And running to some secular dictionary magically gives you absolute 100% certainty of what every word in the KJV means? I think not.

[bibleprotector]

Turning to Strong's is like a form of magic. It is utilising powers to change the meaning of the words of Scripture. The right thing is to study the Scripture itself: 100% certainty is not being withheld by the Holy Ghost.

I agree- study the Bible itself. But what do you do with all the words you don't understand? Use extra-biblical resources to discern their meanings. It is your opinion or preference to what kind of resource you use - it does not make all others bad (unless they are corrupt in themselves, such as a lexicon based on the wrong manuscripts or put together by a heretic/apostate).

Maybe Brandon doesn't care whether you debate this issue - but I can guarantee a man that includes Strong's in his Bible program and sends out emails about how important a resource Strong's is in understanding the Bible does not agree with your anti-Strong's viewpoint/opinion/preference.

It is an excellent resource, despite your bias against it.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by jerry

Maybe Brandon doesn't care whether you debate this issue - but I can guarantee a man that includes Strong's in his Bible program and sends out emails about how important a resource Strong's is in understanding the Bible does not agree with your anti-Strong's viewpoint/opinion/preference.

Strong's is a tool, like any other. I do think it's one of the better tools. I haven't had as much time to engage in discussion here as I'd like, though I am reading all the posts.

I agree with you about using dictionaries. I can't find a way to divine the definitions of words out of my Bible. The quality of the dictionary is certainly important -- the unabridged Oxford English is probably the best, but it's not a practical resources for most of us because of its cost. For determining the definitions of the words in the Bible, I have long recommended Webster's 1828. Strong's is also very useful. However, for determining the meanings of the words, we have to compare Scripture with Scripture. But we have to have some beginning point for our understanding of our language. That's what dictionaries are for.

Strong's isn't always right, though. Strong's seems to take issue with the word "unicorn" and also gives an incorrect pronunciation of Jehovah.

[bibleprotector]

I am not anti-Strong's, I am just against the fact that in some places Strong's lexicon definitions are wrong. If people understand how to use these tools in subjection to the Bible, that is the proper Biblical approach.

Let me illustrate how I have used these tools: I had already written defending the use of the word "flieth" in the Cambridge Edition at Nahum 3:16, because "fleeth" is in the Oxford Edition at that place, and I was curious to know what the same Hebrew word had been translated as in other places. I looked up Strong's and found that the word was translated "fly" and "flieth" elsewhere. I know some people have looked up the Webster's, where they may see that "fleeth" means "flieth" or vice versa, and they use this to justify that neither reading is wrong. (But how can the two words which have slightly different meanings both be fully correct.) However, the context speaks of the cankerworm, and since it is part of the lifecycle of the insect to turn to a flying creature, clearly, from the King James Bible alone "flieth" is the proper reading. I have also looked up "cankerworm" in the encyclopaedia to see that cankerworms belong to a type of moth which are abundant worldwide. Thus, if we start out with the truth from Scripture, our proper use of tools is going to help us and may be used to strengthen the case for the truth, which exists despite what the lexicons, dictionaries and encyclopaedias say.

Here is an article that answers a question someone had about Hebrews 10:23 in the Greek TR and how it is translated into the KJV:

Hebrews 10:23 - "profession of our faith"

[bibleprotector]

Yes, I believe that it is likely that all places where people say that the KJB does not follow the Greek, that either:
1. The KJB is the proper translation of the Greek at that place, or
2. The KJB is following some Greek text for that place, even if there are only 3 or 6 Greek witnesses for that reading.

Regardless of how many EXTANT readings there are of a particular verse, word or phrase - we know that the KJV exactly reflects in English the Scriptures as God gave them in the original languages/manuscripts.

[bibleprotector]

That is exactly correct. While we cannot see any flawlessly perfect originals, we know by faith that we have it right in English.

There is grace for "errors" (like typo's, spelling, transpositions and things forgotten accidently). However, the modern versions make their changes deliberately. That's wrong.

So, if there is a KJV out there with "honest mistakes", it is still flawless and infallible. The fact God does anything perfect through an imperfect human is miraculous. God's Word is perfect and He preserves it perfect, and He oversees "cleansing" if they need to happen.

We all make tpyos.