Italics

[Dr. Bob]

Again, a poster has said that every word in a Version is the Word of God. That raises this question (again):

Are italicized words in a Version the Word of God? Or additions of men to help understand the meaning of the original in a receptor language?

 

[Dan Todd]

Doc - has any KJVO person ever given you an answer - or a satisfactory answer to this question?

 

[Dr. Bob]

No. Hence I keep asking every few months because it truly IS an important question.

Just what words are GOD'S words and what are MEN'S words?

 

[tinytim]

God's words are only found in the original languages.
When translating into any other language, the translator has to use men's words in order to make sense of the receiving language.
Is this wrong?
That is what we are really debating.
I don't think so, considering the fact that God wants his word into all languages.
All men must hear.
And since God confused the languages at Babel (was God the author of confusion that day??!!!)
then we must put up with this problem.

If the world still was one language, we would have no need for this forum, and us Baptists would have to find something else to fight over.

 

[robycop3]

The only defense the KJVO has for "the image of" in Romans 11:4 is that they're italicized to show they're not original. otherwise, they ignore the fact that those words are spurious in that verse, added to it by HUMAN CHOICE, not needed to clarify the passage's English translation.

And they didn't bother to italicize "God forbid" at all when 'me ginomai' means neither God nor Forbid.