|
Philip Kapusta's King James Dictionary A Neutral Resource? The Issues
Our previous word list on PreservedWords.com was compiled from various sources and we made no claim to originality. This Spring (2011) a man named Philip Kapusta contacted us claiming some of the definitions in the previous list were from a copyrighted work of his called The King James Dictionary. During our discussions of his claims Mr. Kapusta said one proof that the King James Dictionary came from what he called "my pen" was his "unorthodox doctrinal 'thumbprint' regarding devils/demons" can be found in it. He further elaborated on his "unorthodox" position with these words, "Most mainstream Christians define the devil and Satan as a supernatural angel being, and demons ("having a devil") as invisible evil spirits. In contrast, my beliefs deny the existence of such beings. My unorthodox position was manifest in my dictionary definition."Three of the definitions that he claims proves his authorship are, Devil: Slanderer; false accuserHe then said, "These three definitions are consistent with someone who does not believe in supernatural fallen angels."Although we do not agree at all with Mr. Kapusta's doctrine concerning Satan/Devil/Demons, his conclusion is correct in that the definitions are consistent with his belief. Furthermore, if Mr. Kapusta did not have an agenda to manifest his doctrine in his dictionary, why even list these words? Satan, Devil, etc. are not obscure or archaic words that need defined, they are common everyday words that practically every English speaker understands. Some may claim that the word Satan does mean "adversary" and Devil means "slanderer," and that is true, but these definitions are just the generic meaning of the names and don't speak to the fact that they refer to an actual living being. Nearly all names in the Bible have a "meaning." Take the name Jacob, for instance. It means "deceiver or supplanter," but when the Bible refers to Jacob it is not referring to some abstract word meaning but to an individual living being. The same is true with the name Satan. Upon examination, Mr. Kapusta's peculiar doctrines can be found among his other definitions. For instance, Angel: MessengerAlthough he did not state so specifically, most who believe as Mr. Kapusta do not believe in supernatural angels either. This is indicated in definitions above. He defines angel as a "messenger;" the same definition as apostle. There is no indication in his definition an angel is a supernatural "ministering spirit." Angel is another very common and current English word. It is not obscure or unique to the KJB at all. Why would he include it unless his intent was to promote his "unorthodox" views? Although a principality can refer to an earthly ruler, in the Scriptures the term most often refers to "principalities and powers in heavenly places." Mr. Kapusta's definition does not allow for this obvious meaning. More obvious bias against the supernatural realm. Dragon: Jackal; wild dogThe Scriptures are very clear that the ultimate dragon is Satan himself (Rev 20:2). Since Mr. Kapusta does not believe in a supernatural devil, then he must define the term as something else. Mr. Kapusta also apparently denies the existence of a supernatural hell for wicked man as well as the devil and his angels, thus he defines it merely as a valley near Jerusalem. The typical English speaking American has a better idea what Hell means than Mr. Kapusta; "the place or state of punishment for the wicked after death" Fornication: Sexual immoralityMany more of Mr. Kapusta's definitions are weak, flawed, incomplete, partial, or just plain wrong. As another example any good dictionary will attest the term fornication refers to a specific sexual act. Not to some vague, subjective definition such as "immorality," which means different things to different people. Dictionaries and other similar reference works, even small ones, should not be used as a vehicle to spread bias, personal beliefs, or unorthodox doctrines designed to indoctrinate the uninformed. They should just state applicable, netural facts. Mr. Kapusta made it plain his intention with his King James Dictionary was to manifest his personal beliefs. As he said the "thumbprint" of his unorthodox doctrine is all through it. This greatly diminishes any benefit the resource may have. When Mr. Kapusta first contacted us he said he was "...looking for credit where credit is due." However, even though his dictionary is tainted in several places with his personal doctrine, the majority of the definitions in his list are simply copied or adapted from commonly available sources. He insists on credit for himself, but neglects to give credit for the sources he used. Inconsistant to say the least. It is also highly questionable that he neglects to inform the reader that some of the definitions are not commonly accepted but his own unorthodox opinion. The Results of Mr. Kapusta's Claims
When Mr. Kapusta first contacted us we doubted his copyright claims because we thought the dictionary was quite common and generic. A considerable part of it is very typical and common, but the definitions he specifically identified as his own are not. They actually do show his "thumbprint," and when we realized this we took the list down. Since then we have developed a new KJB word list primarily from public domain sources that, we believe, is superior in every way to Mr. Kapusta's. It is not biased, shows only standard and accepted definitions, includes an instance count, plus references viewable in a popup window. Furthermore, this list in its entirety can be copied and used by anyone for any purpose without credit or attribution to us. If Mr. Kapusta didn't contact us this new and free list likely wouldn't have been compiled (Rom 8:28). Also, your author learned a lesson. When he compiles material together he needs to be more careful where it came from and what it says, else he may distribute heresy without knowing it. He apologizes to all for his lack or prudence.  |