Thank you so much for talking about the New Ungers bible dictionary, Sir. May God richly bless you. Manage to get it in PDF format, and for that I'm grateful to you, Sir. Shalom Elichem.
Holman is based on the KJV for the most part at least in this original edition, the newer edition uses the hcsb, where as the Ungers is based on the NASB
@@samsmom400 Ungers had better definitions. Holman is Calvinist in a few places but had more words and illustrations. If I could only have one I would choose Ungers.
May I inquire what your opinion is with; A) "Webster's online 1828 Dictionary" (For Biblical use) B) The "Easton's Bible Dictionary" I looked but can't see if you already did either of these, sorry & *_God Bless_*
Until another, solid Lutheran or Reformed Bible dicgtionary comes along, I don't care that much about the works of this sort from sectaries (Baptists, Pentecostals, Wesleyans, Cambellites, and that sorry ilk.
Although Unger was a (cringe!) Baptist sectary, I noticed that the New Unger's Dictionary had R.K. Harrison as the editor. I knew psersonally and still greatly revere abd respect R.K. Harrison, so I ordered New Unger's because of his involvement.
Any of those dictionaries is going to be more accurate than a Reformed dictionary. Reformed theology is of course claimed by Calvinists to come from a straight reading of the Bible, but it does not. Even Reformed scholars agree that Reformed theology comes from the writings of Augustine, who could not read Greek so didn't read the scriptures in their original language and who was both a former Gnostic clergyman and a philosopher of Plato in the 4th century. This explains why Calvinists are the only ones who end up having to appeal to mystery so often, because their theology is based on a man's writings 400 years after Christ was dead, so of course it doesn't mesh into scripture completely. For the sake of your soul, go read some theology that is based on the Bible rather than on the writings of someone who couldn't even read the scriptures he was doing commentary on and so relied on Jerome's Latin translation.
I am so happy to finally find a video that compares these two books. I am wavering between these two for a while now.
Both great
Thank you so much for talking about the New Ungers bible dictionary, Sir.
May God richly bless you.
Manage to get it in PDF format, and for that I'm grateful to you, Sir.
Shalom Elichem.
Always helpful info. God bless you.
The new ungers dictionary is getting rare to find in newer edition and more pricey! But still got one! Thanks pastor
Just bought a New Unger's about a month ago. The current version is full color and printed on high gloss paper. Very pleased with it so far.
It is awesome.
Okay I'm going with her ungers, the only dictionary I have in mind library now is the 1828 Noah Webster
Amen!
Blessings! Which of the two is better to use for studying NKJV bible?
Holman is based on the KJV for the most part at least in this original edition, the newer edition uses the hcsb, where as the Ungers is based on the NASB
Blessings! Which of the two is better to use for studying NKJV bible?
@@Faithbelievebesaved Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary is fantastic and the NKJV is the main translation used. Hope that helps, God Bless
I solved the choice issue by just buying them both.
Amen!
Which do you like the best?
@@samsmom400 Ungers had better definitions. Holman is Calvinist in a few places but had more words and illustrations. If I could only have one I would choose Ungers.
New Unger’s @@samsmom400
Blessings! Which of the two is better to use for studying NKJV bible?
Either is good.
Me too sis I want study my bible and I need one
May I inquire what your opinion is with;
A) "Webster's online 1828 Dictionary" (For Biblical use)
B) The "Easton's Bible Dictionary"
I looked but can't see if you already did either of these, sorry & *_God Bless_*
Webster’s I have, and really like. Did his Bible also. Easton is ok but limited.
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa Thank you, Webster's I've been using for sometime but I just heard of Easton's yesterday.
Which is best for my 1611 King James Authorized Bible?
New ungers maybe
David Clouds Encyclopedia is fantastic
God bless
Amen!
Even if you want to do research, the references are so old you won't find those documents.
You can if you dig, many times. Thanks for writing!
Until another, solid Lutheran or Reformed Bible dicgtionary comes along, I don't care that much about the works of this sort from sectaries (Baptists, Pentecostals, Wesleyans, Cambellites, and that sorry ilk.
Although Unger was a (cringe!) Baptist sectary, I noticed that the New Unger's Dictionary had R.K. Harrison as the editor. I knew psersonally and still greatly revere abd respect R.K. Harrison, so I ordered New Unger's because of his involvement.
Amen!
Blessings! Which of the two is better to use for studying NKJV bible?
Any of those dictionaries is going to be more accurate than a Reformed dictionary. Reformed theology is of course claimed by Calvinists to come from a straight reading of the Bible, but it does not. Even Reformed scholars agree that Reformed theology comes from the writings of Augustine, who could not read Greek so didn't read the scriptures in their original language and who was both a former Gnostic clergyman and a philosopher of Plato in the 4th century. This explains why Calvinists are the only ones who end up having to appeal to mystery so often, because their theology is based on a man's writings 400 years after Christ was dead, so of course it doesn't mesh into scripture completely. For the sake of your soul, go read some theology that is based on the Bible rather than on the writings of someone who couldn't even read the scriptures he was doing commentary on and so relied on Jerome's Latin translation.