James Strong, KJV, Redefinitions of words?

[Evang.Benincasa]

I asked a poster quite a few times to please show how James Strong redefined Greek words in his Concordance, Greek, Hebrew Dictionary. The posts which contained the questions were basically dodged and danced around. Yet, this subject is an interesting one. What are dictionaries, what is Lexicography?

Did Professor Miguel Civil understand the cuneiform tablets? Was his book on Mesopotamian Lexicography filled from cover to cover with his guesses? How does a Phd today differ from the scholars who worked together to translate, and interpret the 1611 AV? Did James Strong "redefine" Hebrew, Chaldean, and Greek in his Strong's Dictionary? If he did, then how did he do it? Did Jean Francois Champollion just guess at the pictographs (hieroglyphics) on the Rosetta Stone? Ashurbanipal's library, did scholars just make up what the tablets actually contained? Eliezer Ben-Yehuda & the Revival of Hebrew? If ancient languages could only be understood by men living in the 1600s, then how did Eliezer Ben-Yehuda use a dead liturgical language into the one spoken today? Can a Greek living today read the Textus Receptus? Could they understand the first century Greek? While some Greek words would be no longer in use today, the majority of the Greek used in the TR is still in use today. Where's the problem?

[Scott Pitta]

The history of cracking forgotten languages is extremely interesting. But each discovery has its own history and is far beyond the reach any post I can write.

I can "read" papri 45. But first I need to separate the words because the document has no spaces between the words.

Can a contemporary citizen of Athens read second century Koine literature ? I have no idea.

I'm not sure the ordinary person in Wisconsin Dells could easily read what Tyndale translated. Especially if the document is left as the old boy wrote it.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

The history of cracking forgotten languages is extremely interesting. But each discovery has its own history and is far beyond the reach any post I can write.

I can "read" papri 45. But first I need to separate the words because the document has no spaces between the words.

Can a contemporary citizen of Athens read second century Koine literature ? I have no idea.

I'm not sure the ordinary person in Wisconsin Dells could easily read what Tyndale translated. Especially if the document is left as the old boy wrote it.

whatdoyoumeanwhenyousayyouhavenoideaifacontemporar ycitizenofathenscouldreasecoundcenturykoinegreekca nyoureadthissentenceitmaybehardatfirstglancebutyou canreaditpapyrus45is3rdcenturyadcouldyouclarifywha tyoumeanthatamoderngreekcouldn'treadit

[Godsdrummer]

I am interested in his explanation too. He says he has it all figured it yet he cannot answer a simple question like this.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

I am interested in his explanation too. He says he has it all figured it yet he cannot answer a simple question like this.

But, think about it. He has done this on every single topic he supposedly believes. He doesn't go engage in actual discussions. Not like Brothers Blume, Burk, Esaias, Tithmister, or you. If you watch he just throws up scripture and then says here it says. Not comments in length to chain other scriptures tother to weave a tapestry for the student to see what is being explained. With subjects like this, he can't throw up a verse which says "thou shalt know, for soothe, you see that KJV is the book for thee." Therefore he has to now employee some heavy lifting. He needs to present a case for his accusations. That scholars, and lexicographers just know enough to be dangerous. That cuneiform, hieroglyphics, and ancient texts are merely guessed at like some evolutionist guesses at the evolution of snails. I'm interested to see (for once) this guy put his money where his mouth is or shut up.

[Scott Pitta]

Translators do not guess. They do not make stuff up. Ancient languages can be understood by anyone with a linguistic disposition and proper training.

The biggest difference between scholarship from 1600 and 2000 are the number of documents available and 400 years of additional research between 1600 and 2000. Toss in some linguistic software and you have some meaningful differences between the world the translators found themselves in in 1600 in comparison to today.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Translators do not guess. They do not make stuff up. Ancient languages can be understood by anyone with a linguistic disposition and proper training.

The biggest difference between scholarship from 1600 and 2000 are the number of documents available and 400 years of additional research between 1600 and 2000. Toss in some linguistic software and you have some meaningful differences between the world the translators found themselves in in 1600 in comparison to today.

Excellent.

The amount of research and material that we have today is outstanding. Which actually fulfils the desire of John Wycliffe,William Tyndale, Casiodoro de Reina, and those translators of the AV. The advent of the Dead Sea Scrolls, produced more information which strengthened what we already have, not to weaken. Why? Because we understand the ancient languages. Where people go wrong like our resident antagonist Sean Wiffle Ball Bat Snidely, is that they think this is just about word meanings. Yet, Textual Criticism is far more than that. Because when doing translation of text, we are actually interpreting the text through the lens of those living at that time.
Hence the reason "honest" KJV Onlyists use the 1828 Webster's dictionary. As I showed Sean in another thread the English word "world" has close to 22 different definitions. Listen how many times have we read a post from Sean advocating the use of an "old dictionary" and his dusty KJV? Yet, he does a word search on his Bible program on the English word "run" and gets a list of different definitions, and believes that to be erroneous? Yet, when you open a Webster's it gives you a word list for "world." No foul, no error, just the different definitions for an English word, just as different combinations for an English word can be translated into first century Greek. Where Sean loses track, is that he didn't ask his program the verse he is searching, instead of just a random word. The verse search would then narrow down the search. Yet, textual criticism isn't rocket science like Bart Ehrman would have you all believe. Nor is it Rube Goldberg armed with a Bible program he can't navigate. It is understanding how the language was used at that time. Whether it is first century A.D. Greek, 17th century English, or 21st century English.

[Evang.Benincasa]

FOURSCOREANDSEVENYEARSAGOOURFATHERSBROUGHTFORTHUPO NTHISCONTINENTANEWNATIONCONCEIVEDINLIBERTYANDDEDIC ATEDTOTHEPROPOSITIONTHATALLMENARECREATEDEQUALNOWWE AREENGAGEDINAGREATCIVILWARTESTINGWHETHERTHATNATION ORANYNATIONSOCONCEIVEDANDSODEDICATEDCANLONGENDUREW EAREMETONAGREATBATTLEFIELDOFTHATWARWECOMETODEDICAT EAPORTIONOFITASAFINALRESTINGPLACEFORTHOSEWHODIEDHE RETHATTHENATIONMIGHTLIVETHISWEMAYINALLPROPRIETYDO

If you can read this, then a Greek scholar can read ancient papyrus.

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

FOURSCOREANDSEVENYEARSAGOOURFATHERSBROUGHTFORTHUPO NTHISCONTINENTANEWNATIONCONCEIVEDINLIBERTYANDDEDIC ATEDTOTHEPROPOSITIONTHATALLMENARECREATEDEQUALNOWWE AREENGAGEDINAGREATCIVILWARTESTINGWHETHERTHATNATION ORANYNATIONSOCONCEIVEDANDSODEDICATEDCANLONGENDUREW EAREMETONAGREATBATTLEFIELDOFTHATWARWECOMETODEDICAT EAPORTIONOFITASAFINALRESTINGPLACEFORTHOSEWHODIEDHE RETHATTHENATIONMIGHTLIVETHISWEMAYINALLPROPRIETYDO

If you can read this, then a Greek scholar can read ancient papyrus.

Ive seen more illegible facebook posts...thats not so bad lol

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

ive seen more illegible facebook posts...thats not so bad lol

imakethebestfrenchtoastwhenigobyyourhouseiwillmake thefrenchtoatforyouandyourfamilywithmaplesyrupyouw illadmitthatmyfrenchtoastisthebestevenwithoutfruit syrupiusedfresheggsfrommyownchickens