I use Vines, Strong's Thayer's, and Wuest. (lexicon) I use the interlinear when necessary. Those books deal with the words from the original text. It's the right thing to do. How about you? Ever use those resources?
Why would I use the definitions of a Unitarian? Thayer denied the blood atonement, the Virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the Trinity, salvation by grace through faith, the sinfulness of man, the infallibility of the Scriptures.
W.E. Vine believed that it was Christ’s death and NOT his blood that redeems sinners, the same as John MacArthur.
===
The old lexicons are copyright free. This means that anyone can take their vile words and place them in a Greek or Hebrew study aid and call them their own.
Just as the current Greek text of Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Society, which underlie new versions, are
nearly virtual copies of the corrupt 1881 Greek text of Westcott and Hort, so the current Greek-English Bible study tools, such as Vine’s, Strong’s, Wuest, Thayer’s, Berry’s, and Zodhiates are taken from the lexicons that were written in the mid-to-late 1800s by Liddell, Vincent, and Trench.
For example, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon admits that his sources include Liddell-Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon; both Berry’s Greek-English Interlinear and Vine’s Expository Dictionary used Thayer and Trench, both of which were rooted in the lexicon of Liddell-Scott.
Wuest’s Word Studies used the lexicons of Trench, Thayer, Moulton, Milligan, and Vincent. Strong use Genesius. Zodhiates’ plagiarized it so much that he was even sued for it. And on it goes.
On the RV and ASV committees Strong joined Unitarians (e.g., Thayer), a child molester (Vaughan), followers of Luciferian H.P. Blavatsky (e.g., Kingsburg, Schaff), and a horde of Bible critics (e.g., S.R. Driver), who together changed nearly 10,000 words of the text.
Strong’s Concordance definitions are often the very words of these corrupt versions and also the Koran.
Some of the latest edition of Strong’s Concordance are not even Strong’s original. In the Greek and Hebrew lexicons in the back section, they contain even more corrupt definitions from the version editors. In the main body of the concordance, which originally was correct, new editions omit important KJV usages of the word ‘Jesus’ in order to match corrupt modern versions.
(Hazardous Materials, G.A. Riplinger)
You should see the picture of some of these men all cross-dressed as women in an all boys' school.
====
Should we trust the English Holy Bible or the Muslim Arabic Koran? Brown, Driver, and Briggs opt for the Koran. “The editors were influenced by the Arabic in the determination of primary meanings and their developments…” Delitzsch said they had become a “slave of the Arabic” and he noted places where “the Arabic had been wrongly applied” (Miller, pp. 91, 100).
“But most decisive in shaping Charles A. Briggs’ mature ecumenical thinking was his introduction in Berlin to the historico-critical worldview” (Massa, Charles, p. 113). “[A]s a result of his studies in Germany, he was already moving away from biblical orthodoxy” (Lindsell, p. 185). The anti-Semitic disdain for the Old Testament, which flourished under Hitler, was seated and taught in the seminaries of Germany and Briggs was there. (See Theologians under Hitler by Robert Erickson and New Age Bible Versions by Gail Riplinger).
Imagine traveling to Germany to study the Old Testament under Germans who hated both the Old Testament and the Hebrew people!