Please prove that Strong's is corrupt. Some say Webster's 1828 Dictionary is okay to use - but even his definitions are based on what the root words mean in the underlying languages - why is it wrong to know what the words in the underlying Hebrew and Greek mean? If there were no preserved Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and a way to translate them accurately, then we would not even have a sound English Bible today (which we do). The KJV does not correct the underlying Hebrew or Greek - it is the exact equivalent of it in English.

I am not trying to be offensive here - but many people I know who utterly refuse to use Strong's Concordance or any objective Bible study tool to understand the meanings of the words in the Bible end up coming up with some pretty wacky definitions and/or doctrine, because they do not understand the words - or bring their own subjective definition into the passage, rather than seeing what the word (whether the English word itself, or the underlying Hebrew and Greek words) means.