My source was Mechon Mamre, which you object to for some reason Why do you mean "for some reason as if it did not patently explain at length what they good reason was?! Are you here to exasperate us with your insolence?
even though the English translation for a different passage you objected to is the same translation as the King James Version.
What? Why do i spend so much time explaining to you that neither your source nor the KJV necessarily means that that the text fully corresponds word for word to the original language, while my source validated that it did?
Had you simply wrote you preferred a different source but mine was also accurate for the text in question, instead of writing that Mechon Mamre "can easily mislead those who cannot read Hebrew from thinking certain word[s] are in the Hebrew which are not." I would not have defended Mechon Mamre's academic integrity in this regard.
Because as said and SHOWED it can, as in Job. 34:10 (in which 10 Hebrews words end up as 26 in the English, at least 9 of which are unnecessary) in addition to many more examples i could provide.
The source did nothing wrong with the text in question, in Hebrew or in English.
Once again, i never said it did as regards Gn. 3:15, but since it does in the English example i provided, thus i wanted to find a source that would precisely show me what each word was in the Hebrews and its meaning, and so render the English with that distinction.
I no where introduced "antisemitism" into this defense. "The Jews and their English translation of the Bible" refers to Mechon Mamre,
Then what's with alleging me engaging in "somwhat of a red herring against the Jews and their English translation?" You wrongly have me against the Jews, whether you admit it or not.
with a convenient online version of the Hebrew Bible: fast, convenient, and free.
As was mine, but with convenient pop up definitions of each word, and convenient distinctions btwn supplied words and those transliterated from the original languages. As said but ignored.
However, the English translation is going to differ in some messianic passages,
And thus, as accuracy is important, being able to see what the Hebrew means and supplied words in the English is superior to non-Hebrew readers. Case closed!
Why do you mean "for some reason as if it did not patently explain at length what they good reason was?!
What? Why do i spend so much time explaining to you that neither your source nor the KJV necessarily means that that the text fully corresponds word for word to the original language, while my source validated that it did?
Because as said and SHOWED it can, as in Job. 34:10 (in which 10 Hebrews words end up as 26 in the English, at least 9 of which are unnecessary) in addition to many more examples i could provide.
Once again, i never said it did as regards Gn. 3:15, but since it does in the English example i provided, thus i wanted to find a source that would precisely show me what each word was in the Hebrews and its meaning, and so render the English with that distinction.
Then what's with alleging me engaging in "somwhat of a red herring against the Jews and their English translation?" You wrongly have me against the Jews, whether you admit it or not.
As was mine, but with convenient pop up definitions of each word, and convenient distinctions btwn supplied words and those transliterated from the original languages. As said but ignored.
And thus, as accuracy is important, being able to see what the Hebrew means and supplied words in the English is superior to non-Hebrew readers. Case closed!
You asserted my source, Mechon Mamre (who are "the Jews and their English translation"),
"can easily mislead those who cannot read Hebrew from thinking certain word[s] are in the Hebrew which are not." I have not dealt with the
Italics argument for quite some time, and of course it has nothing to do with the original text in question; hence it is a
red herring. It is an esoteric complaint and not relevant to my original post about "the woman" (הָאִשָּׁה) from the Mechon Mamre Hebrew source.
Now, as for the
Italics argument, it is the correct translation that counts, unless of course one is really able to read and comprehend the language source, in which case any translation is irrelevant. I posted Mechon Mamre because I was reading the original language source. The English translation was extraneous to me because the evidence was in the Hebrew.
Not even
The University of Michigan King James Archive, nor the ubiquitous
BibleGateWay use the
italics to illuminate what words were added to make a word for word potential mistranslation become a more accurate and useable translation.