James Strong, KJV, Redefinitions of words?

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Let's look at 2 Samuel 6:19

And he dealt among all the people, even among the whole multitude of Israel, as well to the women as men, to every one a cake of bread, and a good piece of flesh, and a flagon of wine. So all the people departed every one to his house.

... So, let's look at the definition of flagon.

Webster's Dictionary 1828
FLAG'ON, noun [Latin lagena; Gr.]

A vessel with a narrow mouth, used for holding and conveying liquors.

...

Now let's see what the Hebrew Dictionary tells us

Strong's Concordance
ashishah: a raisin cake
Who was redefining? If all a student has is a dictionary of English it won't tell him what the Word of God actually said in the MT, but will just tell him what the KJV translators felt to put in the place of the Hebrew word. The Hebrew doesn't agree with the KJV. Because the Hebrew word's definition isn't drinking container, but raisin cake. Who was redefining?

Wow. You answered for Sean, showing how the Strong's dubious redefinition convinced you that flagon is an error, against strong Hebrew scholarship (with which the learned men of 1611 were very well acquainted, far more so than the current crop of lexicon scholars.)

Will Kinney has a good article on the flagon question.

"flagons of wine" or "raisin cakes"?
http://brandplucked.webs.com/hosea3flagonsofwine.htm


And I see that Esaias caught this, too:

Originally Posted by Esaias

Somebody forgot to notify the Jews?

Evang Benincasa, there is an irony in your pressing Sean for examples (fair enough) and then your giving a perfect example of a Strong's redefinition "correction", that is really an error.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Interesting, the KJV followed Rashi’s interpretation.
The LXX has cakes in a pan.

Unlike the lexicon scholars today, the learned men of the AV 1611 would always check Rashi, Kimchi, Ibn Ezra and other Hebraic sources and writings (Midrashim, Targumim, etc), including the commentaries in the mik'raot gedolot. The LXX had a minor place of contribution.

Steven

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

As a young convert I had never heard of Strong’s. Raised in small Kentucky area... So these “Greek” Kentucky scholars just went down the list and picked out a definition that appealed to them. So early on I became skeptical of Greek scholars who could not read or speak the language. My two cents.

Read AND speak. If you can not speak a language, you really do not know the language.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I debated to Yahweh guys I think they were sincere but these guys like myself couldn’t order a kosher hot dog in Jerusalem became ancient Hebrew scholars. It was laughable if it hadn’t been so deadly serious.

You know it! Amen, brother.

Especially now that we understand that "Yahweh" is nothing more than the devil Jupiter of the abomination of desolation, Acts 14 and 19, the 70 AD Roman temple and more. "Yahweh" == "Jupiter" because Jupiter is Jove-Pater, and Jove is pronounced Yahweh (ask the classical Latin experts.)

Dozens of my old-time dear friends at the Homestead Heritage community left their first love, the Lord Jesus Christ, so that they can pray and travail and sing and worship this devil "Yahweh". (They still use Jesus some, but in a subordinate position, their actual stated, written goal today is "Yahweh-worship".) This is an insidious, creeping and crawling rebellion, and it is accompanied by using all sorts of corruption versions, and picking and choosing whatever text you want ("version smorgasbording.") And ultimately, make their own corruption version. Oh, and of course, "Yahshua" comes in to muscle out Jesus, even showing up in the water baptism, bye-bye apostolic pie.

Steven

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Ancient language skills require humility and perspective.Most any second grader in Athens speaks better Greek than I ever will.

Scholarly language data can lead to false conclusions and mistakes.

A little Greek is counterproductive to legitimate hermeneutics.

Well said.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Wow. You answered for Sean, showing how the Strong's dubious redefinition convinced you that flagon is an error, against strong Hebrew scholarship (with which the learned men of 1611 were very well acquainted, far more so than the current crop of lexicon scholars.)

Will Kinney has a good article on the flagon question.

"flagons of wine" or "raisin cakes"?
http://brandplucked.webs.com/hosea3flagonsofwine.htm


And I see that Esaias caught this, too:

Evang.Benincasa, there is an irony in your pressing Sean for examples (fair enough) and then your giving a perfect example of a Strong's redefinition "correction", that is really an error.

Steven

The LXX has cakes in a skillet. Steve are you KJV Only? No disrespect, but just asking a question. Another thing, do you believe that ancient GREEK scholars can speak modern Greek?

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

probably couldn't order a kosher BLT if he was starving to death!

oxymoron alert!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Ancient language skills require humility and perspective.

Most any second grader in Athens speaks better Greek than I ever will.

Scholarly language data can lead to false conclusions and mistakes.

A little Greek is counterproductive to legitimate hermeneutics. A lot of Greek tempers the value of one's own opinion. It reveals the complexity of certain linguistic problems.

I rarely mention anything about knowing Greek at church for any reason. I am certainly not known for being the Greek Bible translator guy. I would rather be known for the content of my heart and not the knowledge in my head.

Just my 2 cents, or 2 drachmas

Amen, but the whole KJV Onlyist position is an English speakers dilemma.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I don't know if I just have a complex? or if there is something more to it. I have sometimes felt that the "Greek" version, or the "Hebrew" version was quoted either to let me know how smart the speaker was, or just how ignorant I am.

This is not always the case though. Sometimes I felt like they just didn't like the translation. I have had the impression before that, "This guy can hardly speak recognizable English, and he wants me to believe he's a Greek scholar?! Really?

Why I bet he doesn't even know what motza ball soup is!

He probably couldn't order a kosher BLT if he was starving to death!

TM, some very good observations

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The LXX has cakes in a skillet.

As I mentioned, the Hebraics are far more important than the Greek Old Testament (which, btw, is often inconsistent within manuscripts.)

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Steve are you KJV Only?

My "only" reading Bible, the pure word of God.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Another thing, do you believe that ancient GREEK scholars can speak modern Greek?

Depends on how ancient they are. Age catches up on you . Probably by 110 or so, they forget a lot.

And I believe that folks truly fluent in modern Greek have a major head start in Biblical Greek. The key question for the classical Greek scholars really is whether or not they are fluent, beyond reading. Can they carry on a conversation? So many nuances of language only come forth in spoken conversation. The written form is often sanitized, regimented, or it can be mish-a-moshed like e. e. cummings. Nobody who can not speak English has any true mastery of the language.

============

Perhaps, the most fluent Greek scholar I know of was Eugenius Bulgaris (1716-1806). He defended the heavenly witnesses text because the bald solecism grates when you remove the heavenly witnesses (gender discordance to the max.) Feeling something of that sort requires fluency, because the lexicon scholar can always make up lexical excuses.

The greatest English Greek scholar of that era was Richard Porson (1759-1808), a contra against the heavenly witnesses authenticity. He was careful to avoid any mention of the Bulgaris writing on the grammatical problem, even though he must have been aware of the specific writing.

My gut sense is that, while Porson could quote 100 classics, he was nowhere near the league of Bulgaris. Even when Porson was sober.

============

Steven

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

As I mentioned, the Hebraics are far more important than the Greek Old Testament (which, btw, is often inconsistent within manuscripts.)

My "only" reading Bible, the pure word of God.

Depends on how ancient they are. Age catches up on you . Probably by 110 or so, they forget a lot.

And I believe that folks truly fluent in modern Greek have a major head start in Biblical Greek. The key question for the classical Greek scholars really is whether or not they are fluent, beyond reading. Can they carry on a conversation? So many nuances of language only come forth in spoken conversation. The written form is often sanitized, regimented, or it can be mish-a-moshed like e. e. cummings. Nobody who can not speak English has any true mastery of the language.

============

Perhaps, the most fluent Greek scholar I know of was Eugenius Bulgaris (1716-1806). He defended the heavenly witnesses text because the bald solecism grates when you remove the heavenly witnesses (gender discordance to the max.) Feeling something of that sort requires fluency, because the lexicon scholar can always make up lexical excuses.

The greatest English Greek scholar of that era was Richard Porson (1759-1808), a contra against the heavenly witnesses authenticity. He was careful to avoid any mention of the Bulgaris writing on the grammatical problem, even though he must have been aware of the specific writing.

My gut sense is that, while Porson could quote 100 classics, he was nowhere near the league of Bulgaris. Even when Porson was sober.

============

Steven

Excellent and fair post

[Evang.Benincasa]

My wife was raised with two languages. One Greek, the other English. She studied English and was an English teacher in Spain.
She had my daughters study not only Greek, but the evolution of Greek. My oldest to this day still reads her Greek New Testament TR. Since the TR was the manuscript she first started studying. Yet the original Word of Jesus and His disciples were found quoting the LXX. My wife and I had our hard opinions, but a poster here Esaias, helped us greatly to look further. What we found was amazing. Especially in refuting the Yashuaites.