1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Back after a long while with a question

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Sularis, Sep 8, 2018.

  1. Sularis

    Sularis Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is it now the new normal that defining words and using dictionaries as a basic first step foundation for studying the Scripture is now frowned upon?


    I have run across several recent Bible college grads who when I use Strongs or other dictionaries/encyclopedias - or if they're not comfortable running Biblical languages (I use an old program with where I can see different language versions and try to link them up to each other) - or even just the dictionary. They immediately respond that you cant use the dictionary to interpret Scripture you have to take culture into account.

    Crazy me thinks - sure blast away with verses - but then to be able to begin interpreting them or even having a discussion(argument) you have to agree on the meanings of words. No point discussing Calvinism or other things if you can't agree on basic definitions.

    Also I had this weird notion that dictionaries often reflect culture - such as semi-recent additions like "truthiness" or new additional meanings to older words through linguistic shift
     
  2. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,535
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Its called "hermeneutics" and even that word can be a moveable object.

    Ligonier Ministries
     
  3. Sularis

    Sularis Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hermeneutics is a broad word and in theory includes definitions/grammar - but as I've stated its seems to be more popular these days to ignore definitions and grammar - and focus solely on relational. Just wondering if my observations in my area are a part of a wider trend
     
  4. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,535
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Go to the Ligonier Ministries website.

    IMO, the paragraph above is the bare minimum model to "give us the original meaning of the biblical text.".
    Yes it would take a commitment of time and resource on our part and even at that there can be "subjectivism".

    2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    17,790
    Likes Received:
    1,407
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Strong's is actually way out of date, since it was written well before the papyri discovered in the early 20th century. So if your "Bible college grads" studied Greek recently, they've probably been told not to use Strong's. (I tell my Greek students this.)

    What you may be running into is the trend in original language exegesis to determine meaning by contemporary (1st century Greek, especially) usage. In other words, don't just look the meaning up in a dictionary/lexicon, see how it is used in the NT, LXX, and elsewhere. This is from modern linguistics. Another thing we don't do is go to the etymology for the meaning (except if the word is a hapax legomenon--found only there in the Bible).

    This trend was started by James Barr in his book The Semantics of Biblical Languages in 1961, and brought more in detail into evangelicalism by Moises Silva (Biblical Words and their Meaning, 1983) and others.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,535
    Faith:
    Baptist
    We were never told in so many words "don't" use Strongs. We just never did use it. it was ignored.

    Greek - Arndt, Gingrich; Hebrew - Brown, Driver, Briggs. To start.

    Later I branched out on my own.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Sularis

    Sularis Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you all for your answers
     
  8. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,543
    Likes Received:
    2,740
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What is also required is for one to have the Holy Spirit reveal the applications for them of the truth of the scriptures, for we seem to have many really wise in what it stated, but not so muh in how does that affect me?
     
  9. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    8,526
    Likes Received:
    704
    Faith:
    Baptist
    * Strong's does not teach grammar. And it does tie the words used in the KJV to the Hebrew and Greek used in the text. * And that is how it should be used.

    [Now particulars where Strong's dictionaries are wrong, would be good to note.]

    It is still published today. And I find it useful. I have other works I can reference.
     
  10. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    17,790
    Likes Received:
    1,407
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That is the sole place where it is useful today.

    See my Post #5. If you want particular examples of where it is wrong, I could give tons of those, but don't have time.

    Many, many books are still published today which are way out of date. And finding Strong's useful may mean you are being mislead over and over. Bagster's Analytical Greek Lexicon is still in print today, but it has a ton of errors in it.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    8,526
    Likes Received:
    704
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That is how I used it in around 1968. Case in point, the KJV translates 3 different words using the term "hell." When I did a study on the teaching on hell.

    One good example would be good enough.
    None of the above seems show any real problem except the claim "out of date." With no specific example.

    Saying something is "out of date" does not give the how or the why.

    A long list is not needed. But a single example, or a short list of problems as to type of problem one would want to avoid.

    Thank you.
     
    #11 37818, Oct 21, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2018
  12. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    17,790
    Likes Received:
    1,407
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Sure, okay. For "deacon" (diakonos, occurring in 29 verses), Strong's (and Thayer's, also out of date, but a genuine lexicon) has the gloss (short definition), "a waiter (at table or in other menial duties)." None of the papyri bear this gloss out, so the most recent lexicons don't include this meaning.

    Remember that Strong's was written well over 100 years ago. In language studies that is hugely out of date. I would never use a Japanese-English dictionary that old (except maybe for classical Japanese). Also, as mentioned above, most of the definitions are glosses, so even when it was written, it was not meant to be a lexicon with full meanings.

    As for your study on Hell, I'm sure Strong's was useful, but nowadays I can just click my mouse a couple of times and have the same information from one of my Bible software packages.

    Again, 100 years in most things is out of date. I've been teaching Greek now off and on for 30 years--I suppose I'm out of date, too. :)
     
    #12 John of Japan, Oct 22, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2018
  13. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    8,526
    Likes Received:
    704
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That gloss, as I understood you, is base on the event in Acts 6:1-2.

    In 1968 all I had was my Strong's exhaustive concordance, which linked the English to the Greek and Hebrew in the Bible.

    And thank you. I have no intention of becoming an expert in Greek or Hebrew. But rely on Bible study tools created by others. So your comments here are quite important. Again thank you.
     
  14. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,535
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So JoJ, every time you have taught a Greek class you have added 3-4 semester hours of Greek to your college/seminary credits :)
     
  15. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    17,790
    Likes Received:
    1,407
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You are entirely welcome. I'm happy to contribute.
     
  16. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    17,790
    Likes Received:
    1,407
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If only they would count them!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,543
    Likes Received:
    2,740
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What do you use as Lexicons, both for Greek and Hebrew then?
    I am curious, as I have and use the 1979 BAGD, but did not buy to use the BDAG revised one, as read in some reviews that it in places went PC correct!
     
    #17 Yeshua1, Oct 22, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2018
  18. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    17,790
    Likes Received:
    1,407
    Faith:
    Baptist
    My goto one for Greek is Friberg, after which I may or may not consult BAGD. For Hebrew, BDB.
     
  19. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    17,790
    Likes Received:
    1,407
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Have to correct myself. BAGD has the "waiter" gloss, but it's 2nd edition. I don't know what BDAG (3rd ed.) has.
     
  20. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,543
    Likes Received:
    2,740
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Have you heard that the revised BAGD went sometime too much into PC understandings?
    The Friberg would be their analytical one. correct?
     
Loading...