Anyone have an opinion of the "Defined King James Bible?"
 

Has anyone here used the "Defined King James Bible" and if so what are your opinions pro and con on it?

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.

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. :(

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

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.

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

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.

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.

First of all, it is not a 1769 Cambridge Edition. It is, in fact, the Concord Edition, which seems to date (as far as being made common) the 1980s.
See http://www.bibleprotector.com/purecambridgeedition.htm
and http://www.bibleprotector.com/editions.htm

Second, words like "baptism" can hardly be called "uncommon".

Modern day terms are not "equivalent". If they were, then some words in the KJB could be legitimately replaced. However, I have shown that each word as it stands is important, e.g. in my Glistering Truths monograph.

Bibleprotector, you are misrepresenting what the Waites did in the Defined KJB. There is not a "marked reliance" in the Greek to define words. The Greek was only consulted on an OCCASIONAL basis as an extra source when a difficulty arose in determining which definition to use amongst 5 different English dictionaries.

On page vi-vii, in the Introduction by the Footnote Author and Editor (which was D. A. Waite Jr.), Waite Jr. states:

"Although my main purpose required the use of standard English dictionaries, occasionally I had to consult Greek and Hebrew Lexicons to determine which of the English definitions was best for the given word or context. Sometimes I could not decide on a suitable English definition for a given word and therefore gave an appropriate Hebrew or Greek meaning. Occasionally I gave both an English and a Hebrew/Greek definition."

Notice the consultation of the Greek and Hebrew was OCCASIONAL. It was not the norm. The vast majority of the definitions given were derived from a consultation of 5 of the most authoritative English dictionaries, including the Oxford English Dictionary.

Now if someone is totally against any kind of consultation of the Greek and Hebrew when studying the definition of a word, then the occasional reference to the Greek and Hebrew will be undesirable to such a person. Personally, as I have explained here before, I do not think its wrong to consult the Greek and Hebrew when studying the background of a word. At any rate, I have my Defined KJB right here beside me as I type (I use it daily in my devotions and studies), and as I flip through the pages I can tell you that there is hardly a reference to the Greek or Hebrew. The vast majority of the definitions given are simply English definitions or modern-day synonyms (for you Matthew since you don't like my choice of the word "equivalent").

As far as calling certain words archaic, it must be understood that such a term is in no way, shape, or form an attempt to undermine the English of the KJB. The fact of the matter is that some words in the KJB are no longer in use, therefore the term archaic is used to describe them. Now if you prefer a different term to describe such words (I prefer the term uncommon) than suit yourself. The truth is that not only are some of the words in the KJB no longer in use, some of the language in the KJB was NEVER in use.

There is a common misconception, even amongst King James Bible-believers, that the KJB was written in the common language of the English-speaking people of that day. This is not true. For example, no one was saying thee and thou, on a common basis, in those days. They said you. Check it out. This is explained in Riplinger's In Awe of Thy Word, Phil Stringer's Biblical English, and even touched on a little in Sam Gipp's Understandable History of the Bible. The language used in the KJB was not a common jargon and never was. It was strictly a literary style that was majestic in nature. The KJV translators were concerned with accuracy not simplicity. So at times, the words chosen were words uncommon even in their day.

The point is that the term "archaic" is simply an attempt to describe the uncommonness of Biblical English (uncommon even in the 1600s). Now if you want to argue that this is not the best term to use for such, than help yourself. But to make it anything more than that would be unfair and just plain wrong.

And again, if you disagree with the way some of the words are defined in the Defined KJB, you are in your right to do so. But it would be unwise to throw out the whole due to a few disagreements. I also have not always liked the way a word was defined in the Defined KJB. But more times than not, the footnotes have been very helpful to me (considering I speak and understand American English, which is much different than that of the KJV) in understanding the diction of what I am reading. I know of many Bible-believing brethren who have testified of its usefulness to them as well.

Nevertheless, my purpose in life is not to defend the works of those that I favor. So if you guys wish to criticize and disapprove of the Defined KJB, you are in your right to do so though I disagree. But those reading this thread deserve to hear different perspectives. I have offered mine.

God bless.

In itself using a defined KJB edition is not a problem, though I personally would not utilise such a work. I believe the problem is where people think it is permissible even occasionally to define the words of the English Scripture according to supposed meanings of the Greek or Hebrew words, or else to try and define the roots to English words etymologically, that is to say, this English word comes from Greek, and in Greek this word means _____. The problem with that is that we are dealing with English words, not Greek ones, and whether or not they came from Greek, and had a certain meaning, is beside the point, since the English words as they stand have an English meaning.

A classic example is the Scripture in Matthew 5:18 which states, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." People have tried to argue that the jots and tittles are Greek words, and that they apply to Hebrew lettering. They might say that jot means iota which means jod. What they have utterly failed to appreciate is that jot, iota and jod are entirely different words, and that the word "jod" appears in Psalm 119! Moreover, the word "tittle" comes from Latin, so it cannot be somehow a reference to Hebrew and/or Greek exclusively! The truth is that "jot" and "tittle" are English words, with English meanings listed in English dictionaries. These words can (and really, must) apply to the words of Scripture as they are communicated in our English Bible.

As for various words in the Bible not in common use, this does not mean that such a word is "archaic". The reality is that many words may be not be commonly used, whether names "Hamath", theological terms "propitiation", items "ephod", etc., yet we should see these as particular. No less should words like "tires", "wimples" or "taches" be thought "archaic", as the Scripture presently uses them, so they should be retained, and if needed, explained.

As for the Bible using the language of the day in 1611, clearly, we are observing Bible English, one that is intelligible to believers today as much as then, because of the conduciveness which exists between Bible English and the various times and places of English since 1611. The KJB therefore has some sort of lasting impact, a continuing relevance, despite the ebb and flow of present opinions (and definitions).

In all this, I think that Waite has done the best he could do according to his beliefs. If a person upholds a modern construction of the Greek TR as being more authoritative than the English, there is a flaw. For example, his opinions include that he does not “like to use the word ‘inerrant’ of any English (or other language) translation of the Bible because the word ‘inerrant’ is implied from the Greek ... which means literally, ‘God-breathed.’ God Himself did not ‘breathe out’ English ... He did ‘breathe out’ Hebrew/Aramaic [sic], and Greek. Therefore, only the Hebrew/Aramaic [sic] and Greek can be rightly termed ... ‘inerrant’! It is my personal belief and faith that the Hebrew/Aramaic [sic] and Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible have been preserved by God Himself so that these texts can properly be called ‘inerrant’ as well as being the very ‘inspired and infallible words of God’!” He goes on to state that people apparently cannot “take over completely 100% of what He has there [in the Hebrew and Greek]. I think the King James translators, when they took the Hebrew or Aramaic [sic], putting it into English, and the Greek, putting it into English, that they matched up one of the Hebrew meanings, or one of the Greek meanings, as they translated it into the English language. There are many other choices in English they could have used ...” (Defending the KJV, pages 239, 240).

In other words, he does not believe the Word of God is fully 100% sense for sense in English, and this implies that the authority of Scripture ultimately is not in English. Of course, no one can show absolutely where the final correct form of the Scripture is in Greek, and even Scrivener’s critical Textus Receptus has issues where it does not match the English properly. (Another problem is that "Aramaic" is the wrong word, in that it should be "Syriack".)

If we ask, "Where is the book of the LORD (see Isaiah 34:16) we are supposed to read?" it cannot be in Greek, which is now a vastly unknown tongue, uncommon, only containing a New Testament tradition (the Greek Old Testament is accepted by no one as perfect!), and it requires too much leaning on the world and unbelievers to interpret. This is quite the opposite to the time of Tyndale, where now we must rely upon the English Bible we have received, not the field of original language studies, and good-but-INCOMPLETE sense English Bibles... I believe the KJB gives the full text of the entire Bible as well as the full sense of every word.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is this:

Someone new to the KJV is going to need something to help them through the unfamiliar words and grammar for a while. The best choice would be the complete Oxford dictionary, but such a thing is impracticable for most people. After that, my suggestions are David Daniels' small pamphlet (for portability) and the Webster 1828.

However, we must always let the Bible define its own words. For that reason, a concordance (or Bible software) is more important than dictionaries.

Finally, once the reader has familiarized himself with the KJV, neither the Webster 1828 nor a list of synonyms (like the King James Bible Companion or Waite's definitions) are going to be sufficient when the reader comes across difficult sentences. At that point, it is a matter of study more than a matter of having a particular dictionary.

I second that idea. We have a KJB companion - and that is a fabulous solution!

As a personal side story: When I switched to the KJV around 1992 or 93, if there was a KJB dictionary out at the time, I didn't know about it. [The defined Bible sure wasn't out yet] I was brand new to the King James and spent my entire 1st yr with the KJB w/a full websters dictionary at my side - not even the 1828 one. lol. I remember looking up words soooooo often! ...But I learned!!:)

From my experience -If God places the knowledge of the truth and desire in our hearts to drink from His pure water - He will also give us a way and the will power to do what it takes to switch.

Oops - sorry - we have the Concise KJB dictionary - same thought applies though ;)

I see the names assigned to various denominations of coins in the AV as one of the areas where it could have been translated much better. A denarius is a specific Roman silver coin that was used all over the Empire. To translate "Denarius" as "Penny" is rather misleading and confusing to those not familiar with coinage in the First Century and in the early 1600s in England. A Denarius was more or less a days wage in the First Century, in the 1600s in England a common day's pay was a Shilling (=12 Pence). This choice of translation confuses the value of the coin in question.

In fairness to the AV translators it should be noted that the English Penny can trace it's origins to the Roman Denarius. When the Empire fell, coined money became much less common for a while, when trade and the need for coined money revived in the AD 700s the French introduced a silver coin called a "Denier" it's inspiration should be fairly obvious by the name alone. The French Denier was about the same diameter but rather lighter than the Roman Denarius. Not to be outdone, the English introduced their own coin minted to the same specifications as the French Denier, it would become known as the Penny. Throughout the Middle Ages the English Penny had a lot of buying power, but by the Tudor period had been shrunk in size and was quite debased.

In my opinion calling the Denarius a "Penny" confuses things rather than simplifies them. Most people know what a Denarius is and if they don't, it is not hard to learn what one is. Calling it a Penny suggests that is had much less buying power than was in fact the case, this was true in 1611 and is even more true today.

An even worse choice of translation is "Farthing." The word Farthing suggests that the coin so translated was worth 1/4 of a Denarius (translated Penny in the AV). In fact the Greek word translated "Farthing" was "assarion." An Assarion may have been a Roman As, which was a bronze coin about 26-30mm in diameter witha weight of about 10g. The Assarion may have also been a bronze coin minted in Antioch that was a bit smaller and thicker than the proper Roman As, but about the same weight and value. In either case the As was not worth 1/4 of a Denarius. There is another coin, the Sestertius which was a large bronze coin of about 33-35mm and with a weight of about 22g. It took 4 Sesterii to make a Denarius and it took 4 Asses to make a Sestertius (so the As was worth 1/16 of a Denarius.

The use of the word "Farthing" by the AV translators very much confuses the meaning and in my opinion* can fairly be called an error.

*My opinion on this matter is based on my 20+ years of experience as a professional numismatist specializing in Roman, Biblical and medieval coinage.

I strongly disagree.

I read the article in the encyclopaedia just now on "penny". That shows very clearly that a "penny" is exactly what coin was being used in the time of Christ, which in their language was called "denarius". That is why penny has the code "d".

That is a baseless argument in that inflation has occurred in history. A penny in the Scripture was about a day's wage.

There is a direct link between the English penny and the Roman money system. The size of the coin, its constitution, its relative value in the Middle Ages, its use in France, etc., are but side issues.

Actually, "penny" is the simplest word. Everybody knows it is the standard common coin. In Australia the smallest coin we have is 5c, but people still know what a penny is, as it continues in common sayings.

Don't worry, plenty of abortionists, evolutionists, philosophers, psychiatrists, brewers and modern version scholars are also experts with over 20+ years experience in their professions. They agree that the King James Bible is wrong, but that doesn't make the King James Bible wrong.

If you consider the Wright Brothers Flyer and the Space Shuttle to be "exactly the same thing" I can see where you would think that, but there are very important differences in both cases. In the case of the Denarius vs. the Penny there are differences in size, weight and buying power as well as the position each coin held in in the money system.

I notice that in the case of the "Farthing" you didn't address any of my points, you just lumped me together with brewers.

Weight is irrelevant because pennies have been various weights. Size is irrelevant because pennies have been various sizes. Buying power is irrelevant because pennies have had varying buying power.

The reality is that a penny is exactly what Jesus handled.

As for the farthing, “And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.” (Mark 12:42).

Notice the varying value:

Lu 12:6 Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?

Mt 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.

The word “farthing” means quarter. The reality is that a farthing is a quarter value coin! The coin in the Bible is exactly that. Therefore the word “farthing” is completely accurate and correct.

I wish that this was the case, but the facts speak otherwise. First of all, the Denarius as a denomination ceased to exist in c. AD 306-7, while the first Penny was not struch in England until c. AD 760. That is a lapse of about 450 years. The Penny and the Denarius were issued by two different governments (in fact two different races of people) and the coins occupied different positions in their respective monetary systems. While it is true that the idea for the Penny can trace it's roots back to the Roman Denarius, it is not correct to call the Denarius and the Penny "the same thing." In the same way the idea for the US Dollar was based on the European Thaler and the Spanish Imperial Eight Real, but is is not correct to call the US Dollar either a Thaler or an Eight Real.

What the translators were doing was to use the closest contemporary coin denomination in place of the proper name for the ancient Roman coin in question. You often see the same principal in art of the period where Biblical figures are protrayed as knights in Renassiance style armor or kings in medieval style dress. In the case of the Penny this is not an outright error because the concept for the Penny was based on the Denarius (you could say that the English Penny was the great-grandson of the Roman Denarius), but it does unnecessarily confuse the issue for Bible readers not well versed in numismatic history.

The Greek word translated "Penny" in the AV is "denarion" which is simply a transliteration of the Latin "Denarius."

This is a case where the Greek illuminates the English translation. The Greek word used in Mark 12:42 is "Kodrantes" while the Greel word used in Matthew 10:29 and Luke 12:6 is "Assarion," These are TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF COINS, but the AV translators use the same word for both of them!

It should also be noted that Matthew 10:29 and Luke 12:6 are not examples of the varying value of a coin, rather it is an example of a voulme discount. Think of it in terms of going to your local store and seeing a sign that reads "Two Apples for a Dollar or Five Apples for two Dollars" you get an extra apple (or sparrow) for buying more. This also serves to illustrate a great lesson on God's love in that He cares even for the sparrow that has no monetary value.

The word "Farthing" is devived from an Old English word that means "a fourth of a thing." However, when used in relation to coinage it ALWAYS means a fourth of a Penny. In none of the four cases that I am aware of in the Bible where "Farthing" is used does it refer to a fourth of a Denarius. In two of the cases (Assarion) it is 1/16th of a Denarius and in the other two cases (Kodrantes) it is 1/64th of a Denarius.

When the AV translators selected the word "Farthing" they were doing just what the did when the used "Penny" that was to use a common contemporary word for a small bronze coin of little value in 1611 to discribe a two different small bronze coins of little value used in ancient times.

Then what is the issue?

It is correct to say that Jesus handled a penny, regardless of the shape, size, composition, superscription and relative value of either coin. The fact remains that there is a direct link between the English coin and the Roman one, therefore it is entirely correct to call the coin Jesus handled a penny.

But let us advance. If the problem is that an English word is being used to describe something from the time of Christ, then the problem must be that we have a Bible which is representing Christ speaking English, or that we are told that the soldiers had a "common hall" at Jerusalem, or that Herod waited for "Easter" to pass.

This is an example of being confused by the "Greek", as though it "trumps" English. The word "farthing" always refers to a quarter value coin of low buying power. For example, we know that there was a Roman coin called the "quadrans", and that this was a quarter value coin. Thus, the word "farthing" in our English Bible is entirely accurate.

Let us advance. If the problem is that the same English word is being used for several meanings, then there would be an issue to calling someone "Jesus" who is not the Lord Christ (Col, 4:11, Heb. 4:8), or saying that someone was a lord or king, when God is Lord and King, or saying that God tempted Abraham (Gen. 22:1), when God does not tempt anyone (James 1:13).

It is SO refreshing to see someone else tell the truth about the people who wrote the new bible versions.
Per-versions.

Bibleprotector, I am not wanting to beat a dead horse and it is clear that your mind is fixed on this issue. I also don't want to allow a friendly debate to turn into an argument and (although I may be wrong) you seem to be getting a little irritable over it.

However, it should be obvious that the Greek "trumps" the English because the English was translated from the Greek. Were it not for the Greek NT, there would be no English NT.

It is also obvious in the case of the coins that we are talking about that the Greek is much more specific than the English. When you have two different coins, the "Assarion" and the "Kodrantes" which were the Roman As and the Roman Quadrans and the As was worth 1/16th of a Denarius while the Quadrans was worth 1/64th of a Denarius, both translated "Farthing" it just goes without saying that the Greek is more specific and more accurate than the English.

It is also not correct to say that "any coin worth 1/4th of another coin is considered a Farthing." If that were true a Penny would also be a Farthing because it is worth 1/4 of a Groat. The translators could have saved a lot of time and translated every coin in the NT as "Farthing" because every coin mentioned is worth 1/4 of some other coin.

If the Greek trumps English, then the Word of God is not fully in English. We would still need to be in subjection to those who really know Greek. Surely, God is not so weak to have His Word trapped in Greek, when He promised in Romans 16:26, "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith".

If Greek were really the final authority, then there would be a perfect Greek standard edition. As it is, there is no perfect, flawless or complete Greek text in any extant copy. When it comes to agreement, the King James Bible only people are all looking to one common world-wide standard.

This is not obvious, except obviously a slight against our English Bible. If it were not translated properly into English in 1611, when and where is the proper English translation?

Since men do not know everything, but can believe that God is able to get His Word to us, then it is certain that "farthing" is a correct term, which accurately describes a quarter value coin. The truth is that farthings must have been used in the Roman Empire, and upon examination of facts, we find that this is the correct sense, for quarter value coins were used.

That is a straw man argument, because you are not quoting me. When we read "penny", "farthing", "pound" or "mile" in the Bible, we cannot assume that using the English word is wrong, just because there may be some peculiar differences between the present form of such things and what was used in the Bible times. (If present vulgar use is the standard, argument could be made against using the word "gay" or "bottle" or "glass", but the Bible English use of words is entirely accurate.)

To imply that a Greek or Roman word must be used is to say that God's Word should not be translated. Are we to have "pneuma", "pascha", etc. instead of our English words? If "penny" or "farthing" are inaccurate, then having the Scripture in English is "inaccurate" because it is a different language to Greek.

But if the Word of God is fully, sense-for-sense, in English, then we can rightly say that the English Bible is true, and that it is equal to what was originally inspired.

Hi Folks,

As often happens with the experts who want to disbelieve the pure Bible, views are extracted, and presented as fact, that are very dubious. The presenter simply assumes that he can hide the truth, or he has convinced himself of some "error" in the Bible, since he considers himself such an authority.

So today we have easy access to a discussion like that in :

http://books.google.com/books?id=OJUAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA200
A dictionary of Christ and the Gospels By James Hastings, John Alexander Selbie, John C. Lambert

This gets a bit technical, and I am sure there are many more points that could be discussed, however you will see very clearly that the view that the assarion was the Roman As worth 1/16th of a Denarius is very strongly contested. And that the alternate view would fit the Bible, and not the Howler's objection.

Shalom,
Steven Avery