I guess you missed the part about this was May INTERLINEAR Greek I was talking about, not my Greek New Testament. The Greek NT has letters, it outlines the differences in ALL the manuscripts, and which are the best options. A being certain, B almost certain, down to lower letters which are probably from a copyist mistake of some sort, which constitute a large number of manuscripts, particularly the Byzantine, the so called “majority text.” In fact, if we made up a Bible, got a few thousand copyists copying by hand, but many copying later and later generations, incorporating more and more mistakes, till you have the extremely corrupted manuscripts the KJV (and Erasmus) used for the KJV. And they did the best they could! But, they were limited by not having the manuscripts which did not have all the copyists errors.
That, right there, lays waste to the whole “purity” of the KJV concept. Because, if the manscripts are corrupt, how can you possibly produce a “pure” version? But I digress, again!
The interlinear has the Greek on top, and the English below. It is a “pure” word for word, in that it keeps the words directly under the Greek. And it makes assumptions about words, and sometimes, it translates a word in a way, that just isn’t what I learned, and when I double check with BDAG, (Bauer) it is not the right word. So, the RSV, is in a side panel, and it puts the line into proper English and certainly better word choices. Sometimes, I would look at the RSV to see how they handled a difficult grammatical passage. Where the subject is at the tail end of the sentence, all kinds of participles and subordinate clauses.
So, this would be an interlinear, if I can make it work with the spacing.
“Λέγετέ ...μοι, οἱ .........ὑπὸ ..νόμον θέλοντες εἶναι, τὸν νόμον οὐκ ἀκούετε;” Gal 4:21
“[You] say..... to me, the ones ..under .....law .....wanting .....to be, the ....law ......not ...[you] hear.”
As you can see, it is not always direct translating. The first 2 words seem to directly translate, because μοι or moi, is in the dative, which means you can freely add the word “to,” or not! Also, the Λέγετέ “ete” ending on both the first and last words of the verse, are 2nd person plural, meaning that the plural “you” is understood.
The RSV is on the side of the page, here is the same verse:
Gal 4:31
”Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law?” RSV.
"Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law?" ESV
"Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?" KJV
"Tell me, you who want to be under the law, do you not understand the law?" NET
It makes theΛέγετέ Leyte into an imperative, which it is! And θέλοντες is of course a present active participle, which is why I translated it with the “ing” ending “wanting, wishing or desiring.” And yes, the "understand" in the NET under ἀκούετε, is a perfectly valid way to translate akouete. In fact, in my opinion, it makes more sense to translate it as "understand" in this case, than "hear."
So the English words underneath are not really a translation, but rather just translating the words, and not putting them in the correct order. The receiving language, in our case, English is just as important as the original language, in that we get our meaning and understanding in the receiving language.
Which is another reason I so strongly object to the KJV, besides the fact that manuscript evidence is against it. And that is because it really is not our language, and obscurity, while perhaps making it mysterious, is certainly not the way God wants the Word of God to be read. God wants us to understand what we are reading in our own heart language. Not some ancient, dead form of English. So much better to go back to the earliest manuscripts in the original languages, which ARE the what the words were written in, than to set a version with so many manuscript issues, and problems, which is not in our language as the standard!