...acclamatory or doxologica...

 

   Sounds like "vain repetitions" to me 

 

 

 

"...should share the same desire to glorify the Great Mystery as that held by the ancient Church."

 

And what exactly would the writer of this be referring to here pray tell? 

1 Corinthians 1:17–31

That passage does not say that people who are completely ignorant of the languages in which it was written, will understand it better not only than those who are well trained and skilled in those languages, but also better than the original audience. It does not say anything like that. You are abusing Scripture gratuitously.

I am not abusing Scripture Fort I quoted this passage to highlight the way we are taught to view the wisdom of Men. Please see my post to Flappie.

If we put our trust and faith in the wisdom of this world it will do us no good.

1 Corinthians 3:18–19
18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

Could you explain how I am being "evil" please?

You're deliberately misrepresenting him, and have done throughout this thread.

This sort of question has been denied several times:

Where do we find in scripture the teaching that unless a person is a professional theologian they can not really understand the word of god?

So why keep asking things like that?

The point has consistently been that experts in Greek/Hebrew will be far more capable of understanding the original text than people who don't even have a basic understanding of those languages. This does not mean that said translators are better able to understand the word of God than non-experts, or that non-experts can't understand the word of God, assuming of course that they have access to a decent translation!.

Thank you Flappie, I should be more careful with my use of words

If I drop "theologian" and stick with "professional" would you accept my statement as true?

The argument that informs much of what is said here is that we must be or listen to "professionals".

The problem is not with consulting Greek/Hebrew Lexicons; but with presuming that "professionals" who do not know the Truth are better qualified to guide us than those that have been converted.

The same can be said of consulting "professional" scientists' and "professional Theologians", and allowing them to dictate how we should understand the word of God. (I understand this is slightly off topic but I am not going to start a new one).

The problem is exalting the wisdom of Men over the Wisdom of God.

God is able to make a Simple man wise; and a wise Man simple.

Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

1 Corinthians 3:18–19
18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

Ahh yes the "Laity" where do we find that in scripture?

Wherever Scripture refers to the unlearned, untutored, and unskilled.

Where do we find in scripture the teaching that unless a person is a professional theologian they can not really understand the word of god? />/>/>/>/>

No one here is saying any such thing. And this thread has been focused on lexicography, not theology. More relevant to ask the question 'Where do we find in Scripture the teaching that people who are completely ignorant of the languages in which it was written, will understand it better not only than those who are well trained and skilled in those languages, but also better than the original audience?'.

1 Corinthians 1:17–31
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Fort

Thank you for all the info; only just had time to get back to this thread.

Just one observation that I think highlights the "back story" of many of the arguments current on this forum

This how one layman misleads another.

Ahh yes the "Laity" where do we find that in scripture?

Where do we find in scripture the teaching that unless a person is a professional theologian they can not really understand the word of god? />/>/>

Please stop being evil. His comment referred to translators, not people trying to understand the word of God.

Could you explain how I am being "evil" please?

Fort

Thank you for all the info; only just had time to get back to this thread.

Just one observation that I think highlights the "back story" of many of the arguments current on this forum

This how one layman misleads another.

Ahh yes the "Laity" where do we find that in scripture?

Where do we find in scripture the teaching that unless a person is a professional theologian they can not really understand the word of god?

I find it incongruous that, despite the heavy emphasis Christadelphians have always put on Bible Study, people often baulk at paying money for decent Bible Study tools, instead preferring the likes of Online Bible and E-Sword />/>

Hi BDW et All

I guess not everyone has the funds for Logos its not cheap if you are starting from scratch

I had to purchase Logos 5 (only the basic package) a few months ago when my old PC died and I bought a Mac; I had a very primitive version of Logos before and only really used it for my Christadelphian Works Library. I have been considering what Lexicons etc.. to purchase. Lets face it Logos is not a cheap option; although I acknowledge in comparison to the ridiculous prices asked for such as a paper copy’s of Halot some purchases could be viewed as a bargain.

When purchasing anything I am not interested in having the latest; newest most fashionable version of anything unless it is actually something which works better etc... Without taking this analogy to far thats the way I am looking at what Lexicons etc..to buy. Some suggest on the Logos Forums that there is not much point in a non Hebrew Scholar purchasing Halot; it does appear to me that it would not be easy to use. But mainly despite all the hype no-one has yet given me any Biblical examples that show any significant changes in the vocabulary/translation of the Hebrew. One example given on the forum comparing Halot with Chalotwas this:

HALOT
יַבָּשָׁה: יבשׁ, Bauer-L. Heb. 479n (cf. חָרָבָה); MHeb., JArm. יַבַּשְׁתָּא, Syr. yabšǎ earth, Mnd. (Drower-M. Dictionary 184a) dry land: —1. dry land Ex 49 1416.22.29 1519 Jos 422 Neh 911 Is 443; —2. dry land, mainland (:: יָם; → יַבֶּשֶׁת, Palm. יבש Jean-H. Dictionnaire
103 and OSArb. ZAW 75:309 ybs) Gn 19f Jon 19.13 211 Ps 666, ? rd. Job 4124 with Theodotion, Pesh., Peters 485; Tur-S. 575). †

CHALOT
יַבָּשָׁה: — 1. dry ground Ex 4:9 (near water); — 2. dry land (opp. ‘sea’, the 2 parts of earth’s surface) Gn 1:9f.

So I looked it up in Gesenius

GESENIUS

..that which is dry,...on the dry, dry footed, Ex. 14:16; 22:29; Josh. 4:22. Hence used for dry land, as opposed to sea, Gen 1:9; Ex 4:9; ...etc.

STRONGS (as per Logos base package)
יַבָּשָׁה
From 3001; TWOT 837b; GK 3317; 14 occurrences; AV translates as “dry” 10 times, “dry land” twice, “dry ground” once, and “land” once. 1 dry land, dry ground.

So in essence no difference

Another post on the Forum in answer to someone purchasing Halot was as follows:

....
The way I 'operate' is I keep two panels for lexicons, one for hebrew/aramaic and one for greek. In each I keep typically five open at all times.
For both panels, I lead off with one of the Strongs Hebrew and Greek lexicons and prioritize it at the top of both hebrew and greek. The reason is most often all I want to know is if there's any translational variation in the word (most often not). So a quick 'hit' on the Strongs does the trick. However since all the lexicons are connected to this first one, while I'm reviewing, Logos is lining up the respective deeper lexicons if needed.
On the hebrew side I typically move down to Gesenius first, only because it's fairly decent and arranges the information for quick scanning better than the others. But if there's a real issue, then the next is definitely HALOT followed by TLOT. TWOT is time-consuming to read but still useful.
On the greek side, I order Liddel Scott first followed by Moulton/Milligan. I personally have BDAG but rarely use it because I don't agree very often with its verse assignments. It's background information though is the best. Finally there's TLNT and TDNT for more discussion depth.
Overall, if I were considering my first grouping of in-depth lexicons the BDAG/HALOT would far precede the others.

I thought this seemed a reasonable balanced post even though her advice was still to purchase Halot />

But she did make the point that “...all I want to know is if there's any translational variation in the word (most often not)”
For practical purposes this is all I want to know and according to her experience there is most often no translational variation in the words.

Just one small point for the record although I am a lover of the King James I have long made it a practice to do my daily readings in at least two versions; NIV is one of my favourites but I have about 20 versions on our IPad plus many others on my book shelf which I refer to when considering a passage and etc.. I am in that way exposed to many of the different translations based on the different text traditions, usually the meaning is not changed but obviously understanding can be enhanced by reading in a more up to date English translation.

I am aware that does not touch on a number of other posts which I owe replies to but I have run out of time this morning, and I have made a promise to myself that I am no longer going to be tempted into quick replies; they only lead to misunderstandings. Not that when I explain myself properly it means everyone agrees with me !!

If these “professionals” were saints I might be concerned but as they are not I could not care less. If they could prove to me that they can handle the word of God faithfully I would be interested but they clearly do not have a clue.

This makes no sense. They don't need to understand the gospel is order to understand Greek and Hebrew and understand it much better than you. I gave you pages of evidence and you selected three examples and managed to get all of them wrong. You wouldn't even be reading the Bible if it weren't for the work of professionals like this. They did such a good job that you can read the Bible in English and understand the true meaning. Yet you claim these professionals are untrustworthy when it comes to knowing the original languages.

I Addresed the only three Biblical Examples given in the article I referred to; how exactly did I get them wrong?

I note that although we have been discussing Halot/BDB/Gesenius all the information provided is concerning the New Testament ie. Koine Greek?

Actually this entire thread began as a discussion of the Greek and you arbitrarily decided to drag in Hebrew. That's how Hebrew entered the scene. But as Fort says, you've actually received information concerning both Hebrew and Greek.

Sorry no I did not “arbitrarily decided to drag in Hebrew” this is the post that prompted my first post regarding Hebrew.

Undoubtedly BDB is old, written in 1906, but is it possible that C Briggs’ theology and his higher criticism have some effect on his understanding of words and meanings? Are some of the newer lexicons free of some of this bias?

Higher Criticism and lexicography have nothing to do with each other. Professional lexicography proceeds by identifying the meaning of words based on texts which use those words. Regardless, BDB is considered an outdated lexicon; the current standard professional Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon is HALOT.

Fort has not provided any examples of how the Qumran texts have changed the vocabulary of the Old Testament. Despite his claim

.... I can bury you in proof

So were is the proof? What Vocabulary has changed?

Again if you read my posts you will note that I am not against using new lexicons or considering new material but I believe it is a complete over reaction to say that a whole work is obsolete when in fact in essence the core vocabulary has not changed.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. Now all you need to do is convince all the professionals in the relevant fields. Let me know how that works out for you.

If these “professionals” were saints I might be concerned but as they are not I could not care less. If they could prove to me that they can handle the word of God faithfully I would be interested but they clearly do not have a clue.

So to the third example

First Peter 2:2 refers to “sincere milk of the word” (King James) or “pure spiritual milk” (RSV). Neither helps very much; none of us has ever seen or drunk sincere or pure spiritual milk. The papyri use the word in connection with unadulterated grain or oil, unmixed with impurities, or pure. When we read, “As newborn babes desire the pure or unadulterated milk of the word,” we can understand that.

This one completely blows me away is this guy serious
Even a Babe in Christ should be able to work this out from the context alone. But if one cared to look it up in the despised Thayers he says:
....of things unadulterated, pure.
To suggest that this is an example of one of the “...words not really comprehended before have(ing) emerged into the clear sunlight of understanding;” or “have (ing) acquired new life and significance.” is totally ridiculous.
The words of Rom 16:18 come to mind concerning "good words and fair speeches"

OK, now I'm just shaking my head in utter disbelief.

Why?

So to the third example

First Peter 2:2 refers to “sincere milk of the word” (King James) or “pure spiritual milk” (RSV). Neither helps very much; none of us has ever seen or drunk sincere or pure spiritual milk. The papyri use the word in connection with unadulterated grain or oil, unmixed with impurities, or pure. When we read, “As newborn babes desire the pure or unadulterated milk of the word,” we can understand that.

This one completely blows me away is this guy serious

Even a Babe in Christ should be able to work this out from the context alone. But if one cared to look it up in the despised Thayers he says:
....of things unadulterated, pure.

To suggest that this is an example of one of the “...words not really comprehended before have(ing) emerged into the clear sunlight of understanding;” or “have (ing) acquired new life and significance.” is totally ridiculous.

The words of Rom 16:18 come to mind concerning "good words and fair speeches"

Second Example

“Hebrews 11:1 in the King James Version says that “faith is the substance of things hoped for” (itals. added) and in the Revised Standard Version the “assurance.” Neither is very helpful in explaining what faith is or does. The papyri use the word as a technical legal term referring to a collection of papers bearing on the possession of a piece of property. The word may then be translated “title deed”; thus, “Faith is the title deed of things hoped for.” In other words, faith actually gives us a sort of legal claim on the great glories in the future.”

On the same passage from “Let me show you the precise nature of discovery”.

“I will give you a few illustrations in detail. Here is something that gives us light upon the first verse in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, which tells us what faith is. ‘Now faith,’ says the Revised Version, ‘is the assurance of things hoped for.’ The word translated ‘assurance’ occurs
in a long legal document, the ‘Petition of Dionysia.’ She was a widow who had had some trouble with her property, which had been claimed by litigious persons. She writes out a copy of the judgement delivered in a previous litigation, and a full statement of her claim is sent with this to the prefect of Egypt. In the course of that document there occurs this Greek word hypostasis. Drs. Grenfell and Hunt tell us it was a technical legal word, and meant a collection of papers bearing upon the possession of a piece of property. When anybody bought a piece of land there were always some papers connected with it. There would be old census papers in which the owner and his land were registered, bills of sale, correspondence about it—in fact, any sort of thing that might be put in as evidence if any question should arise as to the title of the land. All this was carefully collected in a docket and then put into the public archives office. Each large town had a special keeper of the archives to look after the papers and produce them when demanded in order to help the security of property. In other words, this word may be translated ‘the title-deeds.’ Can we not see what a depth of meaning that puts into the word? ‘Faith is the title-deeds of things hoped for.”

This is precisely the sort of logic I think we need to treat with good dose of circumspection. If you pick up an English Dictionary today it will sometimes give you the way a word is used “legally” but this is not the way the word would be used in normal speech. The suggestion that the word ‘hypostasis’ could be translated “Title Deed” in Hebrews 11:1 is maybe not out of keeping with the context but I think “confidence; firm trust;..” (Thayers) convey the meaning clearly to anyone acquainted with the plan of salvation. And to translate ‘hypostasis’ "Title deed" in any of the other places it occurs in the New Testament would be ridiculous.

2 Corinthians 9:4 Lest haply if they of Macedonia come with me, and find you unprepared, we (that we say not, ye) should be ashamed in this same confident boasting.
“should be ashamed in this title deed boasting” ?

2 Corinthians 11:17 That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.
“but as it were foolishly, in this title deed of boasting” ?

Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
“the express image of his title deed” ?

Hebrews 3:14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end.
“if we hold the beginning of our title deed” ?

The claim that this is an example of one of the
“...words not really comprehended before have(ing) emerged into the clear sunlight of understanding; “ or “have(ing) acquired new life and significance. “ is completely overblown.

Hi All sorry yet again not to answer you all individually I will have to leave a reply to your accusations and personal criticisms of me until another day.

I have read all the info Fort provided; some I was aware of but by no means all.

I note that although we have been discussing Halot/BDB/Gesenius all the information provided is concerning the New Testament ie. Koine Greek?

Just for the record if you read back over my posts you will note that I have never advocated the use of Strongs; I came to understand it’s limitations many years ago.

Again if you read my posts you will note that I am not against using new lexicons or considering new material but I believe it is a complete over reaction to say that a whole work is obsolete when in fact in essence the core vocabulary has not changed. I quote from Thayers in these posts to illustrate this point.

Before you all start shouting at me for that statement lets take a look at some “examples” provided in one of the documents Fort uploaded “Archaeology And The Text Of The New Testament” I will do this in a series of posts otherwise each post will be rather long.

Archaeology And The Text Of The New Testament

"5. The papyri also make a tremendous contribution toward understanding the meanings of New Testament words. Any student of English realizes that word meanings are in a constant flux. To obtain a clear knowledge of vocabulary at any one period it is necessary to discover how words are used in a variety of contemporary literature. To learn what the New Testament is really trying to say, it will not be adequate to study the sources in classical Greek. One must ask, how did the man on the street in the first century use those words? Adolf Deissmann, James H. Moulton, George Milligan, A. T. Robertson, and many others of the past and present generation have done so much work on Koine grammar and vocabulary that it would take volumes to summarize their efforts. Suffice it to say that as a result of their labors some words not really comprehended before have emerged into the clear sunlight of understanding; others have acquired new life and significance.
A few examples will make the point...."

Now presumably the Author would most likely choose what he sees as his best examples; here is his first one

One of the disciples is referred to as “James the Less,” and one wonders if this means his nickname was “shorty.” The papyri demonstrate that the word used for “less” in this case (mikros) invariably refers to age, not stature. So he should be called James the Younger.

A diligent Bible student should not need the Papyri to tell him this; they should know this from reading the word:

Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Matthew 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 18:14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should peish
Matthew 10: 42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.
Mark 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Luke 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

as Thayers says “the little ones: young children”

And as to the passage under discussion Thayers does not make the mistake of thinking James Nickname was Shorty
He states
of age: less by birth, younger Mk. xv.40 [others take this of stature]

A diligent Bible student would know that this word does not always refer to age

Acts 8:10 To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.
Acts 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
Revelation 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
Revelation 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
Revelation 19:5 And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.
Revelation 19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

And other uses
of size:
Matthew 13:32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.
Mark 4:31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:

of stature:
Luke 19:3 And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and could not for the press, because he was little of stature.
of length
James 3:5 Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!
of time:
John 7:33 Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me.
John 12:35 Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.

of duration:
Revelation 6:11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.
Revelation 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

of quantity i.e. number or amount
1 Corinthians 5:6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
Galatians 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
Luke 12:32 Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

of quantity
Revelation 3:8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.

of rank or influence
Matthew 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Luke 7:28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.
Luke 9:48 And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.

So in this example the claim that this is an example of one of the
“...words not really comprehended before have emerged into the clear sunlight of understanding; others have acquired new life and significance. “
Does not stand the test

/>/>/>/>/> If my claim is false could you please explain how much of the vocabulary has changed ?

Sorry Janey, you are not going to get out of it that easily. You first asked what percentage of the vocabulary had changed. Ev and I said we didn't know what percentage had changed. You then completely changed what we said, and claimed 'either you or Ev have any idea how much of the vocabulary had changed'. That is false. Just because we couldn't give a percentage, doesn't mean we don't know how much has changed. I have already given you abundant evidence providing a good understanding of how much has changed; as I said, by the end of the 19th century all Greek lexicons had been made obsolete, and most Hebrew lexicons. By the 1950s, all Greek and Hebrew lexicons were again obsolete. That's how much of the vocabulary changed. For specific detail, please read the pages and pages of documentation I provided in those PDFs, none of which you have even bothered to download.

I have downloaded them and will read hopefully later today.
If you don't know what percentage then how do you declare such as Genesius obsolete? If his definition of a word has not changed then it it is not obsolete; just because Hebrew Scholars (who have a living to make of course) declare a whole work obsolete why do you believe them unless you know what word meanings are supposed to have changed?

But is it not the case that non-biblical texts only make up 15% of the source material of Ancient Hebrew texts & the Biblical texts 85%?

Relevance?

If only 15% of the texts relied upon by Hebrew Scholars is non-biblical then there is a relatively small amount of material to base sweeping re:analysis of what words mean.

I note that neither you or Ev have any idea how much of the vocabulary had changed so how can you claim these older works are of no use?

That is a false claim. You asked what percentage of the vocabulary had changed, and neither of us knew. You now misrepresent us both as saying we have no idea how much of the vocabulary has changed.

/> If my claim is false could you please explain how much of the vocabulary has changed ?

Janey, have you any idea how many manuscripts have been discovered and translated since the publication of BDB? The Dead Sea Scrolls alone changed the entire landscape of textual criticism, and they didn't turn up until decades after BDB.

But is it not the case that non-biblical texts only make up 15% of the source material of Ancient Hebrew texts & the Biblical texts 85%?

Fort could you be a little more specific as to what I am making up???
Expressing an opinion based on certain facts is not "making things up"!! Just because my opinion differs with yours does not make me wrong.
I note that neither you or Ev have any idea how much of the vocabulary had changed so how can you claim these older works are of no use? Show me the prove your supposed to be the experts ;-)

Janey, have you any idea how many manuscripts have been discovered and translated since the publication of BDB? The Dead Sea Scrolls alone changed the entire landscape of textual criticism, and they didn't turn up until decades after BDB.

I have not had time this week to get back to this subject and am typing on my Mobile so will keep it short for now.
This article seems preety balanced
http://hebrewbiblescholar.com/halot/
Another point I think we need to keep in mind is that HALOT has only been available relatively recently; So is it only in the last few years that it has been possible to do any meaningful study as regards to Biblical Hebrew?
Fort/Ev
What experts would you have relied upon; what lexicons would you have used
50 years ago
100 years ago
200 years ago ???
Are they all now complete rubbish?
I am not argueing that new material should not be considered but I am suggesting a more balanced approach.
It cannot be the case that Bible students have not had access to enough information to Study the original languages more deeply until the 21st Century !!
What percentage of the vocabulary would you say has changed?

Undoubtedly BDB is old, written in 1906, but is it possible that C Briggs’ theology and his higher criticism have some effect on his understanding of words and meanings? Are some of the newer lexicons free of some of this bias?

Higher Criticism and lexicography have nothing to do with each other. Professional lexicography proceeds by identifying the meaning of words based on texts which use those words. Regardless, BDB is considered an outdated lexicon; the current standard professional Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon is HALOT.

Hmmm /> although HALOT is later than BDB who says it is outdated? I think you will find it is still in use even in hallowed scholarly circles /> />

Unfortunately professional lexicographers are neither Angels nor Saints so although they may not like to think of themselves as "Higher Critics" they inevitably have some theological bias whatever there claims to objectivity.

IMHO All a humble student of the word can do is to be circumspect when evaluating there conclusions, />

Hi all sorry not to answer you all individually but as you all seem to be saying roughly the same thing I think I will be addressing all your points in this reply.

Ev made the point that the Language experts generally agree about vocabulary; I would suggest that this holds true in most cases with regards to the experts of the past. The basic meanings of the words have not changed; the sources sighted are still relevant but the new discoveries can sometimes add to the understanding of the ways certain words were used; in most cases the core meaning does not change.

The fact that new sources of how Koine Greek were used have come to light is of course of interest; but in most cases the differences are subtle even if relevant. I say even if relevant because another factor is that how Koine Greek was spoken and used in Egypt say, may have been very different to the way it was used in say Mesopotamia. For instance we all speak English on this forum and can understand each other but there will be many subtle differences on how we use language; or even in the meanings of words depending on whether we live in Australia, England or America & etc... Even within a country there will be sometimes quite distinct differences.

Lets give a little frivolous example lets look at the word “muffin”.
Coming from the south of England a muffin to me was a yeast based bread cooked on a griddle; which was eaten warm or toasted covered in butter. When I went to Canada when I was 17 I found that there they were called “English Muffins” and that a “Muffin” to them was a large sweet sort of cupcake. At that time (1970‘s) most people in the UK that had not traveled to America/Canada would never have come across this type of muffin; but gradually they started to be sold in the UK as “American Muffins”; now they “American” has been dropped. When I moved “Up North” I discovered that in certain parts of the North West people called large round flat bread rolls cooked in the oven “muffins”; I had always called these Baps; and in other parts of the North West they are called Barm Cakes, and so it goes on!!!

So whats the point of all that? The point is that Koine Greek being basically the language of the common people would have varied considerably in it’s colloquial usage from place to place. So although papyri found in Egypt may help us understand how they used a certain word there; it does not necessarily show us that this is the way it was used in all the places Koine Greek was spoken. It is worth considering but it is totally legitimate to reject said usage if the context of what we read in the scriptures does not support it. Lets not forget that the Bible is one of the major sources of how Koine Greek was used; I think that we need to keep that in perspective.

I think a good example of how we should approach information given to us by language experts is the translation of Reed Sea as Red Sea in the authorised version. The Hebrew language experts are of course correct about the rendering of the word (the vocabulary) but when they try to argue that the “Reed Sea” is not in the location of the “Red Sea” they are wrong. Some also try to use this word definition to argue that the Exodus was through a marsh and that thus no miracle was required.

Someone who knows the Truth and is not a Hebrew Scholar would not make these mistakes because of what scripture says elsewhere eg:

Psalms 106:9 He rebuked the Red sea also, and it was dried up : so he led them through the depths, as through the wilderness.

Exodus 14:22 And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.

Exodus 15:8 And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were gathered together, the floods stood upright as an heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea.

Psalm 78:13
13 He divided the sea, and caused them to pass through; and he made the waters to stand as an heap.

Isaiah 51:10 Art thou not it which hath dried the sea, the waters of the great deep; that hath made the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over?

(I could quote much more on this subject but as it is only an example I will leave it there; I presume everyone here will agree with me on this one?)

I have run out of time for today but hope this explains a bit more clearly the point I am making?

So would you agree then that when it comes to understanding the word of God; perfect knowledge of the Hebrew & Greek language are not in themselves a guarantee that a person will interpret the word correctly?

Of course. Nobody has suggested otherwise.

I agree that it is dangerous to make to much out of original Greek or Hebrew words without any reference to Grammar or context .

However I believe it is possible for a person with little knowledge of the original languages to sometimes understand the word of God better than a Greek or Hebrew Scholar.

Yes...

Your answer here was "YES" & I agree with you, it is your qualification of the "YES" I do not agree with

Yes, but it is not possible for a person with little knowledge of the original languages to understand those languages better than the relevant professionals.

This is a contradiction of your YES

In this particular case we are discussing word definitions, not theology. The simple fact remains that experts are best qualified to provide accurate word definitions, regardless of how they understand the theology.

NO we are discussing what the word of God is teaching us; experts do not all agree; they often have very different "opinions" .

That maybe the way you are approaching this discussion but I think you are mistaken in so doing.

Exactly.

So would you agree then that when it comes to understanding the word of God; perfect knowledge of the Hebrew & Greek language are not in themselves a guarantee that a person will interpret the word correctly?

The words of Paul come to mind

1 Corinthians 2:12-15 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

I agree that it is dangerous to make to much out of original Greek or Hebrew words without any reference to Grammar or context .

However I believe it is possible for a person with little knowledge of the original languages to sometimes understand the word of God better than a Greek or Hebrew Scholar.

Fort et All

Do you think it is possible to understand Biblical Greek & Hebrew perfectly but not know the Truth?

Ever wondered what Google Maps for the Bible would be like? Wonder no more:

Yesterday morning I was studying through Jeremiah 48. I have read this chapter several times but was surprised this time how many locations mentioned in that chapter are still so foreign to my ears. Places like: Nebo, Kiriathaim, Heshbon, Madmen, Heronaim, Luhith, Dibon, Aroer, Beth-Diblathaim, Beth-Gamul, Bozrah, Sibmah and several more names you don’t say every day!

Most Bible readers quickly pass over the thousands of locations. Those places are just too far out of reach. Well, not anymore.

All you need to do is pull out your iPhone/iPad/iPod…open the BibleMap App…and you now have Google Maps for the Bible! Every chapter of the Bible has been connected with Google Maps.

Screen shots are below:





Yet another reason iOS rules. (Of course, if you really need to stay with Android, there will be a version available later this year. No word on a Windows Phone version, but then again, who uses Windows Phone anyway?)

Thanks for this Ken, excellent downloading as I type />