| Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words | 
 enlarge | List Price: $29.99
Buy New: $13.95
You Save: $16.04 (53%)
Buy New/Used from $11.99
Avg. Customer Rating:   (based on 10 reviews)
Sales Rank: 286703
Category: Book
Publisher: Zondervan
Studio: Zondervan
Manufacturer: Zondervan
Label: Zondervan
Languages: English (Original Language), English (Unknown), English (Published)
Media: Hardcover
Edition: Supersaver
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 1344
Shipping Weight (lbs): 2.1
Dimensions (in): 9.1 x 6.1 x 1.5
ISBN: 0310248787
Dewey Decimal Number: 220.3
EAN: 9780310248781
ASIN: 0310248787
Publication Date: October 1, 2006
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Presenting the Vine?s of the 21st century! Edited by William Mounce, author of the best-selling biblical Greek textbook, this volume draws on world-class contemporary scholarship to set a new standard in biblical word studies. No knowledge of Greek required. Perfect for busy pastors and anyone who wants to better understand God?s Word.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 5 more reviews...
 Careless! June 6, 2008
2 out of 4 found this review helpful
I found an obvious error after spending only ten minutes with it.
On page 754 under the heading "UNBELIEVING, UNBELIEVER" 24 lines down it misquotes the Bible as saying, "speaking in tongues is a sign, not for unbelievers, but for believers (1 Cor. 14:22-24)". Of course, the correct quote should have been the exact opposite, "speaking in tongues is a sign, not for believers, but for unbelievers".
I think such carelessness puts the integrity of the entire book in question.
 Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words November 30, 2007
Mounce's work is an excellent update and modernization of an expository. "Vine's for the 21 century" accurately describes this work, which clearly shows the use of each word in its different contexts. This is most helpful as authors use words are used differently over time. I highly recommend this book for anyone wishing to plumb the depth of the Bible.
Awesome! May 17, 2007
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
Mounce's Dictionary is by far the best on the market for evangelical scholars. Mounce does an excellent job of defining sords from the Old and New Testaments. This is a must have for any college, university, or seminary student, as well as all ministers!
Renn and Mounce April 7, 2007
15 out of 15 found this review helpful
Late to arrive was Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Zondervan, though copyrighted 2006). This is very similar to a recently produced (2005), Vine-replacement dictionary from Hendrickson, Stephen Renn, ed., Expository Dictionary of Bible Words: Word Studies for Key English Bible Words Based on the Hebrew And Greek Texts. Both dictionaries do different things. For instance, Mounce has a Hebrew-English and Greek-English Dictionary in the back that gives a more substantive definition (with scriptural references) than Renn, who simply indexes each Strong's entry (original language) with its English counterpart. Thus, words not covered in Vine's (Renn) get some coverage in Mounce.
In the body proper, however, Renn is more substantive: first, in that many entries have an "Additional notes" section that describes the transition of word meaning from the OT to the NT; second, Renn is more comprehensive in words covered. For instance, under "Sacrifice," the noun ?ag is also covered under OT words (though its primary referent is "feast"), while the adjective eidolothyton is covered under NT words. However, Mounce has the advantage of deriving from the NIV rather than KJV. Sometimes this advantage becomes apparent, as when one reviewer of Renn decries a lack of entry for apostasia when, in fact, it could be found under "Forsake" when checking the index. However, in Mounce, apostasia (2x) is only found in the Greek-English dictionary in the back.
Not all that "Complete" February 17, 2007
16 out of 16 found this review helpful
The title says the dictionary is "Complete," and the cover blurbs call it "Vine's for the 21st Century," and say that compared to Vine's, Mounce's work is "More accurate," "More user-friendly," has "More up-to-date definitions" and a "More complete numbering system."
Undoubtedly these things are all true. It also features, in my opinion, a more readable layout, more contemporary and reader-friendly wording, and the fact that OT and NT words are not divided into entirely separate sections of the book is logical and convenient.
Finally, the inclusion of concise, "Strong's-like" lexicons at the end of the book is a nice touch.
The complaints:
Despite its claims of being "complete," it is most certainly not so. Only when closely examining the Introduction does one understand the curious inability to locate certain words: "It includes all Greek words occurring TEN times or more, all Hebrew words occurring FIFTY times or more, and other words occurring less if they are exegetically or theologically significant." (Emphasis added by reviewer.)
This makes sense if and only if concision is the overriding goal. After a bit of consideration, it is easy to realize that it is often those words LEAST used that are MOST in need of careful definition and exposition. This is a significant drawback, and in my opinion makes the title of the book misleading if not outrightly untruthful.
Involved in a debate about the Biblical teaching about homosexuality? Sorry, except for the very brief entry in the Strong's-type lexicon in the back of the book, you won't find any mention of "arsenokoites" in this tome.
In contrast to Vine, Mounce also seems to provide "exposition" that avoids some of the ongoing controversies in Christianity.
Trying to suss out whether Heaven and Hell really are "everlasting" or merely "age-long" as various "eonian" proponents claim? Vine frames parts of his definitions in such a way that they seem intended to directly address claims posited by some eonians and Universalists; Mounce's definitions are clear and adequate, but less "direct" in terms of addressing controversies.
|
|
|
