Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
Italics are used for two main reasons, one is to supply the intended sense of the originals, the other is to indicate renderings which seem to have less attestation.
Moreover, since there is no extant copy of the originals which is flawless (one has never been pointed to by Rick Norris and friends every time I have mentioned this), it becomes rather foolish then to ask concerning the original languages, when clearly the standard form is a translation.
|
Italics do affect the claimed text of a translation since the italics were supposed to indicate the words supplied by the translators that were not in the text. If words are not in italics, it suggests that there was a word in the original language text for those words. The original language texts have to be the standard for evaluating italics and for determining where printers correctly used the italic type; otherwise, the likely mistakes of printers are made a standard above the original language texts.
The preserved Scriptures in the original languages are more flawless than the interpretations/translating decisions of Church of England scholars in 1611. If the existing Scriptures in the original languages were good enough to be translated from in the 1500's and 1600's, why do KJV-only posters imply that they are not good enough to try those translations made from them? The early English translators and the KJV translators clearly indicated that the preserved Scriptures in the original languages were good enough to be used to try all translations.