Are you not satisfied with .....?

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, 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."

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

 

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?

 

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.

 

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."

 

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.

 

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.