Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rdp
In response to your earlier response in bold [which I figured you would say], you're doing the same thing w/ the NIV, RSV, HCSB, etc. In the final analysis, textual critics state both based upon a reading of the greek "adorning". But, then we have to consider if we're dealing w/ the Majority Text, or the Critical Text...which enhances the discussion significantly.
Are you suggesting that these textual critics made their own stuff up, or was there something in the greek that caused them [about 337 linguistical experts] to come up w/ this...independent of the others? Let's be honest here.....
|
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.
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...
Threaded Mode
