[bibleprotector]

... Strong's Concordance to understand our King James Bible better. Regardless of some people's loss of understanding, his Concordance is still in use and still gives the standard definition of Bible words - so it is still a reliable tool.

This is a statement from someone who clearly does not believe that full revelation is in the English alone, that is to say, in the King James Bible alone. While various things may be defined as helps, and are therefore useful, they can never be the standard by which knowledge is judged. Strong's Concordance is quite imperfect and not fully reliable. Not totally wrong, but not totally right. This is the same with all Greek studies and so on today. Even the modernists will have some correct things in what they say and teach. The problem is that anyone who is appealing to the Greek in this way is really denying that we have the Word of God perfectly, fully and exactly in English. They are saying that somehow there is more revelation to be got by considering other sources, sources which differ (even minutely) to the King James Bible (e.g. Strong's, Scrivener's TR, etc.). But all the necessary fullness is there with the King James Bible, and other sources should be used in subjection to it.

To go about in the opposite way is to find that there is no ultimate authority. For example, if you start from the Greek, and then say the King James Bible is accurate, there is one problem, and that is that there is no ultimately perfect form of Greek to which you can actually show and see that the King James Bible is accurate. Now, we know that the King James Bible is accurate to the Greek, but we have no final standard of appeal in any Greek text or any concordance to "prove" the King James Bible correct. Rather, what we have is the King James Bible, and many witnesses which generally approve of it.