Quote:
Originally Posted by jerry
So what is this supposed to mean? Are we to insert definitions in the text of our Bibles? That would still be tampering with the text, so wouldn't help anyone or maintain the integrity of our KJV. Though there is nothing wrong with a note in the margin giving definitions, or a glossary at the back.
|
Bro Gipp's point is we're supposed to keep the archaic words in our bible. When we find one. We find out what it means (which is another way of finding out how its used elsewhere in the bible) and then we understand the archaic word.
Bro Gipp doesn't even speak to the issue of updating our margins or backs of our bibles. His whole point is the archaic words are to remain in our bible text.
I do use a pencil to make note of definitions of archaic words. I also use Websters 1928 for definitions. I do not pretend to know greek grammar (like so many who play the greek game) and so I have no use whatsoever for the definitions in Strongs. Remember, the greek TR doesn't trump our KJV/AV. I know alot more english grammar than anything else. I know no greek/hebrew grammar. So I don't play the greek game with Strong's.
You know in my experience, when one plays the greek game, its because he still labors under the delusion that the Greek TR trumps the KJV. When I finally emraced that, I never used Strong's Gk/Hb definitions again.