> General Discussions

Is the Concordance reliable?

(1/2) > >>

booker:
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).

Dave in Tenn:
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

 

booker:

--- Quote from: Dave in Tenn on September 05, 2010, 01:07:21 AM ---What concordance?

--- End quote ---

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".

Roy Coates:
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.

Dave in Tenn:
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. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page