Hi Gary I understand where that is coming from. But, Hebrews 1, the meaning is from context. Also, what you did is a word study fallacy known as Overload fallacy. This a common mistake when using Strong's Concordance.
Here are a few reasons why it is problematic to use
Strong's Concordance as a lexicon:
- Lexical ambiguity: Consider the following sentence: "She is looking for a match." Is the subject trying to light a candle or find a romantic partner? The 'gloss' definition here is ambiguous and gives us no help disambiguating the meaning in this context. Grammatical features should also be examined, which the Strong's Concordance offers no help with.1
- Nuances of meaning: Sometimes there is more than one meaning listed for a term (this is often the case for prepositions, but there are also verbs that change meaning depending on their voice and other grammatical features). Strong's Concordance offers no help when determining which (if any) gloss is most appropriate in context. Often knowledge of the original languages is required to determine what grammatical and contextual features are present in order to determine the correct gloss (if any). Also, authors can use the same word differently in differing contexts (such as James' and Paul's usage of the word 'faith').
The meaning of a lexeme is that intended by the author using it. The
Strong's Concordance often sheds little light on what this meaning is
in context.
Therefore, claiming the meaning of a specific word in a given context is X on the basis of the Strong's Concordance is not a reliable claim.
Etymological fallacies
I often see folks try to determine the meaning of words in specific contexts using their root lemmata. The problem here is that etymology and the later meaning of a word are often orthogonal concepts. Here are some examples:
Etymology is not the primary tool for understanding the meaning of a word in a specific context, and it is often meaningless when making such a determination.
What if the Strong's Concordance is linked to a lexicon?
Several free online tools have linked
Strong's Concordance entries to lexicon entries. Unfortunately, most of them use either
Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon or
Smith's Bible Dictionary for definitions, both of which were published prior to 1895. As
I've cautioned about elsewhere, these resources are considered to be obsolete by scholars (and contain much inaccurate information).
https://hermeneutics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/923/strongs-is-a-concordance-not-a-lexicon
Strong’s is sometimes in error
It is my habit whenever an author claims “The Hebrew (or Greek) means …, I will look up his statement, not in Strong’s, but in a dictionary. I happen to use a couple of modern works: “The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament”, and “The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.” (I find the more common “Vine’s” neither comprehensive nor always accurate.) Usually, I make no changes: but quite a few times I have felt compelled to change what was written.
https://www.tidings.org/wp/strongs-concordance-its-use-and-abuse/?v=7516fd43adaa
