Quote:
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.
Threaded Mode
