Strong's Concordance

[Guest Guest]

Last night Pastor shared with us something very interesting about Strong's concordance. Most people use it to let the Greek and Hebrew correct the English because they think that the Greek and Hebrew have deeper meaning that didn't carry over into that English.

However, did you know that James Strong was on the translation committee for the American Standard Version, and when he went bankrupt, he brought out Strong's concordance? Strong's concordance is based on the WRONG texts!

Katy-Anne

[kevinmiller]

lol. So, because James Strong was supposedly on the ASV committee, you know that he used the critical texts when writing the Concordance?

[kevinmiller]

Okay, so I'm doing some googling here and I am not finding any connection between Strong and the ASV. And if there was, the Strong's Concordance still traces every KJV word back to the original word that it was derived from.

[Jerry]

Strong's Concordance is not based on the Critical Text - it is based on the words used in the KJV and its underlying texts. However, Young's Concordance does contain critical readings and corrections of the KJV - perhaps someone mixed these two men up.

On a practical basis, for all those who are against any Greek or Hebrew study tools like Strong's Concordance, how do you determine the exact meaning of a word as used in the KJV? Certainly not by running to a modern dictionary. Webster's 1828 Dictionary is very helpful, but he still thought the KJV had some problems. Strong's shows the exact words used, the range of meanings and how it was translated throughout the KJV.

For the record, I am against using any concordances or Lexicons put together by apostates, Catholics, Unitarians, etc. James Strong is not perfect, but I have not come across anything indicating he was apostate or modernistic. Plus, I have been using his Concordance since 1994. It is the best tool I have ever found to help me understand (notice I said "understand", not "correct") the King James Bible. Webster's 1828 Dictionary is a close second - when a specific definition differs or does not help understand a passage, I just disregard that definition (I don't throw out the whole dictionary).

[Guest Guest]

The Bible defines it's own words. And my Pastor would not lie to us or preach something he had not researched. He said Strong's.

Katy-Anne

[kevinmiller]

I've heard a lot of KJVO's spout off stuff that they have neither researched, nor substantiated.

[Guest Guest]

So have I. But my pastor researches what he says.

Katy-Anne

[kevinmiller]

But you haven't. So I need evidence if I am supposed to put any stock at all in your OP.

[Guest Guest]

Lol like you ever believe the evidence anyway. For me personally, because my pastor said it is evidence enough for me. But if I find out where he got his information I'll let you know even though you won't believe it.

Katy-Anne

[Anon]

Boy you love the KJV fight don't you.

And no, "most people" do not "correct" the Bible using a Strong's Concordance, anymore than I "correct" an old English lit book by looking up a definition.

I can see it now as KatyAnne homeschools her children. "Mommy can I look up the definition of that word in the dictionary?"

"Don't you dare! That's correcting the book!"

:lol:

[kevinmiller]

Why would anyone here believe it? Just because your pastor said it? It's not just me.

And even if my pastor told me, I wouldn't believe it unless he gave me a reason to believe it. That's why it's important not to follow a man. I don't believe anything unless there is a reason to believe it. It is what keeps a person from being led about by every wind of doctrine.

[Jerry]

The Bible defines it's own words. And my Pastor would not lie to us or preach something he had not researched. He said Strong's.

Not saying he was lying or being deceptive - people can make mistakes. Perhaps James Strong was on the committee of the ASV, but his Concordance was not based on the Critical Text - a simple comparison of it and the KJV will reveal that. Besides, it took him 30 years to put that together - if he released it shortly after the making of the ASV, that doesn't reflect on the work in his concordance.

Just for clarifications sake, the ASV is the version that came out in 1901, which was based on the version put out by W&H in 1881. I was mixing these two up, and wanted to clarify, if possible, which one he supposedly worked on. If it was the 1901 version, that would have been near the end of his life and AFTER his concordance came out. If it was the 1881 version, I do know that there were several people that were on that translation committee that totally disagreed with the changes Westcott and Hort were doing.

[Guest Guest]

We are told in the Bible to follow a man. Paul told people to follow him as he follows Christ. If Paul had stopped following Christ, then people would have needed to stop following him then. So the "I don't follow a man" thing is not Biblical.

I didn't expect you to believe it, I don't expect you to believe anything I say. I posted it for information if anybody was interested.

Suzy, dictionaries have their place, but when it comes to my perfect and inspired KJB, we don't need any "Greek" or "Hebrew" and my children will most certainly know that! Praise God they will be in a good church that believes it and preaches it too!

Katy-Anne

[kevinmiller]

Ignorance is due to a lack of personal research. Following what a man says without anything to back it up is ignorance. If I were you, I wouldn't expect a single person on this board to believe it. Because nobody is going to believe it just because your pastor, who no one here has ever met, said it.

[Madeline]

Katy-Anne,

I'm sure that God has made the Gospel for us to understand where the knowledge of Hebrew or Greek is not required. We have a reliable translation, and God has preserved His Word. However, we are told to "study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Tim. 2:15). And although the bible is simple, that doesn't necessarily mean that everything with the Bible is simple. We must "work" at if we want to understand the depths of God's Word. Now don't get me wrong...I'm not implying that such work must involve knowing the original languages, but it sure "does" and "can" help. Hope this helps!

Love,
Madeline