I didn't plan to come back for replies, but this is truly important, Jason.
The problem with Strong is Not the fact that he numbered each word to make it easier for everyone else to find a word - or find a verse by just remembering one word of it -- but it's the fact that -
he Didn't Define words but Used the way that the KJV men translated the Greek words from the TR over 400 yrs ago. /o:
Earlier I was referring to the Strong's Concordance that most people are aware of. His little "dictionary" that's in the back of that book, that was in microscopic print back in the 70's - is definitely a good 'Concordance' and a God send that every word is numbered - but in the back of the Strong's Concordance, we find Strong's "dictionary" and it is not a Lexicon. He only defines a word by how the KJV used/translated the words.
As I said eaelier, that was his mistake - by calling what's at the back of his Concordance a "dictionary" and your mistake if you call that a Lexicon.
As I've said before, good Lexicons are multi-volumed sets and they 'are' Greek Dictionaries. YES, the ancient Greek is well known enough to be able to know how each Greek word was used, and so those words can be well defined. We have enough books written by other authors/philosophers/historians, etc. of that time period of about 300 years before Christ until well after, to know how to interpret that Greek.
Knowing the Greek and it's grammar is how we came up with what is truly being said and how one discerns doctrine. That's how we got our basic tenets of faith, Long ago. By the most exact language in history.
The KJV used the Textus Receptus to translate the Greek into Archaic English and because they used the Textus Receptus, that's why I've stayed with the KJV, despite that it is not inerrant, as the Textus Receptus is much more so and that's why those guys used it to come up with their KJV over 400 years ago. But the language doesn't do the Greek 100% justice.
There are times when reading the numbered version, you'll see that the KJV will give only one number for up to 3 words, so that they had to use their own words to add to the original 'one word' to say what they wanted it to say.
Regarding doctrine, etc... as you can see from just this very-very small example below ...
Using just the e-sword....
John 3:16 ForG1063 GodG2316 soG3779 lovedG25 theG3588 world,G2889 thatG5620 he gaveG1325 hisG848 only begottenG3439 Son,G5207 thatG2443 whosoeverG3956 believethG4100 inG1519 himG846 should notG3361 perish,G622 butG235 haveG2192 everlastingG166 life.G2222
GNT-TR+ John 3:16 ουτωςG3779 ADV γαρG1063 CONJ ηγαπησενG25 V-AAI-3S οG3588 T-NSM θεοςG2316 N-NSM τονG3588 T-ASM κοσμονG2889 N-ASM ωστεG5620 CONJ τονG3588 T-ASM υιονG5207 N-ASM αυτουG846 P-GSM τονG3588 T-ASM μονογενηG3439 A-ASM εδωκενG1325 V-AAI-3S ιναG2443 CONJ παςG3956 A-NSM οG3588 T-NSM πιστευωνG4100 V-PAP-NSM ειςG1519 PREP αυτονG846 P-ASM μηG3361 PRT-N αποληταιG622 V-2AMS-3S αλλG235 CONJ εχηG2192 V-PAS-3S ζωηνG2222 N-ASF αιωνιονG166 A-ASF
Strong's - G4100 - pisteuō - From G4102 [faith]; to have faith/believe/commit/put trust in
Under the Dictionaries section of the e-sword - "RMAC" -
V-PAP-NSM
Part of Speech: Verb
Tense: Present
Voice: Active
Mood: Participle
Case: Nominative (subject; predicate nominative)
Number: Singular
Gender: Masculine
The e-sword doesn't define the grammar but if you have a book or source that does - A "Present Active Participle" shows "Continuous action".... so the KJV 'should read' ... "whosoever is continuously believing in Him...."
The fact that the Strong's only give the definition of the "root" of words and not the exact word with it's Grammar is also what causes problems in debates.
So - that one word from just one verse makes a large difference in Doctrine these days - as some are depending on their one-time prayer of faith in Him --- yet, through-out the N.T. we see that we are to "continue in the Faith".
Thayer gives a bit more of a definition of pisteuō ...
1) to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in
1a) of the thing believed
1a1) to credit, have confidence
1b) in a moral or religious reference
1b1) used in the NT of the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative and law of soul
1b2) to trust in Jesus or God as able to aid either in obtaining or in doing something: saving faith
2) to entrust a thing to one, i.e. his fidelity
2a) to be intrusted with a thing
If we interpret "continuously believing" as "believe", as those that believe "easy believism" do -- we see that we should get back to interpreting His Word with the Language that HE Used for His Own Words.
That's a very miniscule example of what this conversation is about and those that understand the language will understand -- but those that are KJV-Only or anti-the-language that the NT was written in, by the Apostles, for a GOD given reason will only continue to argue.
If you weren't a Brother, I would continue to argue as well.