View Single Post
  #1  
Old 06-27-2009, 11:51 AM
freesundayschoollessons's Avatar
freesundayschoollessons freesundayschoollessons is offline
Fundamental Pope
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Davison, Michigan
Posts: 4,175
freesundayschoollessons has a reputation beyond reputefreesundayschoollessons has a reputation beyond reputefreesundayschoollessons has a reputation beyond reputefreesundayschoollessons has a reputation beyond reputefreesundayschoollessons has a reputation beyond reputefreesundayschoollessons has a reputation beyond reputefreesundayschoollessons has a reputation beyond reputefreesundayschoollessons has a reputation beyond reputefreesundayschoollessons has a reputation beyond reputefreesundayschoollessons has a reputation beyond reputefreesundayschoollessons has a reputation beyond repute
Default Strong's Concordance: A good tool, but limited


Logged In Members don't see these ads!
Join for Free Today!
Will Kinney and Herb Evans are solidly locked into using the Strong's Concordance (SC) to "prove" their position regarding the KJV translation from Hebrew and Greek. I think it is a good subject to consider the use and potential misuses of the Concordance.

The primary and truly only real useful reason to use the Strong's Concordance when it comes to Bible study is for finding those passages where you only remember one word from the passage. Of course, the original concordance is only useful for the KJV.

When the Hebrew and Greek lexicon was added to Strongs, "all hell broke lose." It gave everyone the opportunity to think they were actually getting positive, accurate information about the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts. That is a very wrong assumption.

The "lexicon" behind Strongs is misleading. Here are a few reasons why:
  • The lexical entries are lacking. It is really more of a thesaurus than it is a lexicon. There is a lack of explanation regarding the USAGE/BACKGROUND of terms and is simply a list of meanings. A real lexicon provides a more full/accurate understanding.
  • Context issues. There is a problem with the numbers. The numbers ONLY identify the Hebrew word, not the context. Hence, Will Kinney makes the mistake of foisting an English meaning on a Hebrew term by using the Strong's Concordance. The Strong's Concordance ONLY identifies a Hebrew/Greek term, it does not give meanings across contexts. This is where close attention is required. There is a fallacy called "illegitimate totality transfer" and those who use the Strong's Concordance need to be aware of this fallacy.
  • Failure to identify all Hebrew/Greek words. Even though the impression is given that Strongs gives ALL of the words, it especially lacks when it comes to Hebrew and Greek. There are Hebrew constructs and Greek prefixes that Strongs does not identify. As you know, if you are missing a part of a word, then coming up with the meaning for that word is absurd.
  • No piece of software or tool like the Strong's Concordance can ever replace a knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. Most on this forum agree with that and are careful in their use of these tools. However, we do run across the arrogant who become provocative based on their "findings" in Strongs. The problem ultimately is not Strongs, but a heart matter.

Hope this helps!
__________________
Simply observing the floccinoccinihilipilification of the KJVO movement.

For my Arminian friends who need a new understanding of particular redemption, click here: http://www.imeem.com/people/hX0Ft9/m...-accomplished/

My Facebook Profile
Reply With Quote
 
Page generated in 0.04186 seconds with 11 queries