looking for a prooftext ...

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Where did Strong's, if that is true in all cases, pick up "(clamorously) foolish"?

Short and honest answer: I don't know.

It may have been due to the fact that there were few people in the West who really understood Biblical Hebrew in the 19th century and that the whole process of developing the more complete body of knowledge that we have today took some time.

Strong's most important contribution was his numbering system that was used as a tool for getting Hebrew linguists on the same page (or on the same stem word at least). Also, his Concordance of Scripture passages still remains an invaluable tool for Bible students today.

Where problems arise is when people go to the dictionary portions of the Strong's Concordance and try to apply what they read there in the same manner as they would a Webster's English Dictionary definition. Strong never had such a plan in mind.

Instead, he was supplying all of the many different uses of the stem word involved. Using the proper prefix or suffix in Hebrew one could get that stem word to say just the opposite of what the stem alone means. See for example "one" or "echad."

In his dictionary section Strong includes such meanings as "united," "several," "a few" and even "eleven."

Now, how could the word "one" also mean "eleven?" It doesn't make any sense. But what Strong was striving for was to develope a workable list of stem words that other scholars could use in their studies.

The way "one" (echad) becomes "eleven" is when you add a suffix for "ten" to the root or stem word "echad" and get something like "one + ten." The Strong's dictionary however included all uses of the stem - even compound uses that would turn the meaning of the stem around 180 degrees.

I've seen Trinitarians bungle the dictionary entry for "echad" for years. They way out of the bungle is to look up the passages where the word is used in the main Concordance section and you will find something like "259" and "6240" listed together. Going by the dictionary alone will result in confusion.

[pelathais]

The BDB entry includes:

2e) (Poel) to make a fool of, make into a fool
2f) (Hithpoel) to act madly, act like a madman
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 499, 500

For the usages listed as 2e and 2f we see the BDB has given us the Hebrew verb forms of "poel" and "hithpoel." (Poel is sometimes written in English as Pael).

These forms of the verb will alter the meaning of the stem word and should not be considered as the "same word" as the stem alone or in other forms.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Short and honest answer: I don't know.

It may have been due to the fact that there were few people in the West who really understood Biblical Hebrew in the 19th century and that the whole process of developing the more complete body of knowledge that we have today took some time.

Strong's most important contribution was his numbering system that was used as a tool for getting Hebrew linguists on the same page (or on the same stem word at least). Also, his Concordance of Scripture passages still remains an invaluable tool for Bible students today.

Where problems arise is when people go to the dictionary portions of the Strong's Concordance and try to apply what they read there in the same manner as they would a Webster's English Dictionary definition. Strong never had such a plan in mind.

Instead, he was supplying all of the many different uses of the stem word involved. Using the proper prefix or suffix in Hebrew one could get that stem word to say just the opposite of what the stem alone means. See for example "one" or "echad."

In his dictionary section Strong includes such meanings as "united," "several," "a few" and even "eleven."

Now, how could the word "one" also mean "eleven?" It doesn't make any sense. But what Strong was striving for was to develope a workable list of stem words that other scholars could use in their studies.

The way "one" (echad) becomes "eleven" is when you add a suffix for "ten" to the root or stem word "echad" and get something like "one + ten." The Strong's dictionary however included all uses of the stem - even compound uses that would turn the meaning of the stem around 180 degrees.

I've seen Trinitarians bungle the dictionary entry for "echad" for years. They way out of the bungle is to look up the passages where the word is used in the main Concordance section and you will find something like "259" and "6240" listed together. Going by the dictionary alone will result in confusion.

Well, I'll have to think about it. I've read very lengthy word studies where people have said that Strong's didn't have it right. After I read the lengthy text and compared it to the Strong's, in essence, it was simply a shortened version of the lengthy text with the same meaning. In other words, in most cases, it didn't really seem to matter, except that, it's always interesting to read more information.

The basic definition for "halal" is "to shine", same as BDB.

I'd have to know why all the other words are included in the Strong's. I won't be able to make a decision without that information. I've contacted the author in the past (an error in the Strongest Strong's, which he acknowledged). I'll contact him again and see what he says about it.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The BDB entry includes:

2e) (Poel) to make a fool of, make into a fool
2f) (Hithpoel) to act madly, act like a madman
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 499, 500

For the usages listed as 2e and 2f we see the BDB has given us the Hebrew verb forms of "poel" and "hithpoel." (Poel is sometimes written in English as Pael).

These forms of the verb will alter the meaning of the stem word and should not be considered as the "same word" as the stem alone or in other forms.

Thanks.

On the portion of the definition in Strong's for "halal", it is saying, "to boast; and thus to be (clamorously) foolish;" All Strong's seems to be saying is [I]"to boast and thus to make a loud outcry or sustained din."

I think it is interesting that "foolish" is also defined as "Halal" in Psalm 5:5 and Psalm 73:3.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Well, I'll have to think about it. I've read very lengthy word studies where people have said that Strong's didn't have it right. After I read the lengthy text and compared it to the Strong's, in essence, it was simply a shortened version of the lengthy text with the same meaning. In other words, in most cases, it didn't really seem to matter, except that, it's always interesting to read more information.

The basic definition for "halal" is "to shine", same as BDB.

I'd have to know why all the other words are included in the Strong's. I won't be able to make a decision without that information. I've contacted the author in the past (an error in the Strongest Strong's, which he acknowledged). I'll contact him again and see what he says about it.

It doesn't mean you can't dance or jump, but it certainly does mean "anything goes" is not supported or "act like a fool" means "worship". It's that sort of reasoning that has led to all sorts of excesses like the young man I spoke of climbing into the baptismal tank.

We have one guy that yells at the top of his lungs. He is so loud that during worship he drowns out others. He is so loud that it will make you jump out of your skin so to speak. It is so loud visitors turn with a sort of frightened look on their face.

His excuse? He thinks he is persecuted for how he worships. He doesn't understand why people have a problem with how he gets HIS praise on.

We need to guard against excess and we need to make sure these things are not taught as a doctrine or implied that you have to do X in order to be worshiping

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

It doesn't mean you can't dance or jump, but it certainly does mean "anything goes" is not supported or "act like a fool" means "worship". It's that sort of reasoning that has led to all sorts of excesses like the young man I spoke of climbing into the baptismal tank.

We have one guy that yells at the top of his lungs. He is so loud that during worship he drowns out others. He is so loud that it will make you jump out of your skin so to speak. It is so loud visitors turn with a sort of frightened look on their face.

His excuse? He thinks he is persecuted for how he worships. He doesn't understand why people have a problem with how he gets HIS praise on.

We need to guard against excess and we need to make sure these things are not taught as a doctrine or implied that you have to do X in order to be worshiping

I don't believe that I ever sided with the idea of "anything goes", Prax - for the record.

I do agree that we need to guard against excess and certainly not to teach that as doctrine nor a measuring stick of your Christian walk. I believe we know these things. I have seen the stragglers who don't get it, but I think we will always have these types among us as you have so many personalities in the mix.

I've know a few that were not trainable (your guy for instance) and insisted on having their way only to burn out at some point. You can see it coming, but you can't always stop it. Your guy needs to understand that his tone can't rise above the congregation as a whole.

Others you have to be careful not to put fear in them to respond at all while you are instructing them. Fear is very hard to overcome, for some, when operating in the Spirit or responding to a move of God.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Thanks.

On the portion of the definition in Strong's for "halal", it is saying, "to boast; and thus to be (clamorously) foolish;" All Strong's seems to be saying is [i]"to boast and thus to make a loud outcry or sustained din."

I think it is interesting that "foolish" is also defined as "Halal" in Psalm 5:5 and Psalm 73:3.

Psalm 5:5 "Arrogant people cannot stand in your presence; you hate all who behave wickedly." The NET Bible

So, we should emulate this behavior? Is this the same thing as Strong's #1984 as found in Psalm 106:1?

To take the "foolishly" element from Strong's dictionary and apply it to worship and praise is wrong. Strong was clearly grappling with differing contexts and usages. This particular meaning (as Psalm 5:5 shows) is actually equated with iniquity, and iniquity is wrong and not a proper thing in worship.

This is similar to many gaffs that are commonly made when using the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. It's like trying to say that "one" and "eleven" mean the same thing when clearly they don't - see 3259 in the Hebrew Dictionary section.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Psalm 5:5 "Arrogant people cannot stand in your presence; you hate all who behave wickedly." The NET Bible

So, we should emulate this behavior? Is this the same thing as Strong's #1984 as found in Psalm 106:1?

To take the "foolishly" element from Strong's dictionary and apply it to worship and praise is wrong. Strong was clearly grappling with differing contexts and usages. This particular meaning (as Psalm 5:5 shows) is actually equated with iniquity, and iniquity is wrong and not a proper thing in worship.

This is similar to many gaffs that are commonly made when using the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. It's like trying to say that "one" and "eleven" mean the same thing when clearly they don't - see 3259 in the Hebrew Dictionary section.

I realize that on "halal" being used, also, for the definition of "foolish". I'm keeping that in mind while I study this out.

Just looking at "halal", again, in the Strong's - "to shine; hence to make a show; to boast; and thus to be (clamorously) foolish; to rave; causatively to celebrate; "

In that group of definitions you have to decide if it is a negative or positive connotation."to make a show, to boast, be clamorously (make a loud out cry or noise) foolish, to rave, cause to celebrate."

All of that sounds clearly positive. Perhaps the Strong's has some gaffs, but in all the years I've looked for meaning, I just haven't found that many to be of a big concern. Maybe I haven't used it enough.

There are a whole lot more words for praise, but this one looks to be of a more physical, outward display even when excluding "clamorously foolish". After viewing all of the definitions for praise, I see that our worship contains elements of all.

It just seems that some are wanting to put the more outward display down because of a few that have gone overboard. That would be my only problem with the direction of the conversation or I'm just reading it that way.

King David's example doesn't give someone an excuse to run and jump in the baptistery nor run on the tops of the pews to prove you are Pentecostal. What it does show is that he was not one bit shy of expressing his heartfelt worship in the most physical way possible. We don't need, IMO, countless Bible references to prove it's okay.

As crakjak has stated, "I have to admit I have not seen that wildness in a long time, though we do have very exuberant worship." I agree that we have not seen the wildness that is being referred to on this thread. It's as though we keep looking back instead of seeing the things that have changed.

I also agree with Prax, "We need to guard against excess and we need to make sure these things are not taught as a doctrine or implied that you have to do X in order to be worshiping."

So, I think we are, basically, on the same page. I'm not ready to throw the Strong's definition out on "halal" at this time. I'll have to look further into why it is written this way.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I realize that on "halal" being used, also, for the definition of "foolish". I'm keeping that in mind while I study this out.

Just looking at "halal", again, in the Strong's - "to shine; hence to make a show; to boast; and thus to be (clamorously) foolish; to rave; causatively to celebrate; "

In that group of definitions you have to decide if it is a negative or positive connotation."to make a show, to boast, be clamorously (make a loud out cry or noise) foolish, to rave, cause to celebrate."

All of that sounds clearly positive. Perhaps the Strong's has some gaffs, but in all the years I've looked for meaning, I just haven't found that many to be of a big concern. Maybe I haven't used it enough.

There are a whole lot more words for praise, but this one looks to be of a more physical, outward display even when excluding "clamorously foolish". After viewing all of the definitions for praise, I see that our worship contains elements of all.

It just seems that some are wanting to put the more outward display down because of a few that have gone overboard. That would be my only problem with the direction of the conversation or I'm must reading it that way.

King David's example doesn't give someone an excuse to run and jump in the baptistery nor run on the tops of the pews to prove you are Pentecostal. What it does show is that he was not one bit shy of expressing his heartfelt worship in the most physical way possible. We don't need, IMO, countless Bible references to prove it's okay.

As crakjak has stated, "I have to admit I have not seen that wildness in a long time, though we do have very exuberant worship." I agree that we have not seen the wildness that is being referred to on this thread. It's as though we keep looking back instead of seeing the things that have changed.

I also agree with Prax, "We need to guard against excess and we need to make sure these things are not taught as a doctrine or implied that you have to do X in order to be worshiping."

So, I think we are, basically, on the same page. I'm not ready to throw the Strong's definition out on "halal" at this time. I'll have to look further into why it is written this way.

I wouldn't say that Strong's is "wrong" or contains gaffs. It's just important that we remember to NOT use the "Dictionary" sections as we would a common English dictionary.

The listing of usages isn't intended to reflect what the specific Hebrew or Greek word means. It's just intended to list the ways in which the stem word has been used. The researcher using the Strong's dictionary then must look up each passage in turn and look for the compounds or if the context demands that the stem word be understood differently than in other passages and uses.

What we need to keep in mind is that use determines the meaning of a word - not a dictionary. A dictionary "reports" on how a word is used. That's why at the end of each year you hear about Webster's and other publishers adding new words and even dropping out others. They also announce which words have been given new or expanded meanings.

Strong was attempting the same thing. However he was reporting on word use that had occurred centuries before his time. And, on usages that had changed or been otherwise modified over even more centuries of use.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I wouldn't say that Strong's is "wrong" or contains gaffs. It's just important that we remember to NOT use the "Dictionary" sections as we would a common English dictionary.

The listing of usages isn't intended to reflect what the specific Hebrew or Greek word means. It's just intended to list the ways in which the stem word has been used. The researcher using the Strong's dictionary then must look up each passage in turn and look for the compounds or if the context demands that the stem word be understood differently than in other passages and uses.

What we need to keep in mind is that use determines the meaning of a word - not a dictionary. A dictionary "reports" on how a word is used. That's why at the end of each year you hear about Webster's and other publishers adding new words and even dropping out others. They also announce which words have been given new or expanded meanings.

Strong was attempting the same thing. However he was reporting on word use that had occurred centuries before his time. And, on usages that had changed or been otherwise modified over even more centuries of use.

The researcher using the Strong's dictionary then must look up each passage in turn and look for the compounds or if the context demands that the stem word be understood differently than in other passages and uses.

Yes, this is what I do when I use the Strong's. Being that "clamorously foolish" means to make a loud outcry, I didn't have a problem with attributing that to some of the praise described, especially in Psalms.