[bibleprotector]

There are several problems with the "Defined Bible", in that it could not be considered an authoritative "Bible Dictionary", though it is somewhat helpful. Some example of issues include:

a. only a selection of words are defined.

b. some definitions are too simple, even incorrect (some doctrinal bias also is manifest, but this is only an issue where theology differs).

c. there is as yet a lack of reliance on a wider range of materials, for more sound definitions (for example, if someone defers to David Daniels' "archaic" definitions, he himself relied upon Webster, but the Bible itself should be used to define a word, and the Oxford English Dictionary should be a major "witness").

d. there is a marked reliance upon the "Hebrew" and the "Greek". For example, "devil" is defined as "demon" (as if "devil" isn't clear enough), "pence" is defined as "denarius" (a simple word being defined as a foreign, complex one, to the confutation of the sense), "frankly" wrongly defined according to the Greek, rather than the English, where it comes from the Latin, via French.

e. Various words are wrongly listed as archaic. The King James Bible does not contain "out of date" or "obsolete" language, though it may contain some "hard" or "unusual" words.

f. Plain terms like "justified" are unnecessarily defined, and tragically called "archaic"!

The authority of the English Bible is in the Bible itself, and in the understanding of Bible English, NOT IN RUNNING BACK TO THE GREEK, as Waite wrongly does in his "Defined King James Version". (Also Waite has used the Concord Edition of the King James Bible rather than the Pure Cambridge Edition.)

Are not "abide", "record", "borne" or "bear" perfectly good English words used in the King James Bible? Is not the meaning of them clear in English? Why go to the Greek to try and find the fuller sense and meaning of a word, when the word is plain and clear enough in English; where the meaning can be understood from the context and conference of Scripture passages; where the English word is defined from English sources (like the Oxford English Dictionary)... in short, there is no good reason why the Greek should be used to define an English word, or to make the meaning clearer. In fact it does the opposite.

Going to the Greek is problematic on several grounds:

a. it undermines belief in the power of God that He has given His Word fully in English.

b. the Greek can be used to justify anything, and change anything and make any new doctrine.

c. it challenges the absolute of having one fixed Word in English, undermining the authority of God's Scripture.

d. it makes people trust in men, that is, in wrong scholars.