Since the forums are quiet...I'll ask: Why do people continue to use Strongs numbers in Logos?

Page 2 of 3 (56 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next >
This post has 55 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 2977
Forum MVP
Jacob Hantla | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 30 2010 12:07 PM

Paul Golder:

MJ. Smith:
Given some of the misconceptions out there as to how languages work, some sincere Bible students would be better off never allowed to even see the Greek or Hebrew..

Case in point:

I know it's just a parody, but if you watch it along with the original video in the link, your point is very well reinforced.

That's hilarious. Be a man: Pee standing up.

Jacob Hantla
Pastor/Elder, Grace Bible Church
gbcaz.org

Posts 13413
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 30 2010 12:39 PM

MJ. Smith:
This brings up my other major question ... if they are unknown languages why "play" at knowing them?

I'm sorry, Martha, but I can't agree with you here. I fully accept that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. But surely you don't mean to suggest that unless we have full knowledge of a subject then we should pretend we are entirely ignorant? Instead, the best way to proceed is to recognise your limitations, work within them, and to use the knowledge you have with the skills you've developed.

If we know a small amount of Greek, we should use that to aid our understanding, whilst recognising we'd be pretty stupid to start a fight with Dan Wallace, Stanley Porter, or Bill Mounce.

Posts 692
Otto S. Carroll | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 30 2010 12:44 PM

Paul Golder:
Would a sincere Bible student be better at correctly handling the word of truth by limiting said student to their native tongue, or would being able to "play" with the Greek and Hebrew tools in Logos be to the student's advantage?

Of course it is to the advantage of the sincere Bible student to "play" with the Greek and Hebrew tools in Logos. If he plays correctly long enough, he just might put himself in a position to know whether the Hebrew and Greek "scholars" he listens to are correctly handling the word of truth in that language!!!  Smile

__________

15" rMBP 2.6 GHz i7 | 16 GB RAM | 1.0 TB Flash Drive | OS X 10.12.3 | Logos 7.0 (7.3.0.0062)

Posts 3896
Forum MVP
Friedrich | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 30 2010 12:51 PM

Paul Golder:
if you watch it along with the original video in the link,

 

wow.  i mean . . . wow--it's just tha---  wow.  I am speechless.

I like Apples.  Especially Honeycrisp.

Posts 1150
Anthony H | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 30 2010 12:51 PM

Mark Barnes:

MJ. Smith:
This brings up my other major question ... if they are unknown languages why "play" at knowing them?

I'm sorry, Martha, but I can't agree with you here. I fully accept that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. But surely you don't mean to suggest that unless we have full knowledge of a subject then we should pretend we are entirely ignorant? Instead, the best way to proceed is to recognise your limitations, work within them, and to use the knowledge you have with the skills you've developed.

If we know a small amount of Greek, we should use that to aid our understanding, whilst recognising we'd be pretty stupid to start a fight with Dan Wallace, Stanley Porter, or Bill Mounce.

...unknown languages?

If that is a qualifying factor, I'm not entirely sure I agree that the knowing is "play". Though we do lack a lot of information on Biblical languages they are not unknown.

In fact quite a bit is known in comparison to some other ancient languages (though I generalize the comparison).

I would have to agree more with Mark that, though there is danger in a "little knowing", a respectful understanding of limitations can go along way in exercising what is known.

More to the point though I see the humor.

Posts 1674
Paul Golder | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 30 2010 1:09 PM

I can see the point of view where MJ is coming from, the video link speaks to the folly of a "little knowledge". Most (if not all) heretical and cult-like 'christian' sects seem to stem from a poor handling of Scripture, and a very good argument could be made for the necessity of a required thorough education before teaching.

But limiting access to the original languages, in any form, will in no way prevent all misconceptions on the part of mankind. The folly of man comes within, and even with the most limited resources, we as a species show great aptitude in the deviation from truth and accuracy.

 

 

"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."

Posts 30838
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 30 2010 3:29 PM

Anthony Hamlin:
unknown languages?

Unknown to the individual not unknown to everyone

Paul Golder:
But limiting access to the original languages, in any form, will in no way prevent all misconceptions on the part of mankind.

No, I wouldn't actually try to limit access, but life would sure be alot easier if no one encouraged some of the misconceptions.Big Smile

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 4508
Robert Pavich | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 30 2010 3:45 PM

Paul Golder:
The folly of man comes within, and even with the most limited resources, we as a species show great aptitude in the deviation from truth and accuracy.

True, very true. (at least Jeremiah said so...)

Robert Pavich

For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__

Posts 1674
Paul Golder | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 30 2010 4:17 PM

Robert Pavich:

Paul Golder:
The folly of man comes within, and even with the most limited resources, we as a species show great aptitude in the deviation from truth and accuracy.

True, very true. (at least Jeremiah said so...)

OK, OK, it may be a slight bit of plagiarism, but look at the fine academic grammar that I used...Wink

"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."

Posts 1206
Ward Walker | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 30 2010 4:58 PM

Paul Golder:

MJ. Smith:
Given some of the misconceptions out there as to how languages work, some sincere Bible students would be better off never allowed to even see the Greek or Hebrew..

Case in point:

I know it's just a parody, but if you watch it along with the original video in the link, your point is very well reinforced.

 

Suddenly, everything is clear to me...

...and there just went 30 minutes of my life watching related videos...  Indifferent

Posts 26196
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 30 2010 7:56 PM

Mark Barnes:
But what does Vine's offer that you can't get elsewhere? Even the cheapest Logos base package includes NAS (Greek-Hebrew), and the Bible Study library adds DBL.

Enhanced Strong's Lexicon also offers access via language headwords! But Vine's offers more insight to the meaning & derivation of a word than NAS or Enhanced Strong's, and even DBL. I find Vine's especially useful for Hebrew/Aramaic.

Dave
===

Windows 10 & Android 8

Posts 26196
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 30 2010 8:20 PM

Robert Pavich:

Now that we all have access to the original languages as Logos users...why do we want strongs numbers?

My question was in the context of our own studies and being Logos users.

I don't know that I want them but they are useful. The other number that is useful is Louw-Nida domains but it is restricted to the NT. Both are used in the Interlinears, both give access to useful resources eg. Vine's and LN Greek-English Lexicon.

Especially in the OT with homonyms I can only get to Vine's via Strong's! It's not a matter of preferring Vine's to lexicons, but it is more readable than BDB!

 

Dave
===

Windows 10 & Android 8

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 30 2010 8:55 PM

MJ. Smith:
if they are unknown languages why "play" at knowing them?

The "play" factor is where a lot of learning takes place. You already know small kids handle language aquisition much better than schooled adults.

As far as OED using numbers (that is funny Stick out tongue ), the memorization techniques of the Dale Carnegie course use totally random and rdiculous mental pictures to peg facts to. What could be more random than a non-descript number to replace a specific Greek NT word?

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 30838
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 30 2010 9:13 PM

Matthew C Jones:
the memorization techniques of the Dale Carnegie course

I've not heard of the Dale Carnegie classes for years. My folks parked me in the theater to watch multiple showings of "My Sister Eileen" for their last class - my brother was otherwise occupied.Smile

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 612
John Brumett | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 31 2010 5:16 AM

Here is a reason why I still like to use strong's numbers:

In my New Kings James Interlinear I have direct access to 3 different lexicons.  If I want to look at BDAG directly I double click on lemma line in the interlinear.  If I want to access directly The Complete Word Study Dictionary I click directly on the Strong's Number.  Since BDAG is not coded to Strongs the next defalt lexicon that it advance to is The Complete Word Study Dictionary.  If a want to access directly Lowe Nida I click on the Lowe Nida number.  Another advange is I can simply scroll my mouse over the strong's number in the interlinear and The Complete Word Study Dictionary pops up. Here is a example from Philippians 2:6. 

    

Posts 13413
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 31 2010 6:34 AM

JohnBrumett:
Here is a reason why I still like to use strong's numbers:

That's a useful way of saving a click. (It's only a click, because you could do all this from the right-click context menu, which gives links to your five top lexicons when you click on a lemma).

But it doesn't resolve the problem that Strong's numbers are not always accurate. Here's some quotes from my Logos library:

"Although the original Strong’s system is still quite useful, the most up-to-date research has shed new light on the biblical languages and allows for more precision than is found in the original Strong’s system." Cornerstone Commentary on Matthew,Mark, Page xiv

"Those that rely on Strong’s numbers to assist them in the Hebrew vocabulary should note that at many points that system does not correspond to more recent analysis. Thus, for example, when a term is listed according to Strong’s number but is out of alphabetical order, the transliteration will be in brackets. When a term is in alphabetical order but out of numerical order, the Strong’s number will be in brackets. Furthermore, Strong’s numerical order does not distinguish between words beginning with the letters Û and š. This index, however, separates these words. Therefore, anyone using Strong’s numbers to find the correct Hebrew word must examine the numerical sequence within both letters." TLOT, Page 1469

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 31 2010 7:08 AM

Mark Barnes:
"Those that rely on Strong’s numbers to assist them in the Hebrew vocabulary should note that at many points that system does not correspond to more recent analysis

Question: If one were using dated reference works that use the "not always accurate" Strong's numbers would there be a value in the continuity of the numbers however inaccurate they may be? It is eerily similar to Logos indexing but 150 years older.

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 13413
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 31 2010 7:18 AM

Strong's numbers are still useful. But the are not more useful than either G/K numbers. Neither are they more useful that using Logos' reverse-interlinears to look up whatever word you want in whatever lexicon you want. The point is not that Strong's are awful, but that other tools are better.

Posts 3729
Floyd Johnson | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 31 2010 7:43 AM

Matthew C Jones:

MJ. Smith:
if they are unknown languages why "play" at knowing them?

The "play" factor is where a lot of learning takes place.

When do we move from playing to knowing?  Some 35+ years ago I had three quarters of Greek and three quarters of Greek Exegesis.  I also had two quarters of Hebrew and three quarters of Hebrew Exegesis.  Did I know the Greek then - barely.  Did I know the Hebrew then - barely.  I worked with the text, I passed the courses.  But did I know Greek and Hebrew?  No way!

In the meantime I spent 24+ years with other languages - things like BASIC, COBOL, FORTRAN, Pascal, SQL, Java, and .Net.  My ministry took me away from Greek and Hebrew to the college campus.  Seven years ago I returned to the pulpit ministry - having forgotten most (all?) my Greek and Hebrew.  I still have the skills - just not the knowledge.  LOGOS fills in some of those gaps - but I am not sure where where my "playing" moves over to "using" the Greek and Hebrew.   Since both ancient Greek and ancient Hebrew are no longer living languages, I expect each of us has a point somewhere we move between playing and knowing the languages - though we will have a different point.

 

Blessings,
Floyd

Pastor-Patrick.blogspot.com

Posts 1674
Paul Golder | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 31 2010 8:20 AM

Yes

"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."

Page 2 of 3 (56 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next > | RSS