Just_Ahead
Active Member
When doing word studies, which Greek or Hebrew numbering system do you prefer -- Strong's or N/K?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Greek and Hebrew numbering systems do you prefer -- Strong's or N/K
- Thread starter Just_Ahead
- Start date
I think ypu mean G/K . It comes from E.W. Goodrick / J.R. Kohlenberger.
I don't use either system, but it really depends on what dictionary and concordance people are using. Your dictionary is more important than the numbers. Mounce makes a really good lexicon, that primarily goes by the G/K system, but does have a Strongs cross reference. I recommend Mounce for none Greek readers. Very user friendly.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
I don't use either system, but it really depends on what dictionary and concordance people are using. Your dictionary is more important than the numbers. Mounce makes a really good lexicon, that primarily goes by the G/K system, but does have a Strongs cross reference. I recommend Mounce for none Greek readers. Very user friendly.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
But the sources that use the other system are more up to date and accurate
Or is that just advertizing?
The lexicons and concordances that links to that numbering system are more recent and up to date
37818
Well-Known Member
Can you give one case example where the newer numbering system is better because of accuracy?
Christian "advertising", is what I believe. They could have used the same numbering just added more if needed. Just my opinion though.
The sources cites and used are more accurate and up to date!
I don't really know the G/K system, though I'm sure I've used it at some time or other. Maybe someone can enlighten me.
When I'm using software, I simply click on whatever number comes up to guide me to a lexicon. Then I judge whether or not to use that lexicon based on personal knowledge and experience. So to me, either system is okay. It's the resource that they guide you to that needs discernment.
1. Strong's "lexicons"--No thanks. Not really lexicons, but only dictionaries giving glosses (very brief definitions, usually just one word). But the Strong's system can lead me to better resources.
2. Thayer's--old and out of date, but occasionally useful.
3. BDB OT--Old, but still valid and useful.
Etc.
When I'm using software, I simply click on whatever number comes up to guide me to a lexicon. Then I judge whether or not to use that lexicon based on personal knowledge and experience. So to me, either system is okay. It's the resource that they guide you to that needs discernment.
1. Strong's "lexicons"--No thanks. Not really lexicons, but only dictionaries giving glosses (very brief definitions, usually just one word). But the Strong's system can lead me to better resources.
2. Thayer's--old and out of date, but occasionally useful.
3. BDB OT--Old, but still valid and useful.
Etc.
37818
Well-Known Member
Prove it.
The Zondervan Concordances are superior to the Strong!
37818
Well-Known Member
Prove it.
More up to date definitions, as used better reference tools
37818
Well-Known Member
Making claims are not proof. Your up to date is inferior.
Are you also making claims or counter-claims without proving them to be true?
The 2001 The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible was "fully revised and corrected by John R. Kohlenberger III and James A. Swanson" and printed by Zondervan.
In its introduction, its editors wrote: "there are errors in Strong's concordances and dictionaries. For example, under the heading RED, the reference in Acts 7:36 and Hebrews 11:29 have the number 2281 at the end of the context lines; however, this is the number of the Greek word for 'sea,' not 'red.' Even the 'new' and 'corrected' editions repeat this error. The Strongest Strong's goes farther than any other edition in correcting the generally excellent work of the original editor" (p. x).
In its introductions, its editors wrote: "our contexts reflect the relationship of the original languages and the English far more exhaustively than the original edition. Since most of Strong's contexts index a single word with a single number, the user gets the wrong impression that the KJV is a word-for-word, one-to-one translation. But the translators often translated single words with phrases, phrases with single words, and phrases with idiomatic phrases. The Strongest Strong's uses bold type and multiple Strong numbers to indicate tens of thousands of multi-word translation not indexed in any other edition" (p. x).
It may be assertions in the introduction to this Zondervan edition of Strong's that led the other poster to make his claim.
By the way, the Strongest Strong's is based on the 1873 Cambridge edition of Scrivener, and its editors think that it is the best edition of the KJV. This does cause it to have some differences with other Strong's Concordance editions. Since the 1873 Cambridge returned to several 1611 edition renderings that were changed in KJV editions based on the 1769, it makes this edition of Strong's of some value in comparing the 1611 edition to most post-1900 editions.
In its introduction, its editors wrote: "there are errors in Strong's concordances and dictionaries. For example, under the heading RED, the reference in Acts 7:36 and Hebrews 11:29 have the number 2281 at the end of the context lines; however, this is the number of the Greek word for 'sea,' not 'red.' Even the 'new' and 'corrected' editions repeat this error. The Strongest Strong's goes farther than any other edition in correcting the generally excellent work of the original editor" (p. x).
In its introductions, its editors wrote: "our contexts reflect the relationship of the original languages and the English far more exhaustively than the original edition. Since most of Strong's contexts index a single word with a single number, the user gets the wrong impression that the KJV is a word-for-word, one-to-one translation. But the translators often translated single words with phrases, phrases with single words, and phrases with idiomatic phrases. The Strongest Strong's uses bold type and multiple Strong numbers to indicate tens of thousands of multi-word translation not indexed in any other edition" (p. x).
It may be assertions in the introduction to this Zondervan edition of Strong's that led the other poster to make his claim.
By the way, the Strongest Strong's is based on the 1873 Cambridge edition of Scrivener, and its editors think that it is the best edition of the KJV. This does cause it to have some differences with other Strong's Concordance editions. Since the 1873 Cambridge returned to several 1611 edition renderings that were changed in KJV editions based on the 1769, it makes this edition of Strong's of some value in comparing the 1611 edition to most post-1900 editions.
Last edited:
I use Strings, but I no longer use it much.
I don't think that the majority of people are using Scriveners edition of the KJV? Maybe it is the most accurate (unproven), but what percentages of KJV's use it's text?