Good Advice for Understanding your KJB English
 

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.

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!

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.

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.

You will need to get an umabridged Webster's dictionary to get every meaning. most of the everyday Webster's are edited and alot of meaning are removed because they feel they are arcahic or no longer used. Even the 1827for bible versions is edited it doesn't have all the meanings. I hae one from Christian Technologis and it is very limited compared to my Un abridged Websters which includes all the meanings form the original 1821, 1824 and 1827 version

christianbook.com should have almost all the dictionaries listed in this thread, but now i do haveaquestion about a few things in the kjv that were presented to me, and i would like others input

1 cor. 13 translates agape as charity, but john 21 translates it as love.
shouldn't it be love and not charity?


and john 21 translates poimainō and bosko as "feed".. i know that these two words have different meanings, but wouldn't it have been easier if they would have translated poimainō as "pastor, or shepherd"?
in other words
shouldn't "feed" in verse john 21:16 be shepherd or something along those lines

Agape means love. According to Matthew Henry, the KJV translators used the word charity to indicate when the context was referring to both love towards God AND towards man, whereas when they translated it specifically as love, only one of the two was in view.

It makes more sense to tell Peter to feed His sheep than to say be a shepherd to them. This focusses more on what he was to do with the believers, rather than his vocation (ie. spiritual shepherd).

but if you look at verse 16 AND 17, you see it is repeated. verse 16 refers to pastoring them, and verse17 is refering to feeding them. verse 15 refers to lambs, not sheep

Joh 21:16-17
(16) He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jona, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
(17) He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jona, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Repetition is God's way of emphasizing something in His Word. Peter denied Jesus three times, so three times Jesus calls him back to work.

but then you're missing the difference in the 15th verse and the other 2. i think you, just like me, am stumped..

Joh 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jona, lovest agape thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love phileo thee. He saith unto him, Feed boskomy lambs arnion.

Joh 21:16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jona, lovest agape thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love phileo thee. He saith unto him, Feed poimainō my sheep probaton.


Joh 21:17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jona, lovest phileo thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest phileo thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love phileo thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed bosko my sheep probaton .

:confused:

basically my question concerns poimaino being translated as charity in 1 cor. 13 which you explained well, meaning it's a deep complete God sized love for God and people,

and the one that still gets me is poimano in john 21:16 being translated as feed when everything i've read has it listed as shepherd or something to that affect..

the sheep in 16-17 are different than in 15 and that is duely noted. however feed in these three verses take on 2 different meanings.

I didn't miss anything. God was re-emphasizing Peter's call to be a pastor - but He was bringing out different things: dealing with lambs (young believers) and sheep (mature believers).

The word for "feed" in "feed my lambs" means "to pasture; by extension to, fodder; reflexively, to graze." This obviously refers to giving them the milk of the Word, providing food for them.

The other word means " to tend as a shepherd of (figuratively, superviser)." This is referring to the older believers, and teaching he needs to watch over them, supervise, shepherd them - but obviously in the context of feeding them spiritually.

The first word is used again in the third reference to "feed my sheep," indicating even mature believers need to be led to grazing at times as well.

and thats where the question arises.. feed in verse 16 means to pastor, or shepherd, not to feed only.. thats the main quarrel i am facing

What is the problem? If you believe the KJV is God's Word, then it is obvious that the kind of shepherding God is referring to is feeding the flock (ie. focussing more on that aspect of shepherding, rather than all aspects). The KJV translators believed this was the best translation of that word in this particular context.

I have Swordsearcher, I use the 1828 in it but I have found a couple words missing, is the printed 1828 Websters the same as the one in my Swordsearcher?

Strongs Concordance is of great help to me, I am here because of my admiration for Brandon's work in Swordsearcher.

It should match. If you find missing definitions that exist in the printed edition, please let me know.