simple or complex?

[DaveW]

Feel free to accuse me of being simple, but when I read the Bible I read what it says.

I don't try to read what I think it might say.

I don't analyze every single word, and investigate it's base meanings, and examine it for possible re-interpretations of meaning.

I believe that I can give the Bible to my 13 year old and he will read and understand truth from it, just as I will. (He is saved by the way.)

I find it interesting that people find all sorts of issues where they believe that you have to have a master's degree in musical theory, or in Greek or in Hebrew, or in physics and chemistry if you are to understand properly.

What ever happened to "faith as a little child"?

I'm afraid that I find it hard to believe that God would make things so complex that only a professor of multiple degrees could possibly understand His will and meaning from His Word.

Especially when His chosen Apostles included two brawling fishermen amongst others.

He did not require His prime vessels to be university educated, although of course Paul was a very educated man.

Don't get me wrong - I am not against the tools of language study, nor the usefulness of musical knowledge - just against the often held view that the average person is somehow less able to understand than the one who can use Greek.

[Jerry]

I agree with you fully, brother. I really hate it when someone takes a passage in our King James Bible and attempts to make it mean something that it doesn't say in English - because some Greek tense means such and such. No, I don't know verb tenses - but it is easy to look up the definition of a Greek or Hebrew word, and I have had enough interaction with others to know that a verb tense will not give an opposite or contrary meaning. In other words, looking up a definition in my Strong's Concordance aids my understanding of the English - however, there are "scholars" that use language tools (and you have to wonder why they keep using lexicons put together by apostates - and wonder which text renders each word the way they are pushing...) to change the English or our Bible. I don't have any use for that. We can see some of that junk in the Calvinist threads.

[speerjp1]

I completely agree.

Logically, if we HAVE to know the word's base language meanings, then what is the point of a translation? I thought that's what a translation is. :puzzled: It has long been a pet peeve of mine to hear someone say "Well in the Greek this word also means ______" and substitute that word in for the word the translators (who were linguistic experts) thought was the best.

While getting a better understanding of a word is a good thing, if we believe the KJV is the preserved Word of God do we not believe that he preserved it to say what he meant?

[DaveW]

I have hard copies of Strongs, Vines, and soft copies of others which I can't remember, an interlinear Greek/English/KJV, commentaries in full and partially from all sorts of people, a CD of Spurgeon's sermons, writings, notes, talks etc, another CD with resources from assorted other writers, another CD with links to thousands of sites, - in fact I ahve four bookcases in my study that are full of mostly Christian and theological books of various types, and more boxes in the shed that I can't fit in the study - and use each of them when it is appropriate, as well as listening to preaching from various sources - so I am not an isolationist by any means.

But in my experience, the simple reading of the text, when seen in context and with reference to other passages, rarely (if ever) gives the wrong understanding.

[speerjp1]

:amen:

[Alimantado]

I don't try to read what I think it might say.

But isn't this actually quite hard to do? Influences can be subtle, and unconscious.

But in my experience' date=' the simple reading of the text, when seen in context and with reference to other passages, rarely (if ever) gives the wrong understanding. [/quote']

And when the context is the theme of that chapter, or even that book, then 'seeing' the context isn't that difficult a task. But when that context is over 60 other books, all of which have to be read in their entirety in order to get the whole picture, then seeing the context becomes a little more tricky. I've often asked about what this or that passage means, only be told to that it needs to be 'seen' in the context of multiple passages from different books all over the Bible, including proverbs, minor prophets etc. The only solution I can see to this is to simply suspend thinking about what the words mean until I've read the lot, which will be about a year from now!

[Colin Stolzer]

I can think of a few reasons why a plain reading won't suffice. The first is God said "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Tim 2:15

That seems like a pretty good reason to me cause God wants me to know his word and understand it.

I'll give a ready example:
Ga 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Ga 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Ga 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Witchcraft by the common tongue understanding is the study of wiccan or sorcery.

Merriam Webster's:
witchcraft

Main Entry: witch

[Jerry]

here's another definition:

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon
pharma^k-eia_ , h

[Colin Stolzer]

Because that definition is straight from a greek to english lexicon and since the NT was written in greek I would say that the greek definition applies. And I believe that definition fits pretty well now days or haven't you heard of the abortion drug RU486. If you think you can read the bible in english and never have to look up anything and you'll be able to know exactly what any given text means, thats incredibly niave. In the 1600's when the king James was being translated that definition fit then also, historically during the middle ages the person you went to if you wanted potions or spells was an alchemist or witch/sorcerer and yes even then they knew of herbs and plants that would cause a woman to abort her child.

Thats not the end of the difinitions in greek those are just the ones I gave it actually goes much deeper than just abortion. Witchcraft also includes any form of propaganda.

C

[Jerry]

Strong's Concordance is good because it gives a basic definition and then shows how that word itself is used throughout the Bible. However, you are taking some extra-biblical definition and then forcing it into the Bible - which is not Bible study. The word sorcery in the Bible does NOT refer to abortion - to try to interpret Biblical passages with a non-Biblical definition is wrong and will lead you down the wrong path. Go ahead and make an APPLICATION of sorcery to drugs that cause abortions - but don't try to teach that as the definition of the word.

[Alimantado]

And in any case, if a Greek dictionary lists a word as having a number of different meanings, surely it doesn't follow that whenever that word is used in the Bible it has to mean *all* those things at once?

[Colin Stolzer]

Strong's Concordance is good because it gives a basic definition and then shows how that word itself is used throughout the Bible. However' date=' you are taking some extra-biblical definition and then forcing it into the Bible - which is not Bible study. The word sorcery in the Bible does NOT refer to abortion - to try to interpret Biblical passages with a non-Biblical definition is wrong and will lead you down the wrong path. Go ahead and make an APPLICATION of sorcery to drugs that cause abortions - but don't try to teach that as the definition of the word.[/quote']

That argument doesn't wash, because all of the sorces you have today for definitons are extra-biblical. Strongs only included a basic definition but not always the whole definition, so what makes part of the definition right and the rest not important? It's the same with Webster's 1828 it's a great dictionary that uses alot of scripture reference but since it was written 200 years after the KJB those definitions do not always mean what they meant in the 1600's.

[Charbo]

Yes, we need to study (as we are commanded) and in this particular passage (Gal. 5:20) and in many others the Greek definition supports the English reading while at the same time showing us additional meanings that it "can" mean.

We need to ask ourselves though, do we believe God preserved His Word for us in the form and the words He wants us to have OR do we believe He is not able to do that or does not care enough for us to do that?

Personally, I believe God is strong enough and and cares for us enough that He did preserve His Word (Psalm 12:6-7). I also believe He has hidden extra gems we can find as we grow as a child of God only by digging or studying (Proverbs 25:2).

[Jerry]

Part of a word's definition is based on its origin (ie. root words, prefixes, suffixes - what it is made up of), and part is based on its context and usage. Running to a book outside of the Bible to find a word definition that is not used WITHIN the Bible itself, is not Bible study. Sure, that word MIGHT have some association with abortion in secular Greek literature - but it doesn't in the Bible. Strong's gives the usage within the Bible itself - that other source you quoted was referring to either the Apocrypha or some other untrustworthy source (i. e. emetics, Arist.Pr.962a3; of abortifacients, Sor.1.59 - Aristotle is certainly not reliable when it comes to understanding our Bible). If a word is not used a certain way in the Bible, we should not be basing our definitions or doctrines on the lost or apostate person's definition or usage of that word.

[Colin Stolzer]

So your argument for Strong being acceptable and other definitions not being acceptable is because Strong was saved and therby had some special intuition about which secular definition was the one God meant. Becasue all of Strong's definitions are taken from Lexicons and references that were written before he wrote his concordance. All of them were secular documents.

C