Strong's Concordance

[Cepha]

Does a Christian need Dr. James Strong's personal interpretation to understand The Holy Bible?

Isn't it The Holy Spirit The One Who reveal's God's Word to mankind?

[knuckle]

Hi Cepha-------------

the biggest problem with Dr.Strong's work is hat his beliefs were in place before he wrote it and the bias is evident

much love-------------knuckle

[Cepha]

Jul 6, 2008 18:45:58 GMT -5 knuckle said:

Hi Cepha-------------

the biggest problem with Dr.Strong's work is hat his beliefs were in place before he wrote it and the bias is evident

much love-------------knuckle

He was a Methodist, right?

I've seen some Baptist just totally trash Methodism, yet use Strong's Concordance.

Plus, isn't going to Strong's going "outside" of The Bible for Sola Scripturists and placing Strong's in a position of authority in that it tells and/or teaches the Believer "what" to believe?

[knuckle]

Hi Cepha----------------

I am a sola scriptural believer but it doesn't mean I go by the KJV or NIV or any other translation I want to see what the original words were and what they meant.

lets take the word "hell" for example----Sheol Hades and Gehenna are all rendered hell in the KJV which today brings up pictures of fire and laughing demons with pitch forks---- in 1611 the word hell simply meant an unseen place of storage,if you were to tell someone to go to hell in 1611 England he would go down into the root cellar or basement

As for trashing Methodists I personally haven't seen it in fact when we refer to great evangelists or missionaries some are from Methodist backgrounds.There are better concordances out there than Strong's simply because Strong went about writing a concordance that agreed with his already preconceived views

much love-----------knuckle

[Cepha]

Jul 6, 2008 20:02:26 GMT -5 knuckle said:

Hi Cepha----------------

I am a sola scriptural believer but it doesn't mean I go by the KJV or NIV or any other translation I want to see what the original words were and what they meant.

Questions:
1. What's your definition of "Sola Scriptura" (because I've heard different versions from different believers in the doctrine)?

2. If you accept Martin Luther's Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, why don't you accept his other teachings like those on The Virgin Mary?

(I'm not asking you in anyway to incite an argument, I just want to know why one can accept some of his teachings and bet their very eternal salvation on it, yet ignore the rest of what he teaches).

lets take the word "hell" for example----Sheol Hades and Gehenna are all rendered hell in the KJV which today brings up pictures of fire and laughing demons with pitch forks---- in 1611 the word hell simply meant an unseen place of storage,if you were to tell someone to go to hell in 1611 England he would go down into the root cellar or basement

That's why I believe in using secular academic institutions with no interest in promoting or in tearing down religions. Because as man's understanding grows, so should our definitions evolve with our understanding.

Those following Strong's Concordance are stuck in a time warp and are placing their understanding in the mind of one man from the 1800's.

The only way that his works would be trustworthy today would be if they were to be deemed infallible because they were guided by The Holy Spirit.

Otherwise, they are just Strong's Concordance is just Strong's official "opinion" of The Bible and what those things in it mean and it's based on the mindset of a 19th Century limited to an American perspective.

As for trashing Methodists I personally haven't seen it in fact when we refer to great evangelists or missionaries some are from Methodist backgrounds.There are better concordances out there than Strong's simply because Strong went about writing a concordance that agreed with his already preconceived views

Yeah, I've seen it. And it boggles me.

I believe in secular sources for historical and academic references. But once there is a tie to any specific religion, then it becomes the personal works of that religion and cannot be trusted blindly as nuetral.

Pax

[knuckle]

Hi Cepha---------------

my definition of sola scriptura? Well simply put I believe the bible.I place it over any church doctrine including Luther's or that of the Baptist church I attend.

You ask why I don't accept Luther's teaching on Mary?Because I see it as doctrinal and not biblical.Just like I see the idea of eternal torment as doctrinal or the rapture or the idea of the dead being "alive"or any number of church doctrines that go beyond what the bible says.

much love--------------knuckle

[Cepha]

Jul 10, 2008 5:40:20 GMT -5 knuckle said:

Hi Cepha---------------

my definition of sola scriptura? Well simply put I believe the bible.I place it over any church doctrine including Luther's or that of the Baptist church I attend.

You ask why I don't accept Luther's teaching on Mary?Because I see it as doctrinal and not biblical.Just like I see the idea of eternal torment as doctrinal or the rapture or the idea of the dead being "alive"or any number of church doctrines that go beyond what the bible says.

much love--------------knuckle

Do you also "not" believe in The Holy Trinity or Salvation?

Because those are doctrines that are not biblical either (in that they are not specifically outlined in scripture, but are a compilation of various teachings to reveal said doctrines and were revealed by The Church Fathers)?

[knuckle]

Hi Cepha-----------------

I believe in the Father and the Son----not the trinity as most understand it no

As for salvation I believe what Paul said,what John said, what Peter and James said and of course what Jesus said

much love------------knuckle

[Cepha]

Jul 10, 2008 18:44:16 GMT -5 knuckle said:

Hi Cepha-----------------

I believe in the Father and the Son----not the trinity as most understand it no

As for salvation I believe what Paul said,what John said, what Peter and James said and of course what Jesus said

much love------------knuckle

OK, so you don't have any understanding of Salvation outside of what is literally "in" The Bible then, correct?

[knuckle]

pretty much yes----

[Cepha]

Jul 10, 2008 21:05:26 GMT -5 knuckle said:

pretty much yes----

See? That's why I love you Knuckle...you walk it like you talk it!

Honesty!

No backtracking, no avoiding the answer, just lay it out there!



And I'm sure that God loves you for being like that a whole lot more than I ever could!

Pax

[knuckle]

Hi Cepha------------------

And I'm sure that God loves you for being like that a whole lot more than I ever could!

gee thanks,(I think)

much love-----------knuckle

[Cepha]

Jul 11, 2008 3:29:05 GMT -5 knuckle said:

Hi Cepha------------------

And I'm sure that God loves you for being like that a whole lot more than I ever could!

gee thanks,(I think)

much love-----------knuckle

lol

When I said that, I mean that my love for you, for all I thought it could be, could never match our Father's love!

[yarddog]

Jul 6, 2008 18:34:43 GMT -5 Cepha said:

Does a Christian need Dr. James Strong's personal interpretation to understand The Holy Bible?

Isn't it The Holy Spirit The One Who reveal's God's Word to mankind?

We don't need Strong's interpretations to understand the Bible but having a Concordance sure does come in handy when your in apologetics. Having something to find a quick reference is a great tool.

Yarddog

[Cepha]

Jul 11, 2008 12:47:48 GMT -5 yarddog said:

Jul 6, 2008 18:34:43 GMT -5 Cepha said:

Does a Christian need Dr. James Strong's personal interpretation to understand The Holy Bible?

Isn't it The Holy Spirit The One Who reveal's God's Word to mankind?

We don't need Strong's interpretations to understand the Bible but having a Concordance sure does come in handy when your in apologetics. Having something to find a quick reference is a great tool.

Yarddog

Here's the thing about Strong's...it's a Protestant book written by a Methodist with Methodist views.

The best place to get references are from neutral secular scholarly/academic sources.

Why? Because there is less chance that it will be written with any bias.

For example, I would never quote The Catechism of The Catholic Church to prove something to him/her about their faith. Why? Because while it might be accurate, it isn't a nuetral source and is definately tilted towards universal Christianity.



Personally, all I need is a Bible and The Holy Spirit.

There is no better reference than The Holy Spirit.

Ultimately, no man can reveal what It can.