What do KJOs think about the Webster Bible?

David1701

David1701

Well-known member
The Webster Bible is a revision of the KJV, which means that, by definition, it is different from the KJV. What do KJOs think about it? Is it sound or not; and, if not, please give specific examples?
 
Without retranslating the Bible, Webster rephrased the KJV, primarily bringing the usage and grammar up to 1833 standards, clarifying the Biblical text. I would guess that, if he ever had reason to consult the Greek NT, he would have been using a textus receptus edition.

There have been, in the 20th century, a very few similar efforts to adjust the KJV's language without new translation. As with Webster, these would have perpetuated some TR readings that modern (critical) editions have rejected.
 
Shoonra said:
Without retranslating the Bible, Webster rephrased the KJV, primarily bringing the usage and grammar up to 1833 standards, clarifying the Biblical text. I would guess that, if he ever had reason to consult the Greek NT, he would have been using a textus receptus edition.

There have been, in the 20th century, a very few similar efforts to adjust the KJV's language without new translation. As with Webster, these would have perpetuated some TR readings that modern (critical) editions have rejected.
Click to expand...
Webster also corrected a small number of errors (e.g. he corrected "Easter" to "Passover").
 
Shoonra said:
Without retranslating the Bible, Webster rephrased the KJV, primarily bringing the usage and grammar up to 1833 standards, clarifying the Biblical text. I would guess that, if he ever had reason to consult the Greek NT, he would have been using a textus receptus edition.

There have been, in the 20th century, a very few similar efforts to adjust the KJV's language without new translation. As with Webster, these would have perpetuated some TR readings that modern (critical) editions have rejected.
Click to expand...

Webster sought to create a "standard" usage of English to the American English. One of those efforts was his Webster Edition.

It has long been ironic that many KJVOists appeal to Webster's 1828 dictionary for English definitions for the words found in the 1611 KJV..... while rejecting the Webster Bible.

There is very little reason associated with KJVOism.
 
christ_undivided said:
"Easter" was more than a "spelling error".
Click to expand...
I didn't say that Easter was a "spelling error"; and you should not have used quotation marks, because the association of Easter with "spelling error" is not a quote from my post. Easter (in the KJV) was a mistranslation; and it's one of the small number of errors that Webster corrected.
 
David1701 said:
I didn't say that Easter was a "spelling error"; and you should not have used quotation marks, because the association of Easter with "spelling error" is not a quote from my post. Easter (in the KJV) was a mistranslation; and it's one of the small number of errors that Webster corrected.
Click to expand...

You were replying to Shoorna...... that had referenced how the Webster edition hadn't "retranslated" the Webster. Quote below.

"Without retranslating the Bible, Webster rephrased the KJV, primarily bringing the usage and grammar up to 1833 standards,".

You used "e.g". (example) in reference. You didn't make a distinct. Not my issue.
 
christ_undivided said:
You were replying to Shoorna...... that had referenced how the Webster edition hadn't "retranslated" the Webster. Quote below.

"Without retranslating the Bible, Webster rephrased the KJV, primarily bringing the usage and grammar up to 1833 standards,".

You used "e.g". (example) in reference. You didn't make a distinct. Not my issue.
Click to expand...
Oh good, grief!

Webster obviously did not retranslate the Webster...

I was pointing out that Webster not only did what Shoonra had said, but also corrected a small number of errors, one example of which was "Easter".

I think you meant "...didn't make a distinction.".

Your issue appears to be a woeful lack of comprehension, combined with an unwillingness to accept correction.
 
David1701 said:
Oh good, grief!

Webster obviously did not retranslate the Webster...

I was pointing out that Webster not only did what Shoonra had said, but also corrected a small number of errors, one example of which was "Easter".

I think you meant "...didn't make a distinction.".
Click to expand...

Correct. Sorry for the mistake. There is no reason to get upset. I was just going by what you said. I didn't see any indication you were not mixing a translation issue together with grammar.

David1701 said:
Your issue appears to be a woeful lack of comprehension, combined with an unwillingness to accept correction.
Click to expand...

You've always felt like you needed to correct me. You don't. I don't mind recognizing when I make a mistake. Like I obviously did with "distinct".

Keep believing I have a "comprehension" problem. There are actually some people that believe Easter and Passover are interchangeable.
 
christ_undivided said:
Correct. Sorry for the mistake. There is no reason to get upset. I was just going by what you said. I didn't see any indication you were not mixing a translation issue together with grammar.



You've always felt like you needed to correct me. You don't. I don't mind recognizing when I make a mistake. Like I obviously did with "distinct".

Keep believing I have a "comprehension" problem. There are actually some people that believe Easter and Passover are interchangeable.
Click to expand...
If you ask, instead of making disparaging assumptions, that would go a long way to me not feeling any need to correct you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top