Whom I am chief.

FTR, I have had a Strong's Concordance since 1969, which is now literally falling apart, and acquired a second one around 2002 or so.

I have also had both Thayer's and Wigram's Lexicons, both Machen's and Dana and Mantey's Greek Grammars, and the UBS Greek New Testament, 2nd Edition since 1969, as well.

And now I have had the Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, for some 20 years, in addition.

And these that I have, are all in "hard copy".

That said, I have virtually no doubt that there are hundreds of Baptist Board members who could "chew me up, and spit me out" without even beginning to satisfy any hunger, over my limited knowledge of the Greek language (and frankly, IMO, "pick their teeth" with the apparent knowledge of the Greek language displayed by some others, perhaps even on this thread), for I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be, a Greek scholar, in any way.

(Anyone who recognizes any more Hebrew on sight, than the letter "Aleph", would surpass me in Hebrew knowledge.)

However, the late James Strong, D.D. does not happen to be one of these 'Greek surpassers" on the BB, especially since he long since departed this earthly life on Aug. 7, 1894, over 113 years ago.

Nor did James Strong do any translation of a Bible version, to my knowledge, unlike his almost life-long contemporary, the late Robert Young, both of whom were born in 1822 about a month apart. (Robert Young died at the age of 66 in 1888, six years before did Strong, with Young's demise, no doubt somewhat hastened by his residence in the cold Scottish environment of Edinburgh.) Young's Literal Translation was published in 1862, and remains to this day, an very good translation of the Bible, IMO.

Both of these individuals produced extraordinary efforts in an English concordance, that have, IMO, yet to be surpassed, even after a century.

However, I now have two questions specifically addressed to Brother Bob.

The first question is, "Do you happen to possess a copy of Strong's Concordance, since that seems to be your favorite source for Greek (and Hebrew & Chaldee/Aramaic) information?" I really would like to know the answer to this, just to satisfy my own curiosity.

The second question is, Whether or not you own one in "hard copy", have you ever taken the time to read the PREFACE(s) to the Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries, and the PLAN OF THE BOOK to the same dictionaries? Since it appears to me that you have not, or did not catch the gist of the work, I shall here take the liberty of including some quotes, about the volume, from the actual volume itself. One might say that this was "originally 'posted' by James Strong, S.T.D., LL.D., (1890)" :laugh:

I will add that the specific uses of the +, x, and * [degree (Hebrew)] signs, and the () (parenthesis), [] (brackets), and italics, all convey specific information that can be found on p.6, in both Dictionaries, as well, under the category of "SIGNS EMPLOYED", as well as the import of ""ABBREVIATIONS EMPLOYED" which is also to be found on p.6, are germane to any legitimate attempt to use Strong's in any correct manner, as opposed to merely "cut and paste" from an on-line source, that may seem to support one's position, out of context. I have given emphasis above to important points, IMO.

This is entirely consistent with what I have said before, as have others, only not in as many words.

Frankly, I see little need to paste, 'er I mean post, something from Strong's concordance three different times, so far; what Spurgeon has said three different times; and what a preacher from PA has said four times in one thread. I understood it all the first time. How correct any and all these (in the same vein as the rest of us), are or are not, is debatable. But there is no need for the redundancy, at least for my benefit.

I shall bow out of this thread, at least for now, for anything more I might add, here would itself be redundant, and I see little need to contribute to that.

Peace,

Ed

 

FTR, the NLT (©1999, ©2004) at least on Bible Gateway, renders I Tim. 1:15 thusly

That was not the version I was referring to as the one that rendered this as 'was'.

Ed

 

Bob, NONE of these contradict what I said. I agree this is about salvaiton. NO QUESTION. The issue revolves around your incerting 'was' instead of reading the text as is - 'am'.

 

New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

Glad to see their Greek Translators corrected it.

 

I still have to agree with Brother Bob here.


1Ti 1:13 although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
1Ti 1:14 And the grace of our Lord was exceedingly abundant, with faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.
1Ti 1:15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.

In context of what Paul was saying, it seems clear he was referring to what he had done, when referring to himself as chief sinner. I don't see the conflict. This is how he felt about himself, still at that moment, so of course he said, I am. He was far to humble to say I was. But it still doesn't discount what he was referring to.

 

Versions I have that use the word 'am':

American Standard Version; 1901
Bible in Basic English; 1949/1964
The Bishops Bible; 1595
Holman Christian Standard Bible; 1999
The English Darby Bible; 1884
Douay-Rheims; 1899
English Revised Version; 1885
English Standard Version; 2001
Geneva Bible; 1599
God's Word to the Nations; 1995
King James Version; 1611
King James Version; 1769
King James 2000; 2001
New American Bible; 1970
New American Standard Bible; 1977/1995
The Net Bible; 2004
The New International Version; 1973
The New Jerusalem Bible; 1985
New King James Version; 1982
New Living Translation; 2004
New Revised Standard Version; 1989
Revised Standard Version; 1952
English Revised 1833 Webster Update Version; 1988
The Tyndale New Testament; 1534
The English Noah Webster Bible; 1988
The English Young's Literal Translation; 1862
The World English Bible; 2003
The Wycliffe Bible; 1388

Versions that say 'I'm':
Complete Jewish Bible; 1998


Versions that use the word 'was':
Pershitta-James Murdock Translation; 1852

Of all the translators of these versions, only one translated the verse to read past tense. 29 used present tense.

 

Had Paul meant was in verse 15, he would have inserted it there. Was was used in verses eleven and thirteen by Paul, did he have a sudden lapse of memory in verse 15? I think not. Paul used am because he believed because of his constant struggle with the flesh as evidenced by Romans 7 caused him to sin constantly... after salvation.

Am... present tense is the correct reading

 

Reread my post, I agree Paul did intend to use, I am. I believe that is how he felt about himself at that moment, but I also believe if you take it in context of what he had just mentioned he was referring to what he had done, when calling himself chief sinner. Don't forget there were no verse separations when he wrote this, keep it in context.
If someone is a murderer, and then they get saved, I doubt they stop thinking that they are a murderer. Thankful for God's forgiveness, absolutely, but forget no. They would still say, I am a murderer, always will be.

 

Paul wrote in other passages that the old man was dead. He was no longer a murderer as he once saw himself. The old had passed away.

Paul was not referring to his past sins in verse 15, as that was all gone. Paul knew that God remembered those sins against him no more.

 

So am I to understand that you believe that Paul felt that the way he had lived his life after being saved, was so sinful that he currently at that writing was a greater sinner than all?

 

Paul used the term I am. He clearly stated in other epistles that he struggled with sin. In fact, he often gave in to it.

The evil that I would not, that I do.

Yes, I believe verse 15 was referring to his life after Salvation. He found himself falling so much that he felt he was at the present time the chief of sinners.

 

If this is true, Paul would have used the word 'was' in verse 15. He did not. He used the word 'am'.

Again, why the lapse of memory if your theory is correct?

 

If Paul was the greatest practicing sinner of that time, how in the world did he have the moral authority to chastise those as he did in 1 Cor 5? How come he would instruct them to deliver such a person to Satan, but he being a greater sinner than that, not deliver himself? How come he tells them in verse 5:13 to "put away from yourselves the evil person", but yet he being a worse sinner, that they shouldn't put him away? It just doesn't make sense at all, that Paul was practicing sin greater than anyone else.

 

You keep saying that, but I gave you an explanation before why he would have. Is wasn't a lapse. He felt that way about himself for what he had done. Just because we know God doesn't remember our sin, doesn't mean we don't. Like I posted earlier, if someone is a murderer, and then is saved, the person is still going to know that he is a murderer. Thankful he is forgiven yes, but still a murderer.

 

No, when God forgave Paul of his past sins, they no longer existed. Paul was not still a murderer or persecurter. His epistles clearly teach us that he did not see himself as the same person. He was not a murderer after coming to Christ.

 

Paul did not make a habit of sin as the man in 1 Corinthians 5. The man in the Church in Corinth was in an incestuous relationship with his step-mother.