Very Quick Bible Question

[dcyates]

NO no no! Not only can you use a concordance with other versions than the KJV (the NIV has one out, as do the RSV and NASB), but this is a terrible way to get at the "original" meaning of the passage. If you want to know what the passage says in the original Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic, you have to learn those languages. Period. A concordance with an insignificant lexical aid attached as an appendix is a terrible method for reading Hebrew.

I have to agree. Using a concordance in this way would be similar to thinking one could most accurately learn the meaning of the parable of the Good Samaritan by looking up the word 'good' and the word 'samaritan'. Word studies like this are really of limited benefit. And I say this as somebody who used to study Scripture in exactly this way. It used to be that I could look at a word in the Greek NT and tell you its voice, its case, its conjugation, its declension, you name it. I could tell you it was of the liquid 2nd aorist, participial, plural, feminine, nominative, of the Omega conjugation, et cetra, et cetra. But think about it. Do we really use language like that? When we're corresponding with each--no matter the medium--are we really that aware of how we're using our words? Not likely. And I doubt Paul was, too, in especially as emotionally charged a letter as, say, 2 Corinthians, or Galatians, or even Philemon.