Are you not satisfied with .....?

[rbell]

The KJV was revised 4 times. We used 1769 KJV today. Therefore the 1611 KJV and the 1769 KJV are the SAME title – KJV. No new translation until NKJV was appeared.

However modern versions are not revised because they are different versions, i.e. NIV and NIRV. Why not revised? For example, The KINGDOM of the CULTS by Walter Martin was revised 3 times, but it is SAME title of this book.

When the NIV was not satisfied, then NIRV is next new version.
When the ASV was not satisfied, then NASB is next new version.
When the NIV was not satisfied, then TNIV is next new version.
When the KJV was not satisfied, then NKJV is next new version.

See the difference between a revision and a new version. Why is a new version necessary after an old version? Who needs a new version after not satisfied with an old version?

What hopelessly broken logic. This comes from one who holds the view, "Things that are different are not the same."

Yet the KJV is changed....but somehow, that is "different" than other examples.

Would you like some fries with your inconsistency?

 

[Askjo]

KJV And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.

NKJV: Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, also heard all these things, and they derided Him.

So here the NKJV doesn't ignore the TR. The word in question is right there.

Disagree. The Greek text did not say, "also heard."

Darby Bible Translation
And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things, and mocked him

Webster's Bible translation
And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things, and they derided him.

Young's literal translation
And also the Pharisees, being lovers of money, were hearing all these things, and were deriding him

Tyndale 1557 NT
"All these things heard the Pharisees also which...."

Matthew's 1537 NT
"All these things heard the Pharisees also which...."

The Greek text agrees with the above. You are mistaken.

 

[Askjo]

John 10:6 KJV
This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them

John 10:6 NKJV
Jesus used this illustration, but they did not understand the things which He spoke to them.


Just a translational difference. The "unto them" is understood. There are no textual variants in the passage.


so, you are 0 for 2. where are the other 798?

I found other few Greek texts. They have αὐτοῖς. I have 3 NTs prior to the KJV. All of them agree. Sorry, No excuse for the NKJV by your saying “Just a translational difference.”

 

[Logos1560]

Disagree. The Greek text did not say, "also heard."

Darby Bible Translation
And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things, and mocked him

Webster's Bible translation
And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things, and they derided him.

Young's literal translation
And also the Pharisees, being lovers of money, were hearing all these things, and were deriding him

Tyndale 1557 NT
"All these things heard the Pharisees also which...."

Matthew's 1537 NT
"All these things heard the Pharisees also which...."

The Greek text agrees with the above. You are mistaken.

Askjo, you are the one that is clearly mistaken since you have not demonstrated at all that the NKJV departed from the TR at this verse. Perhaps you do not understand the Greek text, English grammar, nor translating. Because of the differences between languages and their rules, a word does not have to be placed in the same order or place in a translation to present properly the meaning of the original language text being translated. The fact that some other English translations placed the word in the same place in the English sentence as the KJV is not proof that it was wrong to place it in another place in the NKJV. In English, also is an adverb, and adverbs can properly be put in different places in a sentence according to proper English grammar.

At Luke 16:14, the 1657 English translation by Theodore Haak prepared for the Westminster Assembly has:
"And all these things the Pharisees heard also, who were covetous of money, and they derided him."

 

[jbh28]

Disagree. The Greek text did not say, "also heard."

Darby Bible Translation
And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things, and mocked him

Webster's Bible translation
And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things, and they derided him.
H
Young's literal translation
And also the Pharisees, being lovers of money, were hearing all these things, and were deriding him

Tyndale 1557 NT
"All these things heard the Pharisees also which...."

Matthew's 1537 NT
"All these things heard the Pharisees also which...."

The Greek text agrees with the above. You are mistaken.

Yes it does. The kjv also has also heard. Look on the other side of the clause.

 

[jbh28]

I found other few Greek texts. They have αὐτοῖς. I have 3 NTs prior to the KJV. All of them agree. Sorry, No excuse for the NKJV by your saying “Just a translational difference.”

There are no major textual variants. The nkjv is correct. You don't understand how translating works. Again you show no textual deviation from tr.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Askjo, you are the one that is clearly mistaken since you have not demonstrated at all that the NKJV departed from the TR at this verse. Perhaps you do not understand the Greek text, English grammar, nor translating. Because of the differences between languages and their rules, a word does not have to be placed in the same order or place in a translation to present properly the meaning of the original language text being translated. The fact that some other English translations placed the word in the same place in the English sentence as the KJV is not proof that it was wrong to place it in another place in the NKJV. In English, also is an adverb, and adverbs can properly be put in different places in a sentence according to proper English grammar.

At Luke 16:14, the 1657 English translation by Theodore Haak prepared for the Westminster Assembly has:
"And all these things the Pharisees heard also, who were covetous of money, and they derided him."

Actually, Askjo does know this, even if he may not understand it. As a deaf person his native language is ASL, not English. In ASL it is perfectly understood if one signs, "Boy mad. Boy home run, hide room" for "The boy was mad so he ran home and hid in his room."

Mountains from molehills.

 

[annsni]

Actually, Askjo does know this, even if he may not understand it. As a deaf person his native language is ASL, not English. In ASL it is perfectly understood if one signs, "Boy mad. Boy home run, hide room" for "The boy was mad so he ran home and hid in his room."

Mountains from molehills.

I was thinking of this very thing in my newbie ASL learning. I have to work hard to remember the syntax of a sentence in ASL!!

 

[Logos1560]

omitted “also.” left the TR.

TR John 10:6


omitted it again –left the TR.

Askjo, you are ignoring the fact of how a consistent application of your own claim asserts that the KJV left the TR by omitting a word in other verses. Are you sticking your head in the sand in order to avoid the facts that prove the inconsistencies of your accusations against the NKJV?

For a Greek word in the Textus Receptus at Mark 6:37, both the 1560 Geneva Bible and the NKJV have an English word that is omitted in the KJV. Askjo, does a consistent application of your accusation say that the KJV left the TR at Mark 6:37?

Mark 6:37 But he (Geneva) He (KJV) But He (NKJV)

For a Greek word in the Textus Receptus at John 8:1, both the 1560 Geneva Bible and the NKJV have an English word. On the other hand, is Askjo claiming that the KJV left the TR by not having a word in its rendering?

John 8:1 And Jesus (Geneva) Jesus (KJV) But Jesus (NKJV)

Another example would be John 12:44.

John 12:44 And Jesus cried (Geneva) Jesus cried (KJV) Then Jesus cried (NKJV)

Askjo, are you claiming that these differences in the KJV cannot be excused or explained as translational differences? Are you claiming that the KJV left the TR in the above three examples?

 

[Askjo]

Askjo, you are the one that is clearly mistaken since you have not demonstrated at all that the NKJV departed from the TR at this verse. Perhaps you do not understand the Greek text, English grammar, nor translating. Because of the differences between languages and their rules, a word does not have to be placed in the same order or place in a translation to present properly the meaning of the original language text being translated. The fact that some other English translations placed the word in the same place in the English sentence as the KJV is not proof that it was wrong to place it in another place in the NKJV. In English, also is an adverb, and adverbs can properly be put in different places in a sentence according to proper English grammar.

At Luke 16:14, the 1657 English translation by Theodore Haak prepared for the Westminster Assembly has:
"And all these things the Pharisees heard also, who were covetous of money, and they derided him."

I know “also” is adverb. It depends on the sentence what it said. The rule on translating from Greek to English is that we can’t pick it out of the sentence and wrongly put it on the sentence by jumping so far. What is the point? Which one?

The Greek is similar to ASL. The Greek is long syntax grammar. ASL is short syntax grammar. ASL is my native language.

The Greek text on Luke 16:14 pointed at Pharisees because it agrees with Young’s literal translation by exactly translating in English, “also the Pharisees.” If you disagree with me, you criticize Young's literal translation.

 

[Askjo]

I was thinking of this very thing in my newbie ASL learning. I have to work hard to remember the syntax of a sentence in ASL!!

Yes it is.

 

[jbh28]

So askjo, do you have any actual places the nkjv ignores the tr? You claimed 800 so it should be easy.

 

[rsr]

I know “also” is adverb. It depends on the sentence what it said. The rule on translating from Greek to English is that we can’t pick it out of the sentence and wrongly put it on the sentence by jumping so far. What is the point? Which one?

And who made this rule? Seriously, now. The NKJV in the first instance has simply moved "who were covetous" so that it directly follows the noun that it describes (the Pharisees), which is the preferred word order in contemporary English. This has been the preferred word order for some time, probably from the influence of prescriptive grammarians, a tidy lot who like to keep things together in a logical order.

The Greek text on Luke 16:14 pointed at Pharisees because it agrees with Young’s literal translation by exactly translating in English, “also the Pharisees.” If you disagree with me, you criticize Young's literal translation.

Well, I wouldn't want to have that on my conscience, would I?

 

[Logos1560]

I know “also” is adverb. It depends on the sentence what it said. The rule on translating from Greek to English is that we can’t pick it out of the sentence and wrongly put it on the sentence by jumping so far.

Since you say that you know that "also" is an adverb in English, do you also know that an adverb does not modify a noun such as Pharisees?

Warriner's English Grammar noted: "An adverb is a word used to modify a verb, an adjective, or another adverb" (p. 19). This same grammar stated: "Adverbs may precede or may follow the verb they modify, and they sometimes interrupt the parts of a verb phrase" (p. 20). "Also" was not wrongly put in the sentence in the NKJV as you claimed since the adverb "also" modifies the verb "heard".

What is your documentation or source that states your claimed rule on translating? Can you show that this claimed rule was always supposedly followed in the KJV?

 

[Logos1560]

Young’s literal translation by exactly translating in English, “also the Pharisees.” If you disagree with me, you criticize Young's literal translation.

Have you not noticed that sometimes Young's Literal Translation simply keeps some renderings and some verses from the KJV unchanged?

You continue to ignore the fact that an adverb that modifies a verb can properly be placed in more than one place in a sentence according to standard English grammar.

Green's Literal Translation in the 1986 Interlinear Bible translated Luke 16:14 from an edition of the Textus Receptus literally into English as follows:
"And being lovers of money, the Pharisees also heard all these things, and they derided Him."

I guess that Jay Green was not aware of the claimed rule that you may have invented.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Always fun to understand English prior to criticizing translation choices. Many fail to grasp basic grammar and syntax rules of Greek and then show why - they are woefully inept in their parent tongue.

Can't wait for Yoda's translation. 'Find what you are looking for, you will. But go there, I can not. Think it quite interesting, do you? Hmmm...'

 

[Rippon]

Always fun to understand English prior to criticizing translation choices. Many fail to grasp basic grammar and syntax rules of Greek and then show why - they are woefully inept in their parent tongue.

Can't wait for Yoda's translation. 'Find what you are looking for, you will. But go there, I can not. Think it quite interesting, do you? Hmmm...'

You'll find Yoda-speak and the ESV linked if you google.

This is one of many yoda-like ESV renderings from Lev.26:10 :"You shall eat old store long kept."

 

[franklinmonroe]

There are no major textual variants. The nkjv is correct. You don't understand how translating works. Again you show no textual deviation from tr.

I concur; there is no textual variant in the Greek here. It has been stated that the NKJV does not 'follow the TR' which seems to imply that it follows some other modern Greek text. That is not possible at John 10:6 since the CT has the same reading as the TR. 'Not following' would ordinarily involve either added words from another Greek text, or significantly different (not just orthographic) words, but NOT missing words.

As to the issue of word order, the words in English do not necessarily need to follow the same order as the Greek (even in a formal-literal translation); very often the words should not be in the same order in order to result in clear English. The NKJV is not alone in this practice since even the KJV also moves words around (I recall one instance where a Greek word is located two verses away from its original position in the KJV translation).

Concerning not translating each & every Greek word into English, this also is done by every translation including the KJV (I have posted previously about several of these occurrences in the KJV). Literally hundereds of words are left untranslated (some are basically untranslatable into English). Whether some words are added to an English translation by necessity to make smooth and understandable English is often a subjective judgement. The KJV identifies some of it's added words by italics, but certainly all English words that have no corresponding individual Greek word are NOT so indicated.

 

[jbh28]

bump for askjo. Any examples? you are 0 for 2, on these as places of textual differences. Remember, the question is where the NKJV deviated from the TR, not where it translated differently from the KJV.

 

[Askjo]

Acts 27:14

TR
μετ ου πολυ δε εβαλεν κατ αυτης ανεμος τυφωνικος ο καλουμενος ευροκλυδων

KJV
But not long after there arose against it a tempestuous wind, called Euroclydon.

NKJV
But not long after, a tempestuous head wind arose, called Euroclydon.

The NKJV left the TR.