly states that humans were created after other animals, and that man and woman were created at the same time.
In Genesis 2:18–22, which launches the story of Adam and Eve, animals were created after man, and woman was created from the rib of man.

So we have one Chargen where if we have an animal companion, we make up the pet first THEN the PCs.

The other Chargen has the male PCs coming first, then any pets with the one drawback that female PCs have to have a Male PC donate a rib for their creation.

Here we have a case of someone copy and pasting in sections (verses) together into the book without checking with each other that has survived nigh unto 1700+ years of editing.

So it is not so unlike when we see stuff in 5th that was literally copy and pasted into the book even though the rules themselves have changed regarding some of those parts.

Doesn't make it right, but it does happen.

Edit: And we do agree that there should be better organizing on the SR side. I seem to recall Jordan mentioning 'the Book' which was sort of a guide for canon in the way back when.
I do not know how currently any new writer gets to check against canon, but the feel right now I get is it seems more down to the individual to look it up on their own rather than being able to consult one single source.
Maybe that would be a good starting point.

It's my understanding that RAW interpretation is quite hard, and that many people choose RAI instead, with sometimes slightly contradictory outcomes.

At least you can cite Book, Chapter, and Verse of their contradictory rules.
I can't give you as nearly exact coordinates for such in Shadowrun.

Touché

It would really be nice to be able to be capable of referencing Shadowrun as easily as one can reference a bible, though...especially if I were one who had to work on a new edition and had to reference the previous method of something.
Perhaps Shadowrun is in need of being bibilographed (I know...it's not a real word )?

You know...the more I think about this, the more odd it seems that a fantasy game hasn't used the biblical format...even if in tongue in cheek form.

Huh...

DSA (the Dark Eye), the most known/played German Fantasy RPG, is referred to as a Bible (by some and luckily not by all)
The Dark Eye has the same Impact for RPG in Germany as D&D has (had) in the US
(and whenever I tell fellow German Players that Ulli Kiesow ( the Inventorof the Dark Eye) was my first GM
its a bit like .....telling You Guys that Dave Arneson would be the first GM .But I'll never Brag with that fact because I didn't like Ulli Kiesow as a Person and I don't like DSA at all !)

with a Non-Biblical Dance
Medicineman

I give you Star Fleet Battles.

I'm not even sure Dogs in the Vineyard does, and that game is blatantly religious.* I'm half-convinced the game is satirical in nature, but basically there aren't enough rules to bother giving them chapter and verse numbers.

*You play as Mormon missionaries who are directly empowered by god to do god's work, (side note: I never spell "god" with a capital G unless quoting scripture) and as such pretty much anything you do is considered a justifiable action. Town full of prostitutes and demons? Burn it to the ground. Town with one prostitute and no demons? Burn it to the ground (although your mortal superiors might get a little upset with you). The mechanics boil down to how to resolve dice rolls in a contested situation (character vs. character) and one global rule, "GM says 'yes' or rolls dice."

obviously, you haven't seen the same conversations with killer cyborg on the rifts forums that i have

(in short: the rules in palladium contradict each other all the time, and are notoriously unclear and require constant rulings from the GM to even function at all. ridiculously so. i would not use palladium as an example of good editing).

Well, maybe CLG lacks of a community manager.

With federation from CLG, I guess we could have a very complete wikia about shadowrun.

The existing one is nice, but probably could be improved and maintained and this would be gold for SR-autors.

Nope have never been in any Palladium Forums and I don't like Siembieda's behaviour (from what I heard and read in other Forums) .I just played it for a couple of Years. I still have 30 + Books ( & TMNT, Robotech ,etc,etc, nearly 40 Books alltogether)
and Its been 15 Years since I stopped playing it ,but as far as I remember the Rules are coherent
The Powerlevel is totally unbalanced and Demigods and Hatchling Dragons together with Scholars , City Rats and Juicers and Glitterboys in the same Team with mutated Cat Girls, etc.
is ridiculous, but the Rules themselves were quite consequent. (partially overpowered, imbalanced and in Need of Houseruling though)


I wasn't referring to Editing(Which I can't judge) just the coherence of the Rules themselves.
I never ever considered them unclear or contradicting....

with a Dance from last Century
Medicineman

Nowadays yes. Edition or two prior? They didn't even know what errata was and took more then a year if ever.