interlinier of 1 Cor 1:22 Louw-Nida field show blank.
interlinier of 1 Cor 14:22 Louw-Nida field show LN 33.477
Word study shows both to be semeion.
Why is 1 Cor 1:22 blank?
In which translation is it showing blank?
KJV, Thanx
KJV
Looks as though it's a tagging omission in KJV - hopefully someone from the Faithlife team will be able to comment further.
KJV Looks as though it's a tagging omission in KJV - hopefully someone from the Faithlife team will be able to comment further.
Bob, this would be helped by editing your first post and putting "BUG: " in front of his thread title - Logos/Faithlife people scan the forum for this cues. In the past, there was a revint@logos.com mail address for such data issues - maybe it helps mailing to it.
Did Both, Thanx
'Greeks' in 1 Cor 1:23 is also missing a LN number. Also 'this' 1:20, 'his' 1:29, 'testimony' in 2:1.
The KJV Reverse Interlinear (KJV 1900) is aligned with "The New Testament in Greek (Scrivener 1881)" in the NT, and the words noted have bold type in Scrivener 1881, which says "Wherever a Greek reading adopted for the Revised Version differs from the presumed Greek original of the Authorised Version, the reading which it is intended to displace is printed in the text in a thicker type, with a numerical reference to the reading substituted by the Revisers, which bears the same numeral at the foot of the pages."Scrivener, F. H. A. (1881; 2008). The New Testament in Greek (Scrivener 1881). Logos Research Systems, Inc.
So if you look for bolded words that are not alternate readings or marginal notes, they will be missing an LN number in KJV1900. But why? is still valid.
The KJV Reverse Interlinear (KJV 1900) is aligned with "The New Testament in Greek (Scrivener 1881)" in the NT
This is great to know.
So if you look for bolded words that are not alternate readings or marginal notes, they will be missing an LN number in KJV1900.
Ah! [I]
But why? is still valid.
Well, probably since no one produced LN numbers for the bolded words in Scrivener (same goes for the Logos-produced Senses). Obviously the LN could be inferred here, where semeia vs semeion is only a plural vs singular thing that seems not to change much in terms of meaning, let alone semantic domain. But surely there are places which require editorial work, maybe judgement.
