@JonEricson not to mention, there is fundamental disagreement on site scope and on what makes a good question and answer here - even among the mod team

@user2479 I would caution you about Thayer's also. But the issue with Strong's is not that the glosses are wrong (in most cases, anyways), just that the point is not to provide definitions/glosses. That is not the intended purpose of the tool - the purpose is to be a concordance, not a lexicon/dictionary.

@user2479 and again, the point is to answer the question, not necessarily to discern the truth of a text. The two may overlap, or they may not, depending on the question. There are 'purely' linguistic questions.

@user2479 but we've discussed similar things ad nauseam before, so I see no point in repeating myself.

@FrankLuke said it well in a comment on my Strong's post:

And most questions are not asking how something has been translated (the OP usually already knows this), they are asking how it should/can be translated. The Strong's Concordance is the wrong tool for such questions except to show how the word has been translated elsewhere, but it does not take morphology/grammar, context, etc. into account

@All-The point being: Strongs is sufficient to make exegetical assertations: No, it is not an 'all-encompassing' lexicon, nor is it an authoritative primary source on the study and usage of a language. I believe we've strayed from proper hermeneutics when we go from "What does the text mean" to "What do the words say". We can conjure up all sorts of possibilities as to the potential definition of the words-do they "assist" or do they "obscure" the ended meaning the Author wanted to convey?

@All-"oops" "intended"-maybe Freud slipped out again...

^^^^ "Hot question" sidebar effect felt once again - amazing!

@user2479 and my point is that even James Strong would disagree with your first sentence. He didn't create a tool for the person untrained in biblical languages to make exegetical assertions about the meaning of words in specific contexts. But I've made my case in a lengthy post on meta, and you clearly don't agree nor care to address the actual arguments made

@Davïd nice!

@Daи-It is 'elitist' to say that one cannot understand the Truth without the latest lexicons in circulation: knowledge does not equal wisdom. To 'exegete' is to ascribe the correct meaning to a particular text. Curious: what if Jesus 'exegeted' the way current scholars do? I wonder how the passages would read?