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.
|