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.

[Samuel]

That is a new one on me. I looked at an example page on the internet, it is very similar to what my Scofield lll does.

The Scofield lll gives definitions in the side margins of the page, and sometimes an in depth discussion in the footer, when needed.

I don't know, but I find it useful when trying to explain some of the words, to other people. I even find some modern words I have to go to the dictionary for, much less some of the older ones. I still run across one sometimes, I have forgotten what the meaning of was.

So as long as it does not intrude on the text itself, I see nothing really wrong, and it might help some people from being so confused about Biblical things.

Or worse yet, going out to buy a modern translation.

[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.

I found the "Defined" King James Bible to be of very low quality typesetting and printing

That is a deal-breaker for me. Things like binding and print quality are very important to me. Perhaps one of the Trinitarian Bible Society editions with the "Bible Word List" in it would be a better choice.

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey

That is a deal-breaker for me. Things like binding and print quality are very important to me. Perhaps one of the Trinitarian Bible Society editions with the "Bible Word List" in it would be a better choice.

Note that an error in the printing of a TBS Bible, the 25A/BK, PS25U/BK Windsor Text, has been found in Jeremiah 41:13 which reads:

Now it came to pass, that when all the people which were with Ishamel saw Johanan e son of Kareah, and all the captains of the forces that were with him, then they were glad.

Note that "e" should read "the". This error is not in all editions.

AMR

[Manny Rodriguez]

This is a good topic and I'm glad someone brought it up because there are some misconceptions concerning the Defined King James Bible. The chief editor of the footnotes is Dr. D. A. Waite Sr. I am a member of the Advisory Council of his Dean Burgon Society. As such I have found that there are many rumors concerning Dr. Waite and his intent with the Defined KJB that are false.

The Defined KJB is simply another copy of the 1769 Cambridge edition of the KJB with uncommon words defined or briefly explained in footnotes on the bottom of the page. I have found it to be a very helpful resource. Whenever I read or study my Bible, if I am not reading or studying directly from the Defined KJB, I will have it close by my side for ready access. Now it must be understood that the "definitions" given in the footnotes are not meant to be an exhaustive treatment. For a more exhaustive treatment their are works by Laurence Vance, David Daniels, James Knox, and others who have done a fine job in thoroughly explaining the uncommon words in the KJB. Also, the 1828 Webster's dictionary is probably the best resource available for those wanting to dig deeper. On the other hand, the footnotes in the Defined KJB are meant to be a quick and convenient reference. Many times the "definitions" are simply synonyms that are the modern day equivalent (or close to it) to the word used in the text that is not in common use.

These footnotes are NOT meant to undermine the authority of the KJB AT ALL (as some over-zealous brethren have baselessly speculated and accused). Rather the opposite is true. Dr. Waite thoroughly and plainly explains in the Preface (and in articles in the past) that the purpose of the Defined KJB is to demonstrate that the uncommon words used in the KJB are not an excuse or grounds for a plan to create a new revision of the KJB for the sake of updating the King's english. Some have accused Dr. Waite of putting forth this edition as a means to facilitate such a revision. THIS IS FALSE! Why a Bible-believer would create such false accusations that would harm a brother in Christ is beyond me.

Dr. Waite and members of the DBS do not believe the KJB needs to be revised. If this really was their position, I'd resign from the DBS today! To the contrary, we believe the uncommon words simply need to be studied and defined. There is no nessicity for a new revision of the KJB. The Bible doesn't need to be dumbed-down or "easier to read". Today's reader simply needs to overcome laziness and shallowness in their studying habits.

The Defined KJB is only meant to be a convenient resource for those who will come across a word that is not in common use today and wishes to come to an understanding of what the text is saying. That is all.

I remember years ago when I was studying the issues of the KJB, I asked a Pastor (who is a graduate of Dr. Peter Ruckman) for his opinion about words in the KJB that are uncommon or no longer used. I knew the KJB was the preserved Word of God and needed no alteration whatsoever. But sort of playing the "devil's advocate", out of curiosity, I asked this preacher, "So what about the old English words? After all, these words ARE uncommon and no longer used." His answer was that rather than trying to produce an updated revision (such as the so-called New King James was supposed to be) why doesn't someone simply produce an edition of the KJB, unaltered, with footnotes that defines these old uncommon words. I agreed with him. This has been accomplished by Dr. Waite and his people with the Defined King James Bible.

Now I will admit that there have been times when I questioned whether the definition or synonym given in the footnotes of Dr. Waite's Defined KJB was the best explanation or not. Nevertheless, like anything else, any mature student should know how to chew the meat and spit out the bones. For example, there are many things I disagree with in notes of the old Scofield Reference Bible. But should I write off the entire Scofield Reference Bible over a few disagreements and disregard all the other fine notes he provided? Nay, I think this would be unwise.

So for those seeking an edition of the KJB, with the text unaltered, that contains a handy and convenient reference to uncommon words of the Biblical English that was used by the King James translators, I recommend the Defined King James Bible. It's been a blessing and help to me in my reading and studies. In fact, I just bought one for my wife as a gift recently. She loves it.