OK!... You Greek Scholars

[tyndale1946]

I have a friend who has been preaching for over 60 years... I hear him mention a resource and I finally found it and I searched for what he said for along time until I saw it in an article he wrote... The problem is now I have it electronically but how do I use LOUW-NIDA?... Is it a trusted source or is there something better?... Take into consideration I'm a Greek newbie, although I've been a Christian almost 55 years... Brother Glen

 

[John of Japan]

I have a friend who has been preaching for over 60 years... I hear him mention a resource and I finally found it and I searched for what he said for along time until I saw it in an article he wrote... The problem is now I have it electronically but how do I use LOUW-NIDA?... Is it a trusted source or is there something better?... Take into consideration I'm a Greek newbie, although I've been a Christian almost 55 years... Brother Glen

Louw-Nida is the hardest to use of all lexicons. It's based on Nida's theory of semantic domains, which is the idea that words fit into discernable groups. For example, the word "run" is part of a semantic domain of human movement, which might include also: walk, stride, skip, jog, etc. In the book version of the lexicon, you would look up the semantic domain in one book, and also the page number in the other book, and then you finally get to the actual meaning--bothersome! I also have an electronic version, but I hardly ever use it.

I'm suspicious of the meanings given, because (1) they started with the classical Greek meanings, which I feel is a mistake, and (2) Nida's semantic theory is that no word stands alone with a "core" or "base" meaning, but context determines all meaning. That's not hard to disprove linguistically, but I'll stop for now.

Check out my review on Amazon for more information: https://www.amazon.com/product-revi...r&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar

 

[tyndale1946]

Louw-Nida is the hardest to use of all lexicons. It's based on Nida's theory of semantic domains, which is the idea that words fit into discernable groups. For example, the word "run" is part of a semantic domain of human movement, which might include also: walk, stride, skip, jog, etc. In the book version of the lexicon, you would look up the semantic domain in one book, and also the page number in the other book, and then you finally get to the actual meaning--bothersome! I also have an electronic version, but I hardly ever use it.

I'm suspicious of the meanings given, because (1) they started with the classical Greek meanings, which I feel is a mistake, and (2) Nida's semantic theory is that no word stands alone with a "core" or "base" meaning, but context determines all meaning. That's not hard to disprove linguistically, but I'll stop for now.

Check out my review on Amazon for more information: https://www.amazon.com/product-revi...r&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar

John... The first sentence you used sold me... My friend Joe has been preaching for 60 years and mentions all these different resources he uses but I don't have anywhere his knowledge or library... Just curious and thought I would look into it but after those who have knowledge of it really not my cup of tea, plus confusing just to look at... Thank for the info... Brother Glen

 

[RipponRedeaux]

no word stands alone with a "core" or "base" meaning, but context determines all meaning.

Amen. Nida is correct. Words can have a primary meaning. However, no word stands alone, but only in the context of other words. The meaning can't be discerned solely by using lexical concordance. Words are not defined in isolation from other words in a given context.
You very well know that words have a semantic range. Just as one size doesn't fit all --one word doesn't have the same sense in all occasions of the sacred text.
I know you have animus against Nida. Yet you have to agree that he often makes legitimate points.

 

[John of Japan]

John... The first sentence you used sold me... My friend Joe has been preaching for 60 years and mentions all these different resources he uses but I don't have anywhere his knowledge or library... Just curious and thought I would look into it but after those who have knowledge of it really not my cup of tea, plus confusing just to look at... Thank for the info... Brother Glen

Any time, my brother!

As a newbie, maybe you would appreciate Mounce's short lexicon. You can access it for free in e-sword, along with Thayer's (out of date, but still useful). If you don't have e-sword, it is a very good free Bible software package. Download the basic version at: e-Sword: Free Bible Study for the PC. There are other free goodies as A. T. Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, Keil and Delitzsch's excellent OT commentary, etc.

 

[McCree79]

I have Louw-Nida for Olive Tree Bible app. This version is very easy to use. However, it is my least trusted of my lexicons. I prefer BDAG, EDNT, Friberg, and the NIDNTT.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Deacon]

I’m not a student of Greek - just a hacker.

Louw-Nida is a unique Lexicon that rather than using an alphabetical arrangement uses the concept of “semantic domains”, organizing them into close to 100 various topics.

It works easily in a higher-end computerized system such as Accordance or Logos.

IMO (for what it’s worth) it’s a niche reference. It provides insight into the relationships existing between words of similar meaning. It is not like a typical Lexicon and for that reason it is a worthwhile reference, if not a primary resource.

UBS is working on a Hebrew version, now that’s a reference am eagerly waiting for.

Rob

 

[John of Japan]

I have Louw-Nida for Olive Tree Bible app. This version is very easy to use. However, it is my least trusted of my lexicons. I prefer BDAG, EDNT, Friberg, and the NIDNTT.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I'm a big fan of Friberg. Great definitions for an analytical. More of a middle lexicon than the usual analytical with glosses.

 

[Salty]

Oh brother - do I feel foolish - I missed the "R" in the title of the thread.

 

[tyndale1946]

Oh brother - do I feel foolish - I missed the "R" in the title of the thread.

You and me both but it hasn't diminished my journey... Brother Glen