I'm really writing this review for the original Smith's Dictionary. My old one has proven a large help many times, especially when I wanted to know what those sickening asherah poles were. Personally, I use the one from Nelson.
This Dictionary has hindered me more than it has helped me. However, I do not know if it is the doings of the "Peloubets" or that Dr. Smith is a compromising Christian.It claims the behemoth is definitely a hippo, and that the leviathan should be a crocodile. It never considers any other possibilities, such as the behemoth being a giant plant eating dinosaur with a large tail like a "cedar" (the hippo has a pathetic tail).It also defines Joab son of Zeruiah as almost a good man! It claims that he was honorable in killing Absalom against David's orders. I also remember reading somewhere that it suggests that the Bible should contain more than 66 books. It suggests that the "Wisdom of Solomon" should be added because it seems so "inspired" by God. In its definition of "creation," it claims that the "method" of creation was not clear. Unless I have no grasp of the English language, and the translators of the NKJV, NASB, and NIV were all liars, I think the method of creation was clear (especially in the creation of man). It is whether or not we want to take God's words literally, or that we interpret it according to evolution. If anyone knows a better dictionary, please recommend it here! If the original Smith dictionary is better, please recommend it here also.
The editors of this dictionary do not hold to a universal flood, a 7-day creation, crossing of the Red Sea, and other miracles. These are all areas added to Smith's original work and reflect their bias against an authoritative, inerrant Bible.