This is in regard to a meta post: Strong's is a concordance, not a lexicon and its implications for this site.
I appreciate the concern in regard to the limitations of Strong's Concordance. Even Modern publications of this tool acknowledge its limitations, for example, of presumptuous application of etymology to the meaning of a compound word. Thus, in modern editions, rather than asserting that the etymology defines the word, it simply gives etymological connections. Such matters are worthy to consider when using this tool.
My concern is that the general disinclination of Scholars toward this tool may be taken to an extreme for this site. Strong's is widely referenced because it is convenient, accessible, and linkable on-line. Moreover, it is understandable & user friendly for the layman (for those "interested in the text"). The other tools recommended instead are not so user friendly for the untrained. If Strong's becomes taboo on BH-SE, then we might as well just say it is a Scholars/Expert's site.
It just seems like the box is getting smaller and smaller for the non-Scholar who may well be an expert in their own right. Shall we expect David to carry Saul's armor?
I consider the following worthy of warning/correction:
--If someone limits the meaning of a word to Strong's gloss,
--If someone asserts that the etymology is definitive,
--If someone relies only on Strong's alone & does not also consider context, usage, etc
I do not consider the following worthy of warning or correction:
--use of Strong's to provide a non-restrictive, general understanding of a terms meaning
--use of Strong's to provide information regarding the etymology of a term
--use of Strong's to consider possible etymological influences on meaning but not as a sole defining factor.
--use of Strong's along with usage, textual and contextual assessment