[Ripdood]

Let me start off by stating I am not a literate man, when it comes to writing posts. I express my thoughts much better in person than I do in my writing.

I am not a divisive person. I don’t look to cause fights or people to lose their cool. I don’t make it my practice to attack a person, though I will express disagreement with their concepts.

My original post had two points I was trying to make.

1. Mr. Webster’s views on the King James Bible. He felt it necessary to correct it and put out his own version which the following quote from my original posting shows.

Webster released his own edition of the Bible in 1833, called the Common Version. He used the King James Version (KJV) as a base and consulted the Hebrew and Greek along with various other versions and commentaries. Webster molded the KJV to correct grammar, replaced words that were no longer used, and did away with words and phrases that could be seen as offensive. (I made this bold for a reason. A downloadable copy of his version is available here, if you wish to compare it). http://www.believersresource.com/con...e-webster.html

All editions of Webster's Dictionary published in 1913 and earlier, along with the Webster Bible and Dissertation on the English Language are available in the public domain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster


Over and over we talk about how it is wrong to correct the Word of God whether by addition or subtraction. Here we have a man who is constantly quoted as an authority on terms and language in the English language as it appears in our Bible. The emphasized portion in the above quote shows the Mr. Webster corrected the King James.

2. His definitions were flavored with his own beliefs. The definition given was an example of that. He thought religion was the final guide when we believe it is God’s Holy Word, our King James Bible. I can not find anywhere in my research which shows his denominational slant. I can make educated guesses based on the period of time he lived and where he lived and what the prevailing denomination was. But that would be implying facts I don't have.


I would like to hear some thoughts on the first point, his correction of the King James Bible. This is not an attack on Mr. Webster, it is a discussion of his views.