ELTBefore Introduction: Difference between revisions

From 2nd Book
Jump to navigationJump to search
m
Text replacement - " " to ":"
No edit summary
m (Text replacement - " " to ":")
Line 4: Line 4:
I also began to use Strong's Concordance and Harris' Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament to explore the meanings behind Hebrew words. However, my observations quickly led me to a troubling conclusion: much of the material I encountered was unreliable. The Theological Wordbook, for example, was based on the modern system of vowel markings (nikud), which were only introduced in 600 AD. This was a problem, as Jesus never saw these vowels. The references in the book often included phrases like:
I also began to use Strong's Concordance and Harris' Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament to explore the meanings behind Hebrew words. However, my observations quickly led me to a troubling conclusion: much of the material I encountered was unreliable. The Theological Wordbook, for example, was based on the modern system of vowel markings (nikud), which were only introduced in 600 AD. This was a problem, as Jesus never saw these vowels. The references in the book often included phrases like:


    4a – Assumed root…
:4a – Assumed root…
    1a – Assumed root…
:1a – Assumed root…
    27a – Assumed root…
:27a – Assumed root…


In essence, the book admitted that many of its conclusions were speculative at best, and they made up a great deal of the information. I didn’t want to rely on guesses and assumptions, especially when studying the language of Scripture.
In essence, the book admitted that many of its conclusions were speculative at best, and they made up a great deal of the information. I didn’t want to rely on guesses and assumptions, especially when studying the language of Scripture.

Navigation menu