Basic bible study -

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Lillywolf

Well-known member
Aug 29, 2018
1,562
533
113
#21
If you want to spend so much time studying the Bible, then the question is why not to learn Greek to read it in original language instead of tuns of dictionaries.
Which is easier to begin? Learning Greek, the language of the New Testament, or using credible resources such as Dictionaries, Lexicons, Interlinear versions of the Bible, etc...
The OT was written in Hebrew. The other Semitic language found in the OT is Aramaic. the Book of Daniel and the Book of Ezra were written in Aramaic.

Are you proficient in all three languages?


For study consideration:
What were the original languages of the Bible?

(SIC)...History of Bible translations
The first translation of the English Bible was initiated by John Wycliffe and completed by John Purvey in 1388. The first American edition of the Bible was probably published before 1752.
 

dcontroversal

Senior Member
Dec 12, 2013
41,638
14,164
113
#22
Reading the the bible and studying the bible are two different things. We read for pleasure, we study for knowledge. Every student of the bible should have a 1. Translation of the Bible (not a paraphrase version)
2. Strong's Concordance
3. Dictionary
I use the Hermeneutic method, asking the who what when where why questions
Should also acquire at least some knowledge of customs and history of the times the bible was written
Rule to follow always, NEVER take a verse out of context. Context often determines the meaning of a word or words.
Scripture out of context is PRETEXT. Scripture picking is for the spiritually disabled.

Study to be approved as a workman who is able to handle accurately the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15
AMEN..............one thing I learned when I went to the Seminary to make of for lost bible study time (we studied through the bible twice a year) was how to study, what tools to utilize, study every word from the original and above all context..........I have said numerous times in the past....WHY not utilize every tool available to grasp a better understanding of the bible.........!!
 

oldethennew

Senior Member
Feb 28, 2016
9,230
1,684
113
#23
For myself I haave read the Word in many languages, again for myself. It is always a blessing, yet all that is important for me and for others for salvation came to mewith the entering of the Holy Spirit into my being, heart, soul and mind.

Now I read, but I rely on the Holy Spirit and the Word in the many varied forms allowed by our Father...Al blessings in Jesus Christ aways. j
==================================================
ditto Brother Jack, :):)...
 
Sep 9, 2018
2,244
1,021
113
66
Illinois
#24
AMEN..............one thing I learned when I went to the Seminary to make of for lost bible study time (we studied through the bible twice a year) was how to study, what tools to utilize, study every word from the original and above all context..........I have said numerous times in the past....WHY not utilize every tool available to grasp a better understanding of the bible.........!!
I feel bad for the ones that are only allowed to study the council of Dork and very little Bible . . . except for maybe 40 'special' verses and depending on their teacher to tell them what they mean, instead of the Teacher.

II Corinthians 4:4.
 

oldethennew

Senior Member
Feb 28, 2016
9,230
1,684
113
#25
The Holy Spirit Works in each of us on an individual path that is our very own, pre-destined from our Holy Father -
once we learn how to acknowledge this and understand this, then the Truth of our Holy journey will become
clearer and clearer as we submit to His will for our growth as He draws us to Himself day-by-day.,..
 

SpoonJuly

Senior Member
Feb 16, 2018
1,304
929
113
#26
Some seem to suggest that if we do not learn the original languages, there is no way to rightly divide the Word.
It would be great it we all had the opportunity and ability to do so, but that is not always possible.
Down through time, few have had such opportunity and yet the word has been preached around the world and multitudes have been saved and many have a great knowledge and understanding of the Word.
Seems that God, more often than not, choose the common, uneducated men to write and proclaim His Word.
This is not a knock on the educated, but education does not always mean understanding and the ability to rightly divide the Word and teach others the truth.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
777
113
#27
Which is easier to begin? Learning Greek, the language of the New Testament, or using credible resources such as Dictionaries, Lexicons, Interlinear versions of the Bible, etc...
The OT was written in Hebrew. The other Semitic language found in the OT is Aramaic. the Book of Daniel and the Book of Ezra were written in Aramaic.

Are you proficient in all three languages?


For study consideration:
What were the original languages of the Bible?

(SIC)...History of Bible translations
The first translation of the English Bible was initiated by John Wycliffe and completed by John Purvey in 1388. The first American edition of the Bible was probably published before 1752.
Its easier to begin reading translations, sure.

But if you want to study Bible seriously, for years and years and decades, learning Greek is the way to go.

You can also read the Old Testament in Greek - Septuagint, but the New Testament is our main part for salvation and doctrine.
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
1,656
464
83
#28
My approach to bible study is a bit different from these postings. I discovered that the deep sea scrolls added much to understanding scripture. I discovered that during these 2,000 years since Christ lots of men added their thoughts to scripture, some of those thoughts were not correct. I use commentaries written by men who studied the original times of scripture. These people can go back to the original without their minds being filled with men's theories.

To find what words meant to the men who wrote down God's instructions I found it necessary to learn what people were thinking about and how they lived during the time that scripture was written. Commentaries written by scholars who I am sure have the latest information about history are ones who have worked with the dead sea scrolls.

I also use E-Sword to help me study.

In addition, I found that there is much the Holy Spirit helps me with during a fast. I use the fast as a closing out of material things, even food, and submerge myself in the Lord's word.
 

JohnRH

Junior Member
Mar 5, 2018
254
95
28
#29
When Strong's allows you to do multi-word concordance searches, provides instant comparisons with 40+ other translations, and links automatically to the original-language text(s) behind the translation, then I might consider that it has not been eclipsed. Technology has enabled several tools that Strong's doesn't provide.

Regarding your other comment, such generalized criticism is no different than slander.
Strong's doesn't dice carrots or wash your car either. But when it comes to what it was actually designed to do, I don't think it's ever been "eclipsed".
Strong's Concordance is a hard-copy book. The search engine is: lick your finger and turn the pages. If it contained comparisons with 40 other translations and their original language texts, you'd need a forklift to carry it across the livingroom.
When it's incorporated into Bible study software (and I don't know of any worthy Bible study software that doesn't have it), it's the job of the software to do multi-word searches & automatic links; not Strongs'.
 
Mar 14, 2011
63,849
10,197
113
#30
I agree with some of this. But Strong’s is a backwards translation of KJV English.

Better to use a proper lexicon, although you do need to learn to use the Greek alphabet for Bauer, BDAG, or Hebrew for Brien-Driver-Briggs.
I agree, I would add that strongs is also too basic..

 
Mar 14, 2011
63,849
10,197
113
#31
I would also add history sources to get historical context, which may come from, commentaries (Not belief specific, we shouldl never just use people who believe the same as we do as a soul source of study)
 

Lillywolf

Well-known member
Aug 29, 2018
1,562
533
113
#32
Its easier to begin reading translations, sure.

But if you want to study Bible seriously, for years and years and decades, learning Greek is the way to go.

You can also read the Old Testament in Greek - Septuagint, but the New Testament is our main part for salvation and doctrine.
Our faith has its beginning and that is in the OT. Where Jesus is, as we know, featured prominently.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
777
113
#33
Our faith has its beginning and that is in the OT. Where Jesus is, as we know, featured prominently.
Actually, you need to know just few points, christological prophecies and some general history from the Old Testament to understand Christ and his mission.

You do not need to study Song of Songs, Kings or Esther in original language to dig out some eternal and life saving mysteries. There is no certain textual version of these books anyway.
 

Lillywolf

Well-known member
Aug 29, 2018
1,562
533
113
#34
Actually, you need to know just few points, christological prophecies and some general history from the Old Testament to understand Christ and his mission.

You do not need to study Song of Songs, Kings or Esther in original language to dig out some eternal and life saving mysteries. There is no certain textual version of these books anyway.
The OT is irrelevant to the Christian?
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
777
113
#37
How so? Please be specific.
"The Old testament" is just a modern name for library of many books, not all books are used equally, not all books are quoted in the New Testament, not all books are useful in the same manner.

You may be interested in specific word used in Isaiah, mainly about Christ, but I think you do not care about 90% of words in Esther.
 

Lillywolf

Well-known member
Aug 29, 2018
1,562
533
113
#38
"The Old testament" is just a modern name for library of many books, not all books are used equally, not all books are quoted in the New Testament, not all books are useful in the same manner.

You may be interested in specific word used in Isaiah, mainly about Christ, but I think you do not care about 90% of words in Esther.
Thanks for your post.
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
1,656
464
83
#39
Actually, you need to know just few points, christological prophecies and some general history from the Old Testament to understand Christ and his mission.

You do not need to study Song of Songs, Kings or Esther in original language to dig out some eternal and life saving mysteries. There is no certain textual version of these books anyway.
I don't think it is so that we need only a few points from the OT. Everything in the NT is based on the principles set out in the OT. It tells us who God is and what to expect from God. The sacrificial system, if studied, tells us what Christ does for us. Genesis orients us in our world and gives the way God established it to operate. Psalms explains our God. As examples.

Today's church has gotten far from God principles. It started to happen by 300AD when gentiles took over from the Christians who knew scripture, the only scripture available for hundreds of years.

Now our world is in a world of hurt that faith in the word could cure.

It is up to church members to learn the word of God and get man's ideas out of their learning. Our holidays are without scripture outlining them for us or even mentioning them, and even the names of the days of our week are deep in mythology.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
24,193
5,961
113
#40
Angela53510
Senior Member

Oh please, a LEXICON??? ROFL
i don't understand why you scoff at Angela's sound advice?

Strong's is a concordance and while it is an excellent one it is still a concordance explicitly linked to KJV translation. that is very useful when it is used as a concordance but that is not the same as a lexicon and should not be thought of or used as one.

copy-pasting an useful, informative article about what the difference is and why it matters, below
((source:
https://hermeneutics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/923/strongs-is-a-concordance-not-a-lexicon))





The Strong's Concordance is a helpful tool that lists every Hebrew and Greek lemma (root word) present in the King James Bible. Along with listing these, the tool also generally gives a 'gloss' for each word (some tools actually link Strong's Concordance to lexicons such as Thayer's Greek-English lexicon). The tool is popular because it is free on many Bible-related websites. With that said, I'd like to give some advice (and caution) to users who rely on this tool for original languages research in the Biblical texts.

Giving credit where it is due, I found a series of blog posts that address this superbly on the Armchair Theology site that have heavily influenced this post.

Strong's Concordance is not a lexicon
A lexicon gives an inventory of all of the lexemes in a given language; Strong's Concordance is based only on a specific English translation (the KJV). Hebrew-English, Aramaic-English, and Greek-English lexicons also function as dictionaries in that they define lexemes from the original language using English words that best capture their meaning, explaining any relevant grammatical features that impact their translation.

While Strong's Concordance gives a gloss for each lemma, this is not the main purpose of this tool and as such should not be used as a lexicon nor as a dictionary (a collection of glosses is rightly called a 'glossary'). Here are a few reasons why it is problematic to use Strong's Concordance as a lexicon:

  • Lexical ambiguity: Consider the following sentence: "She is looking for a match." Is the subject trying to light a candle or find a romantic partner? The 'gloss' definition here is ambiguous and gives us no help disambiguating the meaning in this context. Grammatical features should also be examined, which the Strong's Concordance offers no help with.1
  • Nuances of meaning: Sometimes there is more than one meaning listed for a term (this is often the case for prepositions, but there are also verbs that change meaning depending on their voice and other grammatical features). Strong's Concordance offers no help when determining which (if any) gloss is most appropriate in context. Often knowledge of the original languages is required to determine what grammatical and contextual features are present in order to determine the correct gloss (if any). Also, authors can use the same word differently in differing contexts (such as James' and Paul's usage of the word 'faith').
The meaning of a lexeme is that intended by the author using it. The Strong's Concordance often sheds little light on what this meaning is in context. Therefore, claiming the meaning of a specific word in a given context is X on the basis of the Strong's Concordance is not a reliable claim.

Etymological fallacies
I often see folks try to determine the meaning of words in specific contexts using their root lemmata. The problem here is that etymology and the later meaning of a word are often orthogonal concepts. Here are some examples:

Etymology is not the primary tool for understanding the meaning of a word in a specific context, and it is often meaningless when making such a determination.