Has anyone here used the "Defined King James Bible" and if so what are your opinions pro and con on it?

[Tmonk]

Are you talking about the "Hard words defined Edition"? My mother in-law has one. I like it.

Its a standard unchanged text with extensive margin notes giving definitions of "hard" words.

I guess it depends on who is doing the "defining."

You have to consider who is adding the notes.
For example, it is no secret that Virginia Mollenkott (a lesbian) served as a consultant on the NIV translating committee, together with the deceased Marten H. Woudstra (a homosexual), and therefore it is no wonder that the word "sodomite" is not found in the NIV. I guess they decided it was too "hard" of a word so they simply deleted it.

I have found the KJV Bible will usually explain itself if we believers give it a chance and allow God's Spirit to teach us.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

I guess it depends on who is doing the "defining."

You have to consider who is adding the notes.
For example, it is no secret that Virginia Mollenkott (a lesbian) served as a consultant on the NIV translating committee, together with the deceased Marten H. Woudstra (a homosexual), and therefore it is no wonder that the word "sodomite" is not found in the NIV. I guess they decided it was too "hard" of a word so they simply deleted it.

I have found the KJV Bible will usually explain itself if we believers give it a chance and allow God's Spirit to teach us.

Mein Bruder, check out the reading for Hebrews 9:10 in the Good News Bible, Goodspeed, the NIV, The Catholic New American, and Wallace's Folly, the NET Bible. Jawohl!

Seig heil!!!

Grace und Peace

Anton

[bondservant40]

Is the the Bible by DA Waite? I've seen one. I like the idea. Thought about getting one for my kids a few years ago, but we didn't like that each of the words that had a definition to the side was in bold face. We found it a bit distracting. I have heard that many people like theirs though.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by bondservant40

Is the the Bible by DA Waite? I've seen one. I like the idea. Thought about getting one for my kids a few years ago, but we didn't like that each of the words that had a definition to the side was in bold face. We found it a bit distracting. I have heard that many people like theirs though.

I have one of these on the shelf. I would suggest strongly that instead of getting this, someone should get a good Bible without the notes and then use David Daniels' King James Bible Companion which is thin enough to be put between the last page and cover. I found the "Defined" King James Bible to be of very low quality typesetting and printing, and frankly, it just isn't necessary when someone can have a tiny dictionary "on the side" for when they need it, rather than having someone else's "updates" always calling for attention in the text.

[biblereader]

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

I guess it depends on who is doing the "defining."

You have to consider who is adding the notes.
For example, it is no secret that Virginia Mollenkott (a lesbian) served as a consultant on the NIV translating committee, together with the deceased Marten H. Woudstra (a homosexual), and therefore it is no wonder that the word "sodomite" is not found in the NIV. I guess they decided it was too "hard" of a word so they simply deleted it.

I have found the KJV Bible will usually explain itself if we believers give it a chance and allow God's Spirit to teach us.

It is SO refreshing to see someone else tell the truth about the people who wrote the new bible versions.
Per-versions.

This is an example of being confused by the "Greek", as though it "trumps" English. The word "farthing" always refers to a quarter value coin of low buying power. For example, we know that there was a Roman coin called the "quadrans", and that this was a quarter value coin. Thus, the word "farthing" in our English Bible is entirely accurate.

Bibleprotector, I am not wanting to beat a dead horse and it is clear that your mind is fixed on this issue. I also don't want to allow a friendly debate to turn into an argument and (although I may be wrong) you seem to be getting a little irritable over it.

However, it should be obvious that the Greek "trumps" the English because the English was translated from the Greek. Were it not for the Greek NT, there would be no English NT.

It is also obvious in the case of the coins that we are talking about that the Greek is much more specific than the English. When you have two different coins, the "Assarion" and the "Kodrantes" which were the Roman As and the Roman Quadrans and the As was worth 1/16th of a Denarius while the Quadrans was worth 1/64th of a Denarius, both translated "Farthing" it just goes without saying that the Greek is more specific and more accurate than the English.

It is also not correct to say that "any coin worth 1/4th of another coin is considered a Farthing." If that were true a Penny would also be a Farthing because it is worth 1/4 of a Groat. The translators could have saved a lot of time and translated every coin in the NT as "Farthing" because every coin mentioned is worth 1/4 of some other coin.

[bibleprotector]

Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey

However, it should be obvious that the Greek "trumps" the English because the English was translated from the Greek. Were it not for the Greek NT, there would be no English NT.

If the Greek trumps English, then the Word of God is not fully in English. We would still need to be in subjection to those who really know Greek. Surely, God is not so weak to have His Word trapped in Greek, when He promised in Romans 16:26, "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith".

If Greek were really the final authority, then there would be a perfect Greek standard edition. As it is, there is no perfect, flawless or complete Greek text in any extant copy. When it comes to agreement, the King James Bible only people are all looking to one common world-wide standard.

Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey

It is also obvious in the case of the coins that we are talking about that the Greek is much more specific than the English.

This is not obvious, except obviously a slight against our English Bible. If it were not translated properly into English in 1611, when and where is the proper English translation?

Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey

"Farthing" it just goes without saying that the Greek is more specific and more accurate than the English.

Since men do not know everything, but can believe that God is able to get His Word to us, then it is certain that "farthing" is a correct term, which accurately describes a quarter value coin. The truth is that farthings must have been used in the Roman Empire, and upon examination of facts, we find that this is the correct sense, for quarter value coins were used.

Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey

It is also not correct to say that "any coin worth 1/4th of another coin is considered a Farthing."

That is a straw man argument, because you are not quoting me. When we read "penny", "farthing", "pound" or "mile" in the Bible, we cannot assume that using the English word is wrong, just because there may be some peculiar differences between the present form of such things and what was used in the Bible times. (If present vulgar use is the standard, argument could be made against using the word "gay" or "bottle" or "glass", but the Bible English use of words is entirely accurate.)

To imply that a Greek or Roman word must be used is to say that God's Word should not be translated. Are we to have "pneuma", "pascha", etc. instead of our English words? If "penny" or "farthing" are inaccurate, then having the Scripture in English is "inaccurate" because it is a different language to Greek.

But if the Word of God is fully, sense-for-sense, in English, then we can rightly say that the English Bible is true, and that it is equal to what was originally inspired.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

As often happens with the experts who want to disbelieve the pure Bible, views are extracted, and presented as fact, that are very dubious. The presenter simply assumes that he can hide the truth, or he has convinced himself of some "error" in the Bible, since he considers himself such an authority.

Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey

When you have two different coins, the "Assarion" and the "Kodrantes" which were the Roman As and the Roman Quadrans and the As was worth 1/16th of a Denarius while the Quadrans was worth 1/64th of a Denarius, both translated "Farthing"

So today we have easy access to a discussion like that in :

http://books.google.com/books?id=OJUAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA200
A dictionary of Christ and the Gospels By James Hastings, John Alexander Selbie, John C. Lambert

This gets a bit technical, and I am sure there are many more points that could be discussed, however you will see very clearly that the view that the assarion was the Roman As worth 1/16th of a Denarius is very strongly contested. And that the alternate view would fit the Bible, and not the Howler's objection.

Shalom,
Steven Avery