Smarter than a lexicon? Really?

I am writing this post to express a bit of a concern with some of the developments in language studies that have come out from the Logos team. I am not a doctor as some of the blog contributors are but I am concerned by the blogs and resources that are presented as substitutes to conventional language studies tools.

For instance, this morning's blog on lexica makes a valid point, namely, that the usefulness of some lexical resources leaves something to be desired. But I think it is excessive to say that beginners should not even use lexica and that English translations provide enough of a coverage of the options to dispense of that need.

I AGREE with what is said about the need for word studies and to pointing out the tools in Logos that can help a person do that.

I am CONCERNED about discounting the conventional tools vs. simply giving advice as to how to enhance them. Without translation, there is no interpretation. Moreover, we all know that English translations are quite inconsistent are not fully reliable as a window in the terminology of passages. Though I agree that some lexica are circular (ex: KJV translates this words by 1, 2 and 3), we need them as a starting point.

I wish the article had pointed to the different KINDS of lexica and how they should be used properly. For instance, Louw-Nida provides a great avenue for understanding through the study of semantic fields, helping to differentiate the nuances of related words.

To this we must had THEOLOGICAL lexica (TWOT, NIDOTTE, TDOT, TDNT, NIDNT) which analyze word usage grammatically and conceptually. There is no way the beginner would have the expertise and knowledge to duplicate such work and glean the corresponding insights but just doing a word study by themselves. They also provide diachronic, synchronic and ethymological information that one cannot obtain by word study alone. A case in point is that one would be hard pressed to come up with much if relying only on a word study when seeking to understand one of the many hapax legomena.

The same tendency to try to substitute a new approach that dispenses of the proven and conventional methods of interpretation is reflected in the "Learn to use Greek and Hebrew with Logos Bible Software" videos. I APPRECIATE that Logos is assessing Bible study methods for the purpose of optimizing the tools available in the software. However, as a user, teacher and preacher of the Word, I ALSO voice my objection and concern with the attempts to promote controversial alternative methods. Those who have enough knowledge of languages will no doubt be able to keep the good and toss the bad, but I am concerned for those who trust Logos expertise and the doctorates of the bloggers and can be taken for a ride on a not so well established alley.

I appreciate your work and reiterate that a number of points made in the blogs are well taken. I am also VERY grateful for the thinking that is put into the development of tools for the study of Scriptures. I submit my concern and objection respectfully.

Blessings,

Francis

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Rich DeRuiter

I read the blog with some curiosity as well, but think the post makes some good points.

First a word's meaning is determined by its usage, not by it's dictionary (lexical) definition (as an obvious example think of the English word "gay," then look it up in a dictionary - it means one thing in a Christmas song, and quite another in common speech!). Word studies are an invaluable way to understand how a word is used. Lexicons can be, and often are, inappropriate short-cuts to genuinely understanding the meaning of a word. And (this is a biggy), Bible translators generally know a lot more about the meaning range of a word than I ever will. So beginning with the translated text is a helpful and valuable way to understand the original text for those who can't read the original without a lexicon by their side. The tools available to those who have the reverse interlinear are often more helpful than beginning with a lexicon.

That said, Lexicons and Theological Dictionaries (to your list I would add the Exegetical Dictionary of the NT), are helpful, when used appropriately, and together with thorough word studies. These tools (and some good Lexicons) discuss word usage in extra Biblical texts we may not have access to. After all, the folks who wrote them are also scholars who know a lot more than I do.

So I do think Dr. Heiser overstates his point a bit, but nevertheless makes a helpful contribution to the discussion.

To the discussion I would add that students of the NT, should always include in their word studies, the Septuagint (LXX, the 'Bible' of the NT writers). While the LXX uses a more formal Greek than the NT, the NT writers were well versed in the LXX and it's word usage spills out in their writings, not only when they quote it, but when they allude to it in ways that may even escape us.

But in the end I agree with you. There are valid ways to use Lexicons, and I think Dr. Heiser, in making his point, overstated his case. On the other hand, that may be the only way to get some people to pay attention.

Mike Aubrey

Francis,

Actually, as a linguist and scholar, I thought he was completely right in his post. I'm at a loss as to why you think:

Why there's no interpretation without translation -- a statement that scares me to read
Why you think we need lexica as a starting point
Why you would place so much value on the the theological lexica -- those are the ones, were I teaching introductory Greek, I would have my students avoid until they've reached a far, far, far more advanced point in their studies.

If you could elaborate on this, I'd be interested to understand your perspective.

Paul Golder

I can't help but feel a bit taken aback. Here I watch (and admittedly participate) in off topic forum posts on the usefulness of original languages, and their meanings, to the untrained. The whole time thinking that Logos would probably have us put these forums to better use than just debating.

And then, lo and behold, Logos takes their blog, pours a can of worms on it, covers that with gasoline, and then throws a match at it.

Ya just got to love editorial license...

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134301#Comment_134301

Hi Michael,

To answer your questions...

My statement about the need for translation before interpretation is that we can't interpret what we don't know. By way of analogy, we can use cultural references. Attempts to interpret a passage where a cultural reference is made but has been completely missed leads to interpretation by one's own referential system. One's exposure to the semantic range of words need to start with an encounter. This encounter is the same as with a person. It starts by a simple "what's your name" (a simple lexicon) and then continues with "where are you from" and "what do you do" type of questions. We don't normally ask what people do before we ask their name! The lexicon is the starting place.

It is critical for Bible students -- even those who don't have access to language resources -- to keep in mind that they depend on translation. If not, we'd all have Greek NTs and Hebrew/Aramaic OTs and how useful would that be to most? It does not depend whether I do the translation or a Bible translation committee does it: translation is needed except where there is fluency. With that in mind, we know we need to take translational work with a grain of salt because of the limitations of what can be done with the contrainst we have (for instance, the limitations of finding one-to-one corresponding words vs. the controversies linked to dynamic translations and paraphrases).

To me, what I read from the blog is a nice perspective from someone who has all the knowledge. It reminds me of those grandparents who have forgotten what it's like to have a baby. I'd be interested in knowing how one would learn Greek without any lexical resource!!! Vocabulary cards are a lexical resource in a different format and so is the Bible Word Study tool in Logos 4! When I query NASB for logos and it graphs the various translations, how is that diffferent from Strong's listing the KJV translations? I agree that the Word Study tool is much more powerful, but at the base is the same idea, connecting interpretation to translation.

Let me perhaps try to put this another way. Take the word hesed. Let's say you had access to no lexica at all (try to imagine the Bible Word Study tool without any dependence on lexical resources). So, you rely on say the NIV and read that God's "love" endures forever. So you use your concordance and try to come up with the meaning of "love". Good luck. Without any reference to what it translates, you will end up in a big confusion and have little idea of what hesed actually refers to.

You line up your Bibles and use strong's numbers and end up with the following choices: love, mercy, lovingkindness, kindness, grace. Now that's useful (irony)! I may as well define hesed as "lots of good stuff". As a side note, there was NO ONE in my congregation, not even those devoted to Bible study for decades, who had any idea of the concept of hesed and its huge importance in our understanding of the nature of God and of godliness. Their translations and concordances just did not cut it.

I agree with the blog and with you, Michael that lexica are perhaps handed out without enough instructions as to how to use them properly (exegetical fallacies), but I still think that it is an overreaction to dismiss the importance of the role of lexical resources.

As for theological dictionaries or semantic resources, background information is quite important. For instance, a study of just the word "mercy" in Matthew 5:7 may not inform the interpreter about the Jewish understanding of mercy in relation to piety and specifically toward the poor (James' pure and faultless religion). References to LXX translational choices are also important. This is a critical lexical resource because study without awareness of LXX background may result in missing out on an essential connection to an OT concept (say, eleos and hesed).

I'm not sure if this answers your questions?

I meant not to start a debate and I state my view with conviction but acknowledgement of the limits and fallability of my knowledge, reason and wisdom.

Blessings,

Francis

Mike Aubrey

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134321#Comment_134321

I'm not sure if this answers your questions?

Yes, that's helpful.

Don't worry, I wasn't looking for debate. That's why I frame my post in the form of a set of questions.

When I query NASB for logos and it graphs the various translations, how is that diffferent from Strong's listing the KJV translations?

Actually, its quite different. Strong's numbers are organized by lexicon root, so there might be a noun and a verb form (or even multiple nouns and verb forms) for a given Strong's number. In contrast a query for λὀγος is going to only give you a single lexeme.

But that's a side issue.

I really think that what you're talking about here is drastically different than the point of Mike Heiser's blog post. He's not talking about the layperson doing a word study or a concept study. He's talking about how we teach Greek and Hebrew. These are two fundamentally different issues. And to the extent that your point has very little to do with how the Biblical languages are taught, Mike's post is completely valid. The benefit of using BDAG or HALOT for the first and even second year student needs to be challenged. First and second year students do not have the grasp of the language to deal with the data in such lexicons.

Most Greek classes tend to follow the format: Beginning Grammar -> Exegesis -> Advanced Reading -> Advanced Grammar. The vast majority don't get past exegesis and the vast majority of programs don't even have an advanced grammar class. I would argue that the order of reading and exegesis really needs to be switched around.

So again, your points are good and I follow and agree with you. I just don't think they're relevant to the argument of Mike Heiser's post.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134301#Comment_134301

I thought he was completely right in his post.

Agreed [Y]

Anthony H

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134334#Comment_134334

I think maybe the issue is that Dr. Heiser's opening statements quickly became lost as the context of what followed.

"I’m an advocate for discouraging their use by beginning Hebrew and Greek students."

Not to mention that Dr. Heiser and Logos have reported the purpose behind "Learn to Use Biblical Greek and Hebrew" which provides even more context to Dr. Heiser statements.

Nevertheless I see the legitimacy of several points here in this post.

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134334#Comment_134334

I thought he was completely right in his post.

Agreed

I like to have lots of lexicons. That way I can look through all of them until I find the meaning I want for a particular word. [;)]

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134349#Comment_134349

I like to have lots of lexicons. That way I can look through all of them until I find the meaning I want for a particular word.

Thanks...I really needed that laugh....

Bohuslav Wojnar

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134350#Comment_134350

I like to have lots of lexicons. That way I can look through all of them until I find the meaning I want for a particular word.

Thanks...I really needed that laugh....

Why would you laugh from that kind of diligent work!? [:D]

J. Morris

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134350#Comment_134350

Ahhh... The classical: The Haves VS The Have Nots...

If you don't know Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic... You can't quite preach as well as the rest of us. Like a pastor can't effectively use any language tools if he doesn't know the languages. Sounds a little Gnostic doesn't it?

I have no formal language training. By using the tools provided by logos with half a brain I can come to a fairly good conclusion about what definition a word calls for in most situations. Is it fail proof? Of course not, and neither is knowing the languages. Does someone who has formal training in the languages going to be able to better study them than I... Of course...

I have to choose where I am going to spend my time studying... There are things that take precedence for me over trying to learn the original languages... I have to put my time into preaching, counseling, and practical ministry resources. I'm not some how less of a student of the Scriptures.

For those who don't have formal language training reading topic posts like these, don't let them discourage you from using the tools available in Logos. You will probably just need to do a little more digging before coming to a conclusion. Compare, compare, and compare...

Thank you Logos for including great tools for the 'Have Nots' of us who are using them to further the Kingdom.

(I had sat on the sidelines after reading posts about this for months and just had to go ahead and give my 2 cents...)

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134350#Comment_134350

We'll have to agree to disagree. When I learned English, I can't imagine how I could have done so without a lexical resource (in my case, a French-English dictionary) PRECISELY because I was a beginner.

I remember trying to get the sense of the verb "to get" in English. I read carefully through the multiple uses of this very polyvalent word. The dictionary did not tell me which of the usages was the right translation in specific situations but it gave me options to evaluate until I got a better sense of the verb and its usage. This is how a lexicon should be used.

With due respect, I think that Dr. Heiser's point is beside the point: why would a beginner student want to look up bara in a lexicon? Perhaps to check if there are any other possible usages that do not necessarily mean "create out of nothing"? Perhaps the student wants to know if there would be a more detailed description that specifies that it is creating ex nihilo? Of course, a student looking for this information in Strong's dictionary of Bible words is looking in the wrong place. But looking in TWOT would be more fruitful and useful even for a beginner. Looking up a word in a resource like BGAD or Liddell-Scott for the NT already provides more insight into how the word was understood.

I remember that the beginner's stage in language studies was overwhelming... just too much new information and concepts to process in a short time. A lexicon had the advantage of giving quick pointers. I never read a lexicon (even now) thinking that I was now an expert on the meaning of that word. I used BGAD in my first year of Greek and it was useful even though I use it now better than I did then.

I think the lexicon is still an important tool of the starting pack. The problem IMHO is that we may assume too much as to the skill of students in knowing how to approach language resources. Instead of assuming -- or blaming the resources -- we should teach those skills. If some of those skills are not appropriate to a starting level, then let a simple lexicon be chosen as a simple reference tool with a bit of an orientation as to how not to use it. In this I think I rejoin Dr. Heiser's post and Logos' course: skills need to be taught not just knowledge. But both are needed and one does not replace the other.

Actually underlying my post is a concern I have long had with the way ministry studies are going. There used to be a time when common mortals saw themselves as such and recognized that there were a few who were very gifted in specialized disciplines and who were consulted and respected as authorities. Part of my objection is that I see the displacement of authorities. The bottom line thinking goes like this: Who needs authorities? You can do it yourself! I am not saying that we should not learn to use powerful new tools and test ourselves. What I am saying is that language proficiency is more difficult than running a good piece of software that breaks it down for you. My protest is against a form of advocacy that encourage people to think in that way.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134379#Comment_134379

If you don't know Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic... You can't quite preach as well as the rest of us. Like a pastor can't effectively use any language tools if he doesn't know the languages. Sounds a little Gnostic doesn't it?

Okay, you lost me. What is the relationship between knowing Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic and good preaching? I see no causal relationship.

And you lost me again: "can't effectively use any language tools". The blog implied Logos provided appropriate language tools for those who don't know Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. It just said those tools shouldn't be lexicons.

But I guess my world is a little gnostic - I don't get to preach on differential equations just 'cause I don't really remember how to solve them.[:D]

Mike Childs

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134349#Comment_134349

I like to have lots of lexicons. That way I can look through all of them until I find the meaning I want for a particular word.

Love it!

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134395#Comment_134395

Okay, you lost me. What is the relationship between knowing Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic and good preaching? I see no causal relationship.

The first step in preaching a text is understanding what it really means. I learned a three-step process for that: 1)What does it say? 2)What did it mean (to the original hearers)? 3)What does it mean (in our day)? For Evangelicals who believe in the authority of the original texts, and who believe preaching should be faithful to, and driven by, the Biblical text, it is necessary to know what the text says. Translations are great ways to get at this original meaning, but because they are translations, they'll always fall short in some ways. The original languages help us see the original, inspired text.

For example, in Luke 22:31 (Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat.), a simple reading in English would lead one to think that Jesus was saying that Satan had asked to sift Simon as wheat. But a quick look at the original language shows that the "you" is plural. So, Jesus is telling Simon (Peter) that Satan wants to sift all the disciples, but that Jesus wants him to be faithful, and (after turning back to Jesus), strengthen his brothers (the instances of "you" in v.32 are all singular).

A minor example, without much theological significance, but an interesting lesson in leadership, I think.

Anyway, my point is that English is not Greek, and sometimes a compromise has to be made in meaning to translate into good English. The NIV's treatment of the Greek term "sarx" (flesh) is another example. The NIVAC on Romans 8 discusses the problems of handling this term for the English reader. I get that. But translating sarx as "sinful nature" also has it's problems, and makes a part of the text more puzzling than it needs to be (e.g., Rom 8:13, where sarx (flesh/sinful nature) and soma (body) are in parallel. The parallel works when the metaphor of flesh is related to the metaphor of body. But in the NIV, it just looks puzzling. On the other hand, if we take a more literal translation there (e.g., the ESV, NKJV), it looks to the modern English reader like a discussion about sexual urges, which, if less puzzling, is far too limiting given the context.

So, given that we want to be true to the original text, Greek is helpful to preaching in establishing the first point: "What does it say?" And to a degree in establishing "What did it mean?" Good commentaries can help, but there are also a lot of poor and mediocre commentaries that are misguided, or even wrong. Further, when two commentators disagree, how do we decide?

Greek is a tool. As such it can be used with skill, or used poorly. Also there are other tools that can get the same result (especially given the tools available in Logos4).

But the link is only between having some facility in the original languages and preaching that is faithful to the text of Scripture. That's no guarantee the preaching will be 'good' (in every way that might be measured). I've heard poor exegesis in a sermon that was still a good sermon.

This is not gnosticism, BTW. If we were gnostics, initiates would be required to show their worthiness to receive the secret knowledge, before they would be allowed to study the original languages. I believe anyone with the time and inclination ought to learn enough to be able to use the L4 tools, at least. If we wanted to treat the original languages like a gnostic would, we would scream in offense at the tools L4 offers to make the original languages available to more people (who haven't even shown they can 'handle' such knowledge yet!).

EDIT: fixed the typo in the Scripture reference. (Oops!)

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134588#Comment_134588

Richard,

Thank you brother....a very well said, elequent defense of the study of the original languages...

Nicely done.

Friedrich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134349#Comment_134349

I like to have lots of lexicons. That way I can look through all of them until I find the meaning I want for a particular word.

isn't that what the Amplified Bible is for? [:O]

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134631#Comment_134631

I like to have lots of lexicons. That way I can look through all of them until I find the meaning I want for a particular word.

isn't that what the Amplified Bible is for?

Exactly: "Step right up and pick your meaning, any meaning!"

J.R. Miller

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134633#Comment_134633

This YouTube video may help explain the purpose of the blog post

(if you cannot view it below, here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxY4sgKQ3yg )

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134633#Comment_134633

If you ignore the over-stated headline, isn't the simple point that rather then just look up a word in a lexicon every time we need a definition, we ought instead to be investing time into learning at least the basics of Greek and Hebrew for ourselves?

When I teach first-year seminary students exegesis (from English texts as they haven't learned enough Greek at that stage), the first thing I tell them is don't look at the commentaries. Why? Because they need to learn to think for themselves, let the Word of God speak to them. They need to study the Bible, not merely study a book about the Bible. It's the same principle.

With both lexicons and commentaries we encourage the students always to attempt to answer their own questions about the text. They are only 'allowed' to look at lexicons and commentaries if either (a) they have failed to answer their questions after much perseverance, or (b) they have thoughtfully found an answer that they now need to check.

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134647#Comment_134647

If you ignore the over-stated headline, isn't the simple point that rather then just look up a word in a lexicon every time we need a definition, we ought instead to be investing time into learning at least the basics of Greek and Hebrew for ourselves?

When I teach first-year seminary students exegesis (from English texts as they haven't learned enough Greek at that stage), the first thing I tell them is don't look at the commentaries. Why? Because they need to learn to think for themselves, let the Word of God speak to them. They need to study the Bible, not merely study a book about the Bible. It's the same principle.

With both lexicons and commentaries we encourage the students always to attempt to answer their own questions about the text. They are only 'allowed' to look at lexicons and commentaries if either (a) they have failed to answer their questions after much perseverance, or (b) they have thoughtfully found an answer that they now need to check.

Mark, How I miss the days when someone in my class would say: "Such and such commentary says this..."

Instead now what I hear mostly is: "Well to me, this verse means..." (I do try very hard not to scream)

LaRosa Johnson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134650#Comment_134650

"Well to me, this verse means..."

I cringe & grind my teeth every time I hear someone say that, especially from behind the pulpit

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134652#Comment_134652

"Well to me, this verse means..."

I cringe & grind my teeth every time I hear someone say that, especially from behind the pulpit

I know what you mean.

If I every have the great misfortune of hearing this from behind the pulpit of a church I happen to be sitting in, I'm afraid that my wife will get quite mad at me.

I can just imagine her words now: "You didn't have to slam your Bible shut, kick over your chair, and walk out in the middle of the sermon..."

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134650#Comment_134650

Mark, How I miss the days when someone in my class would say: "Such and such commentary says this..."

Instead now what I hear mostly is: "Well to me, this verse means..." (I do try very hard not to scream)

What the congregation wants (and should get) is a simple, "This verse means…".

When I said "let the Word of God speak to them", and phrased it so as to make it clear that it is the Word of God that is 'in charge'. In no way was I suggesting that I can create my own meaning from the text. Having said that, too many preachers are like used car salesmen, merely passing on somebody else's thoughts and exegesis. Surely biblical preaching means that the preacher first sits under the Word, lets the Word speak to him (note the Word taking the lead again) and then communicates what God is clearly saying in that passage (note the 'what God is saying').

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134667#Comment_134667

What the congregation wants (and should get) is a simple, "This verse means…".

When I said "let the Word of God speak to them", and phrased it so as to make it clear that it is the Word of God that is 'in charge'. In no way was I suggesting that I can create my own meaning from the text. Having said that, too many preachers are like used car salesmen, merely passing on somebody else's thoughts and exegesis. Surely biblical preaching means that the preacher first sits under the Word, lets the Word speak to him (note the Word taking the lead again) and then communicates what God is clearly saying in that passage (note the 'what God is saying').

Hi Mark,

I understood what your were saying, and what you speak of is the ideal form of exegesis.

It's just that nowadays we (at least in North America) have to fight so hard against "personal interpretation", and subjective truth, that your post led me to my lament.

It was much easier to explain the authoritative aspects of the Biblical text in respect to a man's opinion, when society and so much of the church wasn't pushing so hard at spiritualization of the text, or worse yet disregarding much of it.

Students, for the most part, no longer seek the true meaning of the Word, from any source.

Mike T

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134647#Comment_134647

I think that there is an undercurrent to Francis' post that is not being addressed here. Francis, correct me if I'm wrong...

Actually underlying my post is a concern I have long had with the way ministry studies are going. There used to be a time when common mortals saw themselves as such and recognized that there were a few who were very gifted in specialized disciplines and who were consulted and respected as authorities. Part of my objection is that I see the displacement of authorities.

I believe that Francis considers lexicons as authoritative, and objects to the idea that beginning students should be encouraged to disregard their authority. If so, I would strenuously disagree. If someone were to study my writings in the year 2050, I believe that they could consult contemporary dictionaries and consider them as authoritative. After all, we have had dictionaries for quite some time that define the meanings and semantic ranges of words in the English language. If I were to use a word in a manner contrary to the dictionaries at my disposal, it would be just to say that I was mis-using the word (e.g., contra-authority). This is not, however, the case for scripture. Show me the lexicon that Paul used, and I will consider it authoritative. But the fact is that there were no lexicons at that time. While an over-simplification, the lexicons that we now have for biblical literature could be portrayed as compilations of the various translations/interpretations of the words of scripture. They are no more authoritative than the underlying interpretations. That said, I do have a lot of respect for the work that went into these lexicons and find them invaluable... just not authoritative.

Michael

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134677#Comment_134677

Micheal, it's go that you said "if so" because it ain't so. What I object to is the reductionist approach to "you can be an expert in biblical languages". Apparently, we don't need to consult the work of those who have done years of detailed study and are actually experts: just take out your Bible software and toss their works out!

Many exegetes I know don't speak another language than their native tongue and they exhibit a critical lack of awareness of how languages work. But encouraged by this kind of nonsense they go out there and speak as if they actually knew what they are speaking about...

That's all I want to say: let's use the tools but be humble. We can't all be experts in all fields that pertain to ministry and so should not speak as if we were. With that comes added respect for those whose expertise or gift exceed our own and recognition that our ignorance leaves room for many blindspots in our studies.

Mike Aubrey

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134705#Comment_134705

What I object to is the reductionist approach to "you can be an expert in biblical languages". Apparently, we don't need to consult the work of those who have done years of detailed study and are actually experts: just take out your Bible software and toss their works out!

Then its good that nobody has said that.

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134705#Comment_134705

Does anybody else find it funny that the "You Are Smarter Than a Lexicon" blog entry is posted the day after the blog entry on the Logos Lexicons softball team ? Is that Dr. Heiser on the right in the team picture?

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134705#Comment_134705

Francis, I really don't think that's what Michael is saying. I think he's saying: "Don't assume you're an expert in your use of a lexicon; you're probably not, because they're not for beginners. But with some tools, some training and 'practice, practice, and more practice' you can take 'the first step' towards helping you better understand the grammar and complexities of language - and not just the meaning of words."

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134715#Comment_134715

Does anybody else find it funny that the "You Are Smarter Than a Lexicon" blog entry is posted the day after the blog entry on the Logos Lexicons softball team ? Is that Dr. Heiser on the right in the team picture?

Yes, I find it funny....but that also means that I'm smarter than anyone on the team....which also means that I shouldn't listen to Dr. Heiser, but that means that the premise that I'm smarter is now false also...arggg! What a tangled up mess.... [:D]

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134728#Comment_134728

Forums are quite instructive about the limitations of effective written communication. It must keep us ministers humble to know that we can be so slow to listen and quick to speak.

Blessings on you all. As for me and my house, we shall no longer follow this thread!

Larry Heflin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134743#Comment_134743

Maybe Logos will create some good study tools to help us understand and agree on what Dr. Heiser really meant!

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134657#Comment_134657

If I every have the great misfortune of hearing this from behind the pulpit of a church I happen to be sitting in, I'm afraid that my wife will get quite mad at me.

I can just imagine her words now: "You didn't have to slam your Bible shut, kick over your chair, and walk out in the middle of the sermon..."

Is your wife the preacher? [:)]

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134790#Comment_134790

Is your wife the preacher?

Now that would be something. If you could only imagine the scenarios that zipped through my mind when I read it. [:D]

My wife "claims" that my forthcoming demeanor, and my tendency to speak and act on my beliefs (with no regard for the consequences), can often lead to her embarrassment.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134676#Comment_134676

It's just that nowadays we (at least in North America) have to fight so hard against "personal interpretation", and subjective truth, that your post led me to my lament.

It was much easier to explain the authoritative aspects of the Biblical text in respect to a man's opinion, when society and so much of the church wasn't pushing so hard at spiritualization of the text, or worse yet disregarding much of it.

Students, for the most part, no longer seek the true meaning of the Word, from any source.

Brother....you said a mouthful!

That's been my experience...

Rebecca Hahn

Hi Francis, I actually agree with both you and the author. I think the problem lies with the lexicons. I used Quickverse prior to purchasing Logos and when I looked up a word in Strongs Dictionary I got this for H2822:

From H2821; the dark; hence (literally) darkness; figuratively misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness:—dark (-ness), night, obscurity

This helps me understand the word. Combing the literal definition with the fact that Christ is the light of the world, and I can better understand the figuratives uses of the word. I have this great english dictionary and when I look up a word it gives the origin and thier meanings, the meanings of common and archaic usage, examples used in context, and synonoms. All of these things are provided so that I can better understand the meaning of the word.

Not happy with the dictionary's that came with Logos I decided to purchase Strongs (which in Quickverse I was very happy with) - when I look up H2822 I get this:

From 2821; TWOT 769a; GK 3125; 80 occurrences; AV translates as "darkness" 70 times, "dark" seven times, "obscurity" twice, and "night" once. 1 darkness, obscurity. 1a darkness. 1b secret place.

Where is the literal definition? It tells me how many times it was translated into different English words (severly disappointed with my purchase). So in this I agree with the author of the blog in that this does not do me much good. Especially without knowing what the corresponding verses are (I know that I can find this in Logos I am focusing on the Lexicon that Logos has, supposedly, enhanced). Where is the definition in Logos version of the dictionary? Where does it tell me the literal meaning, so that maybe I can better understand why it was being translated 70 times as dark. So in this I agree with the author of the blog that this does me no good whatsoever.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/135468#Comment_135468

Where is the literal definition?

The literal definition is there:

1
darkness, obscurity.

1a
darkness.
1b secret
place.

It looks like you have The New Strong's Complete Dictionary of Hebrew and Greek Words in Quickverse (this is also available in Logos). It's entry in Logos is:

from 2821; the dark; hence (lit.) darkness; fig. misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness:— dark (-ness), night, obscurity.

Rebecca Hahn

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/135475#Comment_135475

Thank you for letting me know that? But it's not in the Lexicon. So what good is the Lexicon?

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134349#Comment_134349

I thought he was completely right in his post.

Agreed

I like to have lots of lexicons. That way I can look through all of them until I find the meaning I want for a particular word.

Hint: Ambrose Bierce published a Devil's Dictionary. [:P]

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/135490#Comment_135490

Thank you for letting me know that? But it's not in the Lexicon.

It is in the lexicon. I copied it from the citation you gave. I just broke it onto more than one line so it's easier to see. In the Enhanced Strong's (like the original Strong's), the definition follows the number towards the end.

Rebecca Hahn

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/135501#Comment_135501

Got it. Thank you

Vincent Setterholm

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/135468#Comment_135468

Where is the literal definition? It tells me how many times it was translated into different English words (severly disappointed with my purchase). So in this I agree with the author of the blog in that this does not do me much good. Especially without knowing what the corresponding verses are (I know that I can find this in Logos I am focusing on the Lexicon that Logos has, supposedly, enhanced). Where is the definition in Logos version of the dictionary? Where does it tell me the literal meaning, so that maybe I can better understand why it was being translated 70 times as dark. So in this I agree with the author of the blog that this does me no good whatsoever.

The original Strong's dictionary was designed as a companion/index to his concordance. The concordance is organized by English words, so if you want to look up every instance of a Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic word, you need to know all the English words that the biblical language word is translated as. This is just the nature/purpose of Strong's.

There are other resources that are organized by Strong's numbers, but provide different kinds of information. AMG "Complete Word Study Dictionaries" are one of my favorites of this crop for beginners because they do a nice job of giving some of the basic contextual clues that one needs to look for to help select the right meaning, while still keeping the entries concise. The DBL series included in most of the Logos Base Packages are also good for this (organized by GK number, but navigable by Strong's numbers as well as by the spelling in the biblical language), and for Hebrew the Concise HAL is great, though it doesn't use Strong's or GK numbers if that is a requirement (which is typical of the best lexicons - but in the computer age it's quite easy to look up words without needing an index system like Strong's numbers, even if you haven't yet learned the script).

The BDAG/HALOT bundle is really the best set of lexicons. Though to get the most out of these resources you either need to have some knowledge of the languages involved, or at least the tenacity and resources to look up whatever you don't understand (to some extent this is true for the other dictionaries listed above). For example, if a verb has one meaning in the Qal stem and another in the Niphal stem, you can consult the morphology information (either in your Hebrew Bible, or in a Reverse interlinear) to figure out the stem of the word instance you are specifically examining (though unless the word is very common, you can probably just find the instance listed in the HALOT article) or you can take it a step further and read up on the stems in a Hebrew grammar to get a better feel for how they work.

Rene Atchley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/135505#Comment_135505

How ironic. I buy a product to help me with language analysis of a text due to limited linguistic abilities. Yet when I am qualified to use the tool I don't need the tool...or the program with the tool. Sometimes theology seems way too confusing even with several degrees in it.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/135508#Comment_135508

Sometimes theology seems way too confusing

No matter how much theology you learn, there's always more you don't know than you do know. No matter how many skills you have, they're always inadequate to gain a full understanding of what the Bible says. We're all paddling in the shallows of a great sea. I guess that's what comes of studying an infinite, omnipotent God [:)]

On the other hand, we are also studying a compassionate, gracious and knowable God. So no matter how little theology you know, and how few skills you have, you can still understand the Bible, and you can know him (and perhaps understand the Bible better, and know him better than many theologians with their multiple languages and PhDs and DPhils).

Vincent Setterholm

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/135508#Comment_135508

How ironic. I buy a product to help me with language analysis of a text due to limited linguistic abilities. Yet when I am qualified to use the tool I don't need the tool...or the program with the tool. Sometimes theology seems way too confusing even with several degrees in it.

I hope you weren't getting that reaction from anything I just wrote... It's not ironic that some resources are designed primarily for people who are either learning a language or have achieved some degree of ability with it. (And even someone with a high degree of fluency will find much of value in the advanced lexicons.) For someone only used to Strong's dictionaries, something like HALOT is going to be a bit of a stretch (a strech I think is worth making); I was just aiming for a little truth-in-advertising.

I am not at all pessimistic about value of tenacity, either. I think beginners can get use out of materials written for people with more background if they're willing to put some energy into it. I recently translated some short works from Armenian and Ethiopic armed with almost no prior knowledge, only a couple lexicons, grammars and paradigm charts. I'm fairly confident in the results, but it took a lot of time.

Ken Shawver

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/135510#Comment_135510

No matter how many skills you have, they're always inadequate to gain a full understanding of what the Bible says. We're all paddling in the shallows of a great sea. I guess that's what comes of studying an infinite, omnipotent God

Mark very well stated because no matter how often you study any passage there is always more to glean from God's Word. When I became a student of God's Word it totally amazed me how God meets you where you are at to help grow you as you diligently seek Him. Now some 16 years on my journey, I can read the same passage and learn something new.

On the other hand, we are also studying a compassionate, gracious and knowable God. So no matter how little theology you know, and how few skills you have, you can still understand the Bible, and you can know him (and perhaps understand the Bible better, and know him better than many theologians with their multiple languages and PhDs and DPhils).

Could it be the more one rests on their own academic prowess that they over complicate what our commpassionate, gracious, and knowable God is trying to teach us. God isn't trying to hide from those that are diligently seeking Him.

Rene Atchley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/135514#Comment_135514

In general Vincent I have given up posting on this forum...for various reasons. However I am interested in the notion that I should buy a very expensive electronic tool in which to use properly I have to a level of expertise which don't require me to use such tools. I am not sure what the point of buying expensive tools when I dont need them. I think this thread brings up a very important issue regarding the nature of electronic tools and their place in the practice of professional ministry in a local context.

Another example might be the need for a pastor to buy counseling tools from Logos then gets a degree and licensure in Christian counseling. At that point why would I need or even use intro level or slightly advanced products about the theory and practice of Christian counseling. I don't want to side track this thread but I don't understand what seems to be a contradictory argument for both for and against needing electronic Lexical tools.

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/135496#Comment_135496

Hint: Ambrose Bierce published a Devil's Dictionary.

I wasn't going to do it, but George dared me...

God said: "Let Spirit perish into Form,"
And lexicographers arose, a swarm!
Thought fled and left her clothing, which they took,
And catalogued each garment in a book.
Now, from her leafy covert when she cries:
"Give me my clothes and I'll return," they rise
And scan the list, and say without compassion:
"Excuse us -- they are mostly out of fashion."
~ Sigismund Smith

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/135514#Comment_135514

Could it be the more one rests on their own academic prowess that they over complicate what our commpassionate, gracious, and knowable God is trying to teach us. God isn't trying to hide from those that are diligently seeking Him.

Precisely. I've come to the conclusion that it is really a lot simpler than our theology would make it. It all boils down to

¹⁶“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

¹⁷“Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1989 (Jn 3:16-17). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Perhaps we are like the Pharisees, laying heavy burdens on the shoulders of others.