How to Use Strong's Concordance and What to Use Instead
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ส.ค. 2024
- This article appeared originally at Word by Word, the Logos blog, and is used by permission:
www.logos.com/...
A resource mentioned in the video:
📖 www.logos.com/...
🎁 Help me end Bible translation tribalism, one plow boy at a time:
✅ / mlward
✅ buymeacoffee.c...
📖 Check out my book, Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible:
amzn.to/2r27Boz
🎥 Watch my Fifty False Friends in the KJV series:
• 50 False Friends in th...
👏 Many, many thanks to the Patreon supporters who make my work possible!
Name, James Duly, Robert Gifford, Lanny M Faulkner, Lucas Key, Dave Thawley, William McAuliff, Razgriz, James Goering, Eric Couture, Martyn Chamberlin, Edward Woods, Thomas Balzamo, Brent M Zenthoefer, Tyler Rolfe, Ruth Lammert, Gregory Nelson Chase, Ron Arduser, Caleb Farris, Dale Buchanan, Jess English, Aaron Spence, Orlando Vergel Jr., John Day, Joshua Bennett, K.Q.E.D., Brent Karding, Kofi Adu-Boahen, Steve McDowell, Kimberly Miller, A.A., James Allman, Steven McDougal, Henry Jordan, Nathan Howard, Rich Weatherly, Joshua Witt, Wade Huber, M.L., Brittany Fisher, Tim Gresham, Lucas Shannon, Easy_Peasy , Caleb Richardson, Jeremy Steinhart, Steve Groom, jac, Todd Bryant, Corey Henley, Jason Sykes, Larry Castle, Luke Burgess, Joel, Joshua Bolch, Kevin Moses, Tyler Harrison, Bryon Self, Angela Ruckman, Nathan N, Gen_Lee_Accepted , Bryan Wilson, David Peterson, Eric Mossman, Jeremiah Mays, Caleb Dugan, Donna Ward, DavidJamie Saxon, Omar Schrock, Philip Morgan, Brad Dixon, James D Leeper, M.A., Nate Patterson, Dennis Kendall, Michelle Lewis, Lewis Kiger, Dustin Burlet, Michael Butera, Reid Ferguson, Josiah R. Dennis, Miguel Lopez, CRB, D.R., Dean C Brown, Kalah Gonzalez, MICHAEL L DUNAVANT, Jonathon Clemens, Travis Manhart, Jess Mainous, Brownfell, Leah Uerkwitz, Joshua Barzon, Benjamin Randolph, Andrew Engelhart, Mark Sarhan, Rachel Schoenberger
It sounds like what you're saying is "Use what you know, lest you fall into unintentional error." And that's perfect advice.
✔
Wishing this didn't sound like empty fanboyism but I love the videos you produce and like every one I watch. Particularly I am happy for the confidence they have given me in modern English translations and bible study tools since I just won't spend the time to become a passable student of the original languages. Thank you for quality information and presentation; your efforts are much appreciated.
Ditto😂🎉
I appreciate these kind words! I am much encouraged.
IMHO the most needed tool for Bible study for most people is simply a good English dictionary. With the rise of home-schooling, this seems to be less of a problem than in the past, but in my experience, too often, too many people simply have terrible vocabularies. Great video, as usual, and one of the better commercials for Logos! 🙂
✔
Thank you for this (and the article). Another problem similar to cringy uses of Strong’s is when people take a word from an English translation, especially the Amplified Bible's expanded nuances, look it up in an English dictionary, and then try to pick and apply a Webster's or Oxford's definition which they like for that word and try to fit it into the passage, which can turn a verse on its head. Nothing is perfect, and most people probably mean well. Hopefully people will become more educated in the process and tools of exegesis, hermeneutics, grammar, etc. Thank you for your part in contributing to that end. Blessings!
Right: we'll never get rid of all well-meaning silliness in biblical hermeneutics. Lots of it is harmless. But for those who want to get serious, I'm trying to offer some practicable assistance.
Thank you for the video, this is much needed today regarding how over-used the Strong's Concordance is today.
I noticed something just a few days ago and it showed up in this video. It is pertaining to the verse you referenced at the very end of this video, there is quite a difference in the interpretation of the translators in 2 Thessalonians 1:11 when it comes to whose good pleasure are we talking about:
"Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:" (AV)
"Therefore we also pray always for you that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfill all the good pleasure of His goodness and the work of faith with power," (NKJV)
"To this end also we pray for you always, that our God will count you worthy of your calling, and fulfill all your good pleasure for goodness and the work of faith with power," (LSB)
"To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling and may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith by his power," (ESV)
The issue with interpreting this verse becomes clear if you consult the painfully literal translation from everyone's other favorite concordance compiler, Robert Young:
*for which also we do pray always for you, that our God may count you worthy of the calling, and may fulfil all the good pleasure of goodness, and the work of the faith in power,*
The Greek text is vague. Whose calling is unclear. Whose good pleasure is unclear.
@@MAMoreno Helpful, thank you!
✔
Lots of excellent recommendations. Thanks Mark! Yes, I have the slower printed forms of many of those sources. A habit I started long before computers and internet. Though I do have quite a few electronically, I still end up falling back on the printed page anyway. oh well.
One source not mentioned that I truly recommend is “The Ante-Nicene Fathers.” There you can read the way many of the words were used and how applied in those early Christian days, closer to the first century Christians. There is a modern-day tendency to change or revise the definitions of words in the newer sources, something to be on guard for. One example; the greek word “Monogenes” has flip-flopped over the centuries, as Wayne Grudem’s “Systematic theology” shows. Many modern translations even totally remove “only begotten” from John 3:16. Strong’s definition is much closer to what the Ante-Nicene Fathers believed ‘monogenes’ meant.
But, yes, we can do well in getting a much clear enough understanding of the scriptures simply by using multiple English bibles.
Excellent point. I love this channel but he is ignoring what should be a top resource, the commentaries on the Scriptures from the earliest Christians. Those who were only a generation or two removed from the Biblical authors.
Thanks Mark. This was helpful. As someone who is trying to learn Greek on my own, I think I'm starting to understand the warnings that you're highlighting in this video more and more. It's fun learning, but at the same time very challenging and oh so humbling. I think it's greatly increased my appreciation and respect for those who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of biblical languages.
Glad it was helpful! Humility is good for all, both students and teachers.
You can get a kjv and a nasb with the strongs added in verse by verse. Very helpful for someone that's beginning with a KJV.
I’m thinking Mark is a bit of a genius in ways many people don’t realize. Excellent video production combined with really valuable information and still able to get plugs in without, “turning people off”. That’s hard to do these days as many people will move on and/or discount things once they see a product plugged. Yes, I know there isn’t any ill intent. Keep em’ comin’.
Oh man! I’ve done this and continue to fall into this trap! Thank you for the warning. I’ll be adding exegetical fallacies to my reading list. Once again I find myself challenged and helped by your videos. Thank you brother.
My pleasure!
Excellent advice! I use the NASB, ESV, NET, CSB and NLT for more in depth study. Of course having a Logos Reformed Portfolio library helps too. Forgot to also list the LSB version.
You've got a great and varied Bible library davids2117. The CSB Study Bible is my "daily driver", though I am also partial to the ESV Study Bible.
Thanks for watching!
Crossway has come out with their own ESV Exhaustive Concordance. I have a physical copy, although I haven't read the introduction yet. It doesn't use Strong's numbering system at all, but rather an English word, language identifier, and then (optionally) a variant identifier within that. So in Hebrews where it quotes Psalms saying, "I swore in my anger they would never enter my rest," rest is listed as REST[G3] (rest, Greek, third entry). In the Psalms, the same word is listed as "REST[H4]" (rest, Hebrew, fourth entry). In any event, given what's available now, I'm somewhat surprised they bothered to create this.
EDIT: How has someone like you not reached 10K subscribers?
Anti-redhead discrimination. ;)
@@markwardonwords As a fellow redhead, I know that too well. XD
@@markwardonwordsI’ve got the same issue on my channel. I’ll send all my subscribers your way! (I’m my only subscriber)
12:54 "Ride the sacred cow of original language usage through the slaughterhouse of linguistic fallacies."
This is why I come to this channel. I'm dead. Someboy put this on a t-shirt.
This was hard to swallow I’m guilty of everything you mentioned 😭
Join the club of people who have stuff to learn! God help us all! Humility isn’t such a bad thing.
Thanks for this video. I use the Logos Basic word study tool jf I need look up a word. A concordance is only useful if it's keyed to the translation you're using I believe and since I don't make a regular use of the KJV, a Strong's concordance wouldn't be of great value to me. With the Logos Basic along with a few other niceties, you get (as you'd know) a very good dictionary (that you reference here), a very good study Bible notes and a very good English translation of the Bible. One of the great about the Faithlife Study Bible notes is that they work with most of the major English translations as far as know. Every now and again, I will make use of the NET notes.
By the way, the background is breathtaking. Wow. God's creation is so beautiful, I can't understand why people want to destroy it.
Just wait till my most recent video comes out in a few weeks! Stupendous backdrops from West Virginia!
@@markwardonwords No wonder Psalm 19 was written, even though it focuses more on than heavens than on the earth. The same can be said of the earth.
Mark--thanks for this video. YES! A lot of Bible students mis-use Strongs. I personally use the New International Dictionary of Old/New Testament Theology & Exegesis, Even though i do not know Hebrew or Greek, there is enough thorough information for HEB/GRK words that you come away with a good understanding of the word and how it is used intra and extra Bible. I do wish you would have mentioned Wm. Mounce's Expository Dictionary of OT and NT words. Such a wonderful tool! It uses the G&K Numbering system, which tie into the NIDOTTE and NIDNTTE. These along with some good study Bibles (CSB/ESV/HEB-GRK Word Study/TCRB/NET) can give you a great library which will help you to more fully understand Scripture and the words found within its pages. Thanks for all you do! I appreciate the fact that you were transparent about working for LOGOS SOFTWARE.
Excellent comments
The GK numbers are indeed a superior method compared to Strongs numbers and both NiDOTTE and the NIDNTTE (Silva) are top notch resources. If only NIDOTTE was revised so as to reflect the most up to date aspects of lexicography
@@dustinburlet7249 Thanks for your compliment. I DO wish that the NIDNTTE would have been formatted like the OT set for continuity sake. And that the OT set be hardbound like the NT set. However, other than these minor issues, its a great set of word study tools and serves me well in my exegesis of the Scriptures. We are so fortunate today to have such a great number of Bible study tools and books available to us.
@@brucebjorkman9336 amen - we have such an embarrassment of riches available to us - enjoy enjoy enjoy!
I reviewed Mounce's Expository Dictionary. I like Mounce, but I regrettably came to feel that there were too many instances of theological lexicography going on. That was a long time ago, so I don't have specifics in mind at the moment. I trust Silva (NIDNTTE) more.
@@markwardonwords well said - agreed!
As a teen, I had the Key Hebrew-Greek Study Bible, which provides the Strong’s number for many of the more important words, as well as the dictionaries appended. It was a KJV and therefore I used it primarily to understand archaic English usage and words!
Something that's amazing about the Bible is that the more important a concept is, the more space it gets. It's said i many ways, in many of the books in the Bible, how to get saved, for example. And then a well made translation is good enough that a honest heart will be able to understand without knowing the language of the original manuscript.
FINALLY, this video has been a long time coming. Thank you!
You're very welcome!
Great video! When I was an undergrad at UT Martin, I was quite careless with Hebrew and Greek during small group Bible studies, especially with free app Bibles that used the Strongs numbers. When I went to seminary, I learned how to better use the languages. I'm really glad you mentioned Carson's "Exegetical Fallacies". It's an indispensable book that every pastor needs to read before preaching another sermon.
✔
I remember when I first learned about the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. People were crazy about using it to study the scriptures. We didn't have computers or internet back in the early 1980's. Books were the only resources for sermon writing and bible study. Finally in 1985 I was able to afford a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. A Christian bookstore was having a massive sale and my heart jumped when I saw the lowered price on the book. I purchased it and was on cloud 9 for weeks.
l use strongs for its numerical referencing system.That l have in my electronic tools. l use them as a quick way to look things up.
I totally agree with you about derived meaning from context.Hence, l have multiple study bible's from different versions which make things interesting.
Thank you for helping me accept and embrace that I am a Bible nerd. (Probably also a nerd in general...)
Lord, help me use this as a gift from you where it can be a blessing and put it away where it would be distracting or divisive.
A good prayer!
Thank you for this video and love your "set," the sounds of outside help me keep me on track listening. Saw you on Shawn's TH-cam and happy I did! Very helpful and love your style of teaching. Thanks again.
Thanks for tuning in!
Me, too! Saw the interview with Sean and then sought out your channel. Excellent content.
All those references sound like alternate guitar tunings.
Thank you Dr Ward. As always, your video is informative, compelling, measured, rational, beautifully crafted and edifying to the body of Christ.
"and you may actually do better than someone who likes to ride the sacred cow of original language usage through the slaughterhouse of linguistic fallacies" - this was pure gold!
Thank you kindly!
Yeah, I didn't want to put too fine a point on it… And I am not the sole arbiter of what counts for good Bible translation, but I sure do hear those fallacies a lot. Sigh!
7:53 Verse likely quoted: Psalm 44 verse 14
NLT (formal):
You have made us the butt of their jokes; they shake their heads at us in scorn.
NASB (functional):
You make us a proverb among the nations, A laughingstock among the peoples.
KJB:
Thou makest us a byword among the heathen, a shaking of the head among the people.
(Ironic given normally NLT is highly interpretive, and NASB highly literal.)
Right! Got this from Dave Brunn.
Thank you so much for this video... I use some of the resources you just mentioned...
Glad it was helpful!
I use strongs mostly to do topical studies. For instance a study of "throne". I found that there are 3 instances of your throne is made of. 2 instances where it says God's throne is made of the law and 1 instance of mercy. The easiest seat to make is 3 boards nailed together. 2 legs of law and a seat of mercy.
Knowing the purpose and limitations of a biblical reference is key to using it wisely and not pressing it beyond what it is intended to teach the user.
Right!
One of my pet peeves is when someone has a dream-look at the clock-its 1238 and go and see what it says in Strong's-which then is used to legitimise their dream.
Wow!
Let's try it: that gets me to the Greek word diadem, or crown. I'll take it! ;)
Another potential pitfall would be reading an uncommon gloss into a passage or falling for a false friend (for example, reading "inspiration" from Job 32:8 into another passage). For finding glosses I prefer to use resources that actually show the number of times a gloss is used so I don't fall into this.
Good!
Mark, thanks for the excellent video, just what I was looking for.
My pleasure!
Thank you 🙏
You’re welcome 😊
I love Louw and NIda.
Zero question that semantic domains is the only effective way to do concept (word) studies
:-)
There is now a 21st century Strongs Concordance. Which has been out a for a few years now. The authors recognised the mistake of the root word theory, which you correctly pointed out. Now the Strongs uses a context meaning. When you read the introduction, it reads, they are researching the 21st century one.
So good.
Thank you!
I do not hear anyone speak of the Thompson Chain-Reference Bible. Yet I have found it very useful.
:--}>
I’ve just never gotten into it.
'putting gold on the surface of the ground as it were' ❤
Yup!
We've got to talk about the fact that you are wearing a jacket that looks quite warm in early August. Is it really that much cooler in Washington than Georgia?😂
Yes! That was shot in mid-June, though.
On his side of the state, maybe, I think he's on the coast, over here east of the Cascades, it's been quite hot.
Great video Mark, very informative.
Glad it was helpful!
Thank you Brother Mark 🌹🌹⭐🌹🌹
You are so welcome!
Since this video is on concordances and how to use them; this Greek to English pronoun issue might be interesting to you. This is from a mid 1800s book concerning the pronoun "we" in 1Cor 15:51 and 1Thess 4:15&17. You may agree or not, it is entirely up to you. But it is an interesting small study on this usage. A friend of mine found this and sent this to me.
Concerning the Pronoun "WE" in 1 Cor. 15:51 & 1 The. 4:15 by Alpheus Crosby in his 1850 book "The Second Advent" (pp. 55-56)
In relation to people claiming Paul was using this pronoun loosely to refer to whoever may still be around at some distant future return of Christ, Mr. Crosby penned the following points:
1. [To hold to such] is at variance with the natural interpretation of the passages. If a pastor, in addressing his people, either from the pulpit or by letter, should use such expressions as "We shall not all die," "We who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord," etc., would he not be understood as believing in the speedy coming of Christ? And had the Corinthians or Thessalonians any reason for understanding the apostle differently?
2. It greatly diminishes the force and significance of these passages.
*3. It isn't consistent with the emphasis belonging to "we" in those clauses in which it has been printed [in the Greek] in small capitals. In these clauses, the pronoun is expressed in the original so that, according to a familiar law of the Greek language, it must be emphatic and used in marked contradistinction. The form of expression in 1 The. 4:15 & 17 is peculiarly strong: "We who are living, who are surviving." And...
*4. The loose view makes the apostle's consolation to the Thessalonians little more than mere mockery, because they were sorrowing for their departed friends. He attempted therefore to comfort them by saying, "We who are living, who are surviving till the coming of the Lord, shall not precede or have any advantage in point of time over those who are asleep." What peculiar mode of consolation, to say the least, if the apostle and those whom he was addressing supposed that they might all lie in their graves beside their friends thousands of years before the coming of the Christ! But if they were looking for the speedy appearance, triumph, and reign of their Savior..., while some were fearing that their friends who had died too soon would not be present to take part in the glories and joys of these events, then how natural, appropriate, and forcible does every word of the apostle become!
I wish BDAG wasn't $165 in Logos... I learned Strong's in seminary. BDAG looks nice.
I agree. =| But it's worth it, it really is. For a lifetime of use-of a book that took a lifetime to make.
Even at $165, you get it cheaper than CBD wants for the print version. I first became familiar with with the BDAG after watching one of Mark's videos and I agree with him. BDAG is worth every penny plus more. I hope you bought it, or will buy it. I assure you, you will be glad you did.
Thank you, Mark.
You are very welcome!
I followed a TH-cam “pastor” who uses Strongs to support his heretical doctrine. He has “discovered” the fallen angels “Elohim” created the earth. He shows Genesis 1 as the fallen angels, Genesis 2 is the Lord God “forming man”…. We are all fallen angels who have been placed here on earth to learn to “turn it upside down” to see the truth…He also uses The Strongs to discern numbers he receives to see what “message” the Lord is telling him. Sadly he has about 17,000 followers. I am no longer one. Prime example how a man can misuse, abuse and end up in major error using Strongs.
Six of those 47 words ("shalt", "thee", "thou", "thy", "unto", and "ye") are words modern English no longer uses.
Help me which is right exhaustion concordance kjv excalty very honest.😮
This is gold
Many thanks!
Thanks again,Mark
Very welcome!
Galatians 5:1 from Takanot
On my list, but my advice is always, if you don't know Greek, use three good commentators (preferably from different eras and positions) who do.
✔
Hey bro Mark, can you make a video on using the BDB.
That's a great suggestion! Will keep this in mind.
My damn self bought a strong or the strongest or whatever Concordia and don't have a King James Bible 😮 that's crazy been having this book since 2020 never got a King James Bible yet but will be trying to find me on line for free the Mormons have one but I don't think I should get a Mormons Bible
Guys, this is a little off topic, but I value all ya'lls input. The native Americans were isolated for the most part from the other continents for a very long time after the writing of the New Testament..... if we assume that the KJV only position that the scripture is preserved perfect for each generation is true, then it must not require everyone to be able to necessarily access it.....
So once we conclude that not everyone must have access to it, we know that the number would simply be some people.....or perhaps one....or not accessed at all, as long as it was available for a person to access it. Say because some guy in an Egyptian desert had it sitting on his shelf, right beside his camel.
So if im wrong, please tell me how the TR was available to native Americans generation in the 2nd century? Or 3rd, or 4th, or 5th, or 6th, or 7th, or 9th........
Just me saying writing some some areas but have you ever been in do you know how Kingdom and how they live in the kingdom and how one word in Greek can mean several words in English light blue words that we say are totally different even even even even even even in the times that we live in in I totally so I would like to know what a certain word mean in Greek in those times like a certain word mean different and this time even though the dictionary say hey it mean this but we have our own way of saying things
Looks like you are walking in front of a giant and very high tech green screen! :)
Yup. ;) Wish I had one of those!!
What is the best version of Logos for a layperson Sunday School teacher with limited resources?
I'd aim for Bronze!
I would emphasize, too, that even if you learn how to properly use and work with the etymologies of a word, Strong's will still lead you wrong simply because, quite often, the etymologies in Strong's are just wrong.
Also: Rachel laughed out loud at"ride the sacred cow of original language usage through the slaughterhouse of linguistic fallacies". Well done!
Ha! I take that as a great honor!
And I'm sure you're right to question Strong's etymologies. Got any leading candidates?
Excellent video, thanks.
Could you recommend a good biblical hebrew grammar book.
I would watch Aleph with Beth instead if you’re just starting. Or are you not just starting?
@@markwardonwords Thanks I'II give that. a try, Shalom.
Excellent video, Mark. But tell me, how do you define, as you say, "evangelical perspectives"?
Based on what he has said in various articles and videos, I would assume that "evangelical perspectives" are those of Protestants who agree with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. (Whether he would directly cite that document or not isn't necessarily the point. It's a fair representation of what is expected within evangelical circles.)
Agreed.
I used to use Strongs in the late 80s..Bible College Days. Thank goodness not any more..it was put in the thrash where it belongs.
I don’t see much use for it today, it’s true! But in a pinch, I have used it!
@@markwardonwords Yes exactly. Strongs is useless as it deals with the ROOT of each word, ie BUTTERFLY ..hence butterflies are creatures that come from Butter...that can fly for no logical reason..lol😂!
Mark, I don't see the link to the free copy of your book, "The Complete Beginner's Guide to Biblical Greek'. Where is it?
Sorry! Fixed! www.logos.com/learn/guide/biblical-greek-for-beginners
I would like to repost this on my channels to show people how to use Strong's Concordance and not how to. I would give all credit to you, I just believe it would help some of those who follow a certain TH-cam pastor who claims to be a prophet and the Angel of the Church of Philadelphia. He literally uses Strong's to "prove" hidden meanings in the Bible and to control members of his cult. All of his members utilize Strong's in the same manner that he does.
Feel free to link people over or to make a video reflecting on and excerpting from mine! I tend not to want to confuse TH-cam by allowing identical videos on separate channels.
@@markwardonwords Thank you. I will make a video using parts of yours as a good explanation what Strong's is and what it isn't to be used for.
I am, to be fair, more likely to use Cruden instead of Strong.
✔
So, use the "free" version of Logos
Yup, it's good!
I like to use the Webster's 1828.
It's good!
My grandfather passed down his Strong's, Vine's and Thayer's. After hearing your caution regarding Strong's, what is your studied opinion about these other two resources?
I'd point you to semanticdictionary.org in place of those two. I think Vine's is too likely to read theology into words, and Thayer's (though generally okay) is simply out of date.
@@markwardonwords Awesome, thank you!
Feed me, Seymour!
😅
Strong's concordance really isn't that great, take the word Cain, how on earth would someone who doesn't know Hebrew know to look up the word Qayan for the meaning? If anyone can recommend a concordance or dictionary that is English to Hebrew instead of a Strong's concordance that's Hebrew to English then that would be great.
Regarding 10:32 and forward. Your dismissal of the viability of a biblical hermeneutic of incorporating concordant passages militates against the unity of Scripture, where every individual part derives its meaning from the whole, and the whole derives its meaning from Christ. Such cross-contextual synthesis is foundational for the comprehension of Sacred Scripture, as is evidenced by the whole tradition embodied by the Church Fathers. There are indeed both literal meanings to the biblical text (each word in its own proper context) as well as deeper or "hidden" or spiritual senses to the text to be mined. And the tracking of Strong's numbers throughout the corpus is extremely valuable to this latter endeavor. Let us recall that the Word of God is written by God Himself through human agency. Therefore its riches will always exceed the capacity of the human intellect, while still abundantly nourishing the soul with its evident, literal sense.
In our day, Natural Language Processing has stumbled upon this truth: you will come to know a word by the company it keeps. Limiting the horizons of understanding to one particular, biblical context inevitably fragments -- and does not recognize the unity of -- the Word of God. In other words, brother, your self-imposed restriction radically truncates what can be learned of God's Word and thus of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.
For example, you use the Greek eleutheroō (G1659) to make your case. And yet, John 8:32 means BOTH freedom from sin (within its local context) AND freedom from the multitude of OT religious prescriptions (cross-contextual). Whereas you may be tempted to maintain that the latter is eisegesis and hence erroneous, St. Paul teaches that "the power of sin is the law" (1 Cor 15:56). And so that both meanings can be said to be contained within the one verse (Jn 8:32).
It is true that the cross-contextual reading of Sacred Scripture can be abused (as can the spiritual sense in general); yet this sense of Scripture retains its validity, while also raising the ominous specter of the very real need for an authority extraneous to the individual. And perhaps this is the underlying reason why so many Protestants find themselves tenaciously clinging to the literal sense to the exclusion of all else.
So elegantly written. And I don't reject the kind of reading you're suggesting here; I don't reject the use of concordant passages. I simply wish to refine the methods by which we appeal to them. I see a lot to agree with in what you say. Judging by your username and your profile picture, the devil is likely to be in the details. How far is the spiritual sense allowed to go?
@@markwardonwords From "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" (Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1993).
"As a general rule we can define the spiritual sense, as understood by Christian faith, as the meaning expressed by the biblical texts when read under the influence of the Holy Spirit, in the context of the paschal mystery of Christ and of the new life which flows from it. This context truly exists. In it the New Testament recognizes the fulfillment of the Scriptures. It is therefore quite acceptable to reread the Scriptures in the light of this new context, which is that of life in the Spirit.
The above definition allows us to draw some useful conclusions of a more precise nature concerning the relationship between the spiritual and literal senses:
Contrary to a current view, there is not necessarily a distinction between the two senses. When a biblical text relates directly to the paschal mystery of Christ or to the new life which results from it, its literal sense is already a spiritual sense. Such is regularly the case in the New Testament. It follows that it is most often in dealing with the Old Testament that Christian exegesis speaks of the spiritual sense. But already in the Old Testament there are many instances where texts have a religious or spiritual sense as their literal sense. Christian faith recognizes in such cases an anticipatory relationship to the new life brought by Christ.
While there is a distinction between the two senses, the spiritual sense can never be stripped of its connection with the literal sense. The latter remains the indispensable foundation. Otherwise one could not speak of the "fulfillment" of Scripture. Indeed, in order that there be fulfillment, a relationship of continuity and of conformity is essential. But it is also necessary that there be transition to a higher level of reality.
The spiritual sense is not to be confused with subjective interpretations stemming from the imagination or intellectual speculation. The spiritual sense results from setting the text in relation to real facts which are not foreign to it: the paschal event, in all its inexhaustible richness, which constitutes the summit of the divine intervention in the history of Israel, to the benefit of all mankind.
Spiritual interpretation, whether in community or in private, will discover the authentic spiritual sense only to the extent that it is kept within these perspectives. One then holds together three levels of reality: the biblical text, the paschal mystery and the present circumstances of life in the Spirit."
The brass tacks of it is this. You rightly state: "You don't want to import meaning improperly from one context of the New Testament to another." Above, the Church phrases it this way: "The spiritual sense is not to be confused with subjective interpretations stemming from the imagination or intellectual speculation." I imagine that what qualifies as "improper" would be so either in method or conclusion. The Church's document focuses on the former, that is, subjective interpretations in contradistinction to "being read under the influence of the Holy Spirit." But the illicit method is most often revealed by its bad fruit.
The Faith is like a net, consisting of interwoven truths. If one strand of the net tears away then its coherence and integrity is broken. Such is the unwelcome conclusion of an errant spiritual sense. With regard to the unity of the Faith, it is essentially schism. Moreover, there is an important difference between what you and I would consider to be "improper" with regard to the biblical conclusions reached. And this is so because the nets we carry differ in some quite important respects. That is, the coherence of Faith of the well-formed Protestant mind differs significantly from the coherence of Faith in the well-formed Catholic mind. And so that which appears to cohere for you may not do so for me, and vice versa. And this is why I mentioned above the very real need for an authority extraneous to the individual.
Let the Holy Spirit lead you into all truth. Compare scripture with scripture. Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little.
Resources are the enemy of KJV onlyism, unless they produce it themselves. And at it's very core, KJV onlyism frequently contains an element within it, that makes it a sin, for them to be wrong. They equate what they believe to be absolutely true, and to question that truth, or even contemplate that they are wrong, is considered to be doubting God, and questioning him....which is then sin. Therefore, they cannot question themselves, or what they believe about the scripture, because that is questioning and doubting God. Therefore it is a sin, for them to question themselves, meaning it's a sin for them to be wrong. Which is why (some of them) they can only use their own resources.
I am sometimes surprised at how few Bible study resources KJV-Only pastors have. =(
@@markwardonwords Well, I recently endured a sermon detailing the fact that Strong's concordance is not inspired nor are the dictionaries whether Greek or English, but the KJV is... the exhortation was that a person all alone with just a KJV and comparing scripture, can have a better understanding of scripture than people with their uninspired dictionaries....
So, you are correct. Their resources are their own brain, their KJV 1769 that they always refer to as a "1611", and whatever the Holy Spirit is doing with them... but I have to say, if a person is unwilling to receive instruction from other people ...I'm not convinced they will receive it from the Holy Spirit either
@@hayfieldhermit9657 Wow. That last line is brilliant. Spurgeon said something very similar:
"In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others."
@@markwardonwords Those are refreshing and true words! But I don't think he was KJV only, so to the KJVO....it might just be another attack of the devil...
@@markwardonwords ...or as the scriptures say at Romans 1:12 "interchange of encouragement." NWT
It should be noted that this is not how you use the Strong's Concordance.
Not sure I follow, friend!
@@markwardonwords I know. For example, if I sought to understand a word using the Strong's, I would not look up that word only.
Unusual claims require unusual evidence. This only tells you how to go farther down the rabbit hole.
Not sure I'm following you, my friend.
Immersionists tend to derive their arguments from the etymology of the word "baptism" than the actual usage of the term as a rite.
The Didache would strongly suggest that immersion (preferably in running water) was the standard rite of the early church, with pouring being a substitute when the standard practice was impractical.
And the Orthodox still dunk their babies like a doughnut in coffee, so this practice isn't something that just materialized in the late 16th century with the Baptists.
@MAMoreno the didache never says to "submerge." It says to baptize in "living water" which means flowing water as opposed to stagnant. The baptism would be done by getting into the water and having the water poured on three times. That's why the didache says at the end of that section to use any water available and pour on the head.
@@joncollins7129 The Jews were already baptizing people, and they completely submerged themselves..... They didn't need rivers, or a mikveh to dump water on their head....
@joncollins7129 The pouring over ending to the baptism instructions in the Didache is a concession to those who don't have/can't spare enough water for full immersion. The entire passage is a "this is the best method, if you can't here is an acceptable backup" with progressive "backup" options as you go down the list. Not that the Didache is an infallible guide, but if we're referencing it, we should do so as accurately as possible.
@mikeymcgee1509 again no, full immersion is never in view (nor ever shown in ancient paintings). They would stand in the water (there's your immersion) and water would be poured on the head. If infants were to be baptized, they would be held by the parents.
This channel seems like a stumbling block. Like....the entire mission is a stumbling block.
While I appreciated your shout out Mark, the truth is I am not sure if I actually agree (100%) with your video
I have to be honest, I never recommend people untrained in the languages to go to ANY of the 'standard' original language resources (grammars/lexicons/etc.)
For years I used to send my students to BDAG and Lpue and Nida and the like
I would spend (roughly) three weeks teaching them the tools
Going through the fallacies etc (more on this later)
After about ten years of teaching and being in Christian higher education and such my conclusion is this:
Except NIDOTTE and NIDNTTE or the abridgged version by Verbrugge everything else is almost a waste of time for non lnanguage students
I think Louw and Nida, BDAG etc is simply too much
(even for most of my seminary students, even though I still require them to use, after all, it's seminary, etc)
I have even more issues with DCH/HALOT than I do with BDAG and Louw and Nida
Even BDB is not really that highly recommended anymore
*I prefer students use TWOT
In brief, for most people, I wish they would use the NLT Study Bible with built in word study tools and in line citation of the original and then just use Verbeugges abridged work of silvas second edition of the the dictionary accompanied with NIDOTTE
Everything else is making them drink water from a fire house
Did it for years
Don't really anymore
Alongside the above, not to be belligerent, but I find for most people Moises Silvas Biblical Words and their Meaning is a much better use of their time than Carson's Exegetical Fallacies (I prefer students use Baxter's book actually which is for pastors)
My former office buddy and I used to debate the pros and cons for years
He ALWAYS assigned Carson and I preferred students to read Silva
All that being said, however, I do think that there is value in what you are saying
In truth, why don't you make more mention of the following volumes - they seem to be more in line with what your're proposing
The Biblical Hebrew Companion for Bible Software Users: Grammatical Terms Explained for Exegesis
by Michael Williams
The Biblical Greek Companion for Bible Software Users: Grammatical Terms Explained for Exegesis Paperback - Sept. 27 2016
I am also a HUGE fan of the following books as well
Hebrew for the Rest of Us, Second Edition: Using Hebrew Tools to Study the Old Testament by Lee M. Fields
Greek for the Rest of Us, Third Edition: Learn Greek to Study the New Testament with Interlinears and Bible Software by William D. Mounce
In sum, I think that your expectations for people just aren't in alignment with my experience teaching students
perhaps your experience is different - but I would be hard pressed to say that that is true
Any thoughts or comments about all this?
There is some real gold here. Truth is, I don't have a ton of direct experience with students. =| I mostly "teach" pastors through articles at Logos. I will say that I see a number of my distance students at Reformed Baptist Seminary catching on to some of the themes in this video. But sometimes, too, I'm disappointed with how far off they are! You and I should talk more about this, as I said to you privately. My video on using Hebrew and Greek in sermons reflects some of my evolving thinking on these matters.
@@markwardonwords You honor me my friend - thank you for entertaining these thoughts and comments so charitably