> General Discussions
strongs concordance
Samson:
--- Quote from: samuel3 on August 21, 2008, 11:37:19 AM ---Why is it we put so much confidence in our interpretation of the word in the Strong's concordance, and not let Gods inspired word teach. Does not the word tell us to rightly divide the word, so there is a right way to divide and a wrong way to divide. I believe the word is inspired by God hes the author of it right. So what I'm saying is don't draw all your conclusions and interpretations of words from a Strong's that is not inspired by god,this can be very misleading. What would some people do without their Strong's concordance?
--- End quote ---
Hello Samuel,
I understand what you are saying, but I've known many people who just read the bible, insisting that their translation is the most accurate or it's the " right " one, especially the Older Versions of The King James, I work with a guy like that and he can quote many Scriptures, but doesn't realize or doesn't want to realize that many mistakes and wrong translations of certain Greek words have crept in. I have a Bible Dictionary, it's not Strong's, but as an example, whenever I look something up and the Author puts their explanation of something beyond what the primary meaning of a Greek or Hebrew word means, I take it with a grain of salt. A good example of this is found in Ray's Article at the front page of this Site: IS EVERLASTING SCRIPTURAL, in response to some wanna be Bible Scholar and this involves the Greek Word Aion and it's adjective Aionios. He shows the history of this word and explains it's Hebrew equivalent Ohlam or Olam showing it never meant forever, Eternal or Everlasting until sometime in the second Century C.E. If we just Read the Bible, sticking stubbornly to one particular translation, like the man mentioned earlier, that I work with, how would we know about Hades, Gehenna, Tartarus, if it's always rendered Hell, Hellfire; or tha the true meaning of Kolasin rendered punishment is chastisement or the pruning of the Luzurian tree and is not forever, only temporary and meant for our discipline with a view to our improvement.
If I wasn't attempting to study the true meanings of Bible Greek Words, at least in my case, I might not have found my way here. That's one of the causes leading to my choice, especially considering that Ray shows the meaning of Greek and Hebrew words explaining thoroughly with ample proof. Of course my being here is All God's Will, but God put the desire in me to know these truths, that's what I consistently prayed to him, prior to finding this Site, " Please reveal to me the true understanding of your word. " The main problem with sources outside the Scriptures is that they go beyond the primary meaning of these Hebrew and Greek words, then proceed to say, this word can also mean this, but when we dig deeper and Ray helps us in this, we find that these other meanings were added later. The Hebrew Word Ra is translated Calamity in many Bible Translations at Isaiah. 45:7, but it's supposed to be translated Evil, as Ray explains, there is another Hebrew word that's translated Calamity and it isn't Ra. If it was supposed to be Translated Calamity, the Hebrew word RA wouldn't be used there.
These are just some of the examples that might help you, my apologies if I rambled on too much, but I know of so many people in my life who just read the Bible and still believe in Hellfire, Free Will and Eternal Punishment and they write Ray all the time.
Hope this helps and may God guide and direct your efforts.
Kind Regards, Samson.
carol v:
Great example of words Samson. One of my favorites is the study of the Greek word "appollumi" which I think is Strong's #622 and #684 derived from it. With a quick use of esword and Strong's number system we quickly discover that this one word is used for destroyed, lost and perished. Just this discovery alone wipes out half the orthodox Christian arguments that God will eternally "destroy" any of us.
Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy 622 both soul and body in hell.
Luk 19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.622
Samuel, none of us here believe that we get any understanding at all without the Spirit and that we should always rightly divide the Word comparing spiritual with spiritual. BUT, Strong's is a very useful tool.
You seem to have come to the forum with a chip on your shoulder. Have you read Ray's work? If you had you would see that we already know that Strong's has flaws and can be misleading. As I said above, you are preaching to the choir here.
samuel3:
No i got no chip on my shoulder im just talking honestly about whether our confidence is in the word or a some man. Ray bases alot of his definitions by what the strongs says which is misleading. All im saying is stay in the word its pure.
Dave in Tenn:
The words used in the original languages ARE pure. God inspired them one by one. Words are defined by their usage, and Strong's major value is in more quickly enabling us to find where these words are USED in scripture (in the original languages) so we can better understand how God intended us to understand them.
Translations are NEVER pure. You simply cannot translate massive amounts of text from one language into another without making choices. The Greek, for example, had at least three words for love. All three are translated 'Love' into English, though their meanings are at least shades different. Good translators do their best in this foreign language of English to attempt solid translations. Concordant versions attempt to apply the same rigor in ALWAYS translating the same Hebrew or Greek word or phrase the same way. But Theology can and does creep into these translations, and some are translating a translation.
Go to www.babelfish.com and try to translate a sentence from English into German into French and back into English again and see what happens.
Language itself is not pure, but evolves over time...often very quickly. English in particular is not very 'pure'. Why else is Shakespeare so difficult to understand on the surface? His audience 'got it'. We have to study it.
Whatever gets us closer to the very Words that GOD chose is a good tool, though any tool is dangerous in the hands of an untrained or careless worker.
Strong's is simply a 'snapshot' of evolving 'usage' in the KJV of the Bible. But it's a good tool to help us get to the pure word of God in the original languages. Other translations do a better job in the English of OUR time. None are perfect, nor can they be.
Kat:
--- Quote ---All im saying is stay in the word its pure.
--- End quote ---
What Word is that Samuel? Do you think the translations we have are pure? If you do not read Hebrew and Greek then you don't have a pure word of the Scripture. I think that is where all these false teachings we have come from, just a few mistranslated words. That is why Ray goes to such great lengths to find what is in the 'original' transcripts. He does not go solely by what he reads in the Strong's concordance, he uses other sources too. But it is only by the Holy Spirit's guidance that he is able to learn these things or the church would have figured out some of these things. Our confidence is in God and God has provided Ray as a teacher. If the spirit of Christ is within then it will guide you to who you should believe.
1John 4:4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.
v. 5 They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them.
v. 6 We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
If you do not believe what Ray teaches, that's fine, but we prove all things and are confident this is the truth.
mercy, peace and love
Kat
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version