What errors does strong's concordance lead to?

[Daniel Marsh]

There are problems it causes.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Word-Study Fallacies by Robert Cara

At my seminary, I often teach the introductory Greek course. On the first or second day of class, at least one student and I will have the following typical con

www.ligonier.org

Common Exegetical Fallacies

Every good preacher or teacher wants to present the Scriptures in their original context and give the application for the modern listeners. We call the processes of discovering the original meaning,...

www.ntgreekstudies.net

How to Use Strong's Concordance (and errors to avoid)

Strong's concordance is a great resource from its day. But you need to know how to use strong's concordance and what it's limitations are.

vitaldiscipleship.com

“illegitimate totality transfer fallacy”.

Our umbrella “fallacy” term contains two subsets of errors that Strong’s regularly causes:

That you can simply choose which gloss of a particular word you prefer, and run with that; and
That all of the potential meanings of a particular word apply in each case when it is used in scripture. A sort of interpretative gumbo, blended together where we should apply a multi-faceted meaning to each instance.
And the best place to start explaining why this is not the case is to look at another language we know a little better… English.

An English Example
Let’s take the glorious word “scale”.

Without even consulting a dictionary, I can comfortably say that “scale” in any given scenario might mean:

an indication of ratio in a drawing or model
a bug that eats my fruit trees
a set of musical notes played in a particular order;
a reference to the size of something (similar to 1 but not quite the same);
climbing up the side of a mountain or building.
So what would happen if we were to say that we got to just choose which meaning “felt right” to us with this word? Could all of those meanings apply in any given situation?

Of course not – the result would be absurd.

But Aren’t Greek and Hebrew Different?
No.

At least, not in this respect.

A Practical Example
Okay so if my English example above hasn’t convinced you, then let’s look at a Greek example of how things could go a little pear-shaped.

Jesus said “I am the good shepherd”. Here, the word translated “good” is the Greek καλός (kalos).

Our Strong’s entry on kalos tells us:

καλός kalŏs, kal-os´; of uncert. affin.; prop. beautiful, but chiefly (fig.) good (lit. or mor.), i.e. valuable or virtuous (for appearance or use, and thus distinguished from 18, which is prop. intrinsic):—× better, fair, good (-ly), honest, meet, well, worthy.

Strong’s number 2570
Now does anyone wish to contend that Jesus was calling himself beautiful? What about well – was he saying that he was a shepherd in good health?

Can we say that the “good shepherd” here has the same intended gloss on it as “good fruit” in Matt 7:17?.

Of course not. Those meanings simply do not fit the context of the passage.

But the point here is that Strong’s by itself will not help us get to a conclusion, nor to more deeply investigate the meaning of the word.

We cannot say that “good” has some frankenstein-like interpretative meaning of beautiful/good/valuable/virtuous/better/honest/meet/well/worthy. It would turn a language into a maze of gobbledegook.

More importantly though, it’s simply not what Strong’s resource was designed to do. To use it that way is to use it incorrectly.

So What do We Do Instead?
The truth is that while Strong’s was, and is, a magnificent work it is frankly not the best resource for “digging deeper” into the potential meaning of a given word.

I’m not going to offer a specific resource recommendation, but if you are looking for a dictionary that provides a more valuable insight into a given meaning of a word (and equivalent areas where it is translated with the same gloss) then what you want to find is a lexicon where the words are grouped by “semantic domain”.

An Example on Semantic Domains
I will give you an example from the Louw-Nida resource on our word kalos from above.

First, our entry from the “good shepherd” passage:

88.4 καλόςa, ή, όν; καλῶςa: pertaining to a positive moral quality, with the implication of being favorably valued—‘good, fine, praiseworthy.’

Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains
Then, an entry from Matt 7:17 (good fruit):

65.22 καλόςb, ή, όν: pertaining to having acceptable characteristics or functioning in an agreeable manner, often with the focus on outward form or appearance—‘good, fine.’ πᾶν δένδρον ἀγαθὸν καρποὺς καλοὺς ποιεῖ ‘every good tree produces fine fruit’ Mt 7:17.

Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains, #65.22
So you’ll notice a couple of things.

First – these are different entries (designated by different numbers). They appear in completely different places of this resource – that is, the intended meanings exist in different “semantic domains” (thus the term).

Next – the resource, at least, suggests that the context and correct translation of the relevant word, used in the different locations, should result in a different interpretation of its intended gloss. That is, it actually provides interpretive assistance, rather than leaving you to guess.

Of course…
Either way here, of course, you are forced to trust the authors and editors of the resource you pick. That in itself could introduce a degree of error if they get things wrong.

That said – we’re still in a far better position to use a trusted and generally well-regarded resource than we are to simply take a stab at guessing which version of the meaning we would like to use in any given case.

Practically Speaking
If you’ve gotten this far, then well done.

We’ve see the limitations of Strong’s dictionary, and in particular the fact that it offers you no tools to effectively determine which of the available possible interpretations for a given word is the correct one.

We’ve seen a type of resource that can help you move forward past this issue.

So what can we do with this information?

First – listen carefully to your preachers. Many, sadly enough, get stuck in this particular issue and draw conclusions from the error which are not sound.
Next – in your own study, use the more detailed resources to inform your decision making, and try your darndest to just pick the interpretation that suits your desired outcomes the best.

How to Use Strong's Concordance (and errors to avoid)

Strong's concordance is a great resource from its day. But you need to know how to use strong's concordance and what it's limitations are.

vitaldiscipleship.com

 

[Daniel Marsh]

https://drbarrick.org/files/papers/other/tmsj19a.pdf

They look up Greek words in their Strong’s Concordance, find the original Greek root, and conclude that they have found the word’s “real” meaning. This is what Carson calls the “root fallacy.”

Blue Letter Bible Institute

Free courses in Biblical theology provided by Blue Letter Bible

study.bible

Furthermore, the dictionary of Strong’s Concordance provides mistaken definitions for many Hebrew and Greek words. This is because many of these definitions are derived using improper word study methodologies. Some examples include:

• The etymological fallacy. Assuming that the meaning of a word is determined by its historical origins. For example, the English word nice used to mean “stupid” in older English, and it comes ultimately from the Latin word nescius, meaning “ignorant”. However, today, the word “nice” does not mean that a person is stupid or ignorant.
• The root fallacy. Assuming that the meaning of a compound word is determined by the meanings of its component parts. For example, the word butterfly does not mean “flying butter” just because it is made up of the words butter and fly, and the word understand does not mean “to stand under something” just because it is made up of the words under and stand.

A Guide to Not Using Strong’s Concordance | Zealous Ministries

zmin.org

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Strong’s Concordance – a Good Tool Gone Bad

To download the entire article, click here Shogren_Strongs Concordance For Bible students who don’t use Hebrew and Greek, the Strong Concordance is a popular tool, available online. [1] But it has …

openoureyeslord.com

Examples Of Exegetical Fallacies - 267 Words | Bartleby

Free Essay: Your post on Exegetical Fallacies was insightful and thought-provoking. Before learning Greek, hearing preachers use Greek words throughout their...

www.bartleby.com

 

[PloverWing]

I agree that there's much more to learning a foreign language than merely looking up individual words in a dictionary. Learning the meanings of individual vocabulary words is a good start, and a necessary part of the process, but it's only a start. Think of all that we do as speakers of English when we read poetry, or when we try to write that perfectly-worded letter where we ask someone to do something for us while also expressing gratitude for what they've already done but also a hint of correction because what they did yesterday wasn't quite right. There's a big distance between "I own a dictionary" and "I'm fluent in the language".

 

[Daniel Marsh]

wife will kick me off soon