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.
|