20 replies to this topic

[BigPaw]

 What is your opinion of the AHLB resource?

 

The explanations it offers regularly provide fascinating insights that other resources don't. For example, its reasoning on "hate" (Ps 97:10) is fascinating as it reveals the root as relating to a spiky seed. But no other references see this or explain it in a remotely similar way, in fact they more often simply state the obvious when it comes to the word "hate".

 

Thanks for any thoughts.

 

[Keith]

You have highlighted one of the problems with this resource, in my opinion. It regularly commits the root fallacy when dealing with the meaning of words. The reason most lexical resources don't give such information as you have just cited is simply because it is irrelevant to the meaning of the word as it was used in the Bible, and it would be entirely misleading to try to read anything into the meaning of the word based on such supposed etymology.

[Eliran Wong]

You have highlighted one of the problems with this resource, in my opinion. It regularly commits the root fallacy when dealing with the meaning of words. The reason most lexical resources don't give such information as you have just cited is simply because it is irrelevant to the meaning of the word as it was used in the Bible, and it would be entirely misleading to try to read anything into the meaning of the word based on such supposed etymology.

 

I like your answer.

[Gary Timm]

 What is your opinion of the AHLB resource?

 

The explanations it offers regularly provide fascinating insights that other resources don't. For example, its reasoning on "hate" (Ps 97:10) is fascinating as it reveals the root as relating to a spiky seed. But no other references see this or explain it in a remotely similar way, in fact they more often simply state the obvious when it comes to the word "hate".

 

Thanks for any thoughts.

 

The definition of "spiky seed" would definitely apply towards hate. If we are to be God's Seed, which is spoken of in Mat. 13:37-38 - the "Good Seed", then the Seed which we shouldn't spread is the "Bad Seed", or "Spiky Seed"... which is the Seed of hatred spoken of in Gen. 3:15. If hatred is embedded within our souls, we could never be that "Good Seed".

 

When reading Scripture... rather than envisioning "worldly seeds" planted in the ground by farmers with no apparent purpose towards faith, we need to think more in line with spirituality. In other words, God gave us the Bible to demonstrate the perfect walk of faith, and not for worldly matters.

 

Blessings...

[BigPaw]

I really don't have a problem with the way a lexicon may bring out the etymology of a word, but it would be nice to see if substantiated in another lexicon, even if it is far from the same level of detail.

Regarding the example of "hate" at Psalm 97:10. In the AHLB it pictures a spiky seed, something you would want to stand on or kick considering how exposed feet were in those times. So, a traveler would avoid a tree known for these types of seeds because of the pain they can cause. Now, that paints a fascinating instructive picture, an illustration that wouldn't be out of place in the scriptures.

But, I'm curious about its authority when it comes to defining, or explaining, the background of such words in the scriptures. I suppose I need to research the purpose and history of the AHLB?

[Eliran Wong]

But, I'm curious about its authority when it comes to defining, or explaining, the background of such words in the scriptures. I suppose I need to research the purpose and history of the AHLB?

 

please kindly let me know when you find it out.   I never used that dictionary in seminary, it is not even mentioned in scholarly articles ... ( please correct me if I am wrong ... may be I did not read enough of them ...)

 

some ideas are interesting but doesn't mean it is right.  ... from some of discussions above ... I can see the risk of reading theology into lexicography ... sorry, I am not judging ... I am open to learn more ... thanks ...

Edited by Eliran Wong, 10 February 2017 - 11:31 AM.

[Gary Timm]

Regarding the example of "hate" at Psalm 97:10. In the AHLB it pictures a spiky seed, something you would want to stand on or kick considering how exposed feet were in those times. So, a traveler would avoid a tree known for these types of seeds because of the pain they can cause. Now, that paints a fascinating instructive picture, an illustration that wouldn't be out of place in the scriptures.

 

Psalm 97:10, once again, is speaking of Gen 3:15, meaning that we should stand on, or crush the head of Satan (hatred). When Scripture says we should avoid a "Tree" known for this kind of seed, it may seem impossible for some to understand this phrase unless we first understand the words and terminology.

 

In short, a "Tree" is a man. Why do we know this? Because God has told us.

 

One such example is Mark 8:24. Here, a blind man sees "Men" walking as "Trees". The question should be, if a blind man can see men as "Trees", then why can't we? And in truth, if this wasn't the case, then why would Jesus be so concerned about "Trees" that don't produce Good Fruit, and throwing them in the fire as mentioned in Mat. 7:17-19?

 

If this "Tree" of hatred is us, we should put it to death. It does mean that we should put ourselves to death, it means we should put hatred (within ourselves) to death. This is the only means of becoming a New Creature in Christ (2Cor. 5:17), thus, crushing the head of Death and Satan.

 

I'm not sure if this helps to explain, or makes things more confusing. But God has given us the keys for understanding, all we have to do is search. And with Bible programs such as e-Sword, we can search Scripture as never before!

 

Blessings to all...

[JPG]

please kindly let me know when you find it out.   I never used that dictionary in seminary, it is not even mentioned in scholarly articles ... ( please correct me if I am wrong ... may be I did not read enough of them ...)

 

some ideas are interesting but doesn't mean it is right.  ... from some of discussions above ... I can see the risk of reading theology into lexicography ... sorry, I am not judging ... I am open to learn more ... thanks ...

 

 

Here is a link to Jeff Benner, site.

http://www.ancient-h....org/about.html

[Eliran Wong]

Here is a link to Jeff Benner, site.
http://www.ancient-h....org/about.html

Thank you. I think the link here help to answer the original question in this post. It may inform readers or users to weight the credentials of the dictionary, rather than discuss ing how the passage to be interpreted. Thanks.

From what I read from this link, the author did not give solid information on how he developed the meanings of his dictionary ... though it doesn't mean it is wrong.

[Gary Timm]

To quickly follow up... we consistently attempt to derive concepts from Scripture through man's eyes without consulting God's Word for the definitions. Man is just stubborn that way. But, God has no use in speaking to soul-less entities such as trees, grass and sheep which cannot understand His Word or act upon His instruction... that is, unless these entities are Man. 

 

This is not a concept coming forth out of man's imagination... it is spoken of and explained in Scripture and as God describes it through the writings of His Prophets. There is no other way to explain verses, such as, Amos 4:1, where God speaks to "Cows", unless we understand He is speaking to Man. And if this the exception, where is the rule?

 

This teaching is not solely inherent to Old Testament prophecy. Jesus, Himself, fully explains this concept in Mat. 13:37-47, as He associates many words for spiritual understanding. Considering His explanation, I believe this concept is something we cannot overlook as there is no other viable alternative. Not to mention, these definitions are all over Scripture.

 

Another quick example is "Grass". We think of "Grass" as something we mow in the summer, or which sheep and cattle chew on. This is the concept perceived through man's eyes, and how he typically visualizes it. But again, it should not be what we conceive "Grass" to be, but rather, what GOD explains it to be. And, here again, God describes this perfectly. 

 

In Isaiah 40:6-7, he describes "Grass" as "Man", not once, but twice. And in 1Pet. 1:24, Peter confirms this with a nearly identical scriptural reference. To grasp this concept, literally helps to unfold Scripture as a whole, and places an entire new twist on passages such as Revelation 8:7.

 

In conclusion, everyone has free will to believe whatever they wish as that is how God has designed it. But if God has instructed us with His own Words and already explained it... who are we to refuse to listen, or find our own definition?

 

Blessings to all...