What do you think of "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance"

[JHM]

I would like people here to express their opinions on Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.

 

[Boanerges]

It is a great reference tool but can easily be misconstrued. Sadly many look at a Strongs and find 3 or 4 definitions for a Greek or Hebrew word and pick the one that fits their theology. In fact a major cult translated their entire "bible" with little more than a Strongs and no knowledge of the original language. This resulted in a real mess. A Vines Expository Dictionary is a real help. It is keyed to the Strongs but gives specific fits for each verse.
So in my book the Strongs is an excellent source for info if used correctly.

 

[JHM]

That is a very interesting answer, Boanerges. Can you give me what you would consider to be a good example of misusing Strong's by "Picking a definition that fits one's theology" ?

 

[Boanerges]

Well that would be a wide topic of materials to choose from but lets use this one:
Some biblical conspiracy theorists believe that Eve had sex with the devil and Cain was Satan's son. Despite scripture to the contrary (Gen 4:1).Those same folks refer to 2Cor11:3 and using the Strongs jump on the first definiton seduce wholly to back up their supposition.

2Co 11:3 ButG1161 I fear,G5399 lest by any means,G3381 asG5613 theG3588 serpentG3789 beguiledG1818 EveG2096 throughG1722 hisG848 subtilty,G3834 soG3779 yourG5216 mindsG3540 should be corruptedG5351 fromG575 theG3588 simplicityG572 thatG3588 is inG1519 Christ.G5547

From the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible:
G1818
ἐξαπατάω
exapataō
ex-ap-at-ah'-o
From G1537 and G538; to seduce wholly: - beguile, deceive.

The Vines Expository Dictionary (while keyed of the Strongs) clarifies that dilemma by showing which definition fits that verse :
From the Vines Expository Dictionary of the Bible:
Beguile

1. apatao (G538), "to deceive," is rendered "beguiled" in the RV of 1Ti_2:14. See No. 2.
2. exapatao (G1818), a strengthened form of No. 1, is rendered "beguile," 2Co_11:3; the more adequate rendering would be "as the serpent thoroughly beguiled Eve." So in 1Ti_2:14, in the best mss., this stronger form is used of Satan's deception of Eve, lit., "thoroughly beguiled"; the simpler verb, No. 1, is used of Adam. In each of these passages the strengthened form is used. So of the influence of sin, Rom_7:11 (RV, "beguile"); of self-deception, 1Co_3:18 (RV, "deceive"); of evil men who cause divisions, Rom_16:18 (RV, "beguile"); of deceitful teachers, 2Th_2:3 (RV, "beguile"). See DECEIVE.In the Sept., Exo_8:29.
3. paralogizomai (G3884), lit. and primarily, "to reckon wrong," hence means "to reason falsely" (para, "from, amiss," logizomai, "to reason") or "to deceive by false reasoning"; translated "delude" in Col_2:4, RV (KJV, "beguile") and Jam_1:22 (KJV, "deceive"). See DECEIVE, DELUDE.
4. deleazo (G1185) originally meant "to catch by a bait" (from delear, "a bait"); hence "to beguile, entice by blandishments": in Jam_1:14, "entice"; in 2Pe_2:14, KJV, "beguile"; in 2Pe_2:18, KJV, "allure"; RV, "entice" in both. See ENTICE.
Note: In Col_2:18, the verb katabrabeuo, "to give judgment against, condemn," is translated "beguile...of your reward," KJV; RV, "rob... of your prize." The verb was used of an umpire's decision against a racer; hence the translations (or paraphrases) in the Eng. versions. See ROB.


This would be just one example of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

 

[JHM]

Interesting again. Just did a little quick research and the result was inconclusive. Mind you the Book of Enoch clearly states that the fallen angels did not arrive on earth until the days of Jarad, so Cain could not be a "Child Of the Devil" since he was born long before that.

By the way, (Post name), means if you think some other concordance is better than Strong's , give the name of that concordance. I gather you think "The Vines Expository Dictionary" is better. I have never seen that one, you might be right; provided it has certain key features that Strong's has. Though I notice that the definition "to seduce wholly" is omitted from Vines.

 

[jiggyfly]

While Strong's is a good concordance of the KJV, it's Hebrew and Greek dictionaries are in no way an exhaustive work by comparison to some of the others available today IMO. There are many lexicons, word studies and dictionaries available.

Here are some that I use.
The New International dictionary of New Testament Theology.
The Theological Lexicon.
The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon.
Thayer's Greek Lexicon.
Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon.
Wuest Greek New Testament Word Studies.
Vincent's Greek New Testament Word Studies.
Cyclopedia Of Biblical, Theological, And Ecclesiastical Literature.

 

[Boanerges]

By the way, (Post name), means if you think some other concordance is better than Strong's

I use both equally.

 

[JHM]

With respect of the New Testament, I am given to understand by one of the experts at the "Bible Scholars Forum" that the "Peshitta" is the oldest extant version of the "New Testament" and that the various "Greek Versions" were derived from it. Another point worth making, is that apparently the "Targum Onkelos" is the oldest extant version of the "Pentateuch", and I believe there is a major translation error in Genesis 6 : 2 in all 7 of the different versions I have, because they are considerably at varience with the "Targum Onkelos" and the "Targum Jonathan".

 

[Ruwach10]

Strong's Concordance of the Bible

I truly believe it is the best concordance one can utilize, but I do agree with another post that warned of those that totally rely on it and even when a greek or hebrew word has several definitions, many choose the definition they wish to translate and go from there and thus, "make a real mess".....I think that the Strongs, along with the full Greek Interlinear (4 volumes) is the best way to go as the volumes of the Greek Interlinear is the most accurate and most complete composite of the ancient manuscripts that "the average person" can get a hold of....and I say the "average person" as these volumes are the most economical.....there are other compilations of the ancient manuscripts but they are soooooo very expensive....so, the Strongs with the full set of the Greek Interlinear (from Greene), I believe is the best way to go so one stays true to God's Word and doesn't pick and choose translations of words to fit their theology......great question.....God Bless

 

[jiggyfly]

I truly believe it is the best concordance one can utilize, but I do agree with another post that warned of those that totally rely on it and even when a greek or hebrew word has several definitions, many choose the definition they wish to translate and go from there and thus, "make a real mess".....I think that the Strongs, along with the full Greek Interlinear (4 volumes) is the best way to go as the volumes of the Greek Interlinear is the most accurate and most complete composite of the ancient manuscripts that "the average person" can get a hold of....and I say the "average person" as these volumes are the most economical.....there are other compilations of the ancient manuscripts but they are soooooo very expensive....so, the Strongs with the full set of the Greek Interlinear (from Greene), I believe is the best way to go so one stays true to God's Word and doesn't pick and choose translations of words to fit their theology......great question.....God Bless

Do you know what text Greene translated?

 

[JHM]

Jeremy Springfield could probably answer that question, or if he couldn't the "Greek Student" probably could. They have been having a debate as to which predates which, The Greek versions of the New Testament or the Peshitta. Having proofread Jeremy's translations of the Letters of Paul, (with footnotes explaining why the Peshitta is the original), I am inclined to think he is right.

 

[Stickz]

Boanerges: It is a great reference tool but can easily be misconstrued. Sadly many look at a Strongs and find 3 or 4 definitions for a Greek or Hebrew word and pick the one that fits their theology. In fact a major cult translated their entire "bible" with little more than a Strongs and no knowledge of the original language. This resulted in a real mess. A Vines Expository Dictionary is a real help. It is keyed to the Strongs but gives specific fits for each verse.
So in my book the Strongs is an excellent source for info if used correctly.

JHM: By the way, (Post name), means if you think some other concordance is better than Strong's , give the name of that concordance. I gather you think "The Vines Expository Dictionary" is better. I have never seen that one, you might be right; provided it has certain key features that Strong's has. Though I notice that the definition "to seduce wholly" is omitted from Vines.

I use a Strong's Concordance myself, but won't make any claims that it is "the best" of anything. While I admittedly do not speak Greek or Hebrew yet ( for I am about to begin learning the two languages ) I compare other translations of the Bible to see how other people have interpreted the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin texts: Wycliffe, Tyndale, Darby, Geneva, Douay-Rheims, etc .... But no matter what concordance you use, or what language that you read it in, you have no guarantees of anything as long as it was made by man. It comes down to you trusting in God for the interpretation of the scripture. An education does you little good if your heart is not right with God.

I have learned to never take someone's word for anything when it comes to scripture. Everyone uses the Bible deceitfully to prove their own beliefs, because the Bible is written in such a way that one can derive almost anything from it. Hence, our thousands of denominations.

People "misconstrue" everything, but the fact that you disagree with the way that someone else has chosen to interpret the scriptures does not give anyone the right to remove possible definitions from a book. That is the equivalent of taking someone's freewill from them. The wrong choices for us to make are always before us, sitting next to the right choice to make; narrowing someone's options—even with the best of intentions—is wrong, no matter how you look at it. Jesus spoke in parables for a reason.

I don't agree with how "Gap Theory" believers show that the definition for the word "replenish" is "to refill" as though it were the only definition for the word. But people are going to choose to believe what they want no matter what you say, do, or try to keep from them.

The word "seduce" does not have to be sexual, that is just the way that people have chosen to interpret it. That is it's common use.

People trust their preachers to tell them the truth, and those same people will get their reward. Blind leading the blind in some cases. If they would actually read their Bibles they would see that we are told not to put our faith in man, but in God. A preacher is usually a man that has purchased his education of the Bible, and the story of Simon the sorcerer from the book of Acts often comes to my mind when I think of preachers with degrees.

A Pentecostal is going to commend books written by other Pentecostals. Catholics, Catholics. Methodists, Methodists. Baptists, Baptists. I would suggest to someone that they read and use everything available to us.