Scholars and pastors, please provide advice

Discussion in 'Books / Publications Forum' started by Phillip, Dec 9, 2001.

  1. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I read an enormous amount of material and am not starting a book by Joseph Alexander written in the late 1800's (and I think translated from another language). It is a VERY detailed book which refers to the Hebrew and reviews each verse to a high degree of detail. Can any of you provide information regarding Alexander (maybe I sound ****** here, but I have heard of the man, but do not know that much about him.) Are his beliefs along the lines of Baptists and can I go wrong by studying this?

    Also, what is your opinion of Ironside's different studies of individual books of the Bible?

    I have used Strong's concordance for years. Was Strong's beliefs close to Baptist and is Strong's okay?

    And finally, how about Mathew Henry's complete and unabridged commentary on the whole Bible?

    It is getting scarey to go to a Southern Baptist Bookstore (now LifeWay) and buy books that you don't know if they are doctrinally sound or not. I noticed that they were carrying C. S. Lewis' fantasy books. This may be okay I guess, but I feel it is put there to try to get hold of some of the overflow profits of the Harry Potter books.

    Please, let me know in detail what you think of the above authors (except Lewis--I have studied him) and let me know if I can trust their commentaries on the Bible. Thank you very much and God bless you!
     
  2. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Young's concordance is better than Strong's.
    Matthew Henry's commentary set is sound, but also check out Matthew Poole's commentary set for a related outlook with more of an exegetical approach.
     
  3. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I actually preferred Strong's concordance for the strong, Young's for the young, and Cruden's for . . .

    A concordance is simply a listing of Bible verses, not a denominational content. Some confusion comes from Strong's Systematic Theology by Augustus Strong which IS very Baptist and Strong's Concordance of the Bible by James Strong. Same last names add to confusion.
     
  4. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    The difference between Strong's and Young's is, of course, that Young's is much much more than a mere concordance. It is, unlike Strong's, analytical. In Strong's the English words are simply listed in alphabetical order and their place in the bible in order of their appearence by book, chapter, and verse. Young's, on the other hand, lists the English words in alphabetical order, then are listed under the original language word in alphabetical order, with a literal meaning and a transliteration contained in the listing. We can see every Hebrew/Greek word that is translated by an English word and every place that same Hebrew/Greek word is similarly translated, and even where it is translated differently! You can actually analyze the use of a Hebrew/Greek word, which you cannot readily do using Strong's. [​IMG]
     
  5. Chick Daniels

    Chick Daniels
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2000
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you do go with strongs, I recommend getting the abridged version which eliminates common words like "the" "and", "is", etc. You would rarely if ever look up a cross-reference for such a common word, and by eliminating them, the size of the volume is so much smaller and user-friendly. Young's may have such a volume as well.

    Chick
     
  6. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    311
    For a starter, I'd go with H.A. Ironside's commentaries. Not all that deep, but he is trustworthy. As for concordances, the Russian authors used Strong's format was used in the development of the Simfonya. Imagine trying to study the Scripture in any depth without a decent concordance, I think it is a sign of Our God's Providential guidence that our Russian brethren have gone off into the theological cornfields.
     
  7. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    25
    1. I have never heard of Alexander or his book.
    2. I have never cared that much for Ironside's books. They seem a little shallow to me.
    3. I recommend Young's Analytical Concordance over Strong's Exhaustive one. To me it is easier to use.
    4. I have always liked Matthew Henry's commentary, although he is a baby-sprinkler. He will give you something on which to think.
     

Share This Page

Loading...