James Strong, KJV, Redefinitions of words?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

I prefer Walter Bauer. I have not used a Strong's Greek concordance since my early college days.

*Strong's is actually a poor source (cf., e.g., John 10.30). As you likely know, in Greek I professors or students are often heard to quip: "Well, Strong's says....." to elicit chuckles from the class.

*BDAG; L&N; D&M; BDF; ALGNT; GGBB; BBG; Robertson's Grammar of the Greek NT; NIDNTTE; UBS - A Translators Handbook for the NT; etc. are considered the standard authorities in print today (& can be acquired for very little if you sign up for email notifications).

*For Hebrew, of course, BHS; BDB; NIDOTTE; UBS - A Translators Handbook for the OT; etc.

*Just purchased an entire sentence diagram of the GNT.

[Scott Pitta]

BDAG is Walter Bauer. Your list of references would make my old Greek professor, MaryLou Myrick, smile.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Yeah, that's pretty much how it works. Look up the Regius Professorships of Great Britain, particularly for Hebrew and Greek. At Cambridge, these professorships date to 1540. At Oxford, Hebrew to 1546, Greek to 1541.

The whole intended purpose of university is to pass down to the next generation of students the education and discoveries of the one(s) that preceded it.

And while languages do change and evolve, their evolution over time can be easily determined, especially if the language receives as much attention as Hebrew and Greek, like say, Latin, or English. These changes therefore are easily dated and catalogued.

That's why you can look up a word in a dictionary, like say, "reverend", such as did earlier tonight for an unrelated reason, and see the following:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reverend



You can then look up "revere", and find this:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revere#h1



You can then look up "ware", and read this:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ware#h1



Look at that. Lexicographers can trace the word "reverend" back over 800 years, to see how it developed and evolved over time.

If this can be done with English, how much more so with Greek? Hebrew?

Then why does modern academia continue to add meanings and suggest new definitions?

Why don't they just quote the ancients verbatim?

I have no beef with the ancient teachers, but with modern redefinitionists that invent "better" words.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Sean

Then why does modern academia continue to add meanings and suggest new definitions?

Why don't they just quote the ancients verbatim?

I have no beef with the ancient teachers, but with modern redefinitionists that invent "better" words.

Sean, what is happening here is that you aren’t showing us examples.
What on earth do you mean. Listen, post clear evidence of modern redefinitions of Greek supposedly upending definitions we already had? Sean, make it plain by showing us EVIDENCE. Your inability to navigate a Bible program was hysterical. But please do better.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by rdp

*Strong's is actually a poor source (cf., e.g., John 10.30). As you likely know, in Greek I professors or students are often heard to quip: "Well, Strong's says....." to elicit chuckles from the class.

*BDAG; L&N; D&M; BDF; ALGNT; GGBB; BBG; Robertson's Grammar of the Greek NT; NIDNTTE; UBS - A Translators Handbook for the NT; etc. are considered the standard authorities in print today (& can be acquired for very little if you sign up for email notifications).

*For Hebrew, of course, BHS; BDB; NIDOTTE; UBS - A Translators Handbook for the OT; etc.

*Just purchased an entire sentence diagram of the GNT.

Sean’s position is that it is impossible to understand and utilize lexicons, and dictionaries. All you need is an old English dictionary.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Sean

"Today, I would like to preach from such and such verse, but I would like to use the Strong's Concordance to clarify the remarks that we are reading in this particular verse. This verse is not very clear and we need Mr. Strong's point of view to help us to understand a deeper meaning, because this may be a bad translation of the word used in the KJV. Let us enjoy Mr. Strong's meanings. Because he is a very powerful person in the realm of alternative meanings for modern translation enthusiasts and closet translators as ourselves"...... LOL

Sean, you just have a problem with ministers, period.
If you notice, when you are posting on different topics you usually find a way to throw ministry under the bus.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Sean

I suppose languages never change either, right?

And there is a perfect, unbroken chain of succession in the teaching of ancient languages by modern linguists and seminaries, right?

I must congratulate you.

For your diligent efforts in showing this forum just how stupid you are.
You must be pretty terrifying in face to face banter. Just to see you use your ignorance in person. Would be enough for a mother to grab her child and walk on the other side of the street.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Sean

I do have it all figured out, Loren.

I defend a particular translation of the Bible, which you should be doing the same thing, and letting it provide the definitions.

Why fight the KJV with modern Greek definitions from modern, biased men anyway?

Why can't you see the racket that is going on against the word of God that you posess?

Same goes for all you guys.

Sean, if you DO have it figured out. Then why in the name of clear teaching, can’t you show us evidence on how Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words are “redefined.” You aren’t defending anything, but merely trying to bully your way around trying to shut down the opposition. No one has stated that they are against the Word of God. That is a LIE. Which you often do to people to make yourself feel better. Misrepresenting another position only makes you look like an immature jerk. If we are wrong, please show HOW the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic has been redefined. The English language meaning has changed since 17th century A.D. Not, so much that it can’t be understood, but an individual can gain a lot of understanding by reading the Bible in their own language. Instead of teaching them 17th century English. So, if any of these posts are incorrect, then by all means show evidence on why. Instead of your feelings.

[Sean]

They are redefined in your handy dandy Strongs you preach from, using the Bible as commentary to it.

What's the fuss, I know you think the Bible is half symbolic and Strongs is literal.

PREACH IT!!!



LOL

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Sean’s position is that it is impossible to understand and utilize lexicons, and dictionaries. All you need is an old English dictionary.

Yes, just in case a few old words are not quite understood in the KJV.

It is so simple, it almost seems like God would want it that way for mankind.