[daniel1212]

You have to know better than that the issue is a mere difference in fonts, and which is of no significance! The differences in fonts is the very thing that enables one to see that such are not in the original language, and the differences in language does not marginalize that, as shown. That is why scholars prefer word for word type translations, versus "dynamic equivalence" and examine the original language texts. Scholars read the original languages.

Which is why they prefer word for word type translations.

A simple Hebrew source for Genesis was sufficient to show that there was a definite article in the Hebrew text הָאִשָּׁה (the woman).

For the last time no, it was NOT!!! Your simple source simply does not show (for those who cannot read Hebrew) what is in the Hebrew word for word in the English translation, since it contains supplied words in the latter without distinction, as showed! Thus my recourse to a translation which actually established that the "the" was there. Why can't you simply accept that?

There is nothing wrong with your enhanced QBible source. I just did not need it. Thanks for the link to it.

So you claim to be fluent in Hebrew? Regardless, the issue was not you.

[af_vet_1981]

For the last time no, it was NOT!!! Your simple source simply does not show (for those who cannot read Hebrew) what is in the Hebrew word for word in the English translation, since it contains supplied words in the latter without distinction, as showed! Thus my recourse to a translation which actually established that the "the" was there. Why can't you simply accept that?

If one cannot read Hebrew, perhaps it is wiser to defer to those who can. I was simply correcting the error in the post 467 which read In the Hebrew there is no “the” in “enmity between you and the woman” , and all I need is the Hebrew text which I read.