bible-truths.com/forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Need Account Help?  Email bibletruths.forum@gmail.com   

Forgotten password reminders does not work. Contact the email above and state what you want your password changed to. (it must be at least 8 characters)

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Is the Concordance reliable?  (Read 2258 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

booker

  • Guest
Is the Concordance reliable?
« on: September 05, 2010, 02:04:19 AM »

Just look at the definitions

H7585 shĕ'owl

1) sheol, underworld, grave, hell, pit

a) the underworld

b) Sheol - the OT designation for the abode of the dead

1) place of no return

2) without praise of God

3) wicked sent there for punishment

4) righteous not abandoned to it

5) of the place of exile (fig)

6) of extreme degradation in sin

G86 hadēs

1) name Hades or Pluto, the god of the lower regions

2) Orcus, the nether world, the realm of the dead

3) later use of this word: the grave, death, hell
In Biblical Greek it is associated with Orcus, the infernal regions, a dark and dismal place in the very depths of the earth, the common receptacle of disembodied spirits. Usually Hades is just the abode of the wicked, Luk 16:23, Rev 20:13, 14; a very uncomfortable place. (TDNT)

G1067 geenna

1) Hell is the place of the future punishment call "Gehenna" or "Gehenna of fire". This was originally the valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, where the filth and dead animals of the city were cast out and burned; a fit symbol of the wicked and their future destruction.

G5020 tartaroō

1) the name of the subterranean region, doleful and dark, regarded by the ancient Greeks as the abode of the wicked dead, where they suffer punishment for their evil deeds; it answers to Gehenna of the Jews

2) to thrust down to Tartarus, to hold captive in Tartarus


H5769 `owlam

1) long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world

a) ancient time, long time (of past)

b) (of future)

1) for ever, always

2) continuous existence, perpetual

3) everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity

G165 aiōn

1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity

2) the worlds, universe

3) period of time, age

G166 aiōnios

1) without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be

2) without beginning

3) without end, never to cease, everlasting

G3956 pas

1) individually

a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything

2) collectively

a) some of all types
"... 'The whole world is gone after him.' Did all the world go after Christ? 'Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.' Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? 'Ye are of God, little children', and 'the whole world lieth in the wicked one.' Does 'the whole world' there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were 'of God?' The words 'world' and 'all' are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that 'all' means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile." (Charles H. Spurgeon, Particular Redemption, A Sermon, 28 Feb 1858).
« Last Edit: September 05, 2010, 02:07:11 AM by booker »
Logged

Dave in Tenn

  • Administrator
  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4091
    • FaceBook David Sanderson
Re: Is the Concordance reliable?
« Reply #1 on: September 05, 2010, 04:07:21 AM »

What concordance?  What do you mean by 'reliable'?

A concordance is a list of words used in a text with references to other places each is used.  Some are 'complete' concordances, meaning they refer to every use of the word in the text.  Some are simple concordances (like those found in the back pages of many books) which hit the 'highlights'.  These are sometimes called 'indexes'.

Since The Bible is the most studied book in western history, it makes sense that it probably has the most 'concordances' compiled.  Looking just at them, we have concordances of English translations of the bible (and I'm assuming translations into other languages as well).  Of these, the King James version is probably the translation with the most concordances compiled.  With each 'revision' of the 1611 text, I am sure other new 'concordances' are brought into existence.

We also have concordances compiled of words in the original languages from which we get our translations of Scripture.  With these it's possible to see how the translators rendered the original words.  Its possible then to see how 'consistently' the word is translated. 

Many concordances are combined with dictionaries.  The one you've copied from is one such.  These are written by theologians and scholars and always with a bias toward teaching in mind.  Looking at your example, geenna (gehenna) is "defined" by orthodox christian doctrine.  The word itself is the place name of "... the valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, where the filth and dead animals of the city were cast out and burned..."  All the rest is 'commentary' or doctrinal teaching, not definition.

So...are concordances "reliable'?

As bible study tools, they do what they are intended to do.  They list places where words are used in the text.   If that's what defines 'reliable', then I'd have to say they are.

Are they able teachers of right doctrine?  Combined with dictionaries that also contain religious commentary?  Of course not, and anybody who relies on them for that is misusing them at best. 

That said, despite the most ernest effort and best intentions of man, the scripture is only understood by those to whom God gives understanding.  The world at large, and the church in particular is blinded to the truths of God.  That's the way God wants it.

For more on how one can understand Scripture even without a 'concordance', see:

http://bible-truths.com/twelve.htm

 
Logged
Heb 10:32  But you must continue to remember those earlier days, how after you were enlightened you endured a hard and painful struggle.

booker

  • Guest
Re: Is the Concordance reliable?
« Reply #2 on: September 05, 2010, 08:48:47 AM »

What concordance?

Strong's


Even ray said on the "Is "EVERLASTING" Scriptural?" paper

"Are these definitions good scholarship or religious bias? Imagine defining the word "white" like this: "white, WHITE LIGHT, bright, maximum lightness, brilliant, blanch, off-white, shaded, light gray, dark gray, between light and dark, dark gray, dark, COAL BLACK." Does anything see a problem with my definition of "white?" Does anyone see a problem with Strong's definition of "aion/aionios?"

Ok so we know aionios,aion  is unreliable what else? Who knows how many other definitions they have that are "religions bias".


« Last Edit: September 05, 2010, 08:49:51 AM by booker »
Logged

Roy Coates

  • Guest
Re: Is the Concordance reliable?
« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2010, 10:53:49 AM »

Thus we must rely on the Spirit to be our ultimate guide. "Our intelect will only carry us so far" L. Ray Smith The fact that your are seeking the truth is a good indication.
Logged

Dave in Tenn

  • Administrator
  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4091
    • FaceBook David Sanderson
Re: Is the Concordance reliable?
« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2010, 02:05:13 PM »

Words are defined by usage.  This is especially true in Scripture.  Our intellect will only carry us so far is right.  But it has to carry us part of the way.  There is no black white.  There are no square circles.  And we should be doubly 'aware' when dictionary definitions carry commentary.

Ray has said that the KJV (which is the translation Strong's concordance is compiled from) is a pretty good translation with two major exceptions...Hell and Eternal/eternity.  Dr. Strong was clearly a believer in Hell and an everlasting one at that.  Otherwise he would not have bothered to 'insert' his beliefs into the definiton of gehenna, for example. 

That doesn't make his 'tool' worthless for those who know what they are doing.  In fact, we can use his tool in many instances to find the truth.  Ray does that consistently and often.

I hope that helps.  If not, then I can only suggest continue your reading at B-T.  I'm well convinced that Ray is reliable.  We're not all called to be teachers. 
Logged
Heb 10:32  But you must continue to remember those earlier days, how after you were enlightened you endured a hard and painful struggle.

Deborah-Leigh

  • Guest
Re: Is the Concordance reliable?
« Reply #5 on: September 05, 2010, 05:55:28 PM »



Also check 12 Truths to understanding God's Word, on the Home page.

Arc
Logged

aqrinc

  • Guest
Re: Is the Concordance reliable?
« Reply #6 on: September 05, 2010, 07:10:33 PM »


Hi Booker,

I use over 50 Bible translations, multiple concordances, read most passages 20 or more times when trying to get a sense of meaning. All that said, knowing what the words mean and the context they were used in; only gives a superficial understanding of text and context.

Scripture is written in words that are Symbols, Proverbs, Parables, Metaphors of something like what is is describing, but not the thing. It is the Highest Level Code by a long shot, Christ said as much when He told His Disciples This.

Mat 13: 10-18 (ASV)
10  And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

11  And he answered and said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12  For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath.

13  Therefore speak I to them in parables; because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14  And unto them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall in no wise understand; And seeing ye shall see, and shall in no wise perceive:

15  For this people's heart is waxed gross, And their ears are dull of hearing, And their eyes they have closed; Lest haply they should perceive with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And should turn again, And I should heal them.
16  But blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they hear.

17  For verily I say unto you, that many prophets and righteous men desired to see the things which ye see, and saw them not; and to hear the things which ye hear, and heard them not.
18  Hear then ye the parable of the sower.

Put in everyday speech; he said, i hold the keys to the secrets of everything, and i give those keys out to whomever i will. Seems hard, but taken with this other parable, makes all the sense in the world.

Mat 7:6 (MKJV)
Do not give that which is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet and turn again and tear you.

george :)
Logged

markn902

  • Guest
Re: Is the Concordance reliable?
« Reply #7 on: September 08, 2010, 12:34:41 AM »

I am a huge e sword fan for bible studying go here

http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,4470.0.html

I think it is great
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.088 seconds with 27 queries.