Strong's Concordance

[Guest Guest]

Trying to use the "original languages" undermines the authority of the King James Bible. It's either 100% inspired and accurate and therefore the authority, or it isn't. Pastor spoke about this last night too. Trying to go the Greek or Hebrew is saying that you don't like what the KJB says so you have to go back and try to make it mean something else.

Katy-Anne

[Bakershalfdozen]

Pastor spoke about this last night too. Trying to go the Greek or Hebrew is saying that you don't like what the KJB says so you have to go back and try to make it mean something else.

Katy-Anne

If he did indeed say that then he is woefully ignorant of the purpose of using Greek and Hebrew. :faint:

[kevinmiller]

If he did indeed say that then he is woefully ignorant of the purpose of using Greek and Hebrew. :faint:

I agree.

[bibletotingunslinger]

I use mine only to defend the King James, I have not found any corruptions yet, this is the first I've heard of such things, but I must confess I have not researched the history of Strongs Concordance.

[Jerry]

Studying the meaning of the words behind the KJV, in the original languages, is useful because they are dead languages - their meanings have not changed; therefore I can get a better idea of what any archaic or hard to understand English word means. Yes, Webster's 1828 is usefull - however, there are many words there that he does not give the Biblical range of meaning. So if the passage is hard to understand because of a hard word or two - and I look up that word in other passages (or perhaps it might only be in that one passage), and I cannot determine the clear meaning, then a look at Strong's shows me exactly what that word means, and other ways the underlying word was translated - which gives me synonyms of that word. I take that definition or word range and see how it fits the passage in question - problem solved. I have NEVER used the Strong's Concordance to correct my KJV, just to help me understand what the English means. Better than being ignorant or making it up as I go along - which is what we see all the time in cults or false religions (like Catholicism). They will bring their own faulty definition to a passage and force the Bible to fit their doctrines - rather than building their doctrines on a rightly divided understanding of God's Word.

[manofconviction]

Strongs, or any other study aid needs to be balanced with the Word of God with it being the final authority, no?

[Jerry]

Right. Strong's is a tool - it is not intended to usurp the Word of God, but to be used to rightly divide it.

[Kubel]

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

I'm not sure I understand how researching and gaining a deeper understanding of a word is "correcting" the English. I understand why you are against the original languages, because you believe in advanced revelation. But to the rest of us who don't, there really isn't any reason to forbid it.

[auburn_tiger]

Another reason to use Strong's is when the Greek or Hebrew has multiple words that translate into one word in English. Like "love" there are 3 Greek words that are translated into "love" (agape, phileto, and eros) but without looking it up in Strong's then how do we know what "love" is meant in any passage.