There is nothing wrong with Strong's Concordance - what he does is give the meanings of the words that underly our English Bible. If there was no way to accurately determine what they mean, we wouldn't HAVE a KJV. The problem is when someone misuses a Strong's or some other lexicon to correct the KJV. I have never done that and I have been using my Strong's for 14 years.

No, I do not think the TR is better or should correct the KJV - however, I do not think the TR is useless. It it was not preserved then again we wouldn't have the KJV. It was studying out the history of the preserved texts that led me to become King James Bible only. The TR does not usurp my KJV, nor is it contrary to it.

I might be wrong, but the impression I got from Gipp's article when I first read it was that we should put the definitions of the word in the text. He is not very clear. I agree that we should study out the Bible and see how a word is used. But if that was enough to give us an exact meaning, then none of you should be using Webster's either... Webster's and Strong's give a basic definition and range of meaning - context determines exactly what definition fits - and usage throughout the Bible also does that. I also believe the KJV translators were right in choosing what English word or phrase was best suited for each word or phrase in Greek, based on the context of the passage - so I would never seek to undermine that or find some other definition or translation/rendering.