[Natural Law]

"I look at the meaning of the word itself without trying to inject a meaning or explain a meaning given by someone else to a passage or verse."

You are looking at translations of translations. What in your judgment or experience qualifies you to validate the translations and infallibly interpret the original meaning?

"Here’s another site just for reference. http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3304"

This source too relies on contributors. If we are to take Strong's Concordance we have to first admit that it is not infallible and that it is based upon the King James translation which itself is flawed.

Since you seem so intent on appealing to authority, why don't you look to what the Early Church Fathers had to say on the subject, those who were either students of the Apostles or were no more than a generation or two removed from those who were?

[stfassisi]

“”If we are to take Strong’s Concordance we have to first admit that it is not infallible and that it is based upon the King James translation which itself is flawed.””

You hit the nail on the head on this because it has lead unimaginable modernist Christian thought and teaching because of Strongs Concordance error and the KJV

Here is just 1 good source on this, there are many

http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/downloads/PDF/HazMat/H-pp_157-202_Chapter_7_Strong_Delusion-James_Strongs_Dang.pdf