Strong's Errors

[alon]

I've said a few times here that Strong's is steeped in catholic (universal church) theology, and thus prone to errors. I thought it might be good to put up a thread where we can discuss some of those erreors and so be a bit better informed.

H1471 גּי גּוי gôy gôy go'ee, go'-ee Apparently from the same root as H1465 (in the sense of massing); a foreign nation; hence a Gentile; also (figuratively) a troop of animals, or a flight of locusts: - Gentile, heathen, nation, people.

So looking at that we would conclude that "goy" (pl. goyim) cannot refer to Yisroel. Goyim are Gentiles, heathens. But note it also can mean nation or people. Placed as those translations are, we are led to say it can only mean nations or people foreign to Israel. Intentional? No, I suspect it was just the way the authors thought. But if we are not careful, we too can be led to think that way.

Exodus 19:6 (ESV) “and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”

The word nation here is, according to Strong's, "goy." And clearly it refers to Yisroel.

Unfortunately this translational error (as in the Strong's def) carried forward to the B'rith Chadashah in places; either when translated from Hebrew to Greek or more likely in our English translations.

Galatians 1:15-16 (CJB) But when God, who picked me out before I was born and called me by his grace, chose to reveal his Son to me, so that I might announce him to the Gentiles, I did not consult anyone;

G1484 ἔθνος ethnos eth'-nos Probably from G1486; a race (as of the same habit), that is, a tribe; specifically a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually by implication pagan): - Gentile, heathen, nation, people.

"Gentile, heathen, nation, people." The same words in the same order to define the Greek term equivalent to the Hebrew "goy." Except here the authors went all out, saying it specifically meant "a foreign (non-Jewish)" tribe.

So just remember, Strong's very good (if somewhat catholic) work notwithstanding; when it says nations, heathens or Gentiloes, that ain't necessarily what was said in the originl text. It may also mean Yisroel. Not always, but maybe ...

Dan C

[lou]

Absolutely agree. Have heard this from born Hebrew speakers as well.

[lou]

Nov 6, 2015 0:21:28 GMT -8 alon said:

I've said a few times here that Strong's is steeped in catholic (universal church) theology, and thus prone to errors. I thought it might be good to put up a thread where we can discuss some of those erreors and so be a bit better informed.

H1471 גּי גּוי gôy gôy go'ee, go'-ee Apparently from the same root as H1465 (in the sense of massing); a foreign nation; hence a Gentile; also (figuratively) a troop of animals, or a flight of locusts: - Gentile, heathen, nation, people.

So looking at that we would conclude that "goy" (pl. goyim) cannot refer to Yisroel. Goyim are Gentiles, heathens. But note it also can mean nation or people. Placed as those translations are, we are led to say it can only mean nations or people foreign to Israel. Intentional? No, I suspect it was just the way the authors thought. But if we are not careful, we too can be led to think that way.

Exodus 19:6 (ESV) “and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”

The word nation here is, according to Strong's, "goy." And clearly it refers to Yisroel.

Unfortunately this translational error (as in the Strong's def) carried forward to the B'rith Chadashah in places; either when translated from Hebrew to Greek or more likely in our English translations.

Galatians 1:15-16 (CJB) But when God, who picked me out before I was born and called me by his grace, chose to reveal his Son to me, so that I might announce him to the Gentiles, I did not consult anyone;

G1484 ἔθνος ethnos eth'-nos Probably from G1486; a race (as of the same habit), that is, a tribe; specifically a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually by implication pagan): - Gentile, heathen, nation, people.

"Gentile, heathen, nation, people." The same words in the same order to define the Greek term equivalent to the Hebrew "goy." Except here the authors went all out, saying it specifically meant "a foreign (non-Jewish)" tribe.

So just remember, Strong's very good (if somewhat catholic) work notwithstanding; when it says nations, heathens or Gentiloes, that ain't necessarily what was said in the originl text. It may also mean Yisroel. Not always, but maybe ...

Dan C

Dan can you do a post on kjv mistranslations? Such as the words hell, heaven, satan, tent, & added parts as well?

[alon]

Job 2:2

ב. וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-הַשָּׂטָן אֵי מִזֶּה תָּבֹא וַיַּעַן הַשָּׂטָן אֶת-יְהוָה וַיֹּאמַר מִשֻּׁט בָּאָרֶץ
וּמֵהִתְהַלֵּךְ בָּהּ:
2. And the Lord said to Satan, Where are you coming from? And Satan answered the
Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
_____________________________________________________________________________

Look at the Hebrew word  הַשָּׂטָן and notice the "hey" is the first letter. The word satan is spelled "sheen, chet, nun." Strong's says this:

H7854   שׂטן    śâṭân   saw-tawn'   From H7853; an opponent; especially (with the article prefixed) Satan, the arch enemy of good: - adversary, Satan, withstand.

ar·ti·cle‌ (är′tĭ-kəl)...

‌4. ‌ ‌Grammar‌
‌a. ‌ The part of speech used to indicate nouns and to specify their application.
‌b. ‌ Any of the words belonging to this part of speech. In English, the indefinite articles are ‌a‌ and ‌an‌ and the definite article is ‌the.

I think Strong's is trying too hard here to give the enemy a proper name. We are in fact given either a name or a title for the enemy exactly once in scripture:

Isa 14:12 (KJV) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

After he was cast down, I believe his name was removed. In Mideastern thought this was the ultimate insult. Removing your name is to relegate you to the status of a non-entity. You will, when the present generation dies, be forgotten among men. Many scholars think that when we see this written "hey, sheen, chet, nun" it should be hasatan; the enemy.

According to my Websters Hebrew Dictionary, ha (the) is a definite article. However to arbitrarily say this makes it a name is a stretch. Where else do we see this? "Ha Avraham"- I don't think so! "Ha Adam?" That would mean "the earth" or "the blood", not Adam! It is my belief that both the KJV and their adherents, the catholics (Methodists) who wrote the Strong's Concordance had to give him a name, so this is what they came up with. To be fair, they weren't the first, nor sadly the last to do this. But they are scholars; they should know better. Or maybe I should know better- who knows. Be that as it may, I always refer to him as ha satan, the enemy without a name.

Dan C

edit: hell and heaven would deserve their own threads; and in fact I think there may be something on them in the archives. Where was it you had a problem with "tents?"

[jimmie]

In Hebrew thought “Name (Shem)” is synonymous with title. Your name is your character. Below are a few examples of what we (English) would consider titles. We only consider them names because they are untranslated:
Melchizedek “King of Righteousness”
Elimelech “God is my King”
Abimelech “Father is my King”
HaSatan “The Adversary”
It is without doubt that these “titles” are meant to be used as names. All biblical Hebrew names have a meaning. And that meaning generally reflects the character of the person/place named.
Proverbs 22:1 A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches, and loving favour rather than silver and gold.
One earns a good or bad name.
Matt 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Here Peter’s (Stone’s) character and thus name is “The Adversary” or Satan.

Lucifer “shining one” commonly referred to as Venus today. Venus is the Morning and Evening star.
Part of the time Venus is visible as the evening star, in the western sky, a few hours announcing the arrival of darkness. Which is what the king of Babylon was bringing to Israel.
Part of the time, Venus is visible as the morning star, in the eastern sky, a few hours announcing the arrival of day. Which is why Jesus is referred to as the Morning Star.
2Pet 1:19 (NIV) And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
Rev 2:28 (NIV) I will also give him the morning star.
Rev 22:16 (NIV) "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

[alon]

Nov 10, 2015 11:42:36 GMT -8 jimmie said:

In Hebrew thought “Name (Shem)” is synonymous with title. Your name is your character. ...

You make a fair case for this; however I wouldn't go so far as to say all names were titles. Names did have meanings then. In fact, they have meanings today too, we are just not as aware of this as those ancient cultures were. Books have been written on the meanings of names; websites are devoted to this as well. But to say names are titles is a bit of a stretch. David/Dovid, for example, means beloved, or cherished. This only became part of a title when he was anointed king; Melech Dovid/ King David. He was said to be a man after God's own heart, so the name is certainly descriptive.  Avram, meaning exalted father, had his name changed to Avraham, father of multitudes (or nations) by God. This was descriptive of his calling. Could it be a title? Sure. But it not necessarily is.

Names of important characters do seem to have been prophetic. But all names were not like that. Yeshua, for example, was a common name in the time of ha moshiach. Only one however was HaMoshiach. And note the name of the central figure in all Biblical history had a name describing His calling AND he had a title- Yeshua HaMoshiach. In Greco/Germano/Anglo vernacular this is translated "Jesus Christ"; Christ meaning the Messiah. It shows our lack of understanding that most Christians say this like it is all His name- "Jesus, surname Christ." Yes, and there was his father, Joseph Christ, his mother Mary Christ ... you bet.

So, was ha satan a name, a title, both, or just a description? Well, I honestly cannot say for sure. All I can tell you is that I prefer the insult of his being an adversary with no name. I don't, however jump in and criticize anyone who says "Satan" like there is some verse where it says God changed his name like He did with Avraham. Just in my mind I don't think God honored him like that, nor do I see it in scripture. So here in a thread dealing with inaccuracies and where I was asked, I tell you what I think.  I did say "After he was cast down, I believe his name was removed." But looking through the posts on this forum, it would appear that most agree with you. It is how we were all trained to think. And who knows ...

Dan C

 

[lou]

Isaiah 14:12 if you read the whole chapter is referring to the king of Babylon not Ha satan.

[alon]

Nov 12, 2015 9:48:45 GMT -8 lou said:

Isaiah 14:12 if you read the whole chapter is referring to the king of Babylon not Ha satan.

Very true. In fact, the ESV and other translations label this passage:

Isaiah 14 (ESV)

...

Israel's Remnant Taunts Babylon

3 When the Lord has given you rest from your pain and turmoil and the hard service with which you were made to serve, 4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:


“How the oppressor has ceased,
the insolent fury ceased!

5
The Lord has broken the staff of the wicked,
the scepter of rulers,

6
that struck the peoples in wrath
with unceasing blows,
that ruled the nations in anger
with unrelenting persecution.

7
The whole earth is at rest and quiet;
they break forth into singing.

8
The cypresses rejoice at you,
the cedars of Lebanon, saying,
‘Since you were laid low,
no woodcutter comes up against us.’

9
Sheol beneath is stirred up
to meet you when you come;
it rouses the shades to greet you,
all who were leaders of the earth;
it raises from their thrones
all who were kings of the nations.

10
All of them will answer
and say to you:
‘You too have become as weak as we!
You have become like us!’

11
Your pomp is brought down to Sheol,
the sound of your harps;
maggots are laid as a bed beneath you,
and worms are your covers.



12
“How you are fallen from heaven,
O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
you who laid the nations low!

13
You said in your heart,
‘I will ascend to heaven;
above the stars of God
I will set my throne on high;
I will sit on the mount of assembly
in the far reaches of the north;[c]

14
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.’

15
But you are brought down to Sheol,
to the far reaches of the pit.

...

20
You will not be joined with them in burial,
because you have destroyed your land,
you have slain your people.


“May the offspring of evildoers
nevermore be named!"

21
Prepare slaughter for his sons
because of the guilt of their fathers,
lest they rise and possess the earth,
and fill the face of the world with cities.”

22 “I will rise up against them,” declares the Lord of hosts, “and will cut off from Babylon name and remnant, descendants and posterity,” declares the Lord.

Just a few points:

I like this translation because it translates vs. 12 literally, as a title rather than a name.

Look at vs. 20b, and we see the point I was talking about with the removal of a name being the ultimate insult in the Mideastern cultures of that time: “May the offspring of evildoers nevermore be named!"

Note too that at vs. 3b we transition from plain text to poetic, and so the rules change a bit. Poetry makes use of different literary devices to make its point, one of which is metaphor, one thing conceived as representing another; a symbol. In this case, the king of Babylon is thought to represent hasatan.

Then in vs. 22 we again transition to plain text.

So while the p'shat, or plain text meaning of the text cannot be changed, meaning we are still talking about Babylon here,  it can have deeper meaning as a type of hasatan in vs. 12, and other vss. can be seen as typical of Sheol. Is this absolute? No. It's difficult to prove a point with poetry. Poetry is more felt, or experienced than it is clinical, definite. It can be ambiguous. So I couldn't tell you with certainty this is what it means even if I were an expert- though like most experts I would in that case probably go ahead and tell you anyhow. But I'm no expert, so instead I'll ask:

How do you interpret this chapter?

Dan C

Mod note: I may move this and any replies to its own thread and just ref a link. We'll see how much discussion it generates. Dan

[alon]

G4747  στοιχεῖον  stoicheion  stoy-khi'-on  Neuter of a presumed derivative of the base of G4748; something orderly in arrangement, that is, (by implication) a serial (basal, fundamental, initial) constituent (literally), proposition (figuratively): - element, principle, rudiment.

Strong's almost gets this one correct. This is a translation of a Hebrew idiom meaning "elemental principles" (removing a comma and making it plural would have got them a pass here). The elemental principles were earth, wind, fire and water.

Galatians 4:3 (KJV)  Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements  of the world:

Kehillah in Galatia 4:3 (OJB)  So also we, when we were immature, had been enslaved under the yesodot (rudiments) of the Olam Hazeh.

The English Standard Version gets this right:

Galatians 4:3  (ESV) In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world.

As with all things Hebrew and even many things Greek at the time, this can allude to much more than the basic translation. According to Vine's, this term can mean:

(a) the substance of the material world

(b) the delusive speculations of gentile cults and of Jewish theories

(c) the rudimentary principles of religion

(d) the "elementary" principles of the OT, as a revelation from God 

So stopping with most translations or with just the Strong's definition will give us an inaccurate understanding of what is being said. Even reading the ESV on tis one we, as non-ancient Hebrew readers won't get a good understanding. In fact, most Christians won't have a clue; and no Christian pastor worth his salt will even try to explain this without consulting his library- which almost assuredly will contain a copy of Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary. Sadly, many today unless they get lucky online won't have a clue. Neither, I think, did Strong's have a firm grasp on this term. Close, but not quite.

Dan C