Featured 3 ways not to use greek in bible study

Seems like the thrust of the OP was, in my words, "Study the Bible, check Greek sources but DO IT RIGHT"

There is a difference between saying "Never drive" and " Drive, but use caution." I think the OP is more akin to the latter. But what do I know?

 

Spot on, Jkdbuck76, the OP should have said "study the Bible, check Greek sources, but do it right. But none of that is found in the OP.

Here is part of the "root fallacy" presentation that was omitted: One of the best tools for the Bible student to have right now is William Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. This volume also contains a helpful piece called "How to Do Word Studies," which will warn you against some of the same pitfalls that I am telling you about.

 

And here is how Mr Rippon edited and altered what I said:

Note that the benefit of the doubt was completely removed, demonstrating a lack of integrity.

Next we get this mischaracterization from Mr. Rippon:

But here is what I actually said:

So I said bible study is attacked on many fronts, and then gave examples of those fronts, root fallacy, lack of expertize, and so forth.

Anyone who pays any attention to how Mr. Rippon presents of views of others is naive.

 

I know synonyms are a challenge for you, but here goes.

If they "abound on this forum" then there are "many" --do you understand?

"Lots of posts" = "many" --comprenez-vous?

Anyone who pays attention to how I present [the] views of others is naive? That doesn't make any sense even with the definite article supplied. You have paid attention in some manner. Are you claiming to be naive?

 

I will ask again. Who advocates not reading multiple scholars and to just sticking with Calvinist apologists?

If you cannot produce some quotes then you are just blowing smoke...again.

 

You have got to love them, folks. "Seemingly abound on this forum" becomes "abound on this forum." Mr. Rippon systematically misrepresents what others say as demonstrated in post 23.

 

Here is an example of a Calvinist (John Dagg) telling us to just read the translations of those "gifted" in translation.

 

Your distinction is meaningless. Either you think that those who dissuade actual Bible study abound here -- or you think that they do not abound on the BB. You clearly believe the former --against all common sense.

 

Now I know Mr. Rippon likes to tell others what they actually meant, being a mind reader of the highest order. For example he says the idea that something could appear to be true, yet not be true is a meaningless distinction. Anyone who pays attention to how Mr. Rippon presents the views of others is naive.

Bible study is good, and is commanded. Pay no attention to those who discourage bible study, saying "why you lack the gifts needed" and so forth. And the least accurate translation, say the New World Translation is not something a person should read to the exclusion of other more accurate translations. Scholars differ and we need to consider the various interpretations so we are not sidetracked into cultist dogma.

 

It seems you are being silly.
You are being silly.

It seems you are rolling around in naivety.
You are rolling around in naivety.

No one here discourages Bible study.

It seems you are barking up the wrong tree.
You are barking up the wrong tree.

It seems that absolutely no one here advocates that premise, so why did you even go there?

Absolutely no one here advocates that premise, so why did you even go there?

It seems that you are making a pointless point.

You are making a pointless point.

 

Pay no attention to those who attack other posters by calling them names.

Here again we see a claim Strong's is not helpful in increasing our knowledge of God's word. But that claim is a fiction. Is Strong's perfect? Of course not.

The claim was made, Strong's makes the root fallacy over and over. Yet not one example was provided. And there is nothing wrong with Strong's numbering system or the CK numbering system, they are simply aids to discerning how a particular original language word is used throughout scripture.

In order to study, using your study bible (say the NASB) you need to use (or at least it is easiest to use) the NASB Exhaustive Concordance.

 

far better to have a good english version, and apply proper skills to understanding and applying the truths in the Bible then just having a preconceived dose of certain phrases and words getting "studied!"

 

"far better to have a good English version" such as the NASB, or NKJV.

"and apply proper skills to understanding and applying the truths in the Bible" and that would include using the grammatical-historical hermeneutic method of inductive bible study.

"then just having a preconceived dose of certain phrases and words getting "studied!" which of course no one advocates. However, comma, you might consider the concept of vocabulary where words and phrases have inherit and sometimes multiple, meanings.

 

Lets see - three ways to use bible study to improve our understanding of God's word.
1) Use a word for word translation philosophy version such as the NASB
2) Use an interlinear which parses the Greek grammar.
3) Use an Exhaustive Concordance to identify all the different English words used to translate the Greek word under study, and all the places where the Greek word under study appears in scripture, especially by the same author in the same book.

Inductive Bible Study basically means you first determine (as best we can) what the author intended to say to his audience, being mindful of the culture and idioms that impact word meanings. Then you determine (as best we can) what, if any, timeless principles are being communicated to future audiences. And finally, we determine, as best we can, how to apply those timeless principles to our lives.