"They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak. The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:"
Psalm 12:2-3
Dangers of Using Lexicons and Concordances
Christopher J. E. Johnson
Published: Aug 4, 2015
Updated: Jan 1, 2016

I am certain this title will confuse and upset a number of people before they even begin to read this article. I know for a fact that many of our listeners still use lexicons and concordances in their daily studies, or at least when they run into difficult passages in the Bible and don't know where to turn. I am going to do my best to explain this issue as simplistically as possible, so the average reader can understand the corruption behind the modern-day method of "studying" the Word of God, and why so many Christians are unknowingly being taught to walk away from the foundation of the Bible, and move toward Satan's new-age deception, being taught to look for the Devil's interpretation of Scripture.

Though most of the public is unaware, many prominent scholars of Greek lexicons have made alarming statements. John Chadwick of the University of Cambridge, leading expert on lexicon source definitions, said:
"The essential precept to bear constantly in mind is the need for exercising sober judgment, and adopting a skeptical attitude towards every assertion which cannot be proved by satisfactory evidence. This is true of all forms of scholarship, but it is never more necessary than in the practice of Greek lexicography."
-John Chadwick, Lexicographica Graeca: Contributions to the Lexicography of Ancient Greek, Clarendon Press, 1996, p. 29-30, ISBN: 9780198149705

William Johnson, one of the main contributors to the digital lexical library Thesaurus Linguae Graecae [stephanus.tlg.uci.edu], described Greek lexicographers and their work:
"But then one turns to Greek. We have not walked into a slum exactly, but the buildings are more closely spaced, the porch banisters often rickety, the lawns not so well kept. Approaching the dictionary, a Hellenist [student of Greek culture] must remain cautious and light on the feet. Often enough, none of the translation equivalents is exact for a given context; sometimes the definition is simply wrong; glosses [i.e. personal interpretations without evidence] are rather frequently wrong; information on syntax, typical expressions, orthographica, or dialectical forms is hit-or-miss; and the overview one gets of the word can be fundamentally flawed, since, lexicographical practice aside, the passages considered by the lexicographer were too few and too skewed."
-William A. Johnson, Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2004, p. 77, ISBN: 9780802822161

In case you may not have understood, he just said that Greek-English lexicons are full of errors on every level you can think of, no one is monitoring them, and the authors are free to say and write whatever they please whether it's true or not (and often is not). The Bible warns us very clearly not be spoiled by their deceit:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
-Colossians 2:8

rudiment (n): a first principle or element; that which is to be first learnt (See 'rudiment', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved July 25, 2015 [webstersdictionary1828.com])

You'll find that I will be referring to Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary for a few definitions, and I will explain later why I'm doing that. For now, understand that 'rudiment' means the first teachings of the world, your first education, and thus warns us that Christians will be spoiled and deceived by it.

Note to Those Who Are Not Familiar With the King James Bible

If you are not familiar with the controversy of using new-age bible versions, I would highly recommend putting this article down and clicking this link:
"Why I Use The King James Bible"
This article will help Christians understand that the Word of God is pure and preserved, but there are many counterfeits out there that the Devil attempts to use to confuse the born-again Body of Christ, and further lead astray false converts. There will be subjects I will refer to that will not be fully explained because I am writing this under the assumption that the reader has knowledge of the issues we have already covered in the past.

If it helps, there is a link at the top of the King James Bible article that will allow you to listen to our [free] audio teaching that will walk you through step-by-step to learn the basics. If you have a good understanding of the new-age version controversy, and understand the necessity of the perfection of the Word of God (as we have in English with the King James Bible) then please continue reading.

A.T. Robertson, author of Grammar of the Greek New Testament, declares very directly what his lexicon is based on:
"I should say that the text of Westcott and Hort is followed in all essentials... I think with pleasure of the preacher or teacher who, under the inspiration of this Grammar, may turn afresh to his Greek New Testament and there find things new and old, the vital message all electric with power for the new age."
-A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Hodder & Stoughton, George H. Doran, 1934, p. 12 [Original at Indiana University]

First and most obvious, this author is much more direct in telling us that most lexicons and concordances are based on the works of Westcott and Hort in their Catholic-approved New Testament in the Original Greek based on the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts held in high esteem by the Catholic Church. So not only are the new-age bible versions created from the corrupt works of two unbelieving, non-Christian scholars, but it is also the source of many of today's lexicons and concordances.
(Read "Why I Use The King James Bible - History of Bible Versions" here at creationliberty.com for more details on Westcott and Hort's rejection of Christian doctrine.)

The reason a Christian throws out new-age versions and picks up the King James Bible, should be the same reason a Christian throws out lexicons and concordances.

Next, notice the author had said that those preachers and teachers ought to be "under the inspiration of this Grammar," rather than under the inspiration of the Word of God. (That's partially because they don't believe in the inspiration of God's Word, but we'll get to that later.) This is precisely the attitude of the new-age church buildings all over America today, looking to scholarship in the minds of men for their foundation in all matters of faith and practice, rather than looking to the Word of God. Obviously, I won't be able to go through and give examples for every single lexicon and concordance ever printed, because there are far too many to name (e.g. Strong, Thayer, Vine, Wuest, Vincent, etc.), but my purpose is to show you the foundational philosophy behind these lexicons, and as you can already begin to see, they are corrupt the core and do not stand on the foundation of God's Word.

After my wife's grandmother died, her family gave me her grandfather's 1889 edition of Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. In Thayer's preface, he concurs with Robertson's above quote:
"In the present work... the readings (whether in the text or the margin) of the editions of Tregelles and of Westcott and Hort have also been carefully noted."
-J.H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Preface, Harper & Brothers, 1889, p. vii; Harper & Brothers was later named HarperCollins, which today publishes many new-age "Christian" works, right alongside the Satanic Bible; See HarperCollins Publishers, retrieved July 22, 2015 [harpercollins.com/9780380015399/satanic-bible]

Thayer is including commentary in his lexicon from men who did not believe in the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, and this is a very common practice in lexicons. So when you go to Thayer as a source, you're reading from the very material by which almost all the new-age bible versions are founded.

Thayer continues:
"The nature and use of the New Testament writings require that the lexicographer [i.e. author/translator] should not be hampered [held back] by a too rigid adherence to the rules of scientific lexicography."
-J.H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Preface, Harper & Brothers, 1889, p. vii

Thayer's statement is incredibly important to understand because lexicography, which is writing/editing of dictionaries, has always been considered by new-age scholarship (and by many throughout history) to be an "art form," not a science that has to abide by a set of rules. Frederick Danker, who published two major Greek lexicons in his lifetime, said:
"Of immediate concern is the circumstance that one may through such typography succeed in merely suggesting to polytheists that 'our God is better than your god,' while avoiding the basic semantic assignment, that lexicography is more of an art than a craft trotting out traditional glosses."
-Frederick W. Danker & Bernard A. Taylor, Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2004, p. 25, ISBN: 9780802822161

When they say "gloss" in this context, they mean interpretations that sound good on the outside, but they really have no merit, being based on the personal opinions of the author, so in a nutshell, this author is saying that many people have the impression of a set of rules and guidelines every author/translator has to follow, but that's not true. The "craft trotting out tradition glosses" is what the average Chrisitian believes, so they often turn to lexicons, but in reality, lexicography is an art form, no different than an artist creating a sculpture, or in this instance, it might be more appropriate to say, it's no different than a pagan creating an idol.

According to most sources, literature is an art form, or art "worthy of being remembered," as stated by dictionary.com. Britannica Encyclopaedia says:
"The art of literature is not reducible to the words on the page; they are there solely because of the craft of writing. As an art, literature might be described as the organization of words to give pleasure... Literature also functions more broadly in society as a means of both criticizing and affirming cultural values."
-Kenneth Rexroth, "Literature," Encyclopaedia Britannica, retrieved July 22, 2015, [britannica.com/art/literature]

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers... Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
-2 Timothy 3:1-5

As an author, I now understand that the rules of grammar and definitions can be bent and sometimes broken depending on what you're doing. In a typical American education in the public school system, students are taught a strict set of rules, which are great to follow while learning, but students are rarely, if ever, taught that once they've learned those rules, there is liberty to venture outside of them. (Some authors even leave their literary "fingerprint" on their works, which is how some experts can recognize their writing.)

Sometimes, the most celebrated literature in American schools is written by those who did not necessarily stick to the rules, or created their own rules. It is precisely for these reasons that the Bible is being put into "literature" courses in high school and college classrooms as "classic mythology," which allows it to be studied as an "art form" rather than truth, and this is also the reason why the previously quoted authors confess their lexicons are "art," not science.

Danker (quoted above) has no reservations in referring to the Bible as just artistic literature that has "enriched humanity," and has compared the Word of God to pagan works of fiction. He certainly claims to be a "Christian," but does not treat the Bible as the Salvation of mankind:
"[We] were aware that obsolescence [obsolete] is the immediate destiny of anything outside the Iliad or the Bible and related works that have enriched humanity. Gingrich opted to translate all of Bauer's additions, and I volunteered to update the secondary literature, recheck numerous references, modify renderings as needed, and include more parallels to ancient literature. [e.g. pagan philosophers, Alexandrian manuscripts, etc.]"
-Frederick W. Danker & Bernard A. Taylor, Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2004, p. 7, ISBN: 9780802822161

When he uses the word "renderings" in this context, he means he's changing translations. He's also adding in writings and definitions that come out of the pagan corrupt minority manuscripts.

For there shall be no reward to the evil man; the candle of the wicked shall be put out. My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change:
-Proverbs 24:20-21

This all leads us to a VERY important question: How are words defined? Who makes these rules we all need to abide by? Or are there no set standards?

Before we can answer how words are defined, we need to determine where language comes from, and THAT is the underlying problem behind this whole mess of confusion. There are two basic types of thinking:
  1. Men have developed all language through an evolutionary means.
  2. The Lord God created all languages, and men have altered them.
When I talk of people turning to their first education (rudiments of the world), I want readers to understand my full meaning. Lexicographers have an evolutionary philosophical mindset when developing their books, in a constant system of change that never ends, just as Evolutionism teaches in biology:
"Changes in language are such that bilingual dictionaries [i.e. Greek-English lexicons] cannot lay claim to permanence. Their very genre is subject to an exorable evolutionary process. Changing patterns in receptor languages, as well as the appearance of new data, require constant revision of dictionaries or lexicons devoted especially to biblical Hebrew and Greek."
-Frederick W. Danker & Bernard A. Taylor, Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2004, p. 1, ISBN: 9780802822161

Keep in mind, there are many people out there who CLAIM they believe God created languages, but they live by a philosophy that men have developed all language. Or, in other words, with their tongue they speak of God, but with their actions they turn to paganism and other worldly philosophies like Evolutionism.

For there is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is very wickedness; their throat is an open sepulchre; they flatter with their tongue.
-Psalm 5:9

They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
-Psalm 12:2

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
-Matthew 15:8-9

I will repeat this verse again, because it's important:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
-Colossians 2:8

Again, 'rudiment' means first teachings or that which is first learned, and 'philosophy' means a mode or way of thinking. We Christians can become spoiled and vain by adhering to a way of thinking through our first worldly education that will separate us from the authority of the Lord God in His Word.

Today, we have countless people running around calling themselves Christians who claim a philosophical thinking of the Christian God of the Bible, but in reality, when they study or teach, they go to the rudiments of their first education for their thought processes, which in America means the worldly knowledge they received from the public education system. That public education system believes and teaches as the atheistic and evolutionary worldview, that man evolved all language from grunts and groans, and that the Bible is just some fun pastime of literature not to be taken seriously.

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
-Matthew 24:35

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
-Psalm 12:6

Again, self-proclaimed Christians often claim they believe in the pure words of the Lord God, but most of them don't live that way because we must consider that He is the one who has defined words from the beginning. When it comes to defining words in the Bible, either we turn to the Lord God for His context to define those words, or we turn to the world and their corrupt personal analysis.

The first time the Bible records that Adam spoke was in naming the animals. We have no idea what language this was because the original language was lost after the Tower of Babel, (Gen 11:9) but obviously, Adam knew words and their meaning from the first day he could speak because God pre-programmed him to have communication. This means God has created words for speech, and defined those words from the very beginning.

Today, dictionaries are designed around majority opinion in most respects. For example, dictionaries 100 years ago (or more) would define 'gay' as merry, but today, the first definition on most lists has to do with sexual desires, referring to sodomites (homosexuals). This also means that dictionaries change constantly, needing new updates to keep up with the sway of a culture. This constant need to update and change creates a contradiction because we have the promises of the Lord God that He would preserve His Word, and that His Word is eternal, but the world wants to keep changing it.

How Most Christians Are Deceived by Dictionaries

Please don't misunderstand; this does not mean we cannot use dictionaries to define words in our culture. Dictionaries do help us to have a standard language by which we can communicate on a daily basis, but dictionaries do NOT define context.

I'll give an example of what I mean with the following sentence:
"Then, my battery died."
There is a lot about this short sentence that we take for granted in our daily lives. Normally, we hear someone say this, and we go through a long process of elimination about interpretations and definitions that happens in such a split-second instance in our brains, we don't even realize we're doing it most of the time.

Let's take a look at a couple of definitions from a standard dictionary:

died (v): to cease to live
2. to cease to exist
3. to lose force, strength, or active qualities:
4. to cease to function; stop
5. to be no longer subject; become indifferent
6. to pass or fade gradually
7. to lose spiritual life
(See 'died', Random House Dictionary, 2015, [www.dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2009)

battery (n): 1. a galvanic battery, voltaic battery. a combination of two or more cells electrically connected to work together to produce electric energy
2. any large group or series of related things:
3. two or more pieces of artillery used for combined action
4. a group or series of similar articles, machines, parts, etc.
5. in baseball, the pitcher and catcher considered as a unit
6. on a naval warship, a group of guns having the same caliber or used for the same purpose
7. a series of tests yielding a single total score, used for measuring aptitude, intelligence, personality, etc.
(See 'battery', Random House Dictionary, 2015, [www.dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2009)

We have seven definitions of the noun in this sentence, and seven definitions for the verb, so how do we know which one conveys the meaning the author intended? Most Christians do not seem to understand that just knowing definitions is only HALF of the process of defining words, and in order to know which definitions to use, we need context.

So now let's read the context along with the above sentence:
"After the ball game, the team got food poisoning from the catered meal.
Then, my battery died."
In this context, it's talking about a baseball game, which means the noun "battery" is referring to the catcher and pitcher who were previously alive, which means the verb "died refers to two men who ceased to live. Now let's try a different context:
"After I got out of my car, I left the lights on.
Then, my battery died."
In this context, it's talking about a vehicle that has a battery with electric cells in it, and so the noun "battery" is referring to a car battery that does not have life, which means the verb "died" refers to losing function.

Can you see now how the context completely changes a word, and how we use that context to interpret definitions and meaning? We do this every day of our lives, but for some strange reason, Christians seem to abandon this simple method of interpretation when it comes to the Bible, and it's important to understand that concordances and lexicons do not include context for interpretation, and even if they include commentaries, they are based on manuscripts from corrupt pagan philosophers.

In our article "Is Repentance Part of Salvation?" we demonstrate how most ministries out there teach false doctrine on repentance because they don't understand its meaning, and the primary reason they have been so deceived is because they have turned to lexicons and concordances for meaning, rather than turning to the Word of God. So when I look up "repent" in Strong's Concordance (which is what most churches, ministries, and preachers do), it says:
"Short Definition: I change my mind
Definition: (lit: I change one care or interest for another), I change my mind (generally for the better), repent, regret."

(See 'metamelomai' or 'repent', Strong's Concordance, #3338, retrieved July 28, 2015, [biblehub.com/greek/3338.htm]

So most Christians, because they respect persons, take Strong's Concordance as a law and authority over the word "repent," and they falsely believe that repent always means "change of mind" despite the context. Though repent DOES mean "change of mind" in SOME contexts, it DOES NOT ALWAYS mean "change of mind."

Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
-2 Corinthians 7:9-10

Here, we have "repent" used in reference to "godly sorrow." Earlier in this article, I referred to Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary because he built that dictionary on the foundation of the context of the King James Bible (which is why you will see it referenced in so many of my articles), and even though Noah Webster is not 100% accurate (i.e. his dictionary is the not the final authority in all matters of faith and practice), it is extremely accurate on the list of definitions the King James Bible uses, and he even referred to Scripture where he pulled definitions from many areas; or in other words, he based his definitions on the preserved Word of God, not on Greek grammar dictionaries and pagan philosophers.

For example, this is Noah Webster's list of the definitions of "repent," and the Scripture references are original in his dictionary:

repent (v): 1. to feel pain, sorrow or regret for something done or spoken
2. to express sorrow for something past
3. to change the mind (Exd 13:17)
4. applied to the Supreme Being, to change the course of providential dealings (Gen 6:7, Psa 106:45)
5. in theology, to sorrow or be pained for sin, as a violation of God's holy law (Luke 13:3, Acts 3:19)
(See 'repent', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved July 27, 2015 [webstersdictionary1828.com])

This dictionary is defining words by the context of different sections of the KJB, not by pagan philosophers. Although standard dictionaries may define words based on the majority of a culture, or based on what a grammar dictonary told them, that is NOT how Christians should treat the Word of God, but they do it all the time, as we can see from the following leavened website:
"Repentance is defined in Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary as 'to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one’s life.' Repentance is a choice that believers make to regret the sins that we have made and to turn away from them."
-Derek Hill, "What Does The Bible Say About Repentance? A Christian Study," What Christians Want to Know, retrieved July 27, 2015, [whatchristianswanttoknow.com/what-does-the-bible-say-about-repentance-a-christian-study]

This man has used a majority opinion dictionary for the interpretation of the Word of God, rather than relying on the Lord God's interpretation. Matt Slick of CARM does the same thing in his leavened 501c3 organization:
"Repentance is properly understood to mean a change of mind... In the New Testament there is one main Greek word that is translated into the English 'repentance': metanoeo, and from that word we also get 'repentant' and 'repentance.' [His reference is to Strong's Concordance at the bottom.]"
-Matt Slick, "What is Repentance?" Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, retrieved July 27, 2015, [carm.org/what-is-repentance]

Here's one more:
"Many people when asked what it means to repent will tell you that it means to 'be sorry for your sins.' Even though this meaning may make sense to you... it is not the correct meaning of the word... I have included the associated Strong's Exhaustive Concordance cross-reference number so you can easily find them yourself."
-C.F. Castleberry, "Repent," Consider This: A Scriptural Challenge to All Christians, retrieved July 27, 2015, [considerthis.net/Files/Textfile/repent.htm]

There are thousands of such websites just on the topic of repentance, let alone the hundreds of other topics in which the Christians use a concordance or lexicon as their foundation. (I've received many such emails.) Sadly, when I point these things out, I typically get unpleasant responses and railing accusations.

This is repeated by countless websites, church buildings, and preachers around the world because they have turned to their first education as a foundation, rather than the Word of God. The average American finds this kind of "the-Greek-says" teaching to be impressive to the point they heavily respect their person, and those who do these teachings know they get that respect, and that they receive a following that will bring them profit.
(Read "How to Play the Greek Game" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

The Word of God in Scripture is not some draft that our Lord Jesus Christ threw together in an afterthought. His Word is eternal, and that makes it serious business, which also means that the definitions of words should be based on precision, not some new-age scholar's "literature/art form."

As we grow up, we learn the basics of language; how to speak, (and with proper education) read and write simple words to form sentences. Once we know the basics, the way we define words in Scripture is by context of God's words, which is the interpretation (i.e. explaining that which is not understood in a way that we can understand).

Please don't take the word 'interpretation' the wrong way, because that's a word that's thrown around far too carelessly in so-called "Christian" circles. Those who rely on concordances, lexicons, and new-age bible versions (which we sometimes call the "scholarship only" crowd) typically reject rebuke and reproof with a quick one-liner that says, "That's just your interpretation," because they have no understanding that there is only one context and one interpretation: The Lord God's.

And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you.
-Genesis 40:8

Whether in dreams with visions, or on paper with words, a true born-again Christian upholds the Lord God as the interpreter of the communication He uses. Most of those men do not have the fear of the Lord God in their hearts, and do not tremble at His Word, because they have always looked to their rudiments (their first education) of the world and the traditions of men as the interpreter of knowledge, and again, remember almost all those who attend the average American church building will CLAIM from their lips that the Bible is their final authority, but in their hearts, their first love is the ways of the world, or following men whose ways are of the world. When one does not hold the Lord God as the final authority and power over the communication He has given us, then one ends up looking to the works of men to do interpreting for us.

The book of Proverbs opens with King Solomon telling us how to gain wisdom and understanding from the Lord God:

The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel; To know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding; To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity; To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion. A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
-Proverbs 1:1-7

When a man puts his worldly education first, following after worldly scholars, he does not have the fear of the Lord in his heart, and though he may increase knowledge, it will be knowledge of the world, knowledge of lies, and knowledge of wickedness. He will not gain knowledge in wisdom and understanding in truth from the Lord Jesus Christ.

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
-2 Timothy 3:1-7

These will be men of pride (i.e. heady, highminded, boasters), lifted up by their degrees and their pastoral and/or doctoral status (respecting persons), who will be learning many things, and appear to be very intelligent, but their knowledge and education is not in the truth of the Word, even though they will claim it is.
(Read "Why Are Christians Respecting Persons?" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

They will seem to have godliness in their lives, but in their hearts they deny the authority (power) of the Lord God, and we ought to turn away from them to study the Word of God for ourselves.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
-2 Timothy 2:15

These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
-1 John 2:27

Often, when a Christian starts to study, and gets to a point in the Bible where it gets too hard, they turn to their worldly sources for knowledge, rather than being a workman to keep studying. In the latter days, with the appearance of the final antichrist, there will be people deceived through lying signs and wonders, and it's because they never were born-again and received the love of the truth from the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Read "False Converts & Eternal Security" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
-2 Thessalonians 2:9-10

I want readers to understand, before we begin to read quotations from these lexicographers, most of these men have not received the love of the truth. These are men who claim they are of God with their tongue, but they deny Him in their hearts, their thoughts, and their actions, looking first to their meal ticket to feed their own belly.

For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
-Romans 16:18

They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
-Psalm 12:2

With that in mind, I return once again to Thayer, and finish his quotation. Some of you may not understand this completely, but I will explain what he's saying afterwards:
"A student often wants to know not so much the inherent meaning of a word as the particular sense it bears in a given context or discussion: -- or, to state the same truth from another point of view, the lexicographer [author/translator] often cannot assign a particular New Testament reference to one or another of the acknowledged significations of a word without indicating his exposition [explanation] of the passage in which the reference occurs. In such a case he is compelled to assume, at least to some extent, the functions of the exegete [Bible interpreter], although he can and should refrain from rehearsing the general arguments which support the interpretation adopted, as well as from arraying the objections to opposing interpretations."
-J.H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Preface, Harper & Brothers, 1889, p. vii

In summary, he's saying that readers of a lexicon often want to know the meaning of a passage, not just definitions of words, but that authors of these lexicons can't give interpretations, and those interpretations should be avoided. Instead, the authors simply give every current meaning of a particular word from a Greek grammar perspective, which also includes how the minority Alexandrian texts had altered the meaning of words, and they let the reader pick and choose whatever definition they personally like using, giving the Bible their own interpretation, doing that which is right in own eyes, instead of looking at the context for direction from the Lord God on how to define His word.

Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes.
-Deuteronomy 12:8

There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.
-Proverbs 30:12

Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
-Isaiah 5:21

Most often, dictionaries in general are not written as much as they are copied. Very few people are aware of this, and it's the primary reason that, in my teachings, I tell people to be cautious of dictionary use, and I typically only recommend Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary because he created it based on the definitions put forth in God's Word through the King James Bible. Outside of Noah Webster, I am extremely cautious with dictionaries, although most of the world holds them as a final authority, despite the fact that most are plagiarized:
"[There are] two basic methods of making a dictionary. The first, the traditional and almost universal method is to take another man's dictionary and use it as the basis for one's own... he is unlikely to be accused of infringing copyright; and it is often possible to use dictionaries which have lost this protection. Raids on other dictionaries will usually go undetected, and the resulting compilation will seem all the larger and more impressive."
-John Chadwick, Lexicographica Graeca: Contributions to the Lexicography of Ancient Greek, Clarendon Press, 1996, p. 13, ISBN: 9780198149705

It's interesting that this author chose to use the word "compilation" for the final product because, according to etymology dictionaries, the word compile comes from the Latin, which means "to plunder or rob." Their published lexicon will seem very impressive, very prestigious, and will seem very right for use.
(See 'compile', Online Etymology Dictionary, retrieved July 24, 2015, [etymonline.com/index.php?term=compile]

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
-Proverbs 14:12

"The effort of making an unprejudiced analysis of the meanings of a word is considerable; small wonder that most scholars have found it easier to rely on another's opinion, especially if enshrined in the dense print of a lexicon... centuries of tradition which have choked the free exercise of judgment and cluttered our editions with useless erudition [scholarship]. As I have said, I have a poor opinion of most of the notes on words which have been handed down to us from antiquity [ancient past], and I believe they have exerted far too great an influence on modern commentators."
-John Chadwick, Lexicographica Graeca: Contributions to the Lexicography of Ancient Greek, Clarendon Press, 1996, p. 27, ISBN: 9780198149705

Bible commentaries not only have influence from the lexicons, but often include references to other authors' names, which are usually authors of other commentaries and lexicons. This is a tradition that has been handed down by the Catholic Church from pagan philosophers for many centuries, and still exists today because men love the prestige they receive from the public; feigning that they have understanding of the doctrines of Christ.

If you want to learn more details about how specifically preachers deceive people through this on a weekly basis by using lexicons, concordances, dictionaries, and commentaries, please read our article: "How to Play the Greek Game" There is a test in that article that you can take that will demonstrate the problem. (If you're interpreting the Word of God by context as you're supposed to, you won't score very high on the test -- keep that in mind.)

Bible students cannot get the interpretation of the Word of God through lexicons.

Teams of lexicographers will sometimes debate definitions endlessly, and come to no conclusions. They simply print out a bunch of options, and pass the confusion on to those who purchase their materials, as Danker testifies:
"While Gingrich entered his translation, I glossed the text and sent my work to Gingrich in batches. Gingrich, in turn, entered my work on his master copy and returned my sheets with queries or with dismissal of an interpretation. Sometimes debate continued for several mailings, interlaced with linguistic horse trading and delightful banter."
-Frederick W. Danker & Bernard A. Taylor, Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2004, p. 7, ISBN: 9780802822161

The "linguistic horse trading" is the problem because the debate never ends. There are always new interpretations men come up with, and there's always new writings from new authors over each generation, and so the work of editing lexicons will never end, which is a great opportunity for Satan to enter and create confusion.

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
-1 Corinthians 14:33

John Lee edited Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography, and revised Moulton-Milligan's Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, and he stated:
"Lexicons are regarded by their users as authoritative, and they put their trust in them. Lexicons are reference books presenting a compressed, seemingly final statement of fact, with an almost legal weight. The mere fact that something is printed in a book gives it authority, as far as most people are concerned. And understandably: if one does not know the meaning of a word, one is predisposed to trust the only means of rescue from ignorance. Yet, this trust is misplaced. The concise, seemingly authoritative statement of meaning can, and often does, conceal many sins -- indecision, compromise, imperfect knowledge, guesswork, and, above all, dependence on predecessors. [rudiments of the world] Lexicographers have to make a decision and put down a definite statement, and they are fallible like everyone else. But the ordinary user has no means of knowing where the mistakes have been made, where the ignorance has been covered up, what has been lifted from somewhere else without checking, and so on... It is simply a fact that what has been done so far cannot be relied on... we cannot know for certain that what we find in front of us when we look up a word is sound."
-John A.L. Lee, Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2004, p. 66-72, ISBN: 9780802822161

When Christians write our ministry, this is precisely how they treat lexicons and concordances in the emails I receive. For example, in our article "Easter: Christians Celebrating Abomination," which talks about how Easter is a pagan ritual of witchcraft that Christians ought not to have anything to do with, I demonstrate how the Bible proves that the correct word used in Acts 12:4 is "Easter," and that any book that uses the term "passover" is in error. Despite that I have demonstrated the proof in Scripture, I have received letters that argue the following:
  • A man wrote me to argue that I was wrong because he studied Greek in Bible college and referred to George Ricker Berry's Interlinear Greek New Testament of the Received Text as his authority.
  • Another man wrote me and said I was in error because Strong's Exhaustive Bible Concordance said so.
  • Comments in other areas aside from email have referenced to a variety of lexicons and concordances as their authority for argument.
Most of these letters result in their anger at me when I point out that the Word of God is not their final authority, but the fact is that when they seek to argue against the Word of God by turning to the world for help, they deny the Lord God as the head authority over their lives.

Specifically on the topic of Easter, there are a number of church goers out there who celebrate Easter, enjoy celebrating it, their church celebrates it, and they know the grief they would go through if they would have to repent and rebuke their church building, possibly having to depart from it over the wickedness. That thought is too much effort for a lazy Laodicean, so it's easier to search through a lexicon until they can find some way to argue in favor of pagan witchcraft rituals, which puts a much finer point onto Lee's words that they seek to "conceal many sins."

This is just one example. I have received letters like that for numerous topics; for each one I try to explain to them the problem with their foundational thinking that is off the Word of God, and so far, every letter I receive in response is expressing how offended they are, usually consisting of railing (name-calling) and/or never hearing from them again (and most of the time depart from supporting our ministry).

To help understand how these lexicons corrupt the minds of church-goers, a man named John wrote me to try to justify that fornication was not sin (since he confessed to me that he had a girlfriend he was sleeping with), and he used Strong's Concordance for his argument:
"Your argument and the entire Church's that premarital sex is a sin, stated in the Bible, is reliant on including premarital sex in the definition of what fornication is... but that does not mean that we should stop there when considering what a word meant in it's time, as many words can change meaning over time... That word "fornication" is translated from the word porneia in the original language, which Strong's concordance defines as such: 4202 porneía (the root of the English terms "pornography, pornographic"; cf. 4205 /pórnos) which is derived from pernao, "to sell off") – properly, a selling off (surrendering) of sexual purity; promiscuity of any (every) type.
This definition would seem to imply a broader, wider encompassing view of what Porneia listed as sin. Anything that surrenders sexual purity should be included within the term porneia, which is why I believe in modern days, sexual impurity is a better translation, as fornication has come to have the connotation of two unmarried people having sex."

So he's arguing that fornication has nothing to do with sex outside of marriage because Strong's Concordance says so, but as he confessed to me that he was having sex with girls outside of marriage, it's obvious he's trying to justify his sin. The Bible is very clear on the definition of fornication:

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
-1 Corinthians 7:2

Since he can't use the Bible to justify his sin, he therefore turns to a lexicon to help him justify it. Again, this is one of many letters I have received over the years in which the writer is trying to justify sin or false doctrine through lexicons and concordances, and it is a gigantic hurdle to get these people to open their eyes that the worldly, man-centered lexicon has become their foundation for knowledge.
(Read "Why I Use the King James Bible - What About The New King James?" here at creationliberty.com for more details on new-age bible versions changing "fornication" to "sexual immorality.")

The major problem here is that these people have abandoned Christ, while falsely believing that they are standing on the foundation of the Word of God, claiming that the Bible is their final authority in all matters of faith and practice, when in reality, worldly scribes and Pharisees, by respecting persons, have become their final authority.

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
-Matthew 23:13-15

What's worse is not only are Christians in general doing it, but preachers and evangelists are using concordances as an authority in their teachings. (And that goes for creationists out there too -- all your favorite leavened organizations do it; AIG, CMI, ICR, etc.) I would pray this teaching somehow gets into their hands so they would cleanse themselves of the leaven.

Whenever some new lexicon or concordance comes out, please understand -- it's not new. Everything these scribes write is based on the writings of the scribes who came before them, who based their work on other scribes, who based their writings on books that were translated from the corrupt Alexandrian minority manuscripts:
"Let us take first the NT [New Testament]... there are disturbing features to be seen when one looks closely. It is not possible to go over this ground in detail here, but the salient points are these: first, there is the legacy of the long tradition of indicating meaning by glosses rather than definitions, which leads to many problems... Secondly, there is the fact that even the latest lexicons derive their material from the predecessors, and a great deal of it has been passed on uncritically over the course of centuries. Thirdly, there is an aspect that I think is not well known: meanings given in the NT lexicons are contaminated by glosses from the standard translations, going back as far as the Vulgate. There is a fourth tendency which has become evident to me lately: NT lexicons are unsystematic in their control of other discussions, and may or may not take up useful contributions to the understanding of the meaning. All this mainly concerns the major lexicon series of our time,"
-John A.L. Lee, Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2004, p. 69, ISBN: 9780802822161

First, Lee points out the glosses, meaning they are coming up with their own interpretations of words without anything to back it up, and mostly without proper third-party critiques. He also says that the most up-to-date lexicons are still just copying from the work of those who came before them. Next, he points out that these traditions are being handed down all the way from the Catholic Church, which suppressed the reading of the Word of God throughout the Dark Ages in Europe. And finally, the authors/translators often reject any rebuke in understanding the meaning of Scripture to gain understanding, and no reader is able to discern where they have wrongfully taken those liberties.

In simple terms, this means there is no way you can trust anything written in these lexicons and concordances. They are not designed in submission to the authority of God, but rather they honor themselves with their own prestige, fooling the masses into thinking they have knowledge and truth from the Lord Jesus Christ.

"The NT is more difficult because existing lexicons are generally regarded as the last word. Nevertheless, all is not well with the NT lexical tradition, and long-term plans for a complete overhaul are needed... For the present, if we do nothing else, we can at least recognize the true state of affairs in Ancient Greek lexicography and be cautious."
-John A.L. Lee, Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2004, p. 73-74, ISBN: 9780802822161

As I quote from these men, I don't want to give you the impression that they are a cut above the rest; they are simply admitting the truth in some areas, but they are also corrupt, being authors of the very lexicons they are blasting. Frederick Danker tries to downgrade the words used in the Bible:
"Associated with the foregoing concerns is the common practice of lexicographers to convey what can be termed a 'stained glass' connotation [i.e. scoffing at a set standard for definitions] to certain words, with the result that numerous texts take on a patina [thin layer] of exclusiveness not really present in the text. Thereby certain terms lose almost all connection with the socio-cultural context that made them meaningful for their primary audiences [i.e. he thinks the average Christian is so stupid, you can't understand the King James Bible without his help]. Thus the rendering 'grace' for χαρις is not especially meaningful to modern audiences, since the ancient word χαρις was used at numerous levels or registrations to express 'generosity.' 'Saved through God's generosity' may not sound churchly, but it expresses the truth: not a theological preference, but a semantic reality that can steer one away from the hazard of dogmatic presuppositions. Refuge in sanctified vagueness, despite the patina of centuries of usage, is not a lexical gesture devoutly to be greeted. Indeed, such practice may invite liability to the charge of linguistic incest."
-Frederick W. Danker, Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2004, p. 24, ISBN: 9780802822161

Some of you may not have fully understood what he's claiming, but we'll look at this in summarized points:
  1. Danker believes that some things written in the Bible should not be made a standard in lexicons.
  2. He believes change of language means we need to change God's Word with the evolution of culture.
  3. He believes those who sanctify themselves with one contextually-based definition of God's Word are just fanatics in a cult of incest.
Furthermore, if you go to about any modern dictionary (since these men do not care for the definition of Scripture), you'll find that 'generous' does not include descriptions like 'mercy' or 'pardon' or 'favor'. A judge can be generous to a first-time offender, giving the young man community service instead of jail time, but even though the judge was generous to the young man, the judge did not give him grace because the young man was not pardoned for his crime. The Lord Jesus Christ pardons our spirit completely and wholly, not just giving us a lesser sentence through "generosity."

Danker goes on later to describe different contextual meanings of the word 'pray,' and that we ought to use other words to describe the meaning of 'pray' when it is used in different contexts. (i.e. He believes the Word of God needs to be updated and corrected.) For instance, he says that 'pray' can mean to 'ask' or 'demand', and so 'ask' or 'demand' should be used instead, but what he doesn't understand (or more accurately, doesn't care about) is that changing the wording will alter the meaning, which can change the context.

What he doesn't tell you is that the Bible uses both "pray" and "demand" in different contexts.

And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid. And they that saw it told them how it befell to him that was possessed with the devil, and also concerning the swine. And they began to pray him to depart out of their coasts. And when he was come into the ship, he that had been possessed with the devil prayed him that he might be with him.
-Mark 5:15-18

Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
-Job 38:1-3

The people did not demand Christ leave; they prayed him that He would leave -- pray meaning that they are making a request. Likewise, the formerly possessed man did not demand to be with Christ, but he made a request. On the other hand, God demands that Job answer His questions. The difference between praying and demanding is authority, and the reason men like Danker, and these lexicographers, have no understanding of God's authority is because they have a wicked philosophical mindset that rejects the power of Christ.

Concerning the rejection of Christ, take for example James Strong, the author of Strong's Concordance, who rejected Christ's doctrine of repentance and faith for salvation, and instead believed in the Catholic "infant baptism," which teaches that babies can be saved by works through a water-sprinkling ritual:
"Baptists, a name given to those Christian denominations which reject the validity of infant baptism, and hold that the ordinance of baptism can be administered only to those who have made a personal profession of faith in Christ."
-James Strong, Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 1, Harper & Brothers, 1896, p. 653

I'm going to single out James Strong here for a moment because he is praised and read by so many King James Bible users. This author says it best when describing the attitude of many that call themselves brethren:
"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 lexicon 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."
-Gail Riplinger, Hazardous Materials: Greek and Hebrew Study Dangers, A.V. Publications, 2008, p. 162, ISBN: 9780979411762

Strong not only believed works-based heresy that directly denies the Gospel of Salvation, but he was also on the committee that produced the corrupt Revised Version of 1881.
(See Rufus Wendell, The Holy Bible (Revised Version): Containing the Old and New Testaments, Revised Bible Publishing Company, 1886, p. ii)

Strong was a member of the American Standard Version (bible for Catholics) committee in 1901. Lots of Strong's Concordance fanboys and fangirls, who use it as a concordance for the King James Bible, don't seem to understand his connection with new-age versions and corrupt manuscripts. Modern publishers are creating NASV's with Strong's Concordance references in them, showing how intertwined Strong's Concordance is with new-age versions.
(See Lockman, "New American Standard Bible with Strong's Numbers," retrieved July 25, 2015, [olivetree.com/store/product.php?productid=16629])

Here are just a few samples of how the ASV has corrupted God's Word:
Rev 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And the nations shall walk amidst the light thereof: and the kings of the earth bring their glory into it.
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions [rebelling against authority], heresies, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties,
1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God:

There are hundreds of examples like this, and even more corrupt changes in subsequent versions of this in the NASV. Both Strong and Thayer worked on the ASV.

Strong worked on the Revised Version committee with Charles J. Vaughan, very well known for his work directly with Westcott. Vaughn was directly yoked up with the Catholic Church, and had a reputation as a child molester when Queen Victoria offered him deanery at a Catholic institution.
(See Valdine Clemens, The Return of the Repressed, SUNY Press, 1999, p. 132, ISBN: 9780791499276)

Strong also worked with Christian D. Ginsburg, who has written extensive works on the Kabbalah (Jewish witchcraft). Ginsburg's works were heavily relied upon by Luciferian Madame Blavatsky, and the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.
(See Alex Owen, The Place of Enchantment: British Occultism and the Culture of the Modern, University of Chicago Press, 2007, p. 65, ISBN: 9780226642048)

These were the types of men James Strong yoked up with, and it's laughable that some Christians will make excuses for these things, holding on to their presuppositions about Strong, assuming that he didn't know anything about what these people really believed. It is preposterous to think that a man can work for many years with someone on a project concerning the doctrines of the Bible and know nothing about the beliefs of the people he worked with; Strong knew, and yoked together with them anyway.

Strong believed that Lucifer is actually Jesus Christ. He brought up the topic of the word 'Lucifer' in Isaiah 14:12, quotes from a Dr. Henderson, and specifically says Henderson "justly remarks:"
"But Dr. Henderson, who in his Isaiah renders the line 'Illustrious son of the morning!' justly remarks in his annotation: 'The application of this passage to Satan, and to the fall of the apostate angels, is one of those gross perversions of Sacred Writ,'"
-James Strong, Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 5, Harper, 1894, p. 543

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
-Isaiah 14:12

Henderson just stated that Lucifer is not talking about the Devil fallen from heaven, and James Strong agrees. Strong continues to reinforce this belief by quoting another apostate named Delitzsch:
"Delitzsch adopts the same view. 'In another and far higher sense, however, the designation was applicable to him in whom promise and fulfilment entirely corresponded, and it is so applied by Jesus when he styles himself "The bright and morning Star" (Rev. xxii, 16). In a certain sense it is the emblem also of all those who are destined to live and reign with him (Rev. ii, 28)"
-James Strong, Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 5, Harper, 1894, p. 543

In other words, these men believe that Christ is the "son of the morning" in Isaiah 14. Worse still is that this author, who Strong wholly agreed with, believes that the star symbol, which is the pentagram of witchcraft, is the symbol of all those who follow Christ. If people can't see heresy in this, then I can't help them because it's clear as day for those of us who understand that symbolism (even the cross and "Jesus fish") are wicked and not of God.
(Read "Christian Symbols Are Not Christian" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Here is what James Strong believed about the Roman Catholic "Vatican Manuscript," which is the corrupt Vaticanus that new-age bible versions are based on:
"Vatican Manuscript (1) (Codex Vaticanus, designated as B) is one of the oldest and most valuable MSS. of the Greek Testament, numbered 1209 in the library of the Vatican at Rome,"
-James Strong, Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 10, Harper, 1894, p. 731

Strong highly respected the minority manuscripts, and believed they were superior to the Textus Receptus (Byzantine):
"We can not believe, with the editor, that the Byzantine family is equal in value or authority to the Alexandrine, which is confessedly more ancient, nor can we put his junior codices on a level with the very valuable documents of the Oriental recension."
-James Strong, Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 2, Harper, 1874, p. 571

Strong also believed in Evolutionism and the Day-Age theory:
"[I]t ought not to be a matter of surprise if the simple narrative of creation omits much that scientific research has since supplied, and appears in a guise adapted to those objects... Creation was regarded as a progressive work--a gradual development from the inferior to the superior order of things... Order involved time; a succession of events implies a succession of periods;"
-James Strong, Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 2, Harper, 1874, p. 526-527

As almost every other modern lexicographer out there, Strong wanted to change the Bible to suit the change of culture, which is why it should not be surprising that he wanted to alter the book of Genesis to match "modern science:"
"It will sometimes become necessary to modify our conclusions as to particular passages in consequence of the discoveries and deductions of MODERN SCIENCE. Instances in point are the theories respecting the creation and deluge, arising from the progress of astronomical and geological knowledge."
-James Strong, Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 4, Harper, 1894, p. 206

James Strong was an evolutionist who despised the pure and perfect Word of God and rejected Christ's Gospel of faith while adopting works-based heresy out of Rome. When you open up Strong's Concordance, you're going to a heathen who rejects the faith of Christ to help you understand Scripture.

I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.
-Psalm 101:3

Be cautious if you believe these lexicons and concordances are helpful (i.e. good):

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
-Isaiah 5:20

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
-Ephesians 4:14

Now let's look at what I consider to be the 2nd most popular lexicographer in America, Joseph Henry Thayer (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament), who was a Unitarian, meaning that he did not believe in the Trinity Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and he also did not believe in the divinity of Christ.
(See C.H. Pappas, In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7 CrossBooks, 2011, p. 109, ISBN: 9781615077663; See also Kerby F. Fannin, While Men Slept: A Biblical and Historical Account of the New Universal Christianity, Life's Resources Inc., 2002, p. 249, ISBN: 9780944835029)

The 1977 printing of Thayer's Greek-English lexicon has the following text in the introduction:
"A word of caution is necessary. Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through in the explanatory notes. The reader should be alert for both subtle and blatant denials of such doctrines as the Trinity, the inherent and total depravity of fallen human nature, the eternal punishment of the wicked, and biblical inerrancy."
-Introduction Notes, Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Academic, 1977, p. vii, ISBN: 9780801088384

In other words, Thayer didn't believe that Christ is God, he didn't believe that man is sinful in nature, he didn't believe in hell, and he didn't believe God's Word is pure and perfect. In this introduction, it goes on to tell readers that Thayer had a "view that man is inherently good, needing Christ not as a Savior, but only as an example."

Thayer taught at Harvard Divinity School, where only Unitarian staff were allowed to teach:
"Most familiar is doubtless Harriet Beecher Stowe's characterization of Boston in the 1820s, when her father went there to turn back the Unitarian tide. 'All the literary men of Massachusetts were Unitarians,' she wrote. 'All the trustees and professors of Harvard College were Unitarians. All the elite of wealth and fashion crowded Unitarian churches."
-Conrad Wright, The Unitarian Controversy: Essays on American Unitarian History, Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregreations, 1997, p. 27, ISBN: 9781558962903

Thayer was an evolutionist who scoffed at Christians who believe the Lord God created the world in six days, claiming that men of superior minds like himself have outgrown such teaching:
"It would be in point to remind the adherents of that view that they, in common with all Christendom, have come to acknowledge its erroneousness [the Bible's error] in particulars once stoutly defended by their lineal ancestors of former generations. Who now would declare that the Bible... restricts the work of creation to six days of twenty-four hours each... and a score of other outgrown opinions."
-Joseph H. Thayer, The Change of Attitude Toward the Bible: A Lecture Given Under the Auspices of the American Institute of Sacred Literature, Houghton & Mifflin, 1891, p. 45-46

Thayer considered the Word of God to be imperfect because it is just the writings of men:
"No substantive [useful] part of the truth of Christianity is discredited, should we perchance discover that the collection and even the composition of its books are not free from traces of the imperfection which cleaves to all things human."
-Joseph H. Thayer, The Change of Attitude Toward the Bible: A Lecture Given Under the Auspices of the American Institute of Sacred Literature, Houghton & Mifflin, 1891, p. 8

He did not believe as Christians believe; that God's Word is eternal and preserved in perfection, being inspired (God wrote His Word) through those who wrote it down. To Thayer, the Bible is a never-ending work in progress, which means simple people cannot read it and understand it; they need study tools from wicked unbelieving scholars to help them.

The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
-Psalm 119:130

From the same lecture, Thayer continues:
"Now, in general, our American Christianity [at the time, inerrancy of the Word of God]... has laid a disproportionate emphasis on the full and final character of the Scriptural teaching relative to the whole range of speculation and conduct, life and destiny. This exaggerated theory has been comparatively harmless in bygone days; nay, still furnishes a certain class of rough and ready controversialists with a bludgeon [club] which they are prone to mistake for the sword of the Lord. But by reason of improved methods of philological study, of progress in science and discovery, of accumulating results in archaeological and historic research... it [Bible-believing Christianity] has become a yoke which they -- unlike their fathers -- are unable to bear. It is the claims of this exaggerated theory respecting the nature and function of the Biblical teachings which I invite you to join me in testing."
-Joseph H. Thayer, The Change of Attitude Toward the Bible: A Lecture Given Under the Auspices of the American Institute of Sacred Literature, Houghton & Mifflin, 1891, p. 10-11

In simple terms, Thayer believed that the inspired, infallible Word of the Living God has to be improved by man's philosophy and study in science. He believes that Biblical inerrancy is simply a worn-out tradition of the past, and that new-age thinkers (like himself) are required to lead church-goers into "truth."

Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak. The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things: Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us? For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him. The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.
-Psalm 12:1-7

Thayer did not even believe that the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were written with inspiration of God:
"In accordance with these obvious principles, if we wish to get nearest to the truth as it is in Jesus, we come to the record of his personal words and works. All the records, to be sure, are of a secondary character; no one of them has his [Jesus's] personal indorsement or authentication."
-Joseph H. Thayer, The Change of Attitude Toward the Bible: A Lecture Given Under the Auspices of the American Institute of Sacred Literature, Houghton & Mifflin, 1891, p. 38

After we learned about plagiarism in dictionary creation, it should be mentioned that Thayer copied and edited a lexicon that he chose as his foundation, called A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Tesamenti, which Thayer also translated into English for everyone to read. In this book, it says:
"Whether Christ is called God must be determined from John 1:1; 20:28; 1Jo 5:20; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8, etc; the matter is still in dispute among theologians;"
-Carl L.W. Grimm, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Tesamenti Harper, 1887, Translated: Joseph Henry Thayer, p. 287

This book also teaches that Christ is a created being, which would not make him God:
"Christ... who came into being through God prior to the entire universe of created things [R.V. the firstborn of all creation]"
-Carl L.W. Grimm, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Tesamenti Harper, 1887, Translated: Joseph Henry Thayer, p. 555

According to this teaching, Christ is not eternal, and was created by God as a separate entity. When he called Christ "the firstborn of all creation," I recognized that phrase immediately because it's Mormon doctrine, teaching that Satan and Christ are both created children of God:
"Hence, there is -- and must be -- a devil, and he is the father of lies and of wickedness. He and the fallen angels who followed him are spirit children of the Father. As Christ is the Firstborn of the Father in the spirit, so Lucifer is a son of the morning, one of those born in the morning of preexistence. He is a spirit man, a personage, an entity, comparable in form and appearance to any of the spirit children of the Eternal Father."
-Bruce McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, Vol. 1, p. 407-408; Read "Corruptions of Christianity: Mormonism" here at creationliberty.com for more details.

Thayer scoffed at those who believed in the inerrancy of Scripture, and called for Christians to turn to the heretical, unbelieving philosophy of himself and other scribes:
"The view of the Scriptures here urged I have called a 'change.' But let me remind you again that it is such only in reference to current and local and comparatively recent views. Of the great mass of Christian believers down through the centuries it is doubtful whether more than a small fraction have held the hard and fast theory currently advocated among us today. They may be said to have been unanimous and emphatic from the first in asserting the inspiration of the written word; but as to the degree and nature of this inspiration there has been great diversity, or at least indefiniteness, among leading Christian thinkers all along.... Beware, my friends, lest you allow sophistical plausibilities to keep you from the truth! The critics are agreed, that the view of Scripture in which you and I were educated, which has been prevalent here in New England for generations, is untenable [illogcal/indefensible]. And you and I may convince ourselves that, so far at least, they are thoroughly in the right. How, then, can we justify ourselves as public religious teachers in longer inculcating [teaching], or even tolerating, known error?"
-Joseph H. Thayer, The Change of Attitude Toward the Bible: A Lecture Given Under the Auspices of the American Institute of Sacred Literature, Houghton & Mifflin, 1891, p. 62-65

In case you may not have understood this lengthy quote, Thayer is calling for a change away from those who believe the Word of God is inspired and infallible. He calls that belief "known error" which he says that no one should teach or tolerate. Furthermore, Thayer refers to scribes as the great "thinkers" of his time and throughout history (i.e. not us believers, of course, because we're too stupid to understand) and that a grand majority have rejected the inerrancy of Scripture, and he says this because he falsely believed the blight of Catholicism is "Christianity," constantly siding with the Roman Catholic Church in arguments of authority:
"And in the second place allow me to remind you that the view of these writings in which we, as New England Puritans, have been reared has not been the prevalent [majority] view in the Christian church through the centuries. The Church of Rome, as you know, recognizes ecclesiastical tradition as of coordinate authority with the written records; hold that God's 'supernatural revelation is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions which have come down to us.'"
-Joseph H. Thayer, The Change of Attitude Toward the Bible: A Lecture Given Under the Auspices of the American Institute of Sacred Literature, Houghton & Mifflin, 1891, p. 9

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
-Colossians 2:8

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
-Mark 7:13

And that is precisely what the Catholic Church teaches, as you can read in this quote from the 2nd Vatican Council (an excerpt from our article "Corruptions of Christianity: Catholicism - The Pope"):
"Thus it comes about that the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy Scriptures alone. Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence..."
-Austin Flannery, Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, 1988, p. 755, ISBN: 9780918344151; See also Jean M. Hiesberger, The Catholic Bible, Personal Study Edition, 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 21, ISBN: 9780195289268

In simple terms, he's saying that Christians he grew up around believed in the literal interpretation of Genesis, as had been taught in previous generations, but this is an outdated teaching that needs to be changed. That's why the lecture he gave is entitled The Change of Attitude Toward the Bible, because in it, Thayer talks about many heretical beliefs he upholds, heavily implying that all who oppose him are idiots and cultists.

A wide variety of occultists like Thayer and Strong can be traced back to not only new-age bible versions and lexicons, but also to working with one another. These are the men that ignorant Christians rely on for their study; men who did not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and almost half of them were straight-up Catholics.
(See Rufus Wendell, The Holy Bible (Revised Version): Containing the Old and New Testaments, Revised Bible Publishing Company, 1886, p. ii)

All of these men (Strong and Thayer included) were hand-picked by Philip Schaff, head of the new-age Parliament of World Religions, and Professor of Sacred Literature in the Union Theological Seminary of New York, who did NOT believe that the Bible was inspired. In his partial autobiography [compiled and published by his son], Schaff referred to inspiration as "the moonshine theory of the inerrant apostolic autographs."
-David S. Schaff, The Life of Phillip Schaff: In Part Autobiographical, Nabu Press, 2012, p. 439, ISBN: 9781278033594

It's interesting that there is a video that came out recently (Sept 2015) on youtube of a man who accuses me of being a Freemason and Jesuit because I am exposing these men for the false doctrine they believed and taught, but what that man doesn't realize is that Philip Schaff was a master Mason. The image here shows Schaff being photographed with the intentional use of what's called the "Real Grip of the Master Mason," and he hand-picked both James Strong and Joseph Thayer to be on the ASV committee.
(I'm still working on our expose of Freemasonry, but it's not completed yet. I'll put a link here when I publish it.)

Schaff would only accept on the committee those who believed as he believed, which still happens today. Keep this in mind as we read Strong's words:
"The textual examination of the New Testament in particular has received a powerful stimulus by the labors of the anglo-American Committee on Bible Revision, who had necessarily to reconsider the Greek text. Although they have not directly put forth any new edition, yet the results of their criticism have been embodied in The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version (Oxford, 1881, 12mo), which may be regarded as the most mature and impartial [unbiased] fruit of the combined scholarship of the times, and probably nearer the autograph than any other text extant... A fierce attack has been made by some scholars, especially opposed to Bible revisions, on the conclusions arrived at in the foregoing productions. It has been claimed that they unnecessarily depart from the textus receptus, and unduly lean upon the few great uncial [form of Greek writing] MSS., to the exclusion of all other copies and to the neglect of the early versions... But these are valuable contributions toward this final result, and we may hope that ere long another will arise, capable of surveying the whole field with broad and accurate scholarship and impartial judgment. Meanwhile, we may rejoice at the immense advance already made towards this desirable end."
-James Strong & John McClintock, Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 2, Harper, 1894, p. 171

In short, James Strong, Joseph Thayer, Philip Schaff, and scores of others in their committee of scribes sought first and foremost the writings of pagan philosophers (who did not believe in the divinity of Christ) as their basis of knowledge and understanding. They have no love for the truth because they were never born-again.

And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
-2 Thessalonians 2:10

Likewise, there are many preachers out there who may pick up their King James Bible, and claim they believe what it says, but they then turn to sources (like Strong's Concordance) to gain understanding, usually because they were taught to do so in their corrupt seminary "Christian" college, or their pastor, also being deceived, taught them to do it. These documents they turn to are written by men who did not believe in the Gospel of Christ, and loved most their status as a scribe. They "rejoiced" at their departing from the Recieved Text (textus receptus). This is why many of them might stand up and claim "the Bible is my final authority in all matters of faith and practice," but it's a lie.

Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.
-Jeremiah 14:14

If a man, or a group of men, author a book about the Bible, but they don't believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, don't believe in His divine nature, don't believe He is God, don't believe in the infalliblility of Scripture, and many other wild heresies, why would you, as a born-again Christian, rely on the book they created?

It may surprise you how many people struggle with answering this question: If the Greek lexicon has a rule, and the Bible contradicts that rule - which one is right? The answer to that question is the determining factor to show where your final authority really lies.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
-Colossians 2:8

Whenever someone tells you that a particular teaching is wrong because the Greek/Hebrew word says... that person does not hold the Bible as their final authority. In their hearts, they choose the rudiments of the world because they have never repented of the philosophy (way of thinking) they learned from their first teachers. Until someone chooses to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ first and foremost, nothing I have written here will help them to understand their error.

CLE Only

Google+ Facebook Tumblr
Twitter Youtube Youtube

Android via Amazon
Google Play