Featured KJVO and the Strongs Concordance

Also not KJVO but close to a TRO. But love the Open Bible have you ever read from Dake Bible? I really like it because it like a Bible with 2 or 3 dictionaries.

 

I have used the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance as a main Bible study tool since 1968. I have since required a NASB exhaustive concordance for the 1977 edition. And a NIV exhaustive concordance for the 1984 edition. AIT for words not Greek or Hebrew.

 

How to use Strong’s Concordance is one of the things I teach people as they begin learning how to study the Bible.
Strong’s is limited to the KJV, but other versions have a concordance that fits their needs.
It is a basic tool, there are better ones to use as a person desires to learn more.

Strong’s has many shortcomings.
1) it’s no dictionary - vocabulary is limited and as a lexicon it simply stinks! Learn the Greek and Hebrew alphabets and use a real lexicon. If you use an internet version it may link to one.
2) it is not to be used like a Amplified Bible, it’s not a pick a choose what word you like. The concordance shows how word ARE TRANSLATED not how they can or should be translated (there’s a fine distinction). I would suggest using a Strong’s concordance in combination with other versions to expand the vocabulary/meaning of the word you search.

Modern computer programs are offered online and more advanced programs can be purchased that are specific to each version (I use Logos Bible Software).

Rob

 

I am sola scriptura(KJVO).

The Strongs concordance, etc, is a booby trap for the pure word of God.

It is specifically designed to redefine the Bible and open it up to closet redefinitions.

 

Yes it has other versions as well. However, using a Strongs Concordance and thinking you can do in-depth study with that leads to many an error.

 

They also now provide a Greek grammar too.

Now I use the free version of MySword app on my Android devices.

 

Logos also has a free version. Logos 9 Basic—Free Bible Software

 

Can you give a major case example of such an error?

 

Can you give one example of this problem?

 

Yes, pretty much every Sunday. The preacher reads from the Bible, says "The Bible says this, but here in our concordance, the word also means this, this and this".

This is exactly what I mean what Strongs has done to the Bible and has become a "secondary, back up Bible" for ministers.

 

See what @Deacon said above.

 

That absolutely does not show anything wrong. You did not give one example of a "booby trap for the pure word of God." Alleging how, does not make it so.

 

I ask you, not @Deacon. And he gave not one case example either. Just a rant.

 

I just did.

I teach the Bible without a "side book" to help redefine the words that the KJV translators "did not quite get across".

You know, how Strongs is used to "add a little extra meaning" to the Bible words?

Who are these guys that debunked the KJV, anyway?

This is subversion.

 

I said it CAN lead to error. And yes, I have heard pastors say about Strongs, that the Bible says this but this word can also mean this, this and this, but that is not how Greek works.

 

Now the KJV translators weren't perfect either. Cut that junk right now.

 

You still did not give one example. And I have used a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to study and use my KJV over 50 years. And I still use the KJV as my preferred translation.
Your allegation is nonsense.

 

What error? Utter nonsense.