Ebionites "thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of [Paul], whom they called an apostate from the Law." Eusebius, Church Hist 3:27 325 AD


A Joomla! Template for the Rest of Us




Please enter your questions, and we will get back to you as soon as possible. As an anti-spam measure, we ask that you re-type the code you see in the box below, prior to clicking "Send Message"


Only Jesus (great song by Big Daddy)

What Did Jesus Say? (2012) - 7 topics 

None above affiliated with me


Strong's Concordance Is Not To Be Used as a Dictionary


A Greek-word concordance for the KJV will not help one know for certain a Greek word's meaning because a concordance does not claim to be a dictionary. Instead, it represents a list of what English word was used to translate a Greek word in the source bible. For example, a KJV Concordance like Strong's is not a dictionary. Instead, Strong's is a listing of how in 1611 each Greek word (or its root form) was translated into English by the King James Version aka the KJV.  

Strong himself was not even a linguist in Greek. But it was not a necessary skill. All he was doing was providing an index between the KJV's choice and the Greek root word reflected by  the actual Greek word used.  

Here are some proofs to help dislodge traditional misconceptions that Strong's can be used as a dictionary:  

The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, generally known as Strong's Concordance, is a Bible concordance, an index of every [English] word in the King James Version (KJV).... ("Strong's Concordanc," Wikipedia

"Strong's Concordance is ... not a lexicon/dictionary (and thus is not a reliable source for the meaning of a lexeme in a specific context)...." ("Strong's Is Not A Lexicon/ Dictionary," Bible Hermenuetics.)

"I have had such a problem explaining to some people that Strong is showing 'how the words ARE translated' but that doesn't mean that the words should or can be translated that way. (Id., fn. 2.)

"James Strong was NOT a Linguist that understood Biblical Languages. Though James Strong was a professor, he was NOT a professor in Greek or Hebrew, and was not fluent in these languages, he received nothing but a summary introduction education in these languages. And his credentials as a Doctorate of theology are only honorary;....'" ("THE PROBLEM OF USING STRONG’S CONCORDANCE " (2016), Faith Bible Ministries.)

"This great misunderstanding [about what Strong's represents] has created more false doctrine in churches because [it does...] not give us the exact meaning of God’s will concerning that word as seen in Greek or Hebrew word studies." Id. 

"Strong’s is never meant to be preached from. It is meant to locate passages in the Bible if you know only one word in that passage,...." Id.

Thus one can see that a KJV “concordance” approach being pushed today as the last word -- from 1611 -- suits a strategy to not appear dishonest when somone says Strong's omits pisteuo in the Greek of John 3:16 can mean “obeys" "comply," etc. The Strong's editors lay out their concordance as a dictionary. It can fool you if your pastor or teacher does not tell you this is a misuse of Strong's. Your teacher makes you think it is a dictionary despite 400+ years of scholarship improving on our knowledge of Greek. However, Strong's is not even a dictionary.

Thus the editors of such a concordance can continue to omit “obeys” / "comply" as a meaning of pisteuo in John 3:16, for example. However, there is no excuse any longer to think "pisteuo" means "believe" in John 3:16. See our link on John 3:16 here.

Strong's can be properly republished forever with no update on 'pisteuo's true meaning because Strong's only claims to list the English word used in 1611 in the KJV to translate a Greek word. It is only the users and educators who cite Strong's as the sufficiently last word on a correct translation who err.