[chette777]

One of the best things that helped in my Study of my Bible was an Unabridged Websters dictionary.

Some of the Words used in 1611 are used differently today. Eschew in Job 1 is a good example. when you see the the original English meaning it meant to shun, to hate, to abore, have no association with, no hint and more. all those meanings are found in this one word Eschew.

when the NIV, NKJV, TEV and the other versions translate they pick a single fine point meaning thereby they limit your Bible Study to hate or shun, but Eschew means so much more. A good Webster's Dictionary is the key to better understanding of you KJV Bible.

Many words in our KJB are like that they have plethera of meanings which you can only find in a whole dictionary. most of todays webster dictionaries do no carry what the editors call "archaic" words and meanings.

So look for a good unabridged Webster's dictionary. I found one at a book sale for $5 it has over 260,000 complete words and meanings. A new one will run around $59.

Have fun dicovering the English of our forefathers and the treasures that await you in your KJB.

Originally Posted by chette777

One of the best things that helped in my Study of my Bible was an Unabridged Websters dictionary.

I have gone with the 1828 Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language. The KJV defender I bought it from told me he can always tell when someone is really starting to get into the bible because that's the reference they will acquire.

It says alot about one's respect for God's word in English when he turns to an english dictionary first before turning to a greek lexicon. Back when I used to play the greek game, I always consulted 3 lexicons (sometimes more). But when it finally sank down into my understanding that I have God's word in english and I don't have to try to get "closer to it" by appealing to a greek lexicon, i got rid of my lexicons and quit playing the greek game.

NOTE: If one is reading God's word in greek, then I would keep a lexicon handy. I wouldn't consult websters in that case (as if anyone would). But, but the same reasoning, if one is reading God's word in english, I would keep the webster's dictionary handy. I wouldn't consult a greek lexicon.

I have a simple Smith's Bible Dictionary, and Cruden's concordance (pub circa 1930 so its an old one). I tend to use JFB for a simple commentary that I turn to if I have been doing some reading and there's too much left open in my mind about it. I use John Gill when I need a deeper more verbose commentary.

I think Webster's 1828 Dictionary is an excellent, but it does not define every word as used in our King James Bible. I used my Strong's Concordance for years before I ever heard of or found a Webster's 1828 - and it was partly as a result of using the Strong's that I realized what was wrong with some modern versions and how the KJV was right.

Shortly after I got saved, I used the NASV for four years (before I had any clue about the Bible version issue) - but was always puzzled by some of the notes that questioned the text, with passages or words missing and the note stating such and such was not part of the originals, etc. Then I would look up the same passage in my KJV, then verify what the word was in the Greek - and the Strong's always upheld the KJV. In those passages where words were missing, I would write what the KJV said in the margin because Strong's showed it as part of the underlying texts.

Then later when I was doing research on Bible versions, and comparing them side by side, my Concordance helped show me which translations not just changed words but also changed meanings - this is how I got to see the NKJV as a counterfeit. It wasn't just updating words, it was changing what so many passages said.

In fourteen years of using a Strong's Concordance, I have never once come across a definition that corrected the KJV - I certainly found it better than any English dictionary (because they either did not have certain words or they did not define them as used in the Bible) - though now I have access to a Webster's 1828 Dictionary as part of Swordsearcher, and there are several places where you can access it online. Some here may choose not to use Strong's Concordance - but it has helped me so much to understand my KJV - and to see where many others are wrong. I have seen too many people wing it and bring their own definitions into a passage - because they think a word means something else or because we now use a word differently and they are reading this new definition into the Bible. With the Strong's, I was able to see through their misconceptions, and also see how many teachings of cults did not fit by having a basic idea of what the KJV and underlying texts were actually teaching. See, they play off our ignorance of hard to understand passages or archaic/hard words, then teach their junk with their definitions - but with the Strong's I could see that what they were saying just did not line up with the Bible - and it wasn't just my definition versus theirs.

My Dad left me an old dictionary written in 1813 by Samual Johnson, L.L.D. It's simply called Johnson's dictionary. It's easy to follow some of the words used in the AV. However the best part is at the end of the dictionary, there is a chronological table starting with creation at 4004 BC and has entries of all major events of the bible. Fantastic that in that age (1813) it was common knowledge, as part of a reference book) that the knowledge of God and His Son Jesus were so plainly presented. Tony

Most people would likely mock and ridule any dictionary that presented a Biblical History in today's day and age!

[bibleprotector]

Noah Webster was a King James Bible corrector (i.e. corruptor). Personally, out of current contenders, I recommend the full Oxford English Dictionary, which is a secular work that gives a thorough history and overview of English words. However, nothing is better than true Christian materials and personal study, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Tim. 2:15).

Yes, he does correct the KJV in his translation at various points - however, I think his work of studying how words are used in the Bible would be far better than some secular work that doesn't use those words in the same way.

The "Common Version" was released in 1833. His dictionary was released in 1829. Noah Webster was a devout christian scholar. Avoid his dictionary at your loss. BTW: Have you looked at his Common version?

David Daniel says : Not only was he uniquely qualified as an authority on contemporary English usage, but he also knew Hebrew and Greek, and so his revision "is extraordinary — for what it doesn't do." (The Bible in English, p. 650.)

Reviewers are constantly amazed at what Webster didn't do. . .he didn't give us a new version like the NKJV, he gave us a very light revision. I don't use it, but I am defending this great man as a great christian who called the KJV scripture! When he made his revision he knew he was handling the word of God. He went very gingerly and cautiously.

Write off Noah Webster at your own loss.

[chette777]

Most Webster's dictionaries we have today are abridged or edited so not all the meanings of words are found in them. the Unabridged dictionary is much better but more costly.

the word "turn" for example is one of those words. in Zep 3:9 "For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent"

but the Hebrew word never meant "give" but most interpretate it that way. but in an unabridged Webster's dictionary you will find it means to "Translate or interpret" but in the regular Webster's that meaning is not in there. it is because the editors feel it is Archaic.

any way a good unabridges dictionary Webster's or Oxfords (the older ones) is a good investement to understanding the KJ Bible english.

Webster's 1828 Dictionary is the best - and you can find that in part of some Bible programs, as well as free online.