Any Reasons Why Some Don't Like Strong's Concordance?

[Psalms18_28]

What if I say "I saw a mouse on the table", would you not look up the word "mouse" on the dictionary and quickly assume I was referring to a little creature?

If you look up in the dictionary, it will give you a multiple meanings:

1. any of numerous small Old World rodents of the family Muridae, esp. of the genus Mus, introduced widely in other parts of the world.
2. any similar small animal of various rodent and marsupial families.
3. a quiet, timid person.
4. Computers. a palm-sized, button-operated device that can be slid on wheels or ball bearings over a desktop to move the cursor on a CRT to any position, or slid over a drawing in order to recreate the drawing on a CRT. Compare joystick (def. 2).
5. Informal. a swelling under the eye, caused by a blow or blows; black eye


I was actually referring to a computer mouse. We don't know what people used in bible time or even in the days when KJV was written. Half of the things they say or do no longer exist today. It is just like how a person doesn't know what a computer mouse is. A dictionary help keep people open minded about what the person could be saying. This goes with using strong's.

[kevinmiller]

Good post Angie. :thumb

[Psalms18_28]

not to mention, Have anyone every tried to follow an 1800's to early 1900's recipes? I tried, and couldn't understand it at all compare to today recipes. It take some researching to understand a recipe like that.

[Calvary]

I would hardly think that the word mouse in a Bible was a reference to a PC.

Outside of some of the animals listed in the KJB, I can't think of any words that are hard to be understood.

In the context of the thread, we are talking about Bibles aren't we?

The truth is Psalms, there are very few words that are "archaic" in the KJB, yet some of the MV's have replaced several of the easier words for much more obscure and archaic words.

God bless,

Calvary

[Psalms18_28]

I would hardly think that the word mouse in a Bible was a reference to a PC.

Outside of some of the animals listed in the KJB, I can't think of any words that are hard to be understood.

In the context of the thread, we are talking about Bibles aren't we?

The truth is Psalms, there are very few words that are "archaic" in the KJB, yet some of the MV's have replaced several of the easier words for much more obscure and archaic words.

God bless,

Calvary

I was just giving you examples. I do not think we should be replacing words like they do as MV. You can't replace it. But you are allowed to research it.

Just like old recipes, you can't replace a open fire stove for an oven and still get the same result. But half of the people didn't know how people cook in those days. I am trying to prove a point that researching help you understand the bible better.

[Bakershalfdozen]

To Calvary, I based my assumption about you from these quotes by you:


1.

I don't use lexionaries because they are mainly corrupt and therefore are untrustworthy.

2. You explained Anametha Maranatha to Kevin w/o the use of helps to show that it can be done according to you.

3.

Ya know, more than anything it's amazing how some folks might believe that until the late 1800's believer's couldn't understand the Bible without helps.

In the late 1600's the only books in the house of some fortunate ones was a Bible and John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.

No lexicons, no e-sword, no commentaries, no reference Bibles, no internet.

Yet during that time period the reformation took place, the missionary movement out of "primitive" America happened, the Welsh revivals ocurred and many other events of note.

Today, with all the "helps" available, the only real result I can see is a liberal Christianity that tolerates and excuses sin, and is over all lazy in that it looks to men for answers instead of the Bible.

The "helps" haven't really helped modern Christianity in my opinion, they have hindered the development of good study habits and plain old elbow grease.

The blame lies squarely on the publisher's who promote their wares and the preacher's that depend upon helps instead of the Holy Spirit.

4.

I never said for one minute that one is wrong to use them, I merely said why I don't use them.

This was in reply to Kevin who was talking about concordances and dictionaries.



I'm not sure where you got your assumption about me especially since I have flowers in my avatar and pink in my siggy. :lol:

[Calvary]

I tend to shy away from Greek helps more than any other kind.

I didn't always, I relied upon them as many do who do not speak Greek. (I don't speak Greek)

A few years back I began to study something about the men who wrote the lexicons and dictionaries and began to see over all, generally speaking, we wouldn't follow these men across the street as IFB's so why follow their "expert" opinions on matters as serious as the word of God.

These days, I have a very narrow opinion of "Strong's definitions" and other so called authorities. It just doesn't seem that the Bible ever told us that lexicons are inspired or on equal ground as the Bible, yet many (not all) toss out these definitions as though they are the gospel truth.

Back to the Bible I say.

And sorry for calling you brother. Ya know in Spanish, if there was a mixed group all pronouns pertaining to them are masculine. It's just a habit I guess to call every one "hermano".

God bless,

Calvary

[PeterAV]

Strong was on the corrupt ASV committee.
He uses Paganized definitions that were not intended for the Holy Bible.
He uses the works of the unsaved Gesenius.
He is partial to the critical texts.
Lots of valid reasons not to trust the Dictionary in the back of the Concordance.
The only part you can trust in it is after the marks like these,
:-
After this mark :- you have the Holy Bible usage of the Hebrew or Greek terms.
This is all that can be trusted.