It was the standard in my educated Baptist circle some 15 years ago, so likewise! I've been reviewing my then-favorite resources, and oh boy, these things are....outdated. 😬
Also may consider that "more up to date" may not equal ...better. we are now further removed from the date which Strongs was published, he had a better sense of what the translators had in mind when they translated. Think about it this way. What if 500 years from now someone tried to figure out the difference between the phrase butt dial and booty call. It's similar but different....lol
I remember seeing people come up with some really insane ideas people using what we called the Strong's school of bible translation. They would try to build an entire theology based on the primary definition of a word as listed in Strong's. Those were the days.🙄😁
Thank you for your hard work Dan. I was wondering how do you feel about Mouce's complete expository dictionary of old and new Testament word's compare to the other lexicon that you have suggested in your video
@@boboak9168 [it's a long entry so I trimmed it down some] ===== SamP. /nēbi/ denom. נבא, Bauer-L. Heb. 470n; Lachish הנביא, BArm. JArm. נְבִיָּא, CPArm. Sam. Syr. Mnd. (Drower-M. Dictionary 288a); Fschr. I. Bakoš, (Bratislava 1965): apparently lw. in Sem.; Arb. /nabī'/ (HwbIsl. 563); Qatab. Eth. /nabiy/ (Ullendorff Eth. Bib. 123); etym.: a) according to folk-etymology: hif. of בוא ; (Curtis VT 29 (1979):491-93)b) to be associated with the Akk. verb /nabû/ to name, call ; (AHw. 699b) from which is derived נָבִיא, which may have an active sense “speaker, herald, preacher” or (more probably) a passive sense “one who has been called” (see THAT 2:7).
I note there is another reply in this thread but the RU-vid filters seem to have eaten it. If appropriate hopefully Dan can release it. But if it was you replying and the reply is never released, thank you for taking the time all the same!
i am finding some interesting patterns with the strong's numbers, especially the greek and hebrew for 972. hebrew 972 for chosen and elect and for the greek for violent or mighty. the greek occurs apparently in acts 2:2 for mighty. If one does a bible search in blue letter bible for mighty and look at all those verses then do a bible search for chosen and look at all those verses. Then tge weird thing is israel has as their area code 972. So does the dallas, texas area. I am sure people will say this is a crazy thing for me to say but there is more to the connections than i can specify in a public post in case i am wrong.
Typically I look up Aion or Olam and if it is translated as forever or eternal, then it's wrong. Both of those words designate a set duration of time. For example, Jonah didn't sink into the belly of the whale forever. Yet, Olam is used there.
I've noticed a lot of emphasis on the idea that the Hebrew Old Testament was translated/mistranslated into Greek, but the oldest Septuagint manuscript is clearly hundreds of years older than the Masoretic text. What manuscripts do you use to justify the idea that the Greek came after the Hebrew, and for what books/passages is there sufficient manuscript evidence to make this conclusion?
@@k98killer I have a hard time understanding your statement as well... The Spetuigiant was copied from older Hebrew manuscripts. So the Hebrew came 1st. However, this is not the Hebrew of the corrupt Masorectic text, but the Hebrew that the Dead Sea Scrolls uses.
@@gravityfallscanada Dead Sea Scrolls are just fragments. Are there any complete manuscripts of the various Hebrew scriptures that predate the Septuagint? And which of them are used to make arguments about "the original Hebrew"?
As an average person, what would I be better off investing in if I wanted to have a solid comprehension of the Bible's text today? Is a good Bible version better than a good lexicon?
#1 rule of Sola Scriptura. Scripture interprets scripture.. A KJV Bible, a Concordance to compare the texts in your Bible. A Webster's 1828 dictionary if words are really a trouble. Then let God speak for himself. Either a. He preserves his word for the common man. (What protestantism is all about.)
Honest question. How have we had lexicographical advances? How have we learned more about ancient Greek and Hebrew than Strongs or the KJV translators? What do we know that they didn't? This is a common question I'm asked when discussing newer bible tranlations. The logic seems to be that some one 400 years closer to ancient Greek would know more about it.
As far as Classical Hebrew goes, lexical, literary, and ideological advancement have absolutely exploded with the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls and semitic reservoirs like the libraries of Ashurbanipal (19th century) and Ras Shamra (late 20th century), with most of these texts not translated, indexed, or available to most scholars until quite recently. Even the few texts of Elephantine (recently accessible) have opened up a lot insights for divine epithets and folk religion in the Hebrew Bible.
@@andrewmatern3178 I'm not as familiar with the Greek situation, but my impression is that it's been similar with a much broader range of classical and biblical texts, and more accurate manuscripts/reconstructions. I expect you'd be able to find more by looking into the Greek-related defenses of new scholarly translations like the NRSV over the KJV, which are based on entirely different manuscript traditions, and informed by expanded literary and linguistic resources. (For that matter, I think Dan also has some videos on the KJV.)
In general, scholars of a field know more about it today than the people nearer to it in time. For example, historians today know more about the Battle of Waterloo than either Napoleon or Wellington knew at the time. This might sound paradoxical, but through research historians have built up a body of information that includes much of what both Wellington and Napoleon knew, and much besides. Similarly, scholars know more about ancient Greek today than the Hellenists did, because they have access to more sources and resources. Of course it's hard to imagine that anybody in the Dark Ages had a better understanding of ancient literature, even if they were much closer time.
It is not outdated. You merely have to use a dictionary from its date; you shouldn't be using new vocabulary when studying an ancient text anyway. The scriptures urges us to learn the ways of the ancients, not that ancient is out of date so we need to use modern things. That is dumb. I dislike when people say this. This type thinking is why we have so many translations today.
@@That_one_introvert.he’s not wrong at all. If you really wanna know what things say learn the language instead of relying on a book that will confuse you
So, I LOVE dictionaries, but I'm torn as a language-lover-I worry the concise editions are lacking a lot of good stuff. Are the concise versions regarded as viable scholarly resources?
I recently found the FIRST edition of the Strong's, I choked at paying $500 for it but was very interested in seeing it based on the ones I bought 40 years ago, I've noticed like bibles reference & study materials being hacked and have less meat to them, the first edition is SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER
There is nothing wrong with the Strong's Concordance. I recommend it as a basic work. The concordance is superior but the dictionaries leave a little something to be desired. For a one-volume work, it is better than nothing, especially if one has difficulty with lexicons.
All too rich for my blood. I just prefer picking up the latest models from the lot everytime I drive the Lincoln. Interior Engineers work out those details for me. 😂
While I did hear you state that the BDB and Thayer's Greek English Lexicon's are outdated I did not hear any examples or proofs that they were. And I have to admit this doesn't make for a convincing argument for that position. I do understand that you're approaching topics from an academic perspective but it would seem that a "scholarly" approach would at least provide a small list of examples solidifying this position. If you would please
Thank you so very much! Strongs usage is off the rails, leading to bad, bad, bad exegesis. There's a veritable cottage industry of YT "ministry revelators" and they use strongs with wide ranging results. I'm interested in knowing what percentage of biblical texts can be considered qualified, accurate, complete and authoritative. Meaning, as well, what percentage is missing, incomplete or unattested and disqualified? Why majority of the writing of Jesus' disciples and apostleshas been suppressed to laymen?
What's the ISBN for the Greek-English edition? Your image says fourth edition, but I've googled extensively and bizarrely can't locate that _anywhere!_ Not even on the publisher site.
It doesn't have a copyright page, but upon inspection, it looks like it might be a cheeky little digital-only transcription of the third edition that just corrects some typos.
So glad you made this video. I knew my Strong's Concordance was not the best, and in fact many definitions were problematic, so I thought I had upgraded when I bought the Brown-Driver-Briggs. LOL So even though I have studied myself out of religion entirely, I still like discovering more problems, contradictions, and errors in the Tanakh, and to a lesser extant the New Testament, as the later is far less relevant to me. Having said all that, I'd rather live in a Western Nation with a Christian majority, than a Muslim dominated culture, as the later will always be in an eternal struggle with Western / Enlightenment values.
Typical Dan vid: You are wrong and this is why. This Dan vid: How you can be significantly less wrong according to your budget and this is why. Me: Racing off to buy the best before making an eye wateringly bad mistake with these tools in a bid to push my atheistic agenda!
How is the concordance of 1870 out of date if the bible is over 2000 years old 🤣 bible doesn’t get out of date specially when you have the original 1611 KJV
Fun fact: Biblehub is very deceptive. At the end of Isaiah 53, they don't allow you to see that the word למו is plural (the Jewish people) because they want you to think it's singular and referring to Jesus.
From Chabad 12" Therefore, I will allot him a portion in public, and with the strong he shall share plunder, because he poured out his soul to death, and with transgressors he was counted; and he bore the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors." From wikipedia "National This interpretation states that the servant is a metaphor for the entire nation of Israel. The sufferings of the servant are seen as sufferings of the nation as a whole while in exile. This interpretation first appears with unnamed Jews familiar to Origen in the third century CE (see below), and it subsequently became the majority position within Judaism from the medieval period until today. Sometimes this view is combined with the "righteous remnant" view (e.g. Rashi on 53:3 and 53:8) Representative commentaries include: Rashi Ibn Ezra Radak" In other words the interpretation that the suffering servant was Israel was only proported 800 years after it was written. Again, I need to point out, as a mystic giving advice to non-mystics, that the reason there are so many interpretations (7) is because we don't kniw the identity let alone thr magick (his mystical motivation) of the mystic. Any single interpretation is going to be unpopular with another group. Having said that it would appear that the later scribes have tried to remove "humanity" "Just as many were astonished at you, so have I anointed his appearance beyond that of any (other) man, and his form beyond that of the sons of humanity [lit., of the human]" Again, the dangers of mysticism. The author of Isaiah 53 is unknown. He lived approximately 100 years after Isaiah and the text was erroneously or purposely inserted under Isaiah in order to give it authority. Its author is certainly more mystical and prophetic than First Isaiah. What you are trying to do is to argue that something with nephariously assumed authority was meant to be interpreted one way versus another way. A general rule when trying, as a non-mystic, to interpret the meaning of a mystic . . . .Don't, not unless you want to share in their delusion.
When I was just out of school, I was working at Waldenbooks (that should date me lol). Some guy came in with an attitude, pushing in front of the line and asking where these were. I didn't know what it was and said that, asking for clarification. He then yelled at me, saying, "It's a Bible dictionary stupid." I smiled, excused myself, and showed him the section. Rung him up and said, "Have a nice day, and please don't hesitate not to come again." He was mad but left when about 10 people in the store clapped for me.
@_3d3p3_ really struggled to decide if I was going to answer your "questions" or not because, really, there is only one question here, and that is if I'm giving it a very complementary light. I got here because I have a degree in history (ancient history), with minors in anthropology and English Lit. I have studied after university for my own desire in those topics and linguistics, religion, mythology, and etymology. I also have read several of Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou works. As you may know, she was Dr. Mcclellan's PhD advisor. I have an interest in ancient text as part of my larger historical interest. As to the rest of your commentary, let me begin by saying, I have a question I have to ask you what you what you thought you were hoping to accomplish by asking me about my relationship with Jesus? Though you seem to think I shouldn't have made my comment when you asked me about that? You said nothing but that. I gotta wonder if I'd said, "Yeah, me and the big J are tight as ever," and you would have said any of the rest of your posts. I told the story because I think it's funny. You, of course can think it is not. The irony of the behavior considering the text that was purchased, yeah, it is good laugh. It is also based on the assumption of the listener. Did I, at any point, indicate, in any way, that the guy was Christian? I have no clue. I also should point out he was young, college age or a bit more maybe and I worked in a town with a major university in it. He could have got it for school. Still, irony can still be there. So my question for you is why is my having a relation with Jesus a prerequisite for watching this video? I try to watch all the Data>Dogma videos. If you would like to say my comment isn't relative to the point of the video, then maybe that would be correct. I guess it's shall we say, point adjacent? However, I would think that would be for the channel owners to decide. However, I would say many comments on these series of videos contain commentary not directly related. Yet, here we are. I did not insult you. I did not say this person was Christian. I did not say "oh look this Christian guy was a douchcanoe, see what he did?!" I am well aware that there is chaff in the wheat and not all people are the same. You could have taken your own advise and chose to ignore my comment or reported it if you found it so egregious, or put me on mute (please feel free) but instead you chose to "wonder" how I got here since I have no personal relationship to Jesus and due that I am unwelcome? Say, "Your comment seems little related to the topic," and perhaps I'll have to agree. Insinuate I am not welcome because of my personal faith (and please, do not try to play naive here. We both know this is exactly what you did), and then I will very much disagree. I hope this clears up your questions and we can put this conversation to rest. Also, why does it seem like you keep changing your name here as the name listed here on this post is not the same as the one that appears in my notifications? Is this some RU-vid thing? Don't answer it was rhetorical. Edit: for spelling only
@_3d3p3_ I thank you for your apology and extend one myself. I won't apologize for feeling I needed to stand up for myself when how you phrased your comment really disturbed me. I agree that reading something leaves much to be desired when it comes to such matters. So, I do apologize if I mistook your intent. I will say I'm pretty forthright with my words. I think you may have realized that, but I am not afraid to admit if I made a mistake. I do hope maybe you can question without putting someone's teeth on edge, and I hope I can be more lenient in my responses to people. If I wanted to say I if I think someone is an arse, I tell them. I don't appreciate word games, so I try not to play them. If I want to call something out, I'll just do it. Ain't nobody got time for crap games. My interest in these things is not from your perspective and vice versa, and that is a good thing. I'm not religious, though I did grow up going to church with my Nannie. I was not the teacher's pet in Sunday school, as you may well imagine. I had lots of questions. I grew up in a Church of God Holiness. Women didn't wear slacks, much or any makeup and little jewelry, or cut their hair. I went to church with friends from Southern Baptist to Catholic services. In college, I even went to some Greek Orthodox services since one was down the street from me. I must have asked the Pater a million questions, including if I could ring the church bells (he nicely said no, perhaps due to my love of metal music 😂?) I may not be a believer nor do I claim to understand the dogma, but I am fascinated by history and how societies function in ancient times, what stories they found important and why. But being from West Virginia, it's a bit difficult to get hold of ancient texts. My defensiveness doesn't come from pain, though I have had my share just like we all have. I'm not afraid of death because I've faced it too often. I'm 51 and have had 71 operations and almost died four times. I had my first tracheotomy tube (you know those tubes they put in your neck so you can breathe) at age six til 14 and then again briefly when I had my daughter. It sucked but life sucks for everyone at some point. I had wonderful doctors and nurses, and they saved me. I believe in science and medicine and the capacity of strangers to be caring and kind. I remember this wonderful porter in an airport when I was young coming from the hospital. He asked to pray for me, and he did with like 50 people waiting for my plane. If I believed was not relevant because how could those good vibes not have been a positive thing? That is the frustration that fuels me because I know how great people can be. I also know how terrible they can be when they aren't accepting people who don't look or think or believe the same. Both those things taught me much. So, I hold my hand out to shake yours virtually. We can hopefully agree to disagree on some things but be respectful of each other? I'll never turn away the opportunity to make a new friend, and if you are different from me, all the better to learn more about the world.
Nobody has time to stress over all of this. All of these different books are for people who are dependent on their own learning and understanding of the word of God. Just ask the Holy Spirit to teach you and give you understanding of His heart and meanings behind His word, and you'll be fine. I don't get the vibe that the man in this video has any type of actual real relationship with God or any form of intimacy at all. He just sounds like someone with a bunch of head knowledge that spews word vomit.
You sound like a person who has a degree to teach which would make you a Pharisee who Jesus spoke against for you to discredit a work that you didn’t or can’t do is beyond me.. people be lead by the spirit not people that have earned degrees to follow Jesus, which is not biblical the apostles and prophets were unlearn men not scholars
"out-dated" we are talking about understanding a book written 2000 years ago and this guy says we need to know more updated sources to understand an ancient writing, then he goes on to try to sell something. Google etymology and then using etymology search a word and find its oldest meaning typically 13.c because we cant seem to go back much further in english which we all speak. UPDATED sources DE-FINE words. strong concordance DE-FINES, dictionaries DE-FINE. look up the etymology of the word fine. and then look up what a word means when you place -de- before it.
No, the biblical canon was adopted by consensus in the mid-300 CE and affirmed first by the Council of Rome (382 CE). Pope Damasus only presided over the council: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Damasus_I#Council_of_Rome_of_382_and_the_Biblical_canon
How is Strong's out of date? It isn't a computer! Modern crap goes out of date. So what great knowledge has been bestowed upon humanity. AI-computer generated things? No thanks, I'll keep my Strong's concordance and KJV bible, Thank you. People don't even know how to rightly divide scripture or bust out an english dictionary, much less a Hebrew-Greek dictionary.
These resources go out of date because of not only because the bibles they reference are constantly updated, but because of archaeological, cultural, linguistic, and other research discoveries improving our knowledge of what the biblical authors were saying.
@@tchristianphoto Bibles are made for filthy lucres sake. They have to change 10% of words to get their patents. These modern translations are not easier to read then the kjv. Satan has a feel good bible for everyone. Just like denominations. There is only one truth, but many lies. Religion is all the different ways to go to hell. I use the bible made from the antiochan texts. Not alexandrian. They were first called Christian’s at Antioch. Not in Egypt. But we are to work out our salvation somehow. I found mine by grace through faith in the blood of JESUS CHRIST, not of works, lest I should boast. Amen,Amen.
