KJV vs. ESV (Matthew 24:10)

[other one]

Keep in mind that the context of the paragraph is that we will be given up to persecution and death by some of our own friends and family.   That's the point of the scripture....

[Not of the World]

11 minutes ago, other one said:

Keep in mind that the context of the paragraph is that we will be given up to persecution and death by some of our own friends and family.   That's the point of the scripture....

[other one]

3 hours ago, Walter Goraj jr said:

There is a difference between the two words. And one  translation can be flat out wrong or at the very least mislead the reader with a word that could have been translated better. When I read God's Word I want the most accurate translation, not just an attempt. I only bring this up because there has been an attempt by evil souls to pervert or weaken the word of God in the last 150 years or so.

It is critically imperative to use the best translation. Maybe not so much in the case of Mt. 24:10 ( however at a glance I would prefer to use the word " offended"). 

 

In this particular case if you look up the meaning of the word offended, you will find that an obsolete meaning is fall away.   Merriam Webster say so anyway.     So basically if we are going to use the KJV we need to understand changes in the English language in the past few hundred years.

[other one]

22 minutes ago, Walter Goraj jr said:

I'm sorry but you are wrong. We need to understand Greek and Hebrew first. And I must say the translators of the KJV did an excellent job. This conclusion is reinforced by the nature or character of the opposition. 

But what you don't seem to grasp is the definition of the English word "Offended" has changed over the past 300 years.    It doesn't carry the meaning of the Greek and changes the context of why people will turn on each other.

I don't disagree that we need to have a batter understanding of the Hebrew and Greek, but most people are not going to have access to that.

[Justin Adams]

Esv includes renditions from dead sea scrolls. An entirely different tranlational base than the most excellent KJV.

[David1701]

On 10/21/2022 at 5:00 PM, DPMartin said:

it has to be KJV especially in this case, the ESV is a so-called translation lead by Americans, and English is not a American language, it is a British language and therefore the Brits are the first and last on the subject of their own language. The American use of English is not authoritative at all. They all give you that “from Hebrew and Greek” but they are not the authority on the English language.

Umm ... no.

The KJV is in antiquated English.  I'm British and I can guarantee you that the English in the KJV is much more different from modern English than American English is.  Not only that, but there are editions of the ESV in British English.

[DPMartin]

20 hours ago, David1701 said:

Umm ... no.

The KJV is in antiquated English.  I'm British and I can guarantee you that the English in the KJV is much more different from modern English than American English is.  Not only that, but there are editions of the ESV in British English.

all you have to do then is use the full is it 20 volume OED and more often than not it stands to reason to use it. for example, saw then is either a jagged edge or to declare and not what one has seen, which changes the statement, “God saw that it was good”. Therefore, one has a none changing reference for the text one reads. Also, most English translations are base the KJV and ones that are not, don’t include the Latin text as a reference in their translation as does the KJV. Pilate wrote King of the Jews in Hebrew Greek and Latin.

 

[other one]

Personally I think we should use at least three versions to study and/or do research on different subjects....   KJV is definately one of those.

Most of my studies is using BibleSoft's interlinear Bible.    Has both Textus Receptus and Nestle Allard manuscripts and ties to::

[David1701]

6 hours ago, DPMartin said:

all you have to do then is use the full is it 20 volume OED and more often than not it stands to reason to use it. for example, saw then is either a jagged edge or to declare and not what one has seen, which changes the statement, “God saw that it was good”. Therefore, one has a none changing reference for the text one reads. Also, most English translations are base the KJV and ones that are not, don’t include the Latin text as a reference in their translation as does the KJV. Pilate wrote King of the Jews in Hebrew Greek and Latin.

 

I quite often use the KJV myself (we call it the A.V., which is its proper name), since I've become reasonably accustomed to the older English; however, it would be difficult for most new Christians to read, and could lead to misunderstandings (e.g. "conversation", in the KJV, means "manner of life", and is not about people talking to each other).  Not many people have the full OED!

[David1701]

3 hours ago, Walter Goraj jr said:

David, I would rather stick with the better translation and learn the differences from the older English to modern. Really not hard to do. It seems to me like many don't want to do their homework, and go after a more modern, new age kind of version. 

I compare various different translations; although, for Bible studies and general reading, I would not use a Critical Text based translation.