Scholars and pastors, please provide advice

Young's concordance is better than Strong's.
Matthew Henry's commentary set is sound, but also check out Matthew Poole's commentary set for a related outlook with more of an exegetical approach.

 

The difference between Strong's and Young's is, of course, that Young's is much much more than a mere concordance. It is, unlike Strong's, analytical. In Strong's the English words are simply listed in alphabetical order and their place in the bible in order of their appearence by book, chapter, and verse. Young's, on the other hand, lists the English words in alphabetical order, then are listed under the original language word in alphabetical order, with a literal meaning and a transliteration contained in the listing. We can see every Hebrew/Greek word that is translated by an English word and every place that same Hebrew/Greek word is similarly translated, and even where it is translated differently! You can actually analyze the use of a Hebrew/Greek word, which you cannot readily do using Strong's.

 

If you do go with strongs, I recommend getting the abridged version which eliminates common words like "the" "and", "is", etc. You would rarely if ever look up a cross-reference for such a common word, and by eliminating them, the size of the volume is so much smaller and user-friendly. Young's may have such a volume as well.

Chick

 

1. I have never heard of Alexander or his book.
2. I have never cared that much for Ironside's books. They seem a little shallow to me.
3. I recommend Young's Analytical Concordance over Strong's Exhaustive one. To me it is easier to use.
4. I have always liked Matthew Henry's commentary, although he is a baby-sprinkler. He will give you something on which to think.