String's, Westcott and Hort, Thayer's...

[Dai3234]

Just been seeing a few pieces of information on Greek text dictionaries and concordances.

I didn't know Westcott and Hort worked with Strong's and Thayer concordance and dictionary makers.

Then I watched : king James Bible built in hidden dictionary (Gail Riplinger). YouTube.

Think I'm just going to avoid the Greek and new versions but I'm still waiting for a word study concordance. So, yeah, probably a waste of money.

Strong's seems false when comparing KJV now.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Do not waste time and energy on Westcott and Hort, or Gail Ripplinger and Peter Ruckman. Strong s Concordance has stood the test of time and is totally reliable. This is probably an attempt by Satan to get you all confused and off the track.

 

[Snoozy]

i hate technology while typing this on the computer.

before no one had the possibility to look up greek words online in a minute unless they were some nerds who owned all the huge concordance books.
now everyone is looking at the concordances and they pick the word definition that they like the most. im not a scholar by no means im a meathead. but i know enough languages that translating is not an exact science its not like u can just pick a word and look it up from a dictionary and translate it.
much more goes to it u need to know the context which can change the meaning of the word, the A's and THE's and some languages have the in and on at the end of the word not the beginning.

so thats why i think its best for regular folks to just pick up the bible and believe what it says. it saves time.

 

[trofimus]

Just been seeing a few pieces of information on Greek text dictionaries and concordances.

I didn't know Westcott and Hort worked with Strong's and Thayer concordance and dictionary makers.

Then I watched : king James Bible built in hidden dictionary (Gail Riplinger). YouTube.

Think I'm just going to avoid the Greek and new versions but I'm still waiting for a word study concordance. So, yeah, probably a waste of money.

Strong's seems false when comparing KJV now.

I am not sure what your problem is or what do you seek for... You want to avoid Greek, you want some English concordance, but not Strong´s?

 

[Dino246]

Do not waste time and energy on ...Gail Ripplinger and Peter Ruckman.

I appreciate that you take this view on these two individuals.

 

[Dai3234]

Do not waste time and energy on Westcott and Hort, or Gail Ripplinger and Peter Ruckman. Strong s Concordance has stood the test of time and is totally reliable. This is probably an attempt by Satan to get you all confused and off the track.

Riplinger was referenced as she's the video narrator explaining the KJV internal dictionary. That shows Strong's is wrong in its explanation of words because it's already explained, shown using a Webster's dictionary. That matches the internally built in dictionary system. And many more plusses. So don't just cut yourself off from learning because someone may or may not have a decent reputation.

Try the dictionary system yourself, it's an old video.

If someone can prove it's wrong and Strong's is correct in what she says, fine, let me know where?

 

[Nehemiah6]

Riplinger was referenced as she's the video narrator explaining the KJV internal dictionary. That shows Strong's is wrong in its explanation of words because it's already explained, shown using a Webster's dictionary.

Webster's Dictionary (or any other secular dictionary) is just that. It is purely secular. On the other hand Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and Hebrew and Greek dictionaries are PRIMARILY SPIRITUAL. Let's take one example -- the word "justified".

Here are the Merriam Webster definitions (one purely secular and one alluding to the Bible, which is incorrrect)

1a :to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable

• trying to justify his selfish behavior

• I shouldn't have to justify myself to them.

• justify the ways of God to man
• —John Milton

b (1) :to show to have had a sufficient legal reason
(2):to qualify (oneself) as a surety (see surety 3) by taking oath to the ownership of sufficient property


2a :to judge, regard, or treat as righteous and worthy of salvation

• God justifies with his forgiveness and grace the man who comes to him —Will Herberg

The Bible does not teach that God justifies WITH HIS FORGIVENESS. What the Bible teaches is that God declares a guilty sinner as RIGHTEOUS, with the imputed righteousness of Christ. He "accounts" or "imputes" our faith in Christ as the basis of declaring us not guilty and as righteous as God Himself. And that is what Strong's shows:

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 5:1)

Strong's Concordance

dikaioó: to show to be righteous, declare righteous​

Original Word: δικαιόω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: dikaioó
Phonetic Spelling: (dik-ah-yo'-o)
Short Definition: I make righteous, defend the cause of, justify
Definition:I make righteous, defend the cause of, plead for the righteousness (innocence) of, acquit, justify; hence: I regard as righteous.

Of course, the forgiveness of sins follows, but the actual meaning of "justified" is shown correctly by Strong. And "worthy" of salvation is immaterial, since no one is worthy of salvation. That is why it is purely of God's grace.

 

[Angela53510]

This is kind of weird! Strong's is a back translation from the KJV. In fact, I don't use it for that reason. The KJV is not a good or reliable translation, having been translated from 7 corrupted and very later manuscripts.

If you want to deal with the Greek, you need to use a LEXICON. That translates the Greek from English, rather than a concordance, which translates from English, to Greek, back to English. A lexicon requires learning the alphabet, and understanding grammar.

These word studies people post in this forum, although sometimes right, are what is known as "English concordance Word Studies." Never make a doctrine out of word studies.

I will say, that KJV contains no errors that affect doctrine, when properly read in context. But, because so many words are archaic, obscure or have changed meanings, it is simply not the best Bible version to use. Because all those "old" words result in a LOT of bad doctrine. But that is the fault of the person not understanding what the KJV says, in that 400 year old language.

A youtube video by the likes of Ruckman and/or Riplinger is kind of a funny joke, right? I mean, even Nehemiah, who uses the KJV does not like them.

Here is my suggestion. In the interest of fairness and looking at both sides of the issues, why don't you read, The KJV Only Controversy by James R White. If those other people are in fact right, well, then you should still come out believing what you believed after watching the Riplinger video. Which, IMHO, is wrong!

Here are some links for you to read, in the interests of objectivity. You do know what that means, right? It means you read about both sides of a debate, and make up your own mind. Don't let anyone make up your mind for you. Well, except God!

Daniel Wallace, who wrote the second article, is the best Greek grammarian in the world. I know he has a lot of good to say about modern versions. To say nothing of being on the translations committees for several modern versions.

ARTICLES:

"Is Your Modern Translation Corrupt? Answering the Allegations of KJV Only Advocates"
by James R. White
"The 'Conspiracy' Behind the New Bible Translations" by Daniel Wallace

"The Debate Over the King James Version" by Rick Wade
"Is the King James Version the Only Bible Christians Should Trust and Read?"
— Part 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 by John Ankerberg and John Weldon

RECOMMENDED BOOKS:
"The King James Only Controversy" by James R. White
Answering those who claim that only the King James Version is the Word of God, this book examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt Scripture and lead believers away from the true Christian faith. Endorsed by Norman Geisler, D.A. Carson, Hank Hanegraaff, J. I. Packer, John MacArthur, and Bruce Metzger,
"The King James Version Debate" by D.A. Carson

King James Only Controversy

 

[Johnny_B]

Get this book and the second edition of BAGD Lexicon and you will be good to go. Learning the Greel alphabet is a great help as well, but until you fully understand the Greek this index book for BAGD is a great help.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310440319/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o08_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

https://www.amazon.com/Greek-Englis...preST=_SX218_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

The book does not work with the thrid edition of BAGD

 

[SovereignGrace]

Just been seeing a few pieces of information on Greek text dictionaries and concordances.

I didn't know Westcott and Hort worked with Strong's and Thayer concordance and dictionary makers.

Then I watched : king James Bible built in hidden dictionary (Gail Riplinger). YouTube.

Think I'm just going to avoid the Greek and new versions but I'm still waiting for a word study concordance. So, yeah, probably a waste of money.

Strong's seems false when comparing KJV now.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Just been seeing a few pieces of information on Greek text dictionaries and concordances.

I didn't know Westcott and Hort worked with Strong's and Thayer concordance and dictionary makers.

Then I watched : king James Bible built in hidden dictionary (Gail Riplinger). YouTube.

Think I'm just going to avoid the Greek and new versions but I'm still waiting for a word study concordance. So, yeah, probably a waste of money.

Strong's seems false when comparing KJV now.

Yeah, avoid the Greek. Its not like that's what the NT was written in to begin with.

 

[Bladerunner]

Do not waste time and energy on Westcott and Hort, or Gail Ripplinger and Peter Ruckman. Strong s Concordance has stood the test of time and is totally reliable. This is probably an attempt by Satan to get you all confused and off the track.

Right on..... Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort were Anglican churchmen who had contempt for the Textus Receptus and began a work in 1853 that resulted, after 28 years, in a Greek New Testament based on the earlier Alexandrian manuscripts. ref: Koinonia House

 

[Angela53510]

Some salient points from the article by Daniel Wallace.

"First, conspiracy theories are increasing among evangelicals nowadays, and this is a troubling sign. By their nature, conspiracy theories ask the reader to be completely skeptical toward one view while adopting the other, without an examination of the evidence. (One recent book that pushes a conspiracy theory actually has thousands of factual errors and misrepresentations in it, all of which go unchallenged by those sucked in by its aura.)

Mark Noll has recently written a masterful book entitled, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. In it he speaks about how American evangelicals have decided to chuck their brains for the sake of the party line, or for experience, or for emotionalism, etc. But the history of Christianity up through last century was of a different ilk. The Church felt that at least some of its number should be scholars--men and women who dedicated their minds to God, who cultivated the life of the mind. The fact that conspiracy theories about Bible translations are getting readily accepted in several circles indicts evangelicalism. To be blunt, this trend is symptomatic of the dumbing down of Christians in this country. Evangelicals are increasingly holding down the anti-intellectual fort, without engaging in serious debate with others.

Second, if there really is such a conspiracy, then why do the majority of evangelical, Bible-believing seminaries and Bible colleges use modern translations and the Greek MSS behind them? If the faithful wish to find fault with the beliefs of these schools, then they should attack head-on their beliefs, rather than that they use the wrong Bible. But the issue is always the same: wrong Bible must mean, by implication, wrong beliefs. But the beliefs are not examined.

Third, let me camp on this doctrinal issue a bit. What doctrines are at stake? Is the deity of Christ? Surely not. Evangelicals embrace the deity of Christ, regardless of which Bible they use. And they find verses in their translation to back it up. Some studies in fact have shown how the deity of Christ is better supported in the NIV, NASB, etc. than in the KJV. How about the virgin birth? Again, no. Evangelicals embrace that. One of the best defenses of the virgin birth was written by the founder of Westminster Seminary, Gresham Machen, a man who did not think that the MSS behind the KJV were the best. How about inerrancy? The Trinity? Salvation by grace? Justification by faith? You name it, whatever the evangelical doctrine--it is not compromised by these new translations or the MSS behind them. This is the real issue. What doctrines are changed if we change our Bibles? Westminster Seminary still follows the Westminster Confession; Trinity Evangelical Divinity School still embraces its strong doctrinal statement, as does Dallas Seminary its statement. Grace Seminary, Talbot, Western, Denver, Capitol, etc. Yet, the vast majority of the faculty at these schools use the modern translations and the ancient MSS that stand behind them. Where is the cause and effect relationship between new translations and heresy?

Now, to be sure, conspiratorialists can find heretics who use these modern translations. That is beside the point, however. Why? Because an equal if not greater number of heretics can be found who embrace the KJV. (In the 1800s, in fact, the KJV became the ping-pong ball in English debates over the deity of Christ. Those who argued for the deity of Christ appealed to the Greek text, since the KJV translators had not accurately translated some of the passages.) This is similar to what Peter says in 2 Peter 3:16: “Some things in [Paul’s] letters are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the Scriptures.” The real issue is whether thoroughly orthodox folks can be found standing behind these modern translations. Yes, they can, and predominantly so. The faith delivered once for all to the saints is not in danger from these new translations. The real danger is in deflecting Christians from our mission in life, to share the good news of Jesus Christ with a dying world, compassionately, and clearly.

So, is there a conspiracy today? My answer may surprise the reader: yes, I believe there is. But the conspiracy has not produced these modern translations. Rather, I believe that there is a conspiracy to cause division among believers, to deflect our focus from the gospel to petty issues, to elevate an anti-intellectual spirit that does not honor the mind which God has created, and to uphold as the only Holy Bible a translation that, as lucid as it was in its day, four hundred years later makes the gospel seem antiquated and difficult to understand.2 It takes little thought to see who is behind such a conspiracy."

https://bible.org/article/conspiracy-behind-new-bible-translations

If you don't believe Daniel Wallace is the best Greek grammarian in the world, I suggest you purchase his: Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics. Even after a full year of Greek, I could not understand a lot of it. After my second year of Biblical Greek, I finally began to use and read it. It is hard, but it does really lay things out as to how Greek works!

 

[SovereignGrace]

Some salient points from the article by Daniel Wallace.

"First, conspiracy theories are increasing among evangelicals nowadays, and this is a troubling sign. By their nature, conspiracy theories ask the reader to be completely skeptical toward one view while adopting the other, without an examination of the evidence. (One recent book that pushes a conspiracy theory actually has thousands of factual errors and misrepresentations in it, all of which go unchallenged by those sucked in by its aura.)

Mark Noll has recently written a masterful book entitled, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. In it he speaks about how American evangelicals have decided to chuck their brains for the sake of the party line, or for experience, or for emotionalism, etc. But the history of Christianity up through last century was of a different ilk. The Church felt that at least some of its number should be scholars--men and women who dedicated their minds to God, who cultivated the life of the mind. The fact that conspiracy theories about Bible translations are getting readily accepted in several circles indicts evangelicalism. To be blunt, this trend is symptomatic of the dumbing down of Christians in this country. Evangelicals are increasingly holding down the anti-intellectual fort, without engaging in serious debate with others.

Second, if there really is such a conspiracy, then why do the majority of evangelical, Bible-believing seminaries and Bible colleges use modern translations and the Greek MSS behind them? If the faithful wish to find fault with the beliefs of these schools, then they should attack head-on their beliefs, rather than that they use the wrong Bible. But the issue is always the same: wrong Bible must mean, by implication, wrong beliefs. But the beliefs are not examined.

Third, let me camp on this doctrinal issue a bit. What doctrines are at stake? Is the deity of Christ? Surely not. Evangelicals embrace the deity of Christ, regardless of which Bible they use. And they find verses in their translation to back it up. Some studies in fact have shown how the deity of Christ is better supported in the NIV, NASB, etc. than in the KJV. How about the virgin birth? Again, no. Evangelicals embrace that. One of the best defenses of the virgin birth was written by the founder of Westminster Seminary, Gresham Machen, a man who did not think that the MSS behind the KJV were the best. How about inerrancy? The Trinity? Salvation by grace? Justification by faith? You name it, whatever the evangelical doctrine--it is not compromised by these new translations or the MSS behind them. This is the real issue. What doctrines are changed if we change our Bibles? Westminster Seminary still follows the Westminster Confession; Trinity Evangelical Divinity School still embraces its strong doctrinal statement, as does Dallas Seminary its statement. Grace Seminary, Talbot, Western, Denver, Capitol, etc. Yet, the vast majority of the faculty at these schools use the modern translations and the ancient MSS that stand behind them. Where is the cause and effect relationship between new translations and heresy?

Now, to be sure, conspiratorialists can find heretics who use these modern translations. That is beside the point, however. Why? Because an equal if not greater number of heretics can be found who embrace the KJV. (In the 1800s, in fact, the KJV became the ping-pong ball in English debates over the deity of Christ. Those who argued for the deity of Christ appealed to the Greek text, since the KJV translators had not accurately translated some of the passages.) This is similar to what Peter says in 2 Peter 3:16: “Some things in [Paul’s] letters are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the Scriptures.” The real issue is whether thoroughly orthodox folks can be found standing behind these modern translations. Yes, they can, and predominantly so. The faith delivered once for all to the saints is not in danger from these new translations. The real danger is in deflecting Christians from our mission in life, to share the good news of Jesus Christ with a dying world, compassionately, and clearly.

So, is there a conspiracy today? My answer may surprise the reader: yes, I believe there is. But the conspiracy has not produced these modern translations. Rather, I believe that there is a conspiracy to cause division among believers, to deflect our focus from the gospel to petty issues, to elevate an anti-intellectual spirit that does not honor the mind which God has created, and to uphold as the only Holy Bible a translation that, as lucid as it was in its day, four hundred years later makes the gospel seem antiquated and difficult to understand.2 It takes little thought to see who is behind such a conspiracy."

https://bible.org/article/conspiracy-behind-new-bible-translations

If you don't believe Daniel Wallace is the best Greek grammarian in the world, I suggest you purchase his: Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics. Even after a full year of Greek, I could not understand a lot of it. After my second year of Biblical Greek, I finally began to use and read it. It is hard, but it does really lay things out as to how Greek works!

They have no basis for the KJV superiority complex they have, so they do smear tactics. They try to defame ppl's character. If you can't assassinate their stance, assassinate their character.

Personally, I think the KJV needs pulled off the shelves of all stores and online sites. Its ran its course, and now its time to put it to pasture. Not that I think its a bad translation, but 1) its antiquated 17th century Elizabethan language that no one speaks in today's world, and 2) all the lunacy and goonacy the KJVOnlyists show forth in their anti-modern versions stance.

 

[Laish]

They have no basis for the KJV superiority complex they have, so they do smear tactics. They try to defame ppl's character. If you can't assassinate their stance, assassinate their character.

Personally, I think the KJV needs pulled off the shelves of all stores and online sites. Its ran its course, and now its time to put it to pasture. Not that I think its a bad translation, but 1) its antiquated 17th century Elizabethan language that no one speaks in today's world, and 2) all the lunacy and goonacy the KJVOnlyists show forth in their anti-modern versions stance.

But where are we to find out about the Cockatrices, satyrs ,and the unicorns?
Blessings
Bill

 

[Nehemiah6]

Personally, I think the KJV needs pulled off the shelves of all stores and online sites.

That's a line from the Jesuit playbook. You forgot to add that the KJB needs to be burned publicly in great heaps, and all those who use it put to death like William Tyndale.

The evidence that the power and blessings of God rest on the KJB is the irrational hatred for this outstanding Bible which parallels the irrational hatred for Christ Himself. Both are the Word of God, and both are hated with a cause. All the more reason to use it, since every other "Bible" is actually a PERVERSION of the true Bible and the truth.

 

[SovereignGrace]

But where are we to find out about the Cockatrices, satyrs ,and the unicorns?
Blessings
Bill

Or what about when someone gets mad and stabs you in your wimples with a crisping pin?

 

[Nehemiah6]

But where are we to find out about the Cockatrices, satyrs ,and the unicorns?

More mockery of the Word of God from one who should know better. However, we all will eventually give account.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I am sorry, but I viewed Nehi's post. I will not do that again.

Oh, the Quran has been around for much longer than the KJV. I guess that since longevity is a sign of God's approval, I guess God approves of it, too?

The lengths ppl will go to to protect their pet heresy.

 

[Laish]

More mockery of the Word of God from one who should know better. However, we all will eventually give account.

Sir those words do not appear in the word of God .
They do show up in man’s mistakes .

Blessings
Bill