I just found this new excerpt (more lying rubbish) by Riplinger, from her site. It appears she is still trying to get her new book published (it was originally
due out this past April), which lies about the majority of Bible lexicons, and this appears to be a kind of infomercial:
Strong Delusion
by: Gail Riplinger
Preview of "Greek and Hebrew Study Dangers: The Voice of Strangers" to be release Lord willing summer 2007. [I believe she meant to type 2008]
Q Are there any Bible Dictionaries that use only the King James Version for references? What about the definitions in the back of Strong's Concordance?
A It seems that today Bible Dictionaries are in total apostasy. Chapter two of my book, New Age Bible Versions, has a special section and a large chart showing the apostasy that is evident in Bible Dictionaries today. Almost all dictionaries today deny that Lucifer exists.
God has not left us without a dictionary; I believe that the Bible has a self-contained dictionary. If someone has a King James Bible and a Concordance, they have everything they need. Look up the word in question and check all of the other verses where it is used. Within the context of one of the verses listed, God will define the word. The poor people of the world, throughout the history of time, have not had the luxury we Americans have of so many references. Therefore God put everything we need within one book. Two of my other books, In Awe of Thy Word and The Language of the King James Bible explain in detail how to find the Bible's own definition of words.
First Corinthians 2:13 says, "not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth" (so out go the dictionaries, commentaries, and lexicons) "but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." Psalm 119:104 says, "Through thy precepts I get understanding." We know that "every word of God is pure" (Prov. 30:5), but we do not know if "every word" in Bible dictionaries is "pure," so we are much safer to stay within the bounds of the word of God.
Strong Delusion
James Strong, author of Strong's Concordance, has been elevated to the position of fourth member of the Trinity by many. His corrupt Greek and Hebrew definitions pepper today's preaching, as if his Concordance was the final and 67th book of the Bible. His liberal definitions are used as quick and weak patches to fill a void in sermons. The space would be better filled by a laborious looking up of all the Bible's usages of a word.
James Strong on the corrupt Revised Version (Westcott and Hort) and the American Standard Version (ASV) Committees.
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" (Matthew Brown Riddle, The Story of the Revised New Testament American Standard Edition (Philadelphia: The Sunday School Times, 1908, p. 11). 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.
"The Rev. Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Sacred Literature in The Union Theological Seminary, New York, by invitation of the English New Testament Company "prepared a draft of rules for cooperation, and a list of names of biblical scholars who should probably best represent the different denominations and literary institutions in this movement. The suggestions were submitted to the British Committee and substantially approved" (Introduction by Dr. Schaff to The Revision of the English Version of the New Testament, 1872).
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" (See New Age Bible Versions for more details, p. 458; David Schaff, The Life of Phillip Schaff, NY: Scribner's Sons, 1897, pp. 439, 351, 357, 434-435). 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..." (p. vii).
Strong "was able to sympathize with the modern movement." An article expressing Strong's desire to draw young men into a "Seminary" where they could learn such things "provoked both criticism and opposition." One wise soul wrote "in reply to Doctor Strong's proposition," that "there should be one professor at least with the title 'P.P.R.,' that is, 'Professor of Plenty of Religion'" (Charles Sitterly, The Building of Drew University, NY: The Methodist Book Concern, 1938, pp. 82, 255, 41).
Strong and the American Committee worked with Westcott and Hort on the Revised Version "and the results of the deliberations were exchanged across the sea" (Schaff-Herzog, s.v. Bible Versions, vol. II, p. 139). I have a Revised Version 1881, entitled "The Parallel Bible. The Holy Bible…being the King James Version Arranged in Parallel Columns with the Revised Version, published by H. Hallett & Co., Portland, Maine. It lists both the British and the American committee members, with Strong on the same page as members of the British revision committees (see New Testament prefatory pages, no page numbers).
The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica tells the whole story.
"Negotiations were opened with the leading scholars of the Protestant denominations in America, with the result that similar companies were formed in the United States. The work of the English revisers was regularly submitted to their consideration; their comments were carefully considered and largely adopted, and their divergences from the version ultimately agreed upon were printed in an appendix to the published work. Thus the Revised Version was the achievement of English speaking Christendom as a whole... The revisers first task was to reconstruct the Greek text… the revisers were privately supplied with installments of Westcott and Hort's text... " (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911, vol. 3, p. 903). Strong Contentions Brings the ASV
The fighting and legal battles between the British and American participants in the RV are revealed in New Age Bible Versions and The Life of Philip Schaff. Westcott and Hort changed 9,970 words from the traditional Greek New Testament alone. But the Americans wanted to make more changes by watering down and secularizing the vocabulary. Strong and the Americans finally published their corrupt ideas in a revised Revised Version, called the American Standard Version. It was the backbone of the current New American Standard Version.
"When the English Company had completed the first revision of a portion of the Bible, it was sent to the American Company for consideration and advice... [T]he English companies were not able to concur in all of the preferences expressed by the American companies and so when the English Revised Bible was published it included by agreement a statement of all of the non-concurred-in American preferences, in consideration of which the American companies bound themselves not to print or encourage the issue of any other revised bible until after the expiration of fourteen years from the date of the publication of the English Revised Bible" (Frank J. Firth, The Holy Gospels: A Comparison of the Gospel Text as It Is Given in the Protestant and Roman Catholic Bible Versions in the English Language in Use in America, , New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1911, p. 9).
"The revised New Testament [RV] was published in England May 17, 1881... America had a peculiar reason for complaint, seeing that many an expression which American scholars had preferred was to be found only in the appendix, and they were bound not to issue a new edition within fourteen years. That time was up in 1896, and the American edition [ASV]... appeared in New York in 1901" (Schaff-Herzog, s.v. Bible Versions, vol. II, p. 139). Even the original preface to the NASV, which was taken from the ASV, said of the ASV/RV connection, "The British and American [RV] organizations were governed by rules... The American Standard Version, itself a revision of the 1881-1885 edition, is a product of international collaboration..."
One lexicon editor admitted, "The AV, has maintained its hold on the English Protestant world until the present time. The RV, of 1885, prepared by a joint British and American Committee, under the authority of the convocation of Canterbury, has thus far been unable to replace it" (Charles Briggs, The International Critical Commentary, The Book of Psalms, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, pp. cix, cx). "The work of the revisers has been sharply criticized from the standpoint of specialists in New Testament Greek," notes the Encyclopedia Britannica" (s.v. Bible, English, p. 904, vol. 3).
Strong Heresy in the ASV
God will not promote a bible that teaches heresy. The RV/ASV Committee included several Unitarians (those who deny the Trinity and other central doctrines). One such man was American Bible critic, J. Henry Thayer, author of Thayer's Lexicon (see upcoming section). Therefore it is no surprise that the ASV marginal note for Matt. 2:2 ("worship him") states that Jesus Christ is just a man, a "creature," and not God, the "Creator." The ASVs note for John 9:38 repeats that Jesus is a "creature" not the "Creator" (in reference to the words, "And he worshipped him"). The notes say, "The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature (as here) or to the Creator ..." However, the ASV has a similar note in Luke 4:7 referring to the worship that the devil asks for ("If thou wilt therefore worship before me..." ASV). Here the note omits the parenthetical (as here). Therefore, the ASV specifies that Jesus is, in their opinion, a "creature," not the Creator. But it does not specify that the devil is a "creature" and not the "Creator"! Again, in Matt. 4:9, the ASV leaves the choice to the reader whether the devil is a creature or the Creator. The ASV states emphatically that Jesus is a "creature."
Strong's Definitions
The definitions in the Greek and Hebrew Lexicon in the back of Strong's Concordance are often not literal renderings of the Greek or Hebrew word. For example, the Greek word deisidaimonia, used in Acts 17:22, is made up of two words, 'fear' and 'devil' (daimon). The King James correctly interprets 'fearing devils' as being "too superstitious." Propelled by views that 'other' religions are to be respected, the Strong's Concordance and his ASV pretend the word is "very religious." Both the ASV and Strong's Concordance turn a stern warning into a high compliment.
When reading the so-called definitions in Strong's Concordance (in the Greek and Hebrew Lexicons in the back), one is really often just reading Strong's corrupt American Standard Version (and sometimes also his 1881 Revised Version), which is now seen often in versions such as the NIV, NASB, NKJV, ESV, HCSB, NAB, NJB etc. Note the following examples:
King James Bible
Strong's Corrupt Lexicon Definition Strong's American Standard Version 1901
Godhead
divinity
divinity
one is your Master, even Christ
teacher
one is your teacher
charit
love
love
follow
imitate
imitate
temperance
self-control
self-control
too superstitious
very religious
very religious
heresy
party
party
curious
magical
magical
bottomless pit
abyss
abyss
hell
Hades 1.
Hades
devils
demonic being 1., deity
demons
Lucifer
morning-star
day-star
1. If Strong wants a translation that needs translated (i.e. using a transliteration of the Gr. or Heb. word, why don't they leave the KJV's words heresies (hairesis), heretic, (hairetikos) or martyr, (martur). Strong's ASV omits "fearful" words and "excessive conservatism," such as the words 'heresies,' 'martyr,' 'hell,' and 'devils' (Alexander Roberts D.D., Companion to the Revised Version of the English New Testament with Explanations of the Appendix by a Member of the American Committee, NY: Cassell, Petter, Galpin & Co. 1881, p. 204; Preface, ASV, p. iv).
Piles of other such non-iteral or secularized definitions can be found by those who aren't just playing Greek-speak. Strong admits in his "Directions and Explanations," on the second page of his Concordance, that "a double obelisk marks a change by the American revisers only (American Standard Version 1901)"; these obelisks, showing ASV changes to the Bible, lead the way to finding where Strong's Concordance definitions match his ASV. With an ASV in hand the facts become all too clear. Well-meaning pastors and Bible students are unknowingly quoting from the depraved ASV or RV, when they think they are 'defining' a word using Strong's. Strong's system of asterisks and single obelisks will also lead to many matching Westcott and Hort Revised Version word choices.
"An asterisk calls attention to the fact that in the text quoted the leading word is changed in the Revised Versions; while an obelisk shows that a change has been make by the British Revisers only (English Revised Versions 1881-85)" (James Strong, Strong's Concordance, Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Bible Publishers, no page numbers (see second page). His definitions are not the only snares set to pull Bible students away from their King James Bibles and toward his revised versions. His "Greek" text is not in all points the "Original Greek" to which the King James translators had reference (see KJV title page). For example, in Acts 19:20 Strong pretends the Greek word is kurios (Lord), the reading in the RV. In fact, the KJV's "Original Greek" word was theos, 'God,' as seen in Greek manuscripts from as early as the 5th and 6th centuries (i.e. D and E). These represent a much older text. The word "God" dominates the most ancient versions and vernacular editions, such as the Syriac, syrp (fifth century), the Armenian Bible, written in the 300s by Chrysostom, and the Old Itala, itd, itw (MS dated in the fourth century and representing the original Old Latin reading). Beza's Codex Cantabrigiensis uses "God" in both its Greek and Latin text (Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis, ed. Frederick H. Scrivener, Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co., 1864).
Strong's delusion continues on page after page of the ASV and Strong's Greek and Hebrew lexicon. And sadly, his definitions fall on ears within church walls and echo into fellowship halls.
The following chart shows just a few of the places where James Strong and fellow ASV member and Unitarian friend, J. Henry Thayer, denied the deity of Jesus Christ...
To read the rest of the article and see the page after page of charts about James Strong's corruptions go to
http://www.avpublications.com
and click on
RESOURCES
and see
Frequently Asked Questions #15
A book by Gail Riplinger, detailing the errors and heresies in all Greek and Hebrew Lexicons, is in production. There are no lexicons that are not corrupt.
Bible words can be defined using the Bible's built-in dictionary. See In Awe of Thy Word and The Language of the King James Bible for details. Begin by looking for all of the usages of a word in the Bible. This can be done using a concordance.
AV Publications offers The New Strong's Compact Bible Concordance for $8.95. It does not contain the corrupt Greek and Hebrew Lexicon. [A la Riplinger edition]
I especially like the statement: "There are no lexicons that are not corrupt." To that, I say, there are no Gail Riplinger books or materials that are not corrupt. And, of course, to understand that built-in dictionary, one must purchase Gail Riplinger's books. How convenient. Why can't more people see through this??
Strong Delusion
by: Gail Riplinger
Preview of "Greek and Hebrew Study Dangers: The Voice of Strangers" to be release Lord willing summer 2007. [I believe she meant to type 2008]
Q Are there any Bible Dictionaries that use only the King James Version for references? What about the definitions in the back of Strong's Concordance?
A It seems that today Bible Dictionaries are in total apostasy. Chapter two of my book, New Age Bible Versions, has a special section and a large chart showing the apostasy that is evident in Bible Dictionaries today. Almost all dictionaries today deny that Lucifer exists.
God has not left us without a dictionary; I believe that the Bible has a self-contained dictionary. If someone has a King James Bible and a Concordance, they have everything they need. Look up the word in question and check all of the other verses where it is used. Within the context of one of the verses listed, God will define the word. The poor people of the world, throughout the history of time, have not had the luxury we Americans have of so many references. Therefore God put everything we need within one book. Two of my other books, In Awe of Thy Word and The Language of the King James Bible explain in detail how to find the Bible's own definition of words.
First Corinthians 2:13 says, "not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth" (so out go the dictionaries, commentaries, and lexicons) "but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." Psalm 119:104 says, "Through thy precepts I get understanding." We know that "every word of God is pure" (Prov. 30:5), but we do not know if "every word" in Bible dictionaries is "pure," so we are much safer to stay within the bounds of the word of God.
Strong Delusion
James Strong, author of Strong's Concordance, has been elevated to the position of fourth member of the Trinity by many. His corrupt Greek and Hebrew definitions pepper today's preaching, as if his Concordance was the final and 67th book of the Bible. His liberal definitions are used as quick and weak patches to fill a void in sermons. The space would be better filled by a laborious looking up of all the Bible's usages of a word.
James Strong on the corrupt Revised Version (Westcott and Hort) and the American Standard Version (ASV) Committees.
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" (Matthew Brown Riddle, The Story of the Revised New Testament American Standard Edition (Philadelphia: The Sunday School Times, 1908, p. 11). 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.
"The Rev. Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Sacred Literature in The Union Theological Seminary, New York, by invitation of the English New Testament Company "prepared a draft of rules for cooperation, and a list of names of biblical scholars who should probably best represent the different denominations and literary institutions in this movement. The suggestions were submitted to the British Committee and substantially approved" (Introduction by Dr. Schaff to The Revision of the English Version of the New Testament, 1872).
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" (See New Age Bible Versions for more details, p. 458; David Schaff, The Life of Phillip Schaff, NY: Scribner's Sons, 1897, pp. 439, 351, 357, 434-435). 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..." (p. vii).
Strong "was able to sympathize with the modern movement." An article expressing Strong's desire to draw young men into a "Seminary" where they could learn such things "provoked both criticism and opposition." One wise soul wrote "in reply to Doctor Strong's proposition," that "there should be one professor at least with the title 'P.P.R.,' that is, 'Professor of Plenty of Religion'" (Charles Sitterly, The Building of Drew University, NY: The Methodist Book Concern, 1938, pp. 82, 255, 41).
Strong and the American Committee worked with Westcott and Hort on the Revised Version "and the results of the deliberations were exchanged across the sea" (Schaff-Herzog, s.v. Bible Versions, vol. II, p. 139). I have a Revised Version 1881, entitled "The Parallel Bible. The Holy Bible…being the King James Version Arranged in Parallel Columns with the Revised Version, published by H. Hallett & Co., Portland, Maine. It lists both the British and the American committee members, with Strong on the same page as members of the British revision committees (see New Testament prefatory pages, no page numbers).
The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica tells the whole story.
"Negotiations were opened with the leading scholars of the Protestant denominations in America, with the result that similar companies were formed in the United States. The work of the English revisers was regularly submitted to their consideration; their comments were carefully considered and largely adopted, and their divergences from the version ultimately agreed upon were printed in an appendix to the published work. Thus the Revised Version was the achievement of English speaking Christendom as a whole... The revisers first task was to reconstruct the Greek text… the revisers were privately supplied with installments of Westcott and Hort's text... " (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911, vol. 3, p. 903). Strong Contentions Brings the ASV
The fighting and legal battles between the British and American participants in the RV are revealed in New Age Bible Versions and The Life of Philip Schaff. Westcott and Hort changed 9,970 words from the traditional Greek New Testament alone. But the Americans wanted to make more changes by watering down and secularizing the vocabulary. Strong and the Americans finally published their corrupt ideas in a revised Revised Version, called the American Standard Version. It was the backbone of the current New American Standard Version.
"When the English Company had completed the first revision of a portion of the Bible, it was sent to the American Company for consideration and advice... [T]he English companies were not able to concur in all of the preferences expressed by the American companies and so when the English Revised Bible was published it included by agreement a statement of all of the non-concurred-in American preferences, in consideration of which the American companies bound themselves not to print or encourage the issue of any other revised bible until after the expiration of fourteen years from the date of the publication of the English Revised Bible" (Frank J. Firth, The Holy Gospels: A Comparison of the Gospel Text as It Is Given in the Protestant and Roman Catholic Bible Versions in the English Language in Use in America, , New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1911, p. 9).
"The revised New Testament [RV] was published in England May 17, 1881... America had a peculiar reason for complaint, seeing that many an expression which American scholars had preferred was to be found only in the appendix, and they were bound not to issue a new edition within fourteen years. That time was up in 1896, and the American edition [ASV]... appeared in New York in 1901" (Schaff-Herzog, s.v. Bible Versions, vol. II, p. 139). Even the original preface to the NASV, which was taken from the ASV, said of the ASV/RV connection, "The British and American [RV] organizations were governed by rules... The American Standard Version, itself a revision of the 1881-1885 edition, is a product of international collaboration..."
One lexicon editor admitted, "The AV, has maintained its hold on the English Protestant world until the present time. The RV, of 1885, prepared by a joint British and American Committee, under the authority of the convocation of Canterbury, has thus far been unable to replace it" (Charles Briggs, The International Critical Commentary, The Book of Psalms, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, pp. cix, cx). "The work of the revisers has been sharply criticized from the standpoint of specialists in New Testament Greek," notes the Encyclopedia Britannica" (s.v. Bible, English, p. 904, vol. 3).
Strong Heresy in the ASV
God will not promote a bible that teaches heresy. The RV/ASV Committee included several Unitarians (those who deny the Trinity and other central doctrines). One such man was American Bible critic, J. Henry Thayer, author of Thayer's Lexicon (see upcoming section). Therefore it is no surprise that the ASV marginal note for Matt. 2:2 ("worship him") states that Jesus Christ is just a man, a "creature," and not God, the "Creator." The ASVs note for John 9:38 repeats that Jesus is a "creature" not the "Creator" (in reference to the words, "And he worshipped him"). The notes say, "The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature (as here) or to the Creator ..." However, the ASV has a similar note in Luke 4:7 referring to the worship that the devil asks for ("If thou wilt therefore worship before me..." ASV). Here the note omits the parenthetical (as here). Therefore, the ASV specifies that Jesus is, in their opinion, a "creature," not the Creator. But it does not specify that the devil is a "creature" and not the "Creator"! Again, in Matt. 4:9, the ASV leaves the choice to the reader whether the devil is a creature or the Creator. The ASV states emphatically that Jesus is a "creature."
Strong's Definitions
The definitions in the Greek and Hebrew Lexicon in the back of Strong's Concordance are often not literal renderings of the Greek or Hebrew word. For example, the Greek word deisidaimonia, used in Acts 17:22, is made up of two words, 'fear' and 'devil' (daimon). The King James correctly interprets 'fearing devils' as being "too superstitious." Propelled by views that 'other' religions are to be respected, the Strong's Concordance and his ASV pretend the word is "very religious." Both the ASV and Strong's Concordance turn a stern warning into a high compliment.
When reading the so-called definitions in Strong's Concordance (in the Greek and Hebrew Lexicons in the back), one is really often just reading Strong's corrupt American Standard Version (and sometimes also his 1881 Revised Version), which is now seen often in versions such as the NIV, NASB, NKJV, ESV, HCSB, NAB, NJB etc. Note the following examples:
King James Bible
Strong's Corrupt Lexicon Definition Strong's American Standard Version 1901
Godhead
divinity
divinity
one is your Master, even Christ
teacher
one is your teacher
charit
love
love
follow
imitate
imitate
temperance
self-control
self-control
too superstitious
very religious
very religious
heresy
party
party
curious
magical
magical
bottomless pit
abyss
abyss
hell
Hades 1.
Hades
devils
demonic being 1., deity
demons
Lucifer
morning-star
day-star
1. If Strong wants a translation that needs translated (i.e. using a transliteration of the Gr. or Heb. word, why don't they leave the KJV's words heresies (hairesis), heretic, (hairetikos) or martyr, (martur). Strong's ASV omits "fearful" words and "excessive conservatism," such as the words 'heresies,' 'martyr,' 'hell,' and 'devils' (Alexander Roberts D.D., Companion to the Revised Version of the English New Testament with Explanations of the Appendix by a Member of the American Committee, NY: Cassell, Petter, Galpin & Co. 1881, p. 204; Preface, ASV, p. iv).
Piles of other such non-iteral or secularized definitions can be found by those who aren't just playing Greek-speak. Strong admits in his "Directions and Explanations," on the second page of his Concordance, that "a double obelisk marks a change by the American revisers only (American Standard Version 1901)"; these obelisks, showing ASV changes to the Bible, lead the way to finding where Strong's Concordance definitions match his ASV. With an ASV in hand the facts become all too clear. Well-meaning pastors and Bible students are unknowingly quoting from the depraved ASV or RV, when they think they are 'defining' a word using Strong's. Strong's system of asterisks and single obelisks will also lead to many matching Westcott and Hort Revised Version word choices.
"An asterisk calls attention to the fact that in the text quoted the leading word is changed in the Revised Versions; while an obelisk shows that a change has been make by the British Revisers only (English Revised Versions 1881-85)" (James Strong, Strong's Concordance, Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Bible Publishers, no page numbers (see second page). His definitions are not the only snares set to pull Bible students away from their King James Bibles and toward his revised versions. His "Greek" text is not in all points the "Original Greek" to which the King James translators had reference (see KJV title page). For example, in Acts 19:20 Strong pretends the Greek word is kurios (Lord), the reading in the RV. In fact, the KJV's "Original Greek" word was theos, 'God,' as seen in Greek manuscripts from as early as the 5th and 6th centuries (i.e. D and E). These represent a much older text. The word "God" dominates the most ancient versions and vernacular editions, such as the Syriac, syrp (fifth century), the Armenian Bible, written in the 300s by Chrysostom, and the Old Itala, itd, itw (MS dated in the fourth century and representing the original Old Latin reading). Beza's Codex Cantabrigiensis uses "God" in both its Greek and Latin text (Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis, ed. Frederick H. Scrivener, Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co., 1864).
Strong's delusion continues on page after page of the ASV and Strong's Greek and Hebrew lexicon. And sadly, his definitions fall on ears within church walls and echo into fellowship halls.
The following chart shows just a few of the places where James Strong and fellow ASV member and Unitarian friend, J. Henry Thayer, denied the deity of Jesus Christ...
To read the rest of the article and see the page after page of charts about James Strong's corruptions go to
http://www.avpublications.com
and click on
RESOURCES
and see
Frequently Asked Questions #15
A book by Gail Riplinger, detailing the errors and heresies in all Greek and Hebrew Lexicons, is in production. There are no lexicons that are not corrupt.
Bible words can be defined using the Bible's built-in dictionary. See In Awe of Thy Word and The Language of the King James Bible for details. Begin by looking for all of the usages of a word in the Bible. This can be done using a concordance.
AV Publications offers The New Strong's Compact Bible Concordance for $8.95. It does not contain the corrupt Greek and Hebrew Lexicon. [A la Riplinger edition]
I especially like the statement: "There are no lexicons that are not corrupt." To that, I say, there are no Gail Riplinger books or materials that are not corrupt. And, of course, to understand that built-in dictionary, one must purchase Gail Riplinger's books. How convenient. Why can't more people see through this??
