Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Tim
Manny, (first, I am NOT a student of Dr. Ruckman, just to be clear) the problem with "going to the Greek" is that the tools available today are often very limited (such as Strongs) or are produced by men who themselves do not hold to the same believing view of the inerrancy of the Scriptures. Context and cross-referencing is a far better tool, along with definitions from a dictionary as contemporary with the 1600's as is possible. I use the 1828 Webster's (thanks to SwordSearcher!)
I am not saying that Dr. Smith is not a KJBO, only that some pieces didn't quite fit in my opinion.
|
Having read your posts in the past I already knew you wasn't a student of Dr. Ruckman. If I implied such it was purely accidental and not intentional and I apologize. I brought up Dr. Ruckman simply to make a point.
I agree that we have to be VERY careful with the Greek and Hebrew references that are out there as most of them are produced by apostates. And I also think that God led the KJV translators to translated the Greek and Hebrew in a way that really provides the best definitions of words even in the Greek and Hebrew if you'll study the word in its context and cross references (in the KJB). However, it is TECHNICALLY not wrong if a person seeks out a definition of a word in its source language (Greek and Hebrew). And I just think that people would be better off (and get along better) by recognizing the difference between a preacher who references the original languages simply out of a pure desire to understand a certain word as opposed to the one who is using the Greek and Hebrew to undermine the KJB.