|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 30, 2015 22:29:33 GMT -5
What is the point or relevance of this OP? Is unreasonable, offensive or wrong to ask? Perhaps it is of relevance to a closeted ivory tower academic or theologian? Is that the point? But is it of any relevance to a plain ordinary person seeking to follow Jesus Christ? If the answer is yes then what is the relevance? thanks bob and mary. you've shown by your posts that they you unable to see the point or relevance of the discovery in Egypt of Greek papyri on the late 1800's and early 1900's to anyone except perhaps to an ivory tower closeted academic or theologian Or if you do you are a little shy about stating it here. anyone else come up with anything? that answers the questions I've asked? Perhaps it is offensive unreasonable and wrong to ask such? Actually it's none of the above. The problem with telling you what the relevance is --- I seriously doubt you're interested. And if you were sincerely interested, I fully expect you wouldn't believe it. ..... AND, even if you did believe what there was to be learned, I have very serious doubts that it would make any difference whatsoever to you ... except perhaps provide good fodder for thrashing trashing education, if you're into that kind of preaching. I wasn't horsing around with my suggestions, and I'm not horsing around with this. But if you could take it seriously ... who knows?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 30, 2015 22:49:52 GMT -5
Your questions are simple to answer, Review007: I can't speak to the ACTUAL answers, since I'm not Dennis, but if I had written the OP, here would be my answers to your questions: 1. What is the point or relevance of this OP? Those who have an interest in studying the origins of bible text may want to refer to Strong's. But they might want to refer to more recent guides as well, since Strong's was written just before the discovery of some ancient texts which has led to a more refined understanding of those languages. 2. Is unreasonable, offensive or wrong to ask? Not at all. But simply responding "and?" could be considered a rather curt and abrasive response, and a reasonable person could be excused for wondering at your intent. Take a phrase from Gene's Charm School Guide to Social Interactions and rephrase it like this: "That's a really interesting observation, Gene! Could you expand on that a bit? I'd especially be interested in your thoughts on how this might impact the average reader's understanding of the bible." See? That was easy, wasn't it? Take a lesson from yknot -- he's one of my best pupils. 3. Perhaps it is of relevance to a closeted ivory tower academic or theologian? Is that the point? Yes, I suppose it would be relevant to the academic or theologian. But that's not really who I had in mind--I suspect they don't need my input to know this. But it might be interesting to some on this board who use Strong's or are interested in exploring the bible in this way. 4. But is it of any relevance to a plain ordinary person seeking to follow Jesus Christ? Not relevant at all if they don't use Strong's and don't intend to. 5. If the answer is yes then what is the relevance? Not applicable, because the answer is no. Gene I appreciate your post, the first response so far that even attempts to answer the simple questions I asked; thank you very much!
Dennis evaded a meaningful response and rather opened both barrels and let me have it with personal attack after personal attack. I smiled and let it run off like water off a duck's back. I'm well used to such from this type of ex member. You are also the only person so far on the thread to address and respond to the questions in a manner that assures me it is not unreasonable, offensive or wrong to ask. Thanks lots for that! I do have one difference of view or opinion with you! I don't feel the OP has any relevance to a plain ordinary person seeking to follow Jesus Christ and who doesn't use Strongs concordance. Nor am I am see to see any relevance to a plain ordinary person seeking to follow Jesus Christ who uses Strongs concordance. If anyone can refute this with verifiable facts that expose my error I will gladly accept it. The only people I am aware that will benefit from the the discovery in Egypt of Greek papyri on the late 1800's and early 1900's are Ivory Tower scholars, theologians and linguists who have a strong knowledge and grasp of the Koine Greek language. On the other hand, the ignorance of the masses is no virtue at all -- except that they can be led blindly.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 30, 2015 22:53:37 GMT -5
Bob, Is there anything in your last post apart from 'horse this and horse that' horseplay to avoid a serious attempt at addressing the questions I asked? Yes -- the last two words. I haven't written you off -- I was just telling you why you haven't excited me about explaining to you.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 30, 2015 23:25:11 GMT -5
Bob thanks for finally coming clean. I won't hold my breath for a meaningful or helpful answer from you like as Gene gave. I, however, have studied some of the things they've dug up in the last 20 years. Is that clean enough?
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Jul 1, 2015 2:53:54 GMT -5
Surely, wouldn't the holy spirit guide those who believe as to what is right and wrong? and any misinterpretations in the bible? I have a Strong's concordance given to me by someone in our meeting, but I've hardly looked at it. I go with my heart! I believe that God will show me what I need to know. I believe he will reveal what's right to my heart. What about faith and trusting in God to guide us and to show is what is right?
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jul 1, 2015 2:57:22 GMT -5
I'm not sure what a plain, ordinary person is. Yet I be thinking plain, ordinary people are more interested in the wonders of nature and the universe and amazed how much that works compared to man's society and man's religion . . . including the Bible, no matter what texts or interpretations. Or perhaps plain, ordinary people are more concerned with getting by day-by-day and don't care about much of anything else.
New discoveries of texts and journals and such can provide new information which might correct what we think we know. This might change our understanding and our acceptance on certain things. Yet, for some, maybe not. Beliefs can be had that are formed by certain writings and opinions of some others. Others accept earlier accounts of incidents that might change a once held belief or a want-to-believe belief.
Newly found texts and journals may shed light on certain matters. Yet some may discount the writings or attempt to spin them so they can still believe what they want or need to believe.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Jul 1, 2015 3:11:55 GMT -5
I'm not sure what a plain, ordinary person is. Yet I be thinking plain, ordinary people are more interested in the wonders of nature and the universe and amazed how much that works compared to man's society and man's religion . . . including the Bible, no matter what texts or interpretations. Or perhaps plain, ordinary people are more concerned with getting by day-by-day and don't care about much of anything else. New discoveries of texts and journals and such can provide new information which might correct what we think we know. This might change our understanding and our acceptance on certain things. Yet, for some, maybe not. Beliefs can be had that are formed by certain writings and opinions of some others. Others accept earlier accounts of incidents that might change a once held belief or a want-to-believe belief. Newly found texts and journals may shed light on certain matters. Yet some may discount the writings or attempt to spin them so they can still believe what they want or need to believe. Unless that plain ordinary person believes in God, and then they will be looking at the universe as being created by him. And because it is out belief that God created the universe then the bible is also relevant to us, as it has scriptures that are written by Gods people telling us of their experiences. So me being a plain ordinary person who loves God sees the universe, nature and the works of it all as being done by Gods hands! Religion isn't God, love is. And we're to believe and follow Jesus, have faith and love God with all our hearts and our neighbour as ourselves. James said this, true religion and undefiled is this, to visit the fatherless and the widows in their afflictions and remain unspotted from the world!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 4:04:36 GMT -5
I am reading on here and wondering where or what this " battle of wits" is leanding to;everyone seems to be enjoying it tremendously--good entertainment for some, eh?
|
|
|
Post by withlove on Jul 1, 2015 4:09:14 GMT -5
I'm still legitimately confused. Why wouldn't the OP be relevant? I don't understand the question. Is Strong's not looked on favorably within the f&w? Or is the idea that Strong's might not be reliable offensive?
I know plenty of elders read supplemental things to get better understanding of the bible but I'm not in the know about which sources they like to use. I assumed it was an individual thing.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 1, 2015 4:29:37 GMT -5
I have a Strong's concordance given to me by someone in our meeting, but I've hardly looked at it. We have had a Cruden's concordance that we used until it is falling apart.
Main thing I have found it useful was for locating a verse.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jul 1, 2015 4:33:03 GMT -5
I am reading on here and wondering where or what this " battle of wits" is leanding to;everyone seems to be enjoying it tremendously--good entertainment for some, eh? I have nit seen evidence of wits, but I might have missed that.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 1, 2015 4:35:36 GMT -5
What is the point or relevance of this OP? Is unreasonable, offensive or wrong to ask? Perhaps it is of relevance to a closeted ivory tower academic or theologian? Is that the point? But is it of any relevance to a plain ordinary person seeking to follow Jesus Christ? If the answer is yes then what is the relevance? thanks bob and mary. you've shown by your posts that they you unable to see the point or relevance of the discovery in Egypt of Greek papyri on the late 1800's and early 1900's to anyone except perhaps to an ivory tower closeted academic or theologian Or if you do you are a little shy about stating it here. anyone else come up with anything? that answers the questions I've asked? Perhaps it is offensive unreasonable and wrong to ask such? review005, you aren't really seeking answers.
It seems that you are using this board to vent your frustration.
I told you that you don't have to stay in your situation since it seems to be making you so unhappy.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 1, 2015 5:15:48 GMT -5
Your questions are simple to answer, Review007: I can't speak to the ACTUAL answers, since I'm not Dennis, but if I had written the OP, here would be my answers to your questions: 1. What is the point or relevance of this OP? Those who have an interest in studying the origins of bible text may want to refer to Strong's. But they might want to refer to more recent guides as well, since Strong's was written just before the discovery of some ancient texts which has led to a more refined understanding of those languages. 2. Is unreasonable, offensive or wrong to ask? Not at all. But simply responding "and?" could be considered a rather curt and abrasive response, and a reasonable person could be excused for wondering at your intent. Take a phrase from Gene's Charm School Guide to Social Interactions and rephrase it like this: "That's a really interesting observation, Gene! Could you expand on that a bit? I'd especially be interested in your thoughts on how this might impact the average reader's understanding of the bible." See? That was easy, wasn't it? Take a lesson from yknot -- he's one of my best pupils. 3. Perhaps it is of relevance to a closeted ivory tower academic or theologian? Is that the point? Yes, I suppose it would be relevant to the academic or theologian. But that's not really who I had in mind--I suspect they don't need my input to know this. But it might be interesting to some on this board who use Strong's or are interested in exploring the bible in this way. 4. But is it of any relevance to a plain ordinary person seeking to follow Jesus Christ? Not relevant at all if they don't use Strong's and don't intend to. 5. If the answer is yes then what is the relevance? Not applicable, because the answer is no. Gene I appreciate your post, the first response so far that even attempts to answer the simple questions I asked; thank you very much!
Dennis evaded a meaningful response and rather opened both barrels and let me have it with personal attack after personal attack. I smiled and let it run off like water off a duck's back. I'm well used to such from this type of ex member. You are also the only person so far on the thread to address and respond to the questions in a manner that assures me it is not unreasonable, offensive or wrong to ask. Thanks lots for that! I do have one difference of view or opinion with you! I don't feel the OP has any relevance to a plain ordinary person seeking to follow Jesus Christ and who doesn't use Strongs concordance. Nor am I am see to see any relevance to a plain ordinary person seeking to follow Jesus Christ who uses Strongs concordance. If anyone can refute this with verifiable facts that expose my error I will gladly accept it. The only people I am aware that will benefit from the the discovery in Egypt of Greek papyri on the late 1800's and early 1900's are Ivory Tower scholars, theologians and linguists who have a strong knowledge and grasp of the Koine Greek language. You wrote: Nor am I am see to see any relevance to a plain ordinary person seeking to follow Jesus Christ who uses Strongs concordance.For many, it's probably not relevant.... for some, it probably is. I think that's best left for the individual to decide, and I'm not sure how you would know without asking each individual. I certainly am not equipped to declare by royal fiat that it's irrelevant to all the plain ordinary people seeking to follow Jesus Christ who use Strong's concordance.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jul 1, 2015 5:31:43 GMT -5
I've noticed that it is not what someone posts that is the issue for Review005 but who posts it. There's certain people he jumps on no matter what they post.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 10:08:17 GMT -5
I am reading on here and wondering where or what this " battle of wits" is leanding to;everyone seems to be enjoying it tremendously--good entertainment for some, eh? I have nit seen evidence of wits, but I might have missed that. No? Well Look up the idiom and it might help, brother.
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
Post by hberry on Jul 1, 2015 10:48:10 GMT -5
I have nit seen evidence of wits, but I might have missed that. No? Well Look up the idiom and it might help, brother. I may be way off base (I do that on a regular basis) but I thought Greg was making a joke using the word "nitwits" in opposition to "battle of wits."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 11:35:46 GMT -5
No? Well Look up the idiom and it might help, brother. I may be way off base (I do that on a regular basis) but I thought Greg was making a joke using the word "nitwits" in opposition to "battle of wits." You are probably correct, but I am getting old and slow so you'll have to make allowances for that and excuse me. I saw the word "nit" but thought it was a mistake/ misprint for " not." Now you have pointed it out, it is funny ha! ha!and not funny peculiar. Good one Greg, you caught me there.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 1, 2015 11:56:30 GMT -5
One reason Strong's (originally published 1890) is not considered totally reliable is that (although for me it is a wonderful work) it was compiled just before the discovery in Egypt of Greek papyri on the late 1800's and early 1900's that have so helped in translation of old Greek documents since then. Haven't there been several new editions of Strong published updating the original? Hasn't any information discovered in Egypt (and elsewhere) been added to make it as reliable as possible?
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
Post by hberry on Jul 1, 2015 12:31:34 GMT -5
One reason Strong's (originally published 1890) is not considered totally reliable is that (although for me it is a wonderful work) it was compiled just before the discovery in Egypt of Greek papyri on the late 1800's and early 1900's that have so helped in translation of old Greek documents since then. Haven't there been several new editions of Strong published updating the original? Hasn't any information discovered in Egypt (and elsewhere) been added to make it as reliable as possible? I just pulled my folks old Young's concordance off the shelf. The one they used was the 8th edition revised in 1939. So you would think that the revision would include any 'late breaking news'--as would Strong's. I don't have a Strong's to check.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 1, 2015 13:16:47 GMT -5
Apparently one of the definitive books on the Greek word usage in the Papyri is Vocabulary of the Greek Testament . www.amazon.com/Vocabulary-Greek-Testament-J-Moulton/dp/080104720X"The entries are given in Greek script, but in this new reprint Strong's numbers have been added to make the work more accessible to those with limited knowledge of Greek." The book reviews are interesting too.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 1, 2015 15:19:51 GMT -5
Apparently one of the definitive books on the Greek word usage in the Papyri is Vocabulary of the Greek Testament . www.amazon.com/Vocabulary-Greek-Testament-J-Moulton/dp/080104720X"The entries are given in Greek script, but in this new reprint Strong's numbers have been added to make the work more accessible to those with limited knowledge of Greek." The book reviews are interesting too. and ?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 1, 2015 15:27:30 GMT -5
Unfortunately I was foolish enough to ask Dennis about the relevance. Here are the first post by Dennis and answered by review005
# 1 Post by Dennis Jacobsen on 27 Jun 2015 at 16:38 "One reason Strong's (originally published 1890) is not considered totally reliable is that (although for me it is a wonderful work) it was compiled just before the discovery in Egypt of Greek papyri on the late 1800's and early 1900's that have so helped in translation of old Greek documents since then."
# 2 Post by review005 on 28 Jun 2015 at 09:29 "and ?"
Do you believe the mere word "and" followed by a question mark (?) was asking Dennis about the relevance of his post?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 1, 2015 15:44:36 GMT -5
review005, you aren't really seeking answers.
It seems that you are using this board to vent your frustration.
I told you that you don't have to stay in your situation since it seems to be making you so unhappy.
Could it be dmg that you have 'missed your calling'? I see potential for you either as an on-line palm reader or misfortune teller or even perhaps as a psychologist? Well, I am an old crone.
So, although I don't do palm reader or misfortune telling, remember I don't beleive in any of your paranormal junk, I really don't think that it takes a lot of understanding of psychology to see right through you!
I have seen many crafty machinations & schemes in my day.
The motives behind your actions are really quite transparent .
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 1, 2015 17:26:31 GMT -5
I'm not sure what a plain, ordinary person is. Yet I be thinking plain, ordinary people are more interested in the wonders of nature and the universe and amazed how much that works compared to man's society and man's religion . . . including the Bible, no matter what texts or interpretations. Or perhaps plain, ordinary people are more concerned with getting by day-by-day and don't care about much of anything else. New discoveries of texts and journals and such can provide new information which might correct what we think we know. This might change our understanding and our acceptance on certain things. Yet, for some, maybe not. Beliefs can be had that are formed by certain writings and opinions of some others. Others accept earlier accounts of incidents that might change a once held belief or a want-to-believe belief. Newly found texts and journals may shed light on certain matters. Yet some may discount the writings or attempt to spin them so they can still believe what they want or need to believe. Well put.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 1, 2015 17:44:01 GMT -5
I think a lot of people on here have no idea what a concordance is. A concordance is nothing more than a list of words to be found in a specific publication -- nothing more. The only thing one will ever find in Strong's Concordance (or at least the one I have) is words from the KJV of the Bible. It won't work for any other version of the Bible, because it's not a concordance to any other version. A concordance doesn't make any pretense of presenting doctrine, history, fact, fiction, culture, translation, or any such thing -- nothing other than finding specific words in the specific book. If the word's not in the KJV of the Bible, it will not, and will never, appear in the Strong's Concordance of the KJV Bible. Concordances are not updated. When a new version appears, then it's time for another concordance for the new version. I've compiled a number of concordances -- you don't have to research anything to do that. All you need is ONE book and a word processor. By coincidence, I even compiled a concordance for a book that I could not read. Not difficult.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 1, 2015 18:21:13 GMT -5
I think a lot of people on here have no idea what a concordance is. A concordance is nothing more than a list of words to be found in a specific publication -- nothing more. The only thing one will ever find in Strong's Concordance (or at least the one I have) is words from the KJV of the Bible. It won't work for any other version of the Bible, because it's not a concordance to any other version. A concordance doesn't make any pretense of presenting doctrine, history, fact, fiction, culture, translation, or any such thing -- nothing other than finding specific words in the specific book. If the word's not in the KJV of the Bible, it will not, and will never, appear in the Strong's Concordance of the KJV Bible. Concordances are not updated. When a new version appears, then it's time for another concordance for the new version. I've compiled a number of concordances -- you don't have to research anything to do that. All you need is ONE book and a word processor. By coincidence, I even compiled a concordance for a book that I could not read. :) Not difficult. From the Strong's web site: The Strong's Exhaustive Concordance is the most complete, easy-to-use, and understandable concordance for studying the original languages of the Bible. Combining the text of the King James Version and New American Standard Bibles with the power of the Greek and Hebrew Lexicons, any student or pastor can gain a clear understanding of the Word to enrich their study.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 1, 2015 18:24:53 GMT -5
I think a lot of people on here have no idea what a concordance is. A concordance is nothing more than a list of words to be found in a specific publication -- nothing more. The only thing one will ever find in Strong's Concordance (or at least the one I have) is words from the KJV of the Bible. It won't work for any other version of the Bible, because it's not a concordance to any other version. A concordance doesn't make any pretense of presenting doctrine, history, fact, fiction, culture, translation, or any such thing -- nothing other than finding specific words in the specific book. If the word's not in the KJV of the Bible, it will not, and will never, appear in the Strong's Concordance of the KJV Bible. Concordances are not updated. When a new version appears, then it's time for another concordance for the new version. I've compiled a number of concordances -- you don't have to research anything to do that. All you need is ONE book and a word processor. By coincidence, I even compiled a concordance for a book that I could not read. Not difficult. But Strong's is more than just a concordance, right? It also includes a Hebrew/Greek lexicon? Source: www.eliyah.com/strongs.htm Source: Wiki en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong%27s_Concordance Source: Amazon.com: By the way, thank GOD! we've moved beyond discussing whether or not the OP is relevant! Apparently, it is!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 1, 2015 18:34:30 GMT -5
|
|