You dismissed the use of common dictionaries but endorsed the use of Strongs despite the fact that both are categorically lexicographic. There is also a danger in assuming a direct equivalency based on Strongs, as a "goat" mentioned in a parable will clearly have a different meaning than a literal goat mentioned elsewhere. Context can't be ignored, and a word for word check will not always give you the correct meaning. It may be the case that "believe" can mean different things in different instances despite using the same Greek word. Translation is more than just an exchange of word-for-word. When we see "god of this world" there can be a wide variety of reasons a translation team chose to render that as "Satan", usually based on surrounding contexts. It's not that those passages can't be rendered as "God", but there is justification for either case. It's not as simple as just checking a Strongs entry.
Thank you for taking the time to reply. Since you touched on various points throughout this post, I may have to reply in sections.
Regarding Lexicons, Christian dictionaries, commentaries or Strong’s concordance. While true that these are all designed to be used as tools, they are not all beneficial. The reason I suggested (in a few of my posts) that commentaries and lexticons be not used, was due to the fact that the Bible is its own dictionary and commentary.
I then used the word "draw", as used in John 6:44 to explain this. A Lexicon will define this particular Greek word as, "drag" , "compell" "coerce", etc. This leaves the reader as the one who decides which word best fits in John 6:44. Thus, if I believe that God doesn't force anyone to salvation, then I would conclude (based on my understanding) that the word "draw" should mean "compell" . The word "drag" would certainly not even be on my list of considerations.
Yet, since this Greek word is only used 8 times in the Greek text, we can easily search it out to see how else God uses this particular word to see if it agrees with the context of the Bible. Why do I do this? Because if we are the ones who determine which word fits best, based on our own convictions and understanding of the immediate context, then we become the authority. And since many understand the scriptures based on the various hermeneutics each one uses, then not everyone will arrive at the same conclusion.
But when we realize that God used every word exactly as he purposed to do so within the original text, then when use his own word to define any word we are studying and arrive at a certain conclusion, then how do we know if we are correct? Because everything in the Bible will agree (harmonize). Likewise, if we develop our own method of defining a word, then contradictions will begin to appear as we continue studying, which indicate to us that we have committed an error.
Now, it may be so, that in our own English grammar, we use one word to mean different and completely unrelated things (like "duck"). But the Bible teaches us that we can't carry all the same rules we use to understand a common textbook as we would the Bible, because we would have to go into the Bible with the premise that God wrote it as text which is to be understood at face value (like normal books), and such is not the case.
When we let the Bible define a word, we can see that it fits with the context of the Bible, even though sometimes it may not make sense to us in the immediate context. You see how this way of thinking is actually opposite of our norm? (I'll provide an example in a bit).
But the translators job was to interpret the text as best as they were able, while also making the
immediate context make sense. This then, made our job, as students of the Bible, a little more challenging to find the truth God had in store for us by using the words that he did.
Let me give you another example aside from the word "draw" .
Genesis 25:27 (KJV)
And the boys grew: and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents.
On the surface, it seems that God is only giving us an outward description of what these men grew to be like. I won't go over Esau's description for the sake of space here, but let's focus on God's description of Jacob.
Here, the text says he was a plain man. So, if I look up the word "plain" in my dictionary, it tells me, "simple or ordinary ". Now, we don't really know what type of man Jacob historically was, not even with the use of the word "plain".
But if I let the Bible define this word, by using a concordance and looking up where else God uses this word, then I will quickly find that this word is means something altogether different. God wasn't telling us that Jacob was a plain man, but rather, God was describing Jacob's spiritual condition here. The word translated as "plain" is a word that relates to one's salvation as it is translated as "perfect", as "undefiled" and as "upright". Only here is it translated as "plain".
Thus, God was telling us that Jacob was a perfect man, or an upright man. In either case, we can know that God is describing the condition of his heart. Just as he is doing with Esau by describing him as a hunter and a man of the field ("the field is the world").
But God , in his wisdom, is able to use what appear to be common sentences and words that convey an actual historical account, while at the same time, conceal great spiritual truths. This is the nature of parables.
Proverbs 25:2 (KJV)
2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing (a word);
but the honour of kings is to search out a matter (a word).
So, the reason I use Strong's concordance is because it is a tool that assists me in locating where a particular Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek word, as it appears throughout the scriptures. But this tool is not without its errors either, which is the reason for continuing revisions. But it saves alot of time in Bible study. I don't know if this book also contains a Lexicon, as I never looked, but I only use it as a time saving, word locator tool.
So, I don't use Strong’s to define any words for me, but rather only to show me where the same words are used. Then I let the Bible define them for me as illustrated above.
And regarding the "god of this world", I just posted a response as to why it cannot be Satan (see post 191). This conclusion is based on the Scriptures as a whole, as the immediate context, once again, is obscure in spelling out who is in view. Even if someone believes that this, or any word is crystal clear in its immediate context, then searching the scriptures for further understanding will only serve to solidify what was already understood by agreeing with that understanding all the way through the Bibke. Or, if all we find is disagreement, then it is God’s way of telling us we need to make correction to our previous understanding.
