I do not understand? A Greek/English Concordance list's everywhere a Greek word is used in the New Testament, no matter what English word/words are used to translate the Greek word. At the Link you can look at sample pages. In this case it uses lines from the KJV, but you can see how they translated, or even in some places mistranslated the original term. It is the same for the Hebrew/English concordance. If you use a regular Strong's, and the KJV translates a greek word five different ways, you would have to look up 5 different words, and that can be a lot of flipping. The same is true for the NASB.
The problem is that a KJV concordance only lists the words used in the KJV.
In example, you will get no return on lampstand, but will on candlestick.
Then you have to go to the Lexicon to get the word definition to find candlestick is wrong.
The point of a concordance is to show how it is used in the translated version. So, you must know the version to know what to look for. And that means you have studied your foundation using that version.
The key is, and always remains, the beginner reads and attempts to absorb how the version phrases it. With deeper study some will start using the Lexicon, but most will not. They will just see see how the version uses the word in different places and let it go at that.
Getting started with the best foundational version remains key.
Did they ever give information when the NIV was wrong?
They were not based on one version. They gave references from multiple versions and predated the NIV.
I was saved at 10 in 1961. The NIV did not come out until up in the 70s.
But when it did, my learning curve accelerated. Gave a clearer base that gave clearer questions to ask.
That is back when scholars cared to make Bible study tools for laymen. They tried to include their countrymen.
The best tools I have ever seen came out in written form from the 70s forward. They pulled together the best of the old and new and gave a broader foundation of study.
Those from the 1800s also had some serious doctrinal problems. Work heavily stemmed from the doctrine dictating the findings.
Yep, back in the good old days, when Zondervan was republishing older works that had gone out of print, bringing them back because they had great worth. By the way, Zondervan back then had republished all three works that I listed at one time or another. How about that?!
Indeed they did. But the stuff that was new when I was young was superior. Why? Because they included the older works and brought in the new with them.
True, but it is a plain fact that there are some today that will lie and misslead to sell a product. It appears to be a regular business tactic with some. The "New Zondervan" has some on the payroll like that. There is nothing wrong with them making money, for they are a business, but to lie or misslead is unthinkable.
That has always been an issue. Read the history of the Bibles from the 1500s and even the KJV. There were heavy monetary and political considerations in those days as well.
And really, the KJV has been pulling in money from the beginning.
The copywrite has been continuously with the royalty of England from the start. It is not a free book, as many have been misled to believe.
Nor is every use of the NIV, NASB and such paid, either.
So get over the moral superiority argument. That is a KJVO invention.
His definitons are designed to be brief, consise.
And many most assuredly contain doctrinal statement unjustified by the word meaning. That is a fact.
Amen! Matthew 13:52
He said to them, "Therefore every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new
treasures as well as old