Basic bible study -

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
37,723
13,521
113
#41
continued -- this is something we should not be ignorant of...

((source: https://hermeneutics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/923/strongs-is-a-concordance-not-a-lexicon))







What if the Strong's Concordance is linked to a lexicon?
Several free online tools have linked Strong's Concordance entries to lexicon entries. Unfortunately, most of them use either Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon or Smith's Bible Dictionary for definitions, both of which were published prior to 1895. As I've cautioned about elsewhere, these resources are considered to be obsolete by scholars (and contain much inaccurate information).

"...in 1895, Adolf Deissmann published his Bibelstudien—an innocently titled work that was to revolutionize the study of the NT. In this work (later translated into English under the title Bible Studies) Deissmann showed that the Greek of the NT was not a language invented by the Holy Spirit (Hermann Cremer had called it "Holy Ghost Greek," largely because 10 percent of its vocabulary had no secular parallels). Rather, Deissmann demonstrated that the bulk of NT vocabulary was to be found in the papyri.
The pragmatic effect of Deissmann's work was to render obsolete virtually all lexica and lexical commentaries written before the turn of the century. (Thayer's lexicon, published in 1886, was outdated shortly after it came off the press—yet, ironically, it is still relied on today by many NT students.)"2​
Elsewhere I've given a list of scholarly lexicons and a list of Biblical Studies reference works (including lexicons) that are available for free online.

How to properly use the Strong's Concordance
The Strong's Concordance can be used effectively as an index of the occurrences of a lemma in the original languages of the Biblical texts (at least in those manuscripts used by the King James Bible, which is a limitation of this tool, although some later revisions of it have addressed this to some extent).

Strong's Concordance is a great tool for identifying other occurrences of a lemma by using it's number (as this does not require that you can actually read the alphabet of the original language). This makes an original languages concordance accessible to those who cannot read those languages.

The gloss definition given by the concordance (or even a definition given by an outdated lexicon) can be helpful here in giving a general understanding of the lemma's meaning, but this should not be used as the sole source to justify the meaning or definition of the word in a specific textual context. However, it can help you see how the word has been translated in its other occurrences, which can give you a broader understanding of its semantic range and how it is generally interpreted in similar contexts (using multiple English Bible translations will help catch differences and nuances of meaning, which can lead to good questions about the meaning of lemmata in specific contexts here on BH.SE, where someone versed in the original language can assist you in better understanding the passage). Pay close attention to differences in grammar, author, audience, genre, and historical setting as these can all influence the meaning of a lemma in a specific context.

Concluding warnings and encouragement
Strong's Concordance is an index of occurrences of a lemma in the original language of the Biblical text, it is not a lexicon/dictionary (and thus is not a reliable source for the meaning of a lexeme in a specific context). However, this tool is a great resource for those who wish to better understand how a lemma has been understood by English Bible translators in its other occurrences, and Biblical study conducted using Strong's Concordance can provide the impetus for many good questions about the Biblical texts here where someone trained in the original language(s) can assist you further with understanding the meaning of a lexeme in a specific text of interest.

1 I took a course on the Bible during my undergraduate program where a classmate argued that the woman in Luke 8:43-44 had a sexually transmitted disease (STD) on the basis of the King James Version translation and corresponding Strong's Concordance gloss. The relevant text in the KJV translation reads, "And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years ... Came behind him, and touched the border of his garment: and immediately her issue of blood stanched." She understood 'issue' to refer to a 'problem in' the woman's blood, rather than as (the correct understanding of the Greek text which is) 'the flowing or coming out' of blood from the woman's body, i.e. hemorrhaging (likely a medical condition related to menstruation).

2 Daniel B. Wallace. The Basics of New Testament Syntax: An Intermediate Greek Grammar. Zondervan, 2000, p. 21.
 

Oncefallen

Idiot in Chief
Staff member
Jan 15, 2011
6,061
3,403
113
#42
Actually, you need to know just few points, christological prophecies and some general history from the Old Testament to understand Christ and his mission.

You do not need to study Song of Songs, Kings or Esther in original language to dig out some eternal and life saving mysteries. There is no certain textual version of these books anyway.
"The Old testament" is just a modern name for library of many books, not all books are used equally, not all books are quoted in the New Testament, not all books are useful in the same manner.

You may be interested in specific word used in Isaiah, mainly about Christ, but I think you do not care about 90% of words in Esther.

I'm kind of curious @tofimus. Does your New Testament contain Timothy chapter three or did you remove it so you didn't have to contend with Paul's admonition that ALL Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness?

Just a little hint, the "Scripture" that Paul is referencing is now known as the Old Testament since what we now know as the New Testament had yet to be compiled.
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,401
113
#43
I'm kind of curious @tofimus. Does your New Testament contain Timothy chapter three or did you remove it so you didn't have to contend with Paul's admonition that ALL Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness?

Just a little hint, the "Scripture" that Paul is referencing is now known as the Old Testament since what we now know as the New Testament had yet to be compiled.
And if I may embellish.....JESUS said "to search the scriptures for they are they which testify of ME"....NO N.T. books had been written when he made that statement.....I find JESUS throughout the WHOLE bible.......
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#44
I'm kind of curious @tofimus. Does your New Testament contain Timothy chapter three or did you remove it so you didn't have to contend with Paul's admonition that ALL Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness?

Just a little hint, the "Scripture" that Paul is referencing is now known as the Old Testament since what we now know as the New Testament had yet to be compiled.
The canon of the "Old Testament" was not closed by Jews until 90 AD. But at this time, it was already old and finished and they made it just because of Christianity was spreading, using various books and various textual versions.

Can you point out which books were referred to as "all scripture", why do you think, for example, that Sirach or Enoch are not between them and why do you think that for example Song of Songs is between them. And also, which textual version is breathed out, if masoretic, septuagint, DSS or something else like Vulgate or KJV?

Also, I would welcome if you would define what "breathed out by God" means, for you. Every word? Every sentence? The message? Something else?

Thanks in advance ;-)
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
37,723
13,521
113
#45
Sure does sort the sheep from the goats, doesn't it??
if a person rejects knowledge what kind of Bible study can they actually be doing?

*shrug* i was just trying to help.
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,412
6,698
113
#46
When I was convinced of Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit, I was attending the University of Illinois.

Drawn to the Word to read it andlearn what wouldd be given me, I was terrifried of reading aything about the Word by men...…. I still am.

I have been reading it over and over for close to 50 years, and although I realize my knowledge is not universal, or total of it, not by a long shot, from theintant the Holy Spirit entered into me, I knew what was necessary, before reading any at all.

When I hear people talk about some kind of structured, intellectual approach to the study of God's Word, I shudder to consider it. It is only His Holy Spirit That gives u8s understanding.

No human knows all of the Word, and no human knows enough to demand another who is saved beliee what he feels he has learned. It is all a matter of shring in love. What is to be received will always be received, and what is held in holy abeyance can never be construed as error, much less sin.

Yes, some may benefit from reading things "aout" the Word, but I cannot, nor can most others because anytign written about the Word may as well be in stone because the writer is usually not available for discussion. This is wwhy I like the forum, because it is an exchange, although many come in with teaching they seem to thing is etched in stone...I try to avoid that type. God bless all in Yeshua.....amen.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
37,723
13,521
113
#47
*shrug* i was just trying to help.
what i mean is this:

Most "helps" are what other men have decided the words mean and like bible studies they reflect pre-digested views looking for pre-digested answers.
Strong's tells you what the other men ((the panel of translators of the KJV)) decided the words mean.
that's all. it's not a dictionary.
and it reflects a pre-digested view ((KJV is 100% infallible)).

i'm not denigrating it or saying don't make use of it; i'm saying we should understand what it is and what it isn't, or we'll inevitably use it wrongly. isn't always better to know what you're doing than to not? what good is a compass to me if i think it's a thermometer?


anyway...

Capture.JPG

glad i could help you get some rest.
ZZzzzzzz :)
 

lastofall

Senior Member
Aug 26, 2014
609
38
28
#48
[for me anyway] I study, set my mind and thoughts, submit to and rely upon the Word of God because I believe His Word that tells us that we are to live by every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God; which by the way has nothing to do with pleasure, or curiosity, or any other worldly remedy.
 

GraceAndTruth

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2015
2,031
637
113
#49
what i mean is this:



Strong's tells you what the other men ((the panel of translators of the KJV)) decided the words mean.
that's all. it's not a dictionary.
and it reflects a pre-digested view ((KJV is 100% infallible)).


i'm not denigrating it or saying don't make use of it; i'm saying we should understand what it is and what it isn't, or we'll inevitably use it wrongly. isn't always better to know what you're doing than to not? what good is a compass to me if i think it's a thermometer?

anyway...

View attachment 190487

glad i could help you get some rest.
ZZzzzzzz :)
I see you have no idea who STRONG is. Tho I am not a Greek scholar I do know that one Greek word can have MANY interpretations because it is the surrounding text or words that define the one. No Lexicon or Dictionary will give you that. This is why there are many listings for one word in a STrong's.

Your supercilious ending is childish and insulting.
 

GraceAndTruth

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2015
2,031
637
113
#50
continued -- this is something we should not be ignorant of...

((source: https://hermeneutics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/923/strongs-is-a-concordance-not-a-lexicon))






What if the Strong's Concordance is linked to a lexicon?
Several free online tools have linked Strong's Concordance entries to lexicon entries. Unfortunately, most of them use either Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon or Smith's Bible Dictionary for definitions, both of which were published prior to 1895. As I've cautioned about elsewhere, these resources are considered to be obsolete by scholars (and contain much inaccurate information).

"...in 1895, Adolf Deissmann published his Bibelstudien—an innocently titled work that was to revolutionize the study of the NT. In this work (later translated into English under the title Bible Studies) Deissmann showed that the Greek of the NT was not a language invented by the Holy Spirit (Hermann Cremer had called it "Holy Ghost Greek," largely because 10 percent of its vocabulary had no secular parallels). Rather, Deissmann demonstrated that the bulk of NT vocabulary was to be found in the papyri.​
The pragmatic effect of Deissmann's work was to render obsolete virtually all lexica and lexical commentaries written before the turn of the century. (Thayer's lexicon, published in 1886, was outdated shortly after it came off the press—yet, ironically, it is still relied on today by many NT students.)"2​
Elsewhere I've given a list of scholarly lexicons and a list of Biblical Studies reference works (including lexicons) that are available for free online.

How to properly use the Strong's Concordance
The Strong's Concordance can be used effectively as an index of the occurrences of a lemma in the original languages of the Biblical texts (at least in those manuscripts used by the King James Bible, which is a limitation of this tool, although some later revisions of it have addressed this to some extent).

Strong's Concordance is a great tool for identifying other occurrences of a lemma by using it's number (as this does not require that you can actually read the alphabet of the original language). This makes an original languages concordance accessible to those who cannot read those languages.

The gloss definition given by the concordance (or even a definition given by an outdated lexicon) can be helpful here in giving a general understanding of the lemma's meaning, but this should not be used as the sole source to justify the meaning or definition of the word in a specific textual context. However, it can help you see how the word has been translated in its other occurrences, which can give you a broader understanding of its semantic range and how it is generally interpreted in similar contexts (using multiple English Bible translations will help catch differences and nuances of meaning, which can lead to good questions about the meaning of lemmata in specific contexts here on BH.SE, where someone versed in the original language can assist you in better understanding the passage). Pay close attention to differences in grammar, author, audience, genre, and historical setting as these can all influence the meaning of a lemma in a specific context.

Concluding warnings and encouragement
Strong's Concordance is an index of occurrences of a lemma in the original language of the Biblical text, it is not a lexicon/dictionary (and thus is not a reliable source for the meaning of a lexeme in a specific context). However, this tool is a great resource for those who wish to better understand how a lemma has been understood by English Bible translators in its other occurrences, and Biblical study conducted using Strong's Concordance can provide the impetus for many good questions about the Biblical texts here where someone trained in the original language(s) can assist you further with understanding the meaning of a lexeme in a specific text of interest.

1 I took a course on the Bible during my undergraduate program where a classmate argued that the woman in Luke 8:43-44 had a sexually transmitted disease (STD) on the basis of the King James Version translation and corresponding Strong's Concordance gloss. The relevant text in the KJV translation reads, "And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years ... Came behind him, and touched the border of his garment: and immediately her issue of blood stanched." She understood 'issue' to refer to a 'problem in' the woman's blood, rather than as (the correct understanding of the Greek text which is) 'the flowing or coming out' of blood from the woman's body, i.e. hemorrhaging (likely a medical condition related to menstruation).

2 Daniel B. Wallace. The Basics of New Testament Syntax: An Intermediate Greek Grammar. Zondervan, 2000, p. 21.
Yeah I wold actually go to Zondervan publishing for access to Wallace.......not.
 

Hevosmies

Well-known member
Sep 8, 2018
3,612
2,633
113
#51
The canon of the "Old Testament" was not closed by Jews until 90 AD. But at this time, it was already old and finished and they made it just because of Christianity was spreading, using various books and various textual versions.

Can you point out which books were referred to as "all scripture", why do you think, for example, that Sirach or Enoch are not between them and why do you think that for example Song of Songs is between them. And also, which textual version is breathed out, if masoretic, septuagint, DSS or something else like Vulgate or KJV?

Also, I would welcome if you would define what "breathed out by God" means, for you. Every word? Every sentence? The message? Something else?

Thanks in advance ;-)
Bro do you or do you not believe the bible is inerrant?

Do you not believe 2 Timothy 3:16? That scripture is God-breathed? Or do you think it means something else than I think it means? What do you think it means? thanks
 

GraceAndTruth

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2015
2,031
637
113
#52
Bro do you or do you not believe the bible is inerrant?

Do you not believe 2 Timothy 3:16? That scripture is God-breathed? Or do you think it means something else than I think it means? What do you think it means? thanks
Everything I believe I posted in the openinig of Calvinist Kitchen. I am an open book.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#55
Bro do you or do you not believe the bible is inerrant?

Do you not believe 2 Timothy 3:16? That scripture is God-breathed? Or do you think it means something else than I think it means? What do you think it means? thanks
What do you mean by Bible? What do you mean by inerrant? What do you think that 2Tm 3:16 means? What do you mean by "God-breathed"?

lol

Without definitions, I cannot say "yes" or "no".
 
Dec 28, 2016
9,171
2,718
113
#56
Bro do you or do you not believe the bible is inerrant?
Of course not brother.

This is what I've been saying all along. He is all about philosophical arguments, discrediting Scripture, more credal than biblical, rarely implements Scripture, denies the authenticity of Scripture, denies the authority of Scripture, and undermines the vast importance and integrity of the OT Scriptures.

This is one reason I'll no longer engage him.

He's not debating Scripture or even using Scripture to debate (rarely he'll quote Scripture). If he were to engage in actual Scripture debate he'd find his arguments very flawed because most of his arguments and positions are in the wisdom of men, and himself, not in the power of God.
 
Dec 28, 2016
9,171
2,718
113
#57
I'm kind of curious @tofimus. Does your New Testament contain Timothy chapter three or did you remove it so you didn't have to contend with Paul's admonition that ALL Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness?

Just a little hint, the "Scripture" that Paul is referencing is now known as the Old Testament since what we now know as the New Testament had yet to be compiled.
It's troubling to see the authority and authenticity of Scripture undermined.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
37,723
13,521
113
#58
I do know that one Greek word can have MANY interpretations because it is the surrounding text or words that define the one. No Lexicon or Dictionary will give you that. This is why there are many listings for one word in a STrong's.
you didn't even read the article i reposted, did you?
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#59
If he were to engage in actual Scripture debate he'd find his arguments very flawed because most of his arguments and positions are in the wisdom of men, and himself, not in the power of God.
Are you not supposed to overcome the wisdom of men by the power of God? But so far I have seen just calvinist tradition and sometimes ad hominem attacks from your side. Not very effective ;-)

And when you use Scriptures, you understand them in a calvinist way given to you by (surprise!) men.