As I have pointed out, the Oxford English Dictionary is an authoritative record of the historical usage of the English language, but it is not final authority when it comes to the use of Bible English, that is, words as they are used in the Scripture.
Therefore, if the OED said something was archaic, yet it was in the KJB today, we would have to say that the word used in the KJB today is not "archaic", or at least, that its Biblical use is not an archaic word, use or form.
This is because the Bible itself is final authority, not the OED. The OED can report of word usage, including the Bible in its scope. But the OED was not designed to be prescriptive, and man’s work of the dictionary does not trump God’s words. But that does not mean that we deny the dictionary, or cast it out. But we must hold it as subservient to God's Word.
Rick Norris' (almost predictable) response to my above review so far has been:
Quote:
|
"Perhaps since some definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary have been pointed out that are a problem for KJV-only claims."
|
I wonder which claims are supposedly problematic.
In “
Glistering Truths” I thought I was explicitly clear that “vail” differs from “veil”, or that “neesings” differs from “sneezed”.
I am not operating under the assumption that there are any archaic words in the Bible, but if any word is unusual or difficult, I recommend first using the Bible only to find out the meaning, and secondly, using sources like the dictionary as a help. Too often what is supposed to be a help is really a hindrance because people elevate the words of man higher than God’s.