Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by DaChaser1, Mar 1, 2012.
if so, which version, and how do you use it while studying the Bible?
I use the New Greek English Interlinear NT, a lexicon, concordance and the NASV/ESV (also several computer references - but I'm too cheap to get the Logos program).
When I am studying the Bible I try not to read with the idea that I know what the text is saying, but rather try to let the text dictate my understanding. I choose a paragraph, or large enough text where the verses I am studying are not taken out of context – read the passages before and after what I am studying and note what is going on, who is the audience, etc.
I make a block outline of the passage, identifying the aspects of the passage. Then I jot down the “who, what, when, why, how” questions.
Once I have done a block outline and examined the passage, I pull out the interlinear and a lexicon and examine the words used. I also like reading the passage from the interlinear alone. You will notice that translators interpret words in accord with their theology (which can’t be helped, they choose what they believe is the best English word – but you can see differences). I was not a good Greek student, and I have not taken Hebrew, so I rely on these tools.
Then I look at what each word that I have identified as a “main” word can mean. You have to have a basic understanding of Greek - I keep a Greek textbook handy (remember, I wasn't a good student and forgot most of the little I knew). Words, phrases and clauses express ideas, examine how these relate to each other. See how they are used throughout Scripture.
I go back and try to answer the questions that I have jotted down, and try to interpret the passage. After this, I compare my understanding to various commentaries (not by pastors e.g., MacArthur commentary, but ones by experts in the field of hermeneutics – they will offer various ways the words have been interpreted). If I came up with a brand new idea I know I’m most likely off base.
That’s basically my method of study. What is important is not to let your preconceived ideas determine how you understand a passage.
That is why I thank God for the fact that before coming to be saved by Jesus, I had NO religious background, so NO "religious gridlock" that had to unlearn in order to really see what the bible said!
Gee, what a novel approach to bible study. I thought we should get a commentary from a 5 point Calvinist, find out how he misread the verse and figure out the best way to explain it agrees with Calvinism, even if it says the opposite of Calvinism. Thus when God hardens hearts, it really means they were hardened already so the T of the TULIP is not contradicted.
When a verse says God chose those rich in faith who love Him, say that does not mean what it says, rather God choose those without faith and gave them faith, and caused those hating God to love Him. Yep, that sure shows objective study results.
My interlinear uses the critical text, and the one I use on line uses the KJV text.
But no matter how hard I study, I cannot find any support for the TULI of the tulip.
its there, its just that your religious gridlock will just NOT allow you to see the truths of the scriptures as regards to this !
You and I see the same terms, but we just have chosen to see them from 2 different places...
You filter it through your gridlock and vestterms with what you want it to say, while I try to see the scriptures in luight of what the entire bible says on this!
I occasionally use the interlinear at studylight.org.
I would be interested in what commentaries you study from.
To me, all depends what desiring to get accomplished!
I will borrow commentary from pastor on say Dr Bock on Luke, or leon Morris Romans for detailed working, or esle grab 2 set commentaries from Moody for "normal" studying!
Interested in the AMG NT commentary set on software, as I am a dispy!
I have more of the Baker Exegetical Commentaries and The New American Commentary (with some Encountering Biblical Studies).
Some authors that I particulary like are Moo, Schreiner, Bruce, Morris, and Kostenberger. I try to reference at least three commentaries, so I can't say that I primarily use one particular series.
I am, of course, always open to suggestions (although if I buy more my wife may have something to say about it).
Check into DA carson on John, and Dr Bock on Luke!
Also enjoyed Leon Morris on romans!
I do like Bock on Acts - I'll have to check out his commentary on Luke. (I also like Leon Morris).
Have you read anything by either FF bruce or James Montgomery Boice, especially his systematic theolgy?
I have a couple of commentaries by F.F. Bruce, but I haven't read Boice's systematic theology.
I have the Hebrew/Greek Interlinears by Jay Green. They're dandies...
I also have a Strong's concordance, and a Nave's.......
I sometimes use an interlinear. I also have the Jay Green edition.
I had two years of Hebrew and three years of Greek in seminary, but about all I use if for these days is if I happen to be reading a commentary that is based on the Greek or Hebrew text. I never learned to sight-read either language very well.
As long as we know the limitations of using the interlinear, find it quite useful to get into the greek text directly "quickly"!
I often pull out George Ricker Berry's Interlinear Greek-English NT. It has KJV in margin, and great lexicon and section on synonyms. All in one volume.
We've bought them in years past for each family in church. I can't pull out a "here is the word in the original" without knowing that 5-6 men will "check it out" to be sure I am saying what GOD said, not what I think.
That is what preaching is supposed to be. I'd better study what God said thoroughly so I can accurately deliver HIS Word to the people.
"The preacher is not a chef--he’s a waiter. God doesn't want you to make the meal; He just wants you to deliver it to the table without messing it up. That's all."
An excellent post on the matter (body of his resposne deleted for length, but I wanted you to see with whom I agree).
If you have the time and interest and little background in Greek, Bill Mounce's Greek for the Rest of Us is a great book that helped my come to understand enough Greek to work with an interlinear and the commentaries (also gives you enough exposure so you foolishly think you are an expert, so do tread with care and recognize you are learning very basic info, not actual hardcore Greek). The text also contains Mounce's personal recommendations for commentaries (both independent volumes on a given book and commentary series as a whole).
In my budding baby Greek studies I find Mounce's NASB/NIV interlinear to be a great tool. Pretty decent lexicon in the back that does the job for most folks. Proves very helpful when you use the commentaries that employ discussion of the Greek text.
Even in my novice stages I wouldn't recommend Mounce's so-called reverse interlinear (or any others that might exist). Normal interlinears show the Greek text in order and the word-for-word English underneath, resulting in wonky English word order. But that's fine, because mine for example has the NIV in one margin and NASB in the other so it helps me understand the English translation. Reverse interlinears put the English as the top line with the Greek text under. Not necessarily a huge deal-breaker, but if you're going to study the Greek you should at least try to approach it in its original state rather than conforming it to English. Furthermore, Greek word order sometimes indicates emphasis by moving a word toward the front of a sentence that usually belongs elsewhere. This practices sometimes signals to the reader something about the word's significance, so you lose that nuance in a reverse interlinear.
I just saw the OP was banned. All that typing and he won't benefit from it.
Eh, maybe he'll access the forum from a pal's computer or something.
Do you also use computer software to study bible with, such as logos/Gramcord etc?