Genesis 10:22
The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram.
Read in context →Begin with the exact English word as it appears in the King James Bible. Follow its whole-Bible usage, book distribution, related indexed forms, Webster 1828, every occurrence, and the occurrence-specific Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek mappings behind it.
The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram.
Read in context →Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
Read in context →6 occurrences in 6 verses.
Browse those occurrences →This is exact English-word usage from the canonical KJV token index, not a Strong's estimate.
These relationships come from exact verse + token-position mappings. We do not assume that one English spelling always equals one Strong's number. A single English token can also carry more than one source tag, so the Strong's-link total can exceed the number of English occurrences.
ʼArpakshad · ar-pak-shad'
Arpakshad, a son of Noah; also the region settled by him
Strong's KJV usage: Arphaxad.
Strong's first: Genesis 10:22Strong's last: 1 Chronicles 1:24
Open full H775 profile →Arphaxád · ar-fax-ad'
Arphaxad, a post-diluvian patriarch
Strong's KJV usage: :--Arphaxad.
Strong's first: Luke 3:36Strong's last: Luke 3:36
Open full G742 profile →Strong's data is a concordance/lexical reference layer. Scripture context controls interpretation. Lexical source data is shown separately from future TWBC editorial teaching.
1 occurrence match the current filters. Each row keeps its exact KJV token position so Original Word and TSK remain occurrence-specific.
Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
Dictionary data is kept visibly separate from Scripture and from lexical Strong's data.
No Webster 1828 entry was found for this exact KJV form or its conservative base-form candidates.
Curated TWBC teaching will remain a separate editorial layer. Raw source data is never silently rewritten to force a doctrinal conclusion.