3 ways not to use greek in bible study

[Jkdbuck76]

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?

 

[Van]

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.

 

[Van]

Folks who wish to dissuade actual bible study seemingly abound on this forum.

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

In post 3 you said many on the BB "dissuade actual Bible study."

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

Next we get this mischaracterization from Mr. Rippon:

In post #16 you claimed that many posts here deny Bible study or word studies.

But here is what I actually said:

I see lots of posts denying Bible study is attacked on many fronts. Don't do word studies, why they result in root fallacies. Don't read multiple scholars, just stick with Calvinist apologists. On and on it goes, with no one offering anything positive. They are fault finders.

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

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?

Apparently you know enough to get the op right.

 

[Rippon]

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 any attention to how Mr. Rippon presents [sic] of views of others is naive.

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?

 

[Rippon]

I see lots of posts... Don't read multiple scholars, just stick with Calvinist apologists.

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.

 

[Van]

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.

 

[Van]

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

Translations, though made with uninspired human skill, are sufficient for those who have not access to the inspired original. Unlearned men will not be held accountable for a degree of light beyond what is granted to them; and the benevolence of God in making revelation has not endowed all with the gift of interpreting tongues. . . . God has seen it wiser and better to leave the members of Christ to feel the necessity of mutual sympathy and dependence, than to bestow every gift on every individual. He has bestowed the knowledge necessary for the translation of his word on a sufficient number of faithful men to answer the purpose of his benevolence. And the least accurate of the translations with which the common people are favored is full of divine truth and able to make wise to salvation."

 

[Rippon]

"Seemingly abound on this forum" becomes "abound on this forum."

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.

 

[Van]

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.

 

[Rippon]

For example he says the idea that something could appear to be true, yet not be true is a meaningless distinction.

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

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

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

Pay no attention to those who discourage bible study,

No one here discourages Bible study.

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

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.

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?

Scholars differ and we need to consider the various interpretations so we are not sidetracked into cultist dogma.

It seems that you are making a pointless point.

You are making a pointless point.

 

[TCassidy]

When are you people going to figure out Van is a troll and just ignore him?

As to the OP. One of the problems I see over and over again, and especially on this forum and others like it, is the use of Strong's Concordance and Strong's Numbers as some sort of an authority regarding the meaning of Greek words.

Strong's makes the error of the root fallacy over and over again. The first thing I told my students in bonehead Greek was to throw away their Strong's.

If they had to use a Strong's, buy the "Strongest Strong's" which was edited and revised by John R. Kohlenberger III and James A. Swanson. But even then, be careful. It still tends to emphasize the etymological meaning of Greek words over the philological meaning.

I suggest Young's Exhaustive Concordance. It not only gives you every English word translated from the Hebrew or Greek word in question (philological use) but also gives the different Hebrew or Greek words from which the same English word was translated.

One of the problems we face today is the result of an over use of the literal hermeneutic. Yes, we should take the bible literally in most instances, but also recognize there are times when metaphorical use is correct.

But by over emphasizing the literal hermeneutic we often under emphasize the historical hermeneutic.

The correct way to understand the bible is the use of the historical-grammatical hermeneutical method. Not what the word/words mean to a dictionary, or a concordance, or to us today, but what did the words mean to the writer of the bible passage in question? How was/were those words used at that time? What societal/cultural meaning did the words have?

One of the most often made errors today is to understand what Jesus meant when He said He gave "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" to His disciples.

It was common practice in that day for Rabbi's, upon graduation from Rabbinical school, and after being examined and ordained by the council, to be given a key to the store room in the Temple where the bible scrolls and commentaries on those scrolls were kept.

The new Rabbi would wear the key on a chain around his neck so all could see he had teaching authority granted by the council and access to the scrolls and commentaries of antiquity.

What Jesus was saying was that He was giving the disciples teaching authority regarding the kingdom, and access to the very mind and thoughts of God regarding the inscripturation of His word and their preaching and teaching ministries.

The only way this passage can be properly understood is by applying the historical-grammatical hermaneutic.

 

[Van]

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

Folks who wish to dissuade actual bible study seemingly abound on this forum. For example, word meanings can change over time, so the initial meaning of a word may not be the intended meaning as used. But, on the other hand, to claim an inspired author uses the same word for various meanings is just as dubious a practice. When we look up the meaning or range of meanings in a lexicon, scholars have endeavored to present how the word is used in scripture. Thus to claim one of these historical meanings is not the intended meaning is simply liberalism 101.

Next, we have the claim we (non-experts) should not study what the experts say and decide which expert or school of thought seems most valid. The idea seems to be just listen to me, which is cultist and without merit.

When studying a verse or passage, one step is to identify the "key" words and phrases, and determine, as best we can what is the intended meaning. This is derived in part by looking at how the word is used elsewhere in scripture, particularly by the same author in the same book. In all cases, the word is considered as used contextually. What is not done is to say a word must mean this here and that there in order to support a man-made doctrine. That is not bible study, that is bible manipulation.

Bible study is not only good, it is commanded, and more study is even better.

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!"

 

[Van]

"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.

 

[TCassidy]

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!"

Amen! I would add "several good English versions." I have often told the congregation of God's people whom He has given over to my pastoral watch care that "It is not our failure to understand Hebrew and Greek that causes our misunderstandings of the scriptures, but rather our failure to understand our own native English!"

 

[Van]

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.