What should play the lead in determining the meaning of a word: The strongs concordance or the context of a passage? Also, how reliable are the meanings in the strong's concordance.
Specifically, I've been discussing the issue of God's 'hatred' for Esau. I agree with Steve that this is more a case of 'prefering' one to another for a purpose than 'not-loving' Esau. But the strongs says hate is to despise. I used the example of Jesus telling disciples to 'hate' their families, but the person i am arguing with still says hate means hate in the way we tend to use the term today.
Any comments on my original questions?
Strong's or Context
Strong's or Context
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hemingway once said: 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for'
I agree with the second part (se7en)
I agree with the second part (se7en)
Strong's is usually pretty reliable (but much briefer and less comprehensive than most lexicons), though he does not only give the lexical meaning of a word, but also the various English words used in the KJV to translate the word in question—whether the various English words are the best or not.
However, biblical exegesis does not look to the lexical meanings of words alone, but to usage as well. Many slang words and idiomatic expressions used in our time have a certain lexical or dictionary meaning, but are popularly used in another sense.
My teenaged kids, for example, use the adjectives "tight" and "sweet" in idiomatic ways that have no connection to the lexical meanings of those words (just as my generation did with expressions like "cool," "groovy," "out of sight" and "uptight").
These are, of course, rather silly slang terms, but they are familiar examples of how words, through usage, take on nuances or meanings not derived from their etymology.
One can only learn how the word "sweet" can describe a car if one hears the word used in enough idiomatic situations to allow oneself to discern a pattern of usage.
It is the same with the Hebrew word "sane" (pronounced, "saw-nay") and the equivalent Greek word "miseo." These words have a lexical meaning, which is "hate." But there are a number of examples in the Hebraic usage where they clearly take on a special meaning through idiomatic usage.
In such cases, we see these words used in juxtaposition with "love," as a comparative, not absolute term. Examples in scripture would include Genesis 29:30-31/Deut.21:15/ Mal.1:2-3/ Matt.6:24/ Luke 14:26. In most of these cases, the word "hate" clearly cannot be understood in its absolute sense, but, used as a hyperbole, it means to "love less."
However, biblical exegesis does not look to the lexical meanings of words alone, but to usage as well. Many slang words and idiomatic expressions used in our time have a certain lexical or dictionary meaning, but are popularly used in another sense.
My teenaged kids, for example, use the adjectives "tight" and "sweet" in idiomatic ways that have no connection to the lexical meanings of those words (just as my generation did with expressions like "cool," "groovy," "out of sight" and "uptight").
These are, of course, rather silly slang terms, but they are familiar examples of how words, through usage, take on nuances or meanings not derived from their etymology.
One can only learn how the word "sweet" can describe a car if one hears the word used in enough idiomatic situations to allow oneself to discern a pattern of usage.
It is the same with the Hebrew word "sane" (pronounced, "saw-nay") and the equivalent Greek word "miseo." These words have a lexical meaning, which is "hate." But there are a number of examples in the Hebraic usage where they clearly take on a special meaning through idiomatic usage.
In such cases, we see these words used in juxtaposition with "love," as a comparative, not absolute term. Examples in scripture would include Genesis 29:30-31/Deut.21:15/ Mal.1:2-3/ Matt.6:24/ Luke 14:26. In most of these cases, the word "hate" clearly cannot be understood in its absolute sense, but, used as a hyperbole, it means to "love less."
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
thanks steve
the person accused me of being 'alone' in this view of hatred so i quoted the following:
John Wesley
If any man come to me, and hate not his father - Comparatively to Christ: yea, so as actually to renounce his field, oxen, wife, all things, and act as if he hated them, when they stand in competition with him. See Matthew 10:37.
John Gill
not that proper hatred of any, or all of these, is enjoined by Christ; for this would be contrary to the laws of God, to the first principles of nature, to all humanity, to the light of nature, to reason and divine revelation: but that these are not to be preferred to Christ, or loved more than he, as it is explained in (Matthew 10:37)
Matthew Henry
A man cannot be Christ’s disciple but he must hate father, and mother, and his own life. He is not sincere, he will be constant and persevering, unless he love Christ better than any thing in this world, and be willing to part with that which he may and must leave...Every good man loves his relations; and yet, if he be a disciple of Christ, he must comparatively hate them, must love them less than Christ, as Leah is said to be hated when Rachel was better loved...When our duty to our parents comes in competition with our evident duty to Christ, we must give Christ the preference
the person accused me of being 'alone' in this view of hatred so i quoted the following:
John Wesley
If any man come to me, and hate not his father - Comparatively to Christ: yea, so as actually to renounce his field, oxen, wife, all things, and act as if he hated them, when they stand in competition with him. See Matthew 10:37.
John Gill
not that proper hatred of any, or all of these, is enjoined by Christ; for this would be contrary to the laws of God, to the first principles of nature, to all humanity, to the light of nature, to reason and divine revelation: but that these are not to be preferred to Christ, or loved more than he, as it is explained in (Matthew 10:37)
Matthew Henry
A man cannot be Christ’s disciple but he must hate father, and mother, and his own life. He is not sincere, he will be constant and persevering, unless he love Christ better than any thing in this world, and be willing to part with that which he may and must leave...Every good man loves his relations; and yet, if he be a disciple of Christ, he must comparatively hate them, must love them less than Christ, as Leah is said to be hated when Rachel was better loved...When our duty to our parents comes in competition with our evident duty to Christ, we must give Christ the preference
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hemingway once said: 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for'
I agree with the second part (se7en)
I agree with the second part (se7en)