Make the Word Your Own

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

2 Timothy 2:15

I have repeatedly exhorted you to “make the Word your own,” and that sounds both difficult and scary. It is neither. I want to share some
simple tips on reading the Scriptures with understanding.

You must first believe that the Bible is a manifestation of Yahweh and not a book of fables. It was written for believers. The scoffers who cite Scripture out of context to belittle Yahweh do not have faith or understanding. You want both.

Yes, there does not appear to be any original copies of the text in existence, and yes, it has been copied and translated numerous times, though this is actually a positive point. So many of the translations were painstakingly copied, and learned men were used to translate the various versions, but the differences between them are generally minor, and there are multiple study guides that illustrate the differences where they exist.

In many cases, human history is charted by few texts that were recorded centuries after the fact. The Bible has thousands of versions and translations, many that are not based off each other (e.g., the Dead Sea scrolls were found 1,900 years after they were written, and they verify much of what we use today), and they substantially agree with each other.

For all intents and purposes, the Bible is complete.

If you believe that Yahweh exists, then you should also believe that He would find a way to preserve His Word. He did not share His Thoughts for just a few generations.

A majority of my understanding has not come from cracking open the book and delving into the Hebrew or the Greek. Much of my conviction has come from listening to the work done by others (like most, my first tutors were my parents, teachers, and priests or pastors), and then cracking open the book and delving into the Hebrew or the Greek to verify what I have been taught.

If I don’t understand a passage, I will use the Internet to find what other people have discerned. If something sounds profound to me, I check their work using the following techniques:

1. Pray for understanding.
Yahweh gave us His Word. He does not want us to be ignorant of it (Hosea 4:6). It is crazy to think that Yahweh would commit His thoughts to writing but to do it in a way that no one could understand.

The Word is divinely inspired. Men wrote it down, but Yahweh gave them the inspiration. He will inspire your mind if it is what you desire.

2. Understand the common meaning of the words used.
Most of the Bible is not confusing. When it says, “Thou shalt not steal” (Exodus 20:15), there is no real confusion about what Yahweh is telling us.

“Jesus wept”; “Paul went to Damascus”; “David slew Goliath”; and other simple statements we can literally understand what Yahweh is telling us. The details may be a little strange, but the underlying message is generally clear.

3. Use scripture to interpret scripture.
If you feel a phrase is not clear, it may have been used elsewhere in the Word and may be clearer there. This is a common practice in literature, even today.

If you are reading an article in a magazine and come across an acronym (e.g., SOS), you may not know what it stands for. By finding the first usage in the article, you will generally find an interpretation.

For example, early in the article it may mention, “The radio operator received an emergency message (SOS),” or the article may refer to “the office of the secretary of state (SOS).”

Obviously, SOS can have multiple meanings. In the second example, the writer put the initials in parentheses after the phrase. From then on, the writer may only use SOS through the rest of the document instead of repeatedly spelling out the whole title.

If you start reading the article in a place other than the beginning (something that frequently happens when reading the Bible), you may have to go back to find the first usage for clarity.

Let’s use an example from the apostle Paul in his second letter to the Corinthians:

And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. (2 Corinthians 12:7)

There are some very imaginative interpretations of “thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan” in this verse – illnesses or temptations or demons – to name a few. One could suppose that modern teachers are suffering from something, and they believe the apostle Paul probably suffered from it also.

Let’s look at three similar phrases in the Bible:

But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.

Numbers 33:55

Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.

Joshua 23:13

Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you.

Judges 2:3

Notice how all three are in the context of Israel going into the land of Canaan and destroying the inhabitants. If they do not (and they did not), the inhabitants would be a painful problem for them.

We can see from this that Paul was saying non-believing people were being inspired by Satan to inflict his ministry.

Another example:

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Matthew 27:46

Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani is Aramaic and should attract attention because of the infrequent use of that language in the Scriptures. The verse gives the translation in the verse, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

Why use the Aramaic? Why both Aramaic and Greek (the New Testament was originally written in Greek)? Why not just use the translation? I have heard preachers state that “Jesus cried out to his Father because he felt abandoned by God when he became our sin, so God could not look upon him.”

I have real problems with this explanation:

• If my child committed a crime punishable by death, I would be there for him. Not because I thought he was innocent but because I would want him to know that I still loved him despite what he had done.

• If I knew he was innocent, I would definitely be there so he would know that he was not abandoned.

• I know I am not a more loving father than Yahweh.

The expression, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” is actually used in Psalm 22:1. If you read the first half of Psalm 22, you will see it is a rather detailed description of the crucifixion of Yeshua (the second part concerns when he returns in glory):

• ƒ “Strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round” (Pharisees were referred to as bulls.)
• ƒ “I am poured out like water” (Water poured out when his side was pierced [John 19:34].)
• ƒ “All my bones are out of joint” (This was one of the results of crucifixion.)
• ƒ “My tongue cleaveth to my jaws” (Yeshua cried, “I thirst” [John 19:28].)
• ƒ “For dogs have compassed me” (Romans were referred to as dogs. There would have be a detachment of Roman soldiers present to ensure no one interfered with the imposition of Pilate’s justice.)
• ƒ “They pierced my hands and my feet.”
• ƒ “I may tell all my bones” (Have you ever physically exerted yourself to such an extent that it feels like you can feel every ache in every muscle and every joint? Now think of the one who was tortured all night, scourged with barb-tipped whips, forced to carry a large wooden cross through the
  streets of the city to a hill outside of town, and then was nailed to that cross and lifted in the air so his weight would exasperate his nailed limbs. The pain in every muscle, every joint, every breath, and every movement would flood his brain.)
• ƒ “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture” (John 19:23–24).

Yeshua’s final words are, “It is finished,” which is how Psalm 22 closes. Even the centurion (who would know some of Judea’s culture in order to be a more effective adviser to the Roman governor) recognized the evidence from Psalm 22 and stated, “Truly this was the Son of God” (Matthew 27:54).

Based on the earlier usage of “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” in Psalm 22, I assert that it makes more sense – and is consistent with Scripture – to believe that Yeshua was not using his last breath to condemn his Father, but rather he was witnessing to the people watching his crucifixion.

They had to be demoralized to see their Savior beaten and crucified. He called their attention to a psalm of David, written over four hundred years earlier to remind them that all this was prophesied. I believe even the centurion got the reference.

4. Interpret difficult verses in light of clear verses.
If there are many “clear” (understandable) verses on a subject but one or two difficult verses seem to contradict them, then the interpretation of the difficult verses must be understood in light of the many clear verses. Yahweh cannot lie (Numbers 23:19), so His Word cannot contradict Itself.

Apparent contradictions are generally caused by the following:
a. Our failure to understand the original meaning of what is written.
b. An error in translation because translators attempted to reproduce the meanings from one language into another or,
c. An error resulting from the transmission of the text, as scribes who copied each manuscript made various mechanical mistakes or intentional theological alterations to the text.

When having trouble understanding one verse, one can look to the truth of the clear verses relating to the same subject. Matthew17:1-3 is a good example:

1And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, 2And was transfigured
before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. 3And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and [Elijah] talking with him.

Matthew17:1-3

Moses and Elijah were known to have died hundreds of years earlier. How can they be talking to Yeshua if they were in the grave?

Let us examine the clear verses concerning death:

2 While I live will I praise the LORD: I will sing praises unto my God while I have any being. 3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. 4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

Psalms 146:2-4

We can praise Yahweh while we are alive because we have thoughts; but the dead have no thoughts. When their breath goes forth, their thoughts perish.

5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

Ecclesiastes 9:5–6, 10

“The living know that they will die: but the dead don’t know anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.” Those no longer alive do not have any thoughts; no memory of life; nor do they interact with the living.

For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth.

Isaiah 38:18

The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence.

Psalm 115:17

These verses are unambiguously clear that death is a cessation of life – physically, spiritually, and mentally. Some folks came back to life shortly after their death (e.g., Lazarus, the boy in the home where Isaiah was hiding, the man who fell from a window in Acts), but not hundreds of years later. These and other “raisings” from the dead took place before the physical body could decompose.

Having looked at these clear verses on the subject, we can now study the difficult verse in light of these. For Moses and Elijah to be alive in the gospel time would contradict many other scriptures. There must be more to this single occurrence in Matthew 17:3 than what appears from a cursory reading.

The key lies in the word “appeared”:

“And, behold, there appeared [optomai: “envisioning”] unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.”

They saw this phenomenon in their minds. Ordinarily, the Hebrew word blepō – meaning “using the eyes to look at” – would be used.

In addition, verse 9 tells us that this phenomenon was a “vision”:

And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

Matthew 17:9

It appears, therefore, that Moses and Elijah were not seen physically by the eyes of Yeshua and his companions, but rather the appearance of these men was a vision given to Yeshua, Peter, James, and John. Yahweh communicated to them by revelation.

5. Interpret verses in their context.
Ever notice that the genealogies of Yeshua in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 are different? I don’t mean minor discrepancies; I’m talking about vast dissimilarities. Both claim to be the family record through his father, Joseph.

Let us look at two important differences and one important
similarity:
• The lists are in different order. Matthew starts with Abraham and moves forward to finish with Joseph. Luke starts with Yeshua and moves backward to finish with Adam.
• Luke 3:23 tells us, “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli” (emphasis added). We know that Yahweh was his father. Luke makes it clear, and Matthew does not.
• The genealogies match up harmoniously between Abraham and David. After David they are wildly divergent until Joseph.

Yeshua had to fulfill all the prophecies about him, and one of them was that he would be “a king” of the lineage of David (Jeremiah 23:5–6). The problem is that Yahweh is not in the lineage of David.

Joseph (Yeshua’s guardian) being of the line of David is immaterial; if Yeshua is going to be of the lineage of David, then his mother would need to be a descendant.

The list in Matthew is a “kingly” list, showing the first patriarch with granted rights (Abraham [Genesis 12]) and coming forward to show an uninterrupted right to sovereignty. This is done by all monarchs to justify their right to sit on their throne.

The list in Luke is a personal one. Common people start with their parents and then list their grandparents, then their great-grandparents, then their great-great-great-great…grandparents.

Reading the two genealogies is not enough to resolve our problem, but if we continue reading in Matthew, the author gives us more information:

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

Matthew 1:17

All these events are listed in Matthew 1:1-16. One can literally count the generations and see that there are fourteen between Abraham to David, and fourteen between David and the carrying away into Babylon (the phrase is actually used in Matthew).

However, there are only thirteen generations from the carrying away
into Babylon unto Yeshua.

Joseph would also have to be the name of Mary’s father to give us the proper number of generations. Mary’s genealogy, not her husband’s, would be vital.

I will be discussing study guides shortly, but the Greek word translated as “husband” in Matthew 1:16 is aner and literally reads “man.” It is generally translated as “husband” but not in every instance. The verse reads, “And Jacob begat Joseph the [aner: man] of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.”

This is why we have two genealogies. People would have naturally looked at the father’s lineage to assess kinship with David, but the prophecy could not be fulfilled through the lineage of Yeshua’s guardian.

A different study shows the vantage point of the four gospels (an interesting study of the word “branch” that you can do when you are ready). Matthew is written from the perspective of Yeshua as “king” (Jeremiah 23:5, 33:15), Mark is written from the perspective of Yeshua as “servant” (Zechariah 3:8), Luke is written from the perspective of Yeshua as a “man” (Zechariah 6:12), and John is written from the perspective of Yeshua as the “son of God” (Isaiah 4:2).

Mark does not have a genealogy because one does not concern oneself with the lineage of a servant. It is said that John does not have a genealogy either, but I contend that it does:

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John 1:14

“Only begotten of the Father.” As Stan Lee would say, “’Nuff said.”

Here is another example:

Scripture literally reads, “There is no God.” I recommend reading the entire verse to get the context:

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Psalm 14:1

Don’t be a fool and take Scripture out of context.

6. Distinguish between identical things and similar things
The books of Kings and Chronicles relate much of the same information, but the perspective of the tales are often different (man’s perspective versus Yahweh’s perspective). The four Gospels also relate many of the same tales; at times, there are differences, and it may be for good reason.

Yeshua feeds five thousand in Matthew14 (verses 13–21) and four thousand in Mark 15 (verses 32–39). These are two similar incidents, but they are not identical – they are two separate events.

Here is another example:

After being baptized by John the Baptist, Yeshua went into the wilderness and fasted for forty days. The narrative of his temptations by Satan are relayed in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The problem is that the narratives are similar, but they are not identical.

There does not seem to be a second occurrence where Yeshua goes into the wilderness, so let’s examine the Scriptures.

Matthew 4:1–11 temptations:
• Command stones to become bread (verse 3)
• Cast yourself down from the temple (verses 5–6)
• I will give you all the kingdoms (verses 8–9)

Mark references the time in the wilderness (Mark 1:12–13) but gives no details on the temptations.

Luke 4:1–13 temptations:
• Command stone to become bread (verse 3–4)
• I will give you all the kingdoms (verses 5–8)
• Cast yourself down from the temple (verses 9–12)

Very similar but not identical: “stone” versus “stones,” and the temptations are in a different order.

Luke 4:13 is important: “And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.” This tells us that he returned. At the end of the narrative in Matthew, the Word tells us, “Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.”

The devil tempted Yeshua at least six times, possibly more (not all would have necessarily been recorded): three recorded in Matthew and another three recorded in Luke. Throughout the biblical narrative, Satan often uses the same temptations with different people because they generally, eventually work. The devil has been very successful at screwing up humanity with a relatively small, but effective, bag of tricks.

People may not succumb to his temptations the first time, but he can tell if repeated enticements are wearing down a person’s resolve.

A third example for you to study: Each Gospel talks about two people crucified with Christ. Every narrative is different (e.g., different crimes, crucified at different times, remarks made by the crucified; etc.). See if having four crucified with Christ (two earlier and two later) doesn’t bring the Scriptures into alignment.

7. Know that no chapters, capitalization, or punctuation are in the original
Chapter headings are for ease in reading, nothing more. Finding a specific scripture in the original scrolls was much more difficult. Even the headings “Old Testament” and “New Testament” have no real meaning.

Nothing really changed until after Christ was resurrected from the dead. Yeshua fully followed the Torah of the Old Testament.

The expression “holy ghost” can be translated in numerous ways based on the context (e.g., Yahweh, the gift, an angel). Just because the translators capitalized the words does not necessarily mean that it is referring to Yahweh. The vice versa is applicable also.

All punctuation was added by the translators also. One misplaced comma can completely change a verse. Let us look at Luke 23:39-43:

39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Luke 23:39–43

Verse 43 is the object of this example. How was the malefactor supposed to be with Yeshua in paradise on that day? Yeshua prophesied that he would be in the “heart of the earth” for three days and three nights (Matthew 12:40). The first resurrection of the dead is not slated to happen until Revelation 20:4–6.

The problem with verse 43 is the comma before “To day.” If it is placed after “To day,” then there is no contradiction with the rest of the Word.

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee to day, thou shalt be with me in paradise.

Luke 23:43, revised

One of the reasons I like the KJV is that the translators italicized the words they added (with a few notable exceptions like 1 John 5:7-8, which we will examine shortly). The Hebrew language did not have the verb “to be” (I was stationed in Hawaii and found that the Hawaiian language does not either. I would say “There is a car,” but a local might say “There one car”), so the translators added the verb where they thought it necessary, and then italicized it to let us know what they did.

The translators’ additions of certain verbs and other words often help in the reading of the verse but is not “God-breathed.” In the genealogy of Luke 3, each generation has the words “the son” added.

“Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna . . . .” literally reads, “Joseph, which was of Heli, which was of Matthat, which was of Levi, which was of Melchi, which was of Janna…”

Nothing is wrong with all these additions – until you get to verse 38:

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Luke 3:38

Adam was not “the son” of God. Adam was “of” God.

8. Use study guides
Not knowing the biblical languages makes serious study difficult. It does not, however, greatly impede one from being able to verify research done by others.

There are any number of books and study tools one can use to assist in studying the Word. Many have been published online, which makes searching even easier than having the book in front of you. (I’m old-fashioned and prefer to have several volumes of yellow-faded page tomes open in front of me, with my reading glasses at the end of my nose).

a. Interlinears
These are word-for-word transliterations of the Greek and/or the Hebrew texts. The Bible you use is a “translation.” There is a difference.

Here is a guide I found that can be useful. It is not an advocacy
for any particular version:

A good interlinear is essential for good research.

I studied German in high school (well, maybe studied is too strong a word), and I learned the difference between transliteration and translation. The German phrase “Ich verstehe nicht” (a phrase I needed to use often) is translated, “I do not understand.” If it is transliterated word-for-word, it would read, “I understand not.” They mean the same thing, but the translation is used to make it easier to understand in English.

The following is a portion of a page from the Interlinear Greek-
English New Testament by George Ricker Berry:

The KJV is printed in the margin. The Stephen’s Greek Text (1550) is printed word-for-word on the main portion of the page. Beneath the Greek is the English transliteration of each Greek word. Look at an example from verse 10 in the page above.

In some cases, numbers are placed by the English words to show the order the words would be in if translated directly from the Greek (the order of the words is often different in other languages; German verbs are often at the end of the sentence, while in English we like to place them in the middle).

George Berry went to a lot of trouble so I would not have to. But wait! It gets even better from here!

This is not just one Greek text. Berry references seven other Greek New Testaments that were in common usage in 1897. He places superscript letters next to some of the Greek text to reference footnotes at the bottom of the page to illustrate the differences between these individual texts:

Let us do a quick demonstration with 1 John 5:7–8. The KJV is
in the left margin of the page:

The Greek text and the English transliteration fill the right side of the page:

Notice the superscript “z” at the right edge of the page on the line where verse 7 starts? This refers us to the footnotes at the bottom of the page:

Let me expand the pertinent portion so it is easier to read:

The “z” identifies the correct footnote. The minus sign tells us the phrase that follows is not in some of the other Greek texts. It repeats the Greek phrase from above to show specifically where the phrase starts and stops. Finally, it identifies which Greek texts do not have this passage.

The KJV reads as follows,

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

1 John 5:7–8

Six of the eight texts do not include the phrase “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth.”

Two things can be surmised from this:

• The original text in 1 John 5 probably read, “7 For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

• The authors of the Stephen Greek text (1550) and the Elsevier Greek text (1624) probably added the phrase (Elsevier may have just copied Stephen) to add verbiage promoting the Trinity, since the Scriptures have very little to say about this concept that has become the cornerstone of mainstream Christian theology.

Don’t feel you have to remember all these steps. My interlinear
has all this info in the introduction, and it stands to reason other
interlinears would have similar guides to help you use them.

b. Bible dictionaries, lexicons, and concordances
These are quite numerous, and they all have a similar purpose, though they use different methods to achieve their goals.

What you use will be a personal preference, and I recommend that you accustom yourself to the books in your local library (or a friend’s library) before you purchase several volumes that may never leave your shelf after you have become comfortable using one format over the rest.

Bible dictionaries are similar to regular dictionaries. They have definitions and maybe a picture to help explain the word.

The words included in a Bible dictionary are limited to what the author thinks is important, and the definitions often do not have a link to an actual Bible verse. When they do, it is generally just one or two verses even though the same word might be used dozens of times in the Word.

These are good if you are curious about what a word means but you are not necessarily in the midst of biblical research (e.g., you are listening to a teaching on television and the instructor talks about the apostle Paul in Iconium).

Lexicons are similar to Bible dictionaries, but they are more inclusive. Lexicons are normally limited to either the New Testament or the Old Testament because they reference every word in whichever testament they are listing.

The following is a page from E. W. Bullinger’s Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1877). Let us examine the word godliness.

The lexicon gives the two Greek words that are translated as “godliness” and their definitions. It also lists every verse that uses either word, identifying which word is used in those verses.

This is a far-better tool for actual research. Greek and Hebrew are both more descriptive than English because we tend to use the same word to describe different ideas (e.g., I “love” my wife, and I “love” ice cream. Different sentiments are being portrayed, but the same word is used).

English is so bad (“how bad is it?”) the word cleave is also its own antonym (cleave unto someone versus cleave off an arm in battle).

Lexicons are also good because if a Greek word has different English translations, they will still appear in the list (i.e., if “godliness” – eusebeia – was translated as “holiness”, it would appear under “holiness,” and the verse would also appear in the listing of verses containing eusebeia under “godliness”).

Bullinger was a prolific writer and published dozens of study aides on a variety of subjects (e.g., Figures of Speech, Numbers in the Bible, The Witness of the Stars, Customs and Manners, and many more). His Companion Bible is full of notes and references. If you are serious about studying the Word, you should check out his body of work.

Concordances list all the words (OT and NT) of the Bible alphabetically (like a dictionary), and then they list all the verses where that word appears. Small segments of the verse appear in the list to help identify a specific verse the researcher is looking for.

With the lexicon, one has to look up each verse to ascertain whether it is pertinent to the work you are doing. However, the Strong’s Concordance (pictured above) uses a numbering system to link to definitions listed in the rear of the book.

We are revisiting the word “godliness” that we used with the lexicon. The Greek words are numbered so that similarly related Greek words are grouped together (see #2150 below) in the dictionary.

Strong’s has allowed others to use its numbering system so it is a universal study aid across many study texts.

c. Commentaries
These are collections of teachings by an author or by several writers who share a denomination. They can be good, but the authors generally bring their own personal bias to their work.

This is a situation where you may need a starting point for your research. For example, you read an article at bereanbiblesociety.org that states (among other claims), “Even the Jews do not practice tithing today because there are no Levites, priests, or temple worship in Jerusalem” (Ken Lawson – Facts on Tithing).

The author of this article makes several claims about the tithe that are in direct conflict with the authors of other prominent articles and the leaders of different denominations – who all disagree with each other. Are their assertions based on logic? Opinion? Or are they based on Scripture? You can use the tools you now have to discern what is of Yahweh and what is of man.

d. Websites
There are many websites that simplify biblical research (e.g., blueletterbible.org and biblegateway.com). Some of them require a monthly subscription. All of them have software that was written by people who are inherently biased (just like the writers of all the study books I just shared).

This is why reading one article or using just one source is not a recommended way to study the Word. You may stumble onto great truth, but you won’t know. Questioning your doctrine is a good thing. Your study can reinforce what you already know, or it can shift your beliefs to a better understating of Yahweh’s Word.

This was just a basic rundown of ways to study the Word for yourself and to test what others share into your life. A good rundown of these and other methods you can use (22 Principles of Biblical Interpretation: How to Eliminate Apparent Bible Contradictions) is available online from the Truth or Tradition website.

As you become more savvy, you may want to take language and history classes. You will want to invest in a Bible atlas so you can follow everyone in their wanderings. You will want to understand the customs of the time. You will want to learn the idioms and figures of speech used four thousand years ago (trust me, they are not the same today). Yahweh does not expect you to figure it all out in one sitting.

Nearly every church in nearly every denomination now has a website with teachings on any number of subjects. Some are very good, but others tend to be suspect. The best teachings are referred to by other teachers; humility about someone else’s work is a good sign.

I highly recommend the teachings of 119 Ministries (once again, I do not receive any form of compensation for an endorsement). There are equally good teachers on the Internet that share a Total Bible position, but I found that 119’s Torah based teachings were very helpful as I began to navigate the Word after my revelation.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

2 Timothy 2:15

Make the Word your own.