On the AV1611 board there is a discussion about the "Defined King James Bible". I had not heard of
it, but apparently it is a KJV with margin notes or footnotes that help the reader understand archaic terms in the KJV text.
Bibleprotector gave his opinion on the use of such Bibles. Here is a portion of one of his posts (emphasis
mine):
"In itself using a defined KJB edition is not a problem, though I personally
would not utilise such a work. I believe the problem is where people think it is permissible even occasionally to define the words of the English Scripture
according to supposed meanings of the Greek or Hebrew words, or else to try and define the roots to English words etymologically, that is to say, this English
word comes from Greek, and in Greek this word means _____. The problem with that is that we are dealing with English words, not Greek ones, and whether
or not they came from Greek, and had a certain meaning, is beside the point, since the English words as they stand have an English meaning."
This is a remarkable statement. He appears to be saying that once the words got
translated into English the English became the new final authority even in those cases where the Greek or Hebrew could not translate exactly into English. This
would have to apply even in those cases where there is no doubt as to what the original Hebrew or Greek text is.
In other words, whatever meaning a word "had" in Greek doesn't matter now, since the English meaning takes precedence.
Is this not a repeat of Peter Ruckman?
Of course I'm
not surprised. For the most part other than BP's comments that are reposted here, others are being just as outrageous with there opinions.
. A. Waite, Jr. was actually responsible for the
definitions, but D. A. Waite, Sr. has in effect endorsed or recommended them.
