[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.

[greenbear]

Hi Ripdood,

I'm glad you started this thread and understand why you started it.

I think you expressed yourself quite well and I appreciate the information you posted about Webster, as well as your comments. I had never heard of the Webster's 1828 Dictionary before I joined this board. I noticed that people like Brandon (Swordsearcher software), Will, George and Matthew Verschuur (Bibleprotector) all prefer to use it over other dictionaries, as you do, and some of the reasons for their preference, so I started using it myself.

I couldn't agree more on your and George's point that we shouldn't use a dictionary to define how words like "shepherd" are used in the Bible. Looking up what "shepherd" means is fine but if we want to come to an understanding of what God means when He uses it we should find every instance of it's use in the scriptures and find the context of each passage.

A pastor follows God and only speaks what is right before God; he doesn't follow a board or teach the private interpretations of his denomination. That is a principle of God in any dispensation.

Jeremiah 17:16 As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day; thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right before thee.

If a man makes the comment that a pastor's role is to teach people what to believe and how to live without at least adding "according to scripture" or "from the Bible" it sends up a red flag for me, especially when he fails to qualify his statement after several people state their concerns with it. It makes me wonder if that person seeks to usurp the role of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Word of God over Christian's minds and lives.

Thanks again for making your point in this thread that our final authority is the Holy Scriptures rather than another man's understanding of them .

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

[George]

Originally Posted by 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.



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.

Aloha brother,

Your comments are most welcome and your insight on Noah Webster is "right on"! I am aware that Webster made his own translation of the Bible (that never went anywhere), and that is one of the main reasons I caution people when using his 1828 Dictionary. {Having said that - Webster's 1828 Dictionary is far superior to any modern dictionary when it comes to defining Bible words. It just shouldn't be used as a "FINAL AUTHORITY" when it comes to Bible words of "spiritual importance".}

Any word in the Bible that has any spiritual significance at all should be determined by a comparison of Scripture with Scripture.Webster is OK on lots of words that do not require spiritual discernment, but since he was "off" on some of his doctrine - his personal beliefs influenced his "definition" of some words.

I don't know if you have Swordsearcher (Electronic Bible Concordance), if you do, there is a searchable copy of Webster's 1828 Dictionary within the Software; and it is a great resource for Bible study {even for those of us that are not Literate. }

[greenbear]

A pastor follows God and only speaks what is right before God; he doesn't follow a board or teach the private interpretations of his denomination. That is a principle of God in any dispensation.

Jeremiah 17:16 As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day; thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right before thee.

If a man makes the comment that a pastor's role is to teach people what to believe and how to live without at least adding "according to scripture" or "from the Bible" it sends up a red flag for me, especially when he fails to qualify his statement after several people state their concerns with it. It makes me wonder if that person seeks to usurp the role of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Word of God over Christian's minds and lives.

Ripdood, sorry that my final rant about the above topic found it's way into my reply to you. Not sure how that happened... I guess I was still worked up.

[Amanda S.]

Bro Schwenke said: I appeal to the dictionary only to clarify what the Bible already says. We must have a standard of defining words, so that we don't talk past each other. So, if I cannot give a precise definition to a word, I look it up in the dictionary, test the dictionary with the Scripture to see if the Scripture agrees with how the word is defined, and when it agrees, I use it to bring clarification to the argument, and to keep the argument focused on the correct thing.


So the final authority for doctrine, etc is the AV. The Dictionary brings clarification to the words we use in our dialogues so that we can understand what we are saying to each other. It also helps us understand how the Bible uses words, particularly those that have multiple meanings, and particularly those that are being misused in modern language.

Bro. George said:
{Having said that - Webster's 1828 Dictionary is far superior to any modern dictionary when it comes to defining Bible words. It just shouldn't be used as a "FINAL AUTHORITY" when it comes to Bible words of "spiritual importance".}

Any word in the Bible that has any spiritual significance at all should be determined by a comparison of Scripture with Scripture.Webster is OK on lots of words that do not require spiritual discernment, but since he was "off" on some of his doctrine - his personal beliefs influenced his "definition" of some words.

I don't know if you have Swordsearcher (Electronic Bible Concordance), if you do, there is a searchable copy of Webster's 1828 Dictionary within the Software; and it is a great resource for Bible study {even for those of us that are not Literate. }

It looks all the world to me like both George and Schwenke agree? Where is the disagreement here?