James Strong's Discordance

In the process of another study I came across something very interesting...

Quote::

James Strong (1822-1894) was born in New York City and became a Methodist theologian and scholar. As with many scholars of his day his views concerning the inspiration and preservation of the Scriptures were quite liberal. As G.A. Riplinger states in one of her articles, Strong's liberal views got him a seat on the corrupt Revised Standard/American Standard Version committee. Westcott and Hort sought American Bible critics to join with them and work on their Revised Version. In 1870 the British Committee voted "to invite the cooperation of some American divines". Strong became "a member of the Old Testament company of revisers" (New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, Vol. XI, p. 115).

Strong was hand-selected by Phillip Schaff, new age Parliament of World Religions participant. Schaff was probably the most "esteemed" scholar of the 19th century. He was a prolific writer and a key element in the production of the ASV. Needless to say, Schaff was also an avowed liberal.

Philip Schaff denied the inspiration of the Bible and only chose committeemen who agreed that the Bible had never been inspired; he called 'inspiration,' "the moonshine theory of the inerrant apostolic autographs". Not only did they deny that God gave the Bible to man, but they denied that what they termed 'men's words' were preserved. Their ASV Preface jabbed that, "The Hebrew text is probably corrupt..."

Strong’s Concordance is not a translation of the Bible nor is it intended as a translation tool. The use of Strong’s numbers is not a substitute for professional translation of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into English by those with formal training in ancient languages and the literature of the cultures in which the Bible was written.
Since Strong’s Concordance identifies the original words in Hebrew and Greek, Strong’s Numbers are sometimes misinterpreted by those without adequate training to change the Bible from its accurate meaning simply by taking the words out of cultural context.
The use of Strong’s numbers does not consider figures of speech, metaphors, idioms, common phrases, cultural references, references to historical events, or alternate meanings used by those of the time period to express their thoughts in their own language at the time. As such, professionals and amateurs alike must consult a number of contextual tools to reconstruct these cultural backgrounds.

Whew! Many a Hebrew Roots group hold Strong's Concordance along with a Hebrew Greek Interlinear up high right next to their copy of the Tanakh and will do a hour long study on one word accordingly. What a distraction from the true word of Yahweh.