Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[rdp]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I am suggesting that very few translations actually tell you which words they added. The reason most don't is because the way in which they are translated doesn't allow for an easy time in showing exactly which words were added. I am suggesting that if any word (specifically costly) was added in one translation then this is evidence that it was added in the others. I am not suggesting that the translators were wrong in adding the word for even the NKJV adds it, although it makes it clear that it was added. I am not even suggesting that the translators were wrong in adding the word and not italicizing it because some methods of translation make it difficult to show which words were added. I am loudly proclaiming that there is no greek word in any text to back up the word costly being in that verse.

I am also loudly proclaiming that regardless of what you want to say, none of the translations are putting the word costly in that verse because the greek word for adorning is after the greek word for clothes.

Do you understand that the word "adorning" in Greek appearing after apparel equally indicates that it can be transliterated before it when translated into English....which is precisely why many of them did it! They did not just make this up....next.....

I am also loudly proclaiming that regardless of the fairy tales you want to believe, there is no difference in how the last 3 words of this verse are rendered in any of the texts. What this means is that if the word costly was added in one translation then it was added in all. Costly was added in the NKJV. Therefore...

Wrong, wrong, wrong! 1st off, you're comparing the MT to the CT & saying that it's all the same. This clues me in that you've probably not studied much on the variant text types, or Textual Criticisms. What's true of the MT, is not always necessarily true of the CT. We have over 5,500 Greek manuscripts today from which to draw...they are NOT all identical....which is why some translations use "costly" before apparel [NIV, NLT, etc.], while others don't include it at all [KJV, NASB, etc.]. Sorry friend...come again.

[rdp]

Out of pocket 'till 2mmorrow of necessity..........dry your eyes, I'll check back in in a couple of days !

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by rdp

Do you understand that the word "adorning" in Greek appearing after apparel equally indicates that it can be transliterated before it when translated into English....which is precisely why many of them did it! They did not just make this up....next.....

Wrong, wrong, wrong! 1st off, you're comparing the MT to the CT & saying that it's all the same. This clues me in that you've probably not studied much on the variant text types, or Textual Criticisms. What's true of the MT, is not always necessarily true of the CT. We have over 5,500 Greek manuscripts today from which to draw...they are NOT all identical....which is why some translations use "costly" before apparel [NIV, NLT, etc.], while others don't include it at all [KJV, NASB, etc.]. Sorry friend...come again.

1. The NKJV, by italicizing the word costly, debunks the idea that the word was translated from any Greek word in the Textus Receptus. 1 Peter 3:3 is identical in both the Textus Receptus and Majority Text. Therefore, the NKJV debunks the idea that the greek word for adorning (kosmos) was translated into the word costly for any translation based on the Byzantine/Majority Text.

2. Although the Majority Text and Critical Text disagree on many verses they also are in agreement on many. 1 Peter 3:3 is one verse that they are in agreement on. Therefore, since the NKJV shows that the word costly does not have a greek word basis in the Majority Text then the word costly also does not have a greek word basis in the Critical Text.

So your claim that the greek word for adorning is where the word costly comes from is false. Also, your claim that the Critical Text gives a greek word basis for the word costly is false.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by jfrog

1. The NKJV, by italicizing the word costly, debunks the idea that the word was translated from any Greek word in the Textus Receptus.

The RSV [among others] is also taken from the Textus Receptus & it includes the term before apparell [I think...from memory]. Do you reeeeeeally believe that Peter was instructing the church to go naked???? Isn't this soooo silly? You're equivocating clotes w/ decorative ornamentation....kinda' like comparing eating/talking to the same.

1 Peter 3:3 is identical in both the Textus Receptus and Majority Text.

Then "costly" must included in the text if the MT & CT are identical. For the NIV/NLT/HCSB etc. includes the term. In fact, I'm quite certain that a comparison of the various translations would demostrate that more of them include the term than omit the term! Just a guess though. Either way, the term is included in many translations, which they derived from the Greek. Why don't you render the affection to the NIV/NLT/HCSB that you are to the NKJV?

Therefore, the NKJV debunks the idea that the greek word for adorning (kosmos) was translated into the word costly for any translation based on the Byzantine/Majority Text.

Then the NIV, NLT, RSV, HCSB debunks the idea that the greek word for adorning does not apply to apparell. Will you be consistent?

2. Although the Majority Text and Critical Text disagree on many verses they also are in agreement on many. 1 Peter 3:3 is one verse that they are in agreement on.

Good, then this means that we can trust in the NIV, NLT, HCSB, RSV as accurate reflections of the Greek!

Therefore, since the NKJV shows that the word costly does not have a greek word basis in the Majority Text then the word costly also does not have a greek word basis in the Critical Text.

Therefore, since the NIV, NLT, HCSB, RSV includes the term, we can safely assume that they all [independent of one another] translated the passage accurately! You see, the same criteria that you appeal to in the NKJV destroys your theory in the NIV.....

So your claim that the greek word for adorning is where the word costly comes from is false. Also, your claim that the Critical Text gives a greek word basis for the word costly is false.

So you see something that approximately 337 linguistical experts missed? Hmmm, I'd be curious to see you credentials in the Greek to w/stand all of the men:___________?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by rdp

jfrog: 1. The NKJV, by italicizing the word costly, debunks the idea that the word was translated from any Greek word in the Textus Receptus.

rdp: The RSV [among others] is also taken from the Textus Receptus & it includes the term before apparell [I think...from memory]. Do you reeeeeeally believe that Peter was instructing the church to go naked???? Isn't this soooo silly? You're equivocating clotes w/ decorative ornamentation....kinda' like comparing eating/talking to the same.

jfrog: 1 Peter 3:3 is identical in both the Textus Receptus and Majority Text.

rdp: Then "costly" must included in the text if the MT & CT are identical. For the NIV/NLT/HCSB etc. includes the term. In fact, I'm quite certain that a comparison of the various translations would demostrate that more of them include the term than omit the term! Just a guess though. Either way, the term is included in many translations, which they derived from the Greek. Why don't you render the affection to the NIV/NLT/HCSB that you are to the NKJV?

jfrog: Therefore, the NKJV debunks the idea that the greek word for adorning (kosmos) was translated into the word costly for any translation based on the Byzantine/Majority Text.

rdp: Then the NIV, NLT, RSV, HCSB debunks the idea that the greek word for adorning does not apply to apparell. Will you be consistent?

jfrog: 2. Although the Majority Text and Critical Text disagree on many verses they also are in agreement on many. 1 Peter 3:3 is one verse that they are in agreement on.

rdp: Good, then this means that we can trust in the NIV, NLT, HCSB, RSV as accurate reflections of the Greek!

jfrog: Therefore, since the NKJV shows that the word costly does not have a greek word basis in the Majority Text then the word costly also does not have a greek word basis in the Critical Text.

rdp: Therefore, since the NIV, NLT, HCSB, RSV includes the term, we can safely assume that they all [independent of one another] translated the passage accurately! You see, the same criteria that you appeal to in the NKJV destroys your theory in the NIV.....

jfrog: So your claim that the greek word for adorning is where the word costly comes from is false. Also, your claim that the Critical Text gives a greek word basis for the word costly is false.

rdp: So you see something that approximately 337 linguistical experts missed? Hmmm, I'd be curious to see you credentials in the Greek to w/stand all of the men:___________?

I see what you did there. You tried to flip my logic around on me. Well guess what, that tactic won't work this time.

The problem with your argument that other translations show the term costly should be there is based on the false assumption that if they include the word then it was derived from some word in the actual text. Translations don't often work that way. So just because a word is there doesn't mean it wasn't added by translators.

My argument is stronger because when a translation tells you a word was added by the translators then that conclusively means the word was added.

So my question for you is why did the NKJV translators say they added the word (by using italics) if there is actually a basis for the word being there? And keep in mind that you can't argue they used a different TEXT since both TEXTS render this verse the same. So why did the NKJV say the word was added? Did they somehow overlook the greek word for costly and thus mistakenly add the italics in that verse? What happened?