Jump to content
Online Baptist

Which Strong's concordance to use?


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have been noticing the new "Strongest Strong's Concordance" for the 21st Century. I looked to see that Zondervan published it. I have a couple of the older ones. My question is: which one(s) are more true to the KJV? Or is there even a difference? I wanted to give my children concordances for gifts, but I want to purchase the right ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Lady Administrators

We have the old Strong's and like it. I've heard from a lot of people that don't, though. My mom's pastor actually prefers Young's, saying that he believes it is more accurate. We don't have Young's, but I wouldn't mind having it for comparison sake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I prefer the Young's Analytical, always have found it to be "user friendly". It is keyed to the KJB whereas the Strong's is not (technically not), the Lexicon in the back has led me to some interesting cross references and aided me in some insights that I might have passed over if not for them.
I was told (like many other students) Strong's is for the strong and Youngs is for the weak, or some slight variation thereof.

Strong's is a "complete" concordance, the Young's is an "analytical", and is designed for a different purpose than the Strong's. Strong's is made to find a word, Young's is made to analyze the use of a word in the original language and see how it was translated by the KJB scholars. Thus, you'll find fewer entries in the Young's, in fact there are a few words that do not even appear that are in your KJB!

But in the end, a concordance should not be your" thinking cap". Some men just grab a "topical" word and run down a list of the verses where it's found and recite them with preachy quips along the way. Many times, cross references do not contain the same word, but the teaching worded differently.

A concordance is not inspired, though we should already know that, Strong's definitions are not inspired, Thayer's definitions are not scripture. Roberts, Mantey's and others were not what you and I would call "bible believer's". Their doctrine influenced their definitions many times in a bad way, and we need to let the scripture be compared to scripture.

My 2 cents is all...

God bless,
Calvary

Edited by Calvary
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


But in the end, a concordance should not be your" thinking cap". Some men just grab a "topical" word and run down a list of the verses where it's found and recite them with preachy quips along the way. Many times, cross references do not contain the same word, but the teaching worded differently.

A concordance is not inspired, though we should already know that, Strong's definitions are not inspired, Thayer's definitions are not scripture. Roberts, Mantey's and others were not what you and I would call "bible believer's". Their doctrine influenced their definitions many times in a bad way, and we need to let the scripture be compared to scripture.

My 2 cents is all...

God bless,
Calvary


:amen: Excellent points!
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have been noticing the new "Strongest Strong's Concordance" for the 21st Century. I looked to see that Zondervan published it. I have a couple of the older ones. My question is: which one(s) are more true to the KJV? Or is there even a difference? I wanted to give my children concordances for gifts, but I want to purchase the right ones.


I am a retired businessman who enjoys reading and studying the Word of God. I received my first concordance for Christmas when I was 18 years old. It was Cruden's Compact Concordance and came wrapped with a copy of Unger's Bible Dictionary. The font (type) was small, but readable. What impressed me was the handy Bible size of this concordance. I frequently used my Cruden's for the next 15 years. I do not remember much about my second concordance, except that it was a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and the font--while being larger than the font used in the Cruden's--was almost illegible because of poor printing. I purchased this concordance at a Christian book store because someone at church said I needed it. I soon got rid of it. I continued to use my Cruden's until I joined a Bible study group that studied word studies in the original languages. At that time, I purchased my third concordance, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance from Thomas Nelson with a readable font and a section in the back listing key verses and other Biblical features. Despite the Bible study group, I found that I used my third concordance because of the features in the back--not the Strong number system and dictionary. Currently, I am using my fourth Concordance, a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance from Zondervan with a large comfortable font.

The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Larger Pri
nt
Edition
(Zondervan, 2002, pages 1952, size 11 x 8.5 x 2.75, ISBN 0310246970), Christian Book Distributors (CBD) link:



I am afraid I am one of those spoken about in another post who enjoys reading word entries in a concordance, although I know reading a concordance is not the same as reading the Word of God. Here is the information and link to my current concordance. However, this Larger Print Edition, probably because of the size of the print, does not have all the features as the 21st Century Edition in your post, which is listed below.

The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, 21st Ce
nt
ury Edition
(Zondervan, 2001, pages 1808, size 11 x 8.5 x 2, ISBN 0310233437) CBD link:



At the time of my purchase, I chose the Larger Print Edition because the regular font of my Nelson concordance grew tiresome to my aging eyes.

CONSIDERATIONS

Size
The Larger Print Edition is easy to read, but awkward to handle. A regular font edition would be much easier for your children to use, depending upon their ages. Most concordances sold these days use a sans serif font, which is not as easy to read as the traditional serif font used in Bibles.

Number System
Will your children use the Strong number system? This is a great technical feature, if you use it. But some people do not use the number system in a concordance (or use one online or in a Bible software program). Instead, these people prefer a smaller concordance with the definition close to the word entry; something easy to take to church, lunch, or study groups. I remember I was on my third concordance (in my 40s) before I started using the Strong number system. Now, in my retirement since I have more time for Bible study, I use the Strong number system when consulting other Biblical reference aids. Recently, some reference aids also make use of the Goodrick/Kohlenberger or G/K number system developed by Zondervan for their word study products. The Strongest Strong's concordances list the Strong numbers in the indexes, and both Strong and G/K numbers in the dictionary at the back of the concordances. If Bible students are more interested in the English words of the King James Bible--and not interested in the original Greek or Hebrew words--they may prefer a concordance that omits a number system.

Cruden's Concordance
Cruden's Complete Concordance is considered user-friendly--

  • No numbers (Strong or G/K)
  • Definitions are close to the entry, not in a technical dictionary in the back
  • Serif font is used, a font that resembles the font of most Bibles
  • Concordance is a handy Bible size

Here is the information on an edition of Cruden's Concordance from Hendrickson.

Cruden's Complete Concordance
(Hendrickson, 1990, pages 800, size 8.5 x 5.75 x 2, ISBN 1565638182). CBD link:



While covering the needs of most Bible readers, Cruden's Complete Concordance is avoided in some Bible study situations because it is not exhaustive, as the following rounded numbers illustrate.

Feature.......................Strong's....................Cruden's
Main index...................260,000.....................220,000
ACPN* index................530,000............................-0-
ACPN index = Index of articles, conjunctions, prepositions, pronouns, etc.

. . .

I hope this helps.

...Bob

Edited by BobinKy
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



I am a retired businessman who enjoys reading and studying the Word of God. I received my first concordance for Christmas when I was 18 years old. It was Cruden's Compact Concordance and came wrapped with a copy of Unger's Bible Dictionary. The font (type) was small, but readable. What impressed me was the handy Bible size of this concordance. I frequently used my Cruden's for the next 15 years. I do not remember much about my second concordance, except that it was a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and the font--while being larger than the font used in the Cruden's--was almost illegible because of poor printing. I purchased this concordance at a Christian book store because someone at church said I needed it. I soon got rid of it. I continued to use my Cruden's until I joined a Bible study group that studied word studies in the original languages. At that time, I purchased my third concordance, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance from Thomas Nelson with a readable font and a section in the back listing key verses and other Biblical features. Despite the Bible study group, I found that I used my third concordance because of the features in the back--not the Strong number system and dictionary. Currently, I am using my fourth Concordance, a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance from Zondervan with a large comfortable font.

The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Larger Pri
nt
Edition
(Zondervan, 2002, pages 1952, size 11 x 8.5 x 2.75, ISBN 0310246970), Christian Book Distributors (CBD) link:



I am afraid I am one of those spoken about in another post who enjoys reading word entries in a concordance, although I know reading a concordance is not the same as reading the Word of God. Here is the information and link to my current concordance. However, this Larger Print Edition, probably because of the size of the print, does not have all the features as the 21st Century Edition in your post, which is listed below.

The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, 21st Ce
nt
ury Edition
(Zondervan, 2001, pages 1808, size 11 x 8.5 x 2, ISBN 0310233437) CBD link:



At the time of my purchase, I chose the Larger Print Edition because the regular font of my Nelson concordance grew tiresome to my aging eyes.

CONSIDERATIONS

Size
The Larger Print Edition is easy to read, but awkward to handle. A regular font edition would be much easier for your children to use, depending upon their ages. Most concordances sold these days use a sans serif font, which is not as easy to read as the traditional serif font used in Bibles.

Number System
Will your children use the Strong number system? This is a great technical feature, if you use it. But some people do not use the number system in a concordance (or use one online or in a Bible software program). Instead, these people prefer a smaller concordance with the definition close to the word entry; something easy to take to church, lunch, or study groups. I remember I was on my third concordance (in my 40s) before I started using the Strong number system. Now, in my retirement since I have more time for Bible study, I use the Strong number system when consulting other Biblical reference aids. Recently, some reference aids also make use of the Goodrick/Kohlenberger or G/K number system developed by Zondervan for their word study products. The Strongest Strong's concordances list the Strong numbers in the indexes, and both Strong and G/K numbers in the dictionary at the back of the concordances. If Bible students are more interested in the English words of the King James Bible--and not interested in the original Greek or Hebrew words--they may prefer a concordance that omits a number system.

Cruden's Concordance
Cruden's Complete Concordance is considered user-friendly--

  • No numbers (Strong or G/K)
  • Definitions are close to the entry, not in a technical dictionary in the back
  • Serif font is used, a font that resembles the font of most Bibles
  • Concordance is a handy Bible size

Here is the information on an edition of Cruden's Concordance from Hendrickson.

Cruden's Complete Concordance
(Hendrickson, 1990, pages 800, size 8.5 x 5.75 x 2, ISBN 1565638182). CBD link:



While covering the needs of most Bible readers, Cruden's Complete Concordance is avoided in some Bible study situations because it is not exhaustive, as the following rounded numbers illustrate.

Feature.......................Strong's....................Cruden's
Main index...................260,000.....................220,000
ACPN* index................530,000............................-0-
ACPN index = Index of articles, conjunctions, prepositions, pronouns, etc.

. . .

I hope this helps.


...Bob

__________________

"A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good . . . For of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh" (Luke 6:45).



:goodpost: Welcome to OB Bob! :th_tiphat:
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

MORE CONSIDERATIONS

Strong's Concordances from Thomas Nelson
Thomas Nelson recently published a series of Strong's Concordances. These appear to be quality concordances with added features not found in the Zondervan Strongest Strong's series. The last two are paperback editions and not exhaustive (no numbers), but should be great grab-n-go concordances to take to church, lunch, or anywhere.

The New Strong's Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible
(Thomas Nelson, 2009, pages 2000, size 11.25 x 8.75 x 2.25, ISBN 1418541680), Christian Book Distributors (CBD) link:



The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Large-Pri
nt
Edition
(Thomas Nelson, 2009, pages 1968, size 11.25 X 8.75 X 2.38, ISBN 1418541699), CBD link:



The New Strong's Concise Concordance of the Bible, Paperback Edition
(Thomas Nelson, 2005, pages 768, size 9.25 X 6.38, ISBN 1418501484), CBD link:



The New Strong's Compact Concordance of the Bible, Paperback Edition
(Thomas Nelson, 2004, pages 768, size 7 x 4.50, ISBN 0785252509), CBD link:



I hope this helps.


...Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (Updated Edition) by Hendrickson Publishers for the KJV Bible. It's ISBN is : 978-1-59856-378-8

The first edition of this version was 2007 and I have a third printing 2009. Has served me well so far and every word of the Bible is in there compared to one whose name escapes me now that I used before this. But it was small and seemingly barely larger than the concordance in the back of my Bible!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 5 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Hi, sorry if this is a stupid question but I have only been saved a month and still learning. People around me keep going on about concordances, what are they exactly?


Not a stupid question at all!

Basically, a concordance is a book that lists (should list!) every word in the Bible and every occurrence of each word, and it will tell you where that word is located in the Bible (book and verse).

Mind you, some basic words like a, the, that, etc. aren't listed. A concordance is helpful when you want to find a verse but don't know exactly where to find it; therefore, if you know one of the main words of the verse, you can look that word up in the concordance, and it will tell you where the verse is located.

The concordances being referred to in this thread also link each word to its Hebrew or Greek definition.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Sort of off topic, but as concerns Young's...
One advantage of Young's is that when you look up a Greek or Hebrew word in the back, it gives the different ways, and specific number of times, each word is translated into English. For example, pneuma is translated into various English words (usually as spirit, but not always), and one can see what other words to look up to find all uses of the word pneuma.

Another NT only concordance is "The Word Study Concordance". This is an excellent reference/study set (2 volumes). This does not give definitions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Young was someone who was in favour of the critical text. I might be wrong on this part - but I think his concordance was based on his own Bible, which "corrected" and changed the KJV.

The Strong's Exhaustive Concordance or Comprehensive Concordance (same as the other without all the "the's" "and's", and some other small words not listed is the best Bible study tool you could ever find and use. The Strongest Strongs is actually an attempt to bridge the KJV with the NKJV and perhaps some other modern versions. There are definitions and articles that make reference to them. For example, there are definitions that are based on the NKJV and that try to make it seem that the KJV and NKJV are the same.

The Strong's Exhaustive/Compehensive Concordance will help you understand your King James Bible, and help you trace the words used within it. The Strongest Strongs, and some other modern concordances, will actually cause you to question the wording of the KJV if you take their articles and definitions at face value.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

One advantage of Young's is that when you look up a Greek or Hebrew word in the back, it gives the different ways, and specific number of times, each word is translated into English. For example, pneuma is translated into various English words (usually as spirit, but not always), and one can see what other words to look up to find all uses of the word pneuma.


Strong's Concordance does that as well. First each number leads you to the specific Hebrew or Greek word in the back, the basic definition, then all the ways that Hebrew or Greek word is translated into English. The only thing Strong's doesn't do that Young's does in this regard, is give you the number of times a Hebrew or Greek word is translated into a particular English word or phrase.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

There are differences in the various Strong's Concordances out there.

On my Bibleworks Software, the Larry Pierce Englishmen's Strongs is used. It is different than the Strongs used on my Swordsearcher Software. For instance:

The word winebibber on my Bibleworks is defined thusly:

3630 oivnopo,thj oinopotes {oy-nop-ot'-ace}
Meaning: 1) a winebibber, given to wine, a wino
Origin: from 3631 and a derivative of the alternate of 4095;; n m
Usage: AV - winebibber 2; 2


For Swordsearcher's Strongs, it is:
Strong's Greek Dictionary

3630. oinopotes
Search for G3630 in KJVSL oinopothV oinopotes oy-nop-ot'-ace
from 3631 and a derivative of the alternate of 4095; a tippler:--winebibber.
See Greek 3631
See Greek 4095


The former presents a problem. "oinopotes" is never translated as "given to wine" in the SwordSearcher's Strongs... "paroinos" is. 'paroinos" is translated as "given to wine" in both versions in 1 Timothy 3:3. Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The Strong's Exhaustive Concordance is by James Strong. The Englishman's Concordance is something else entirely. Had it on one Bible program, but don't know how good it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

The Strong's Exhaustive Concordance is by James Strong. The Englishman's Concordance is something else entirely. Had it on one Bible program, but don't know how good it is.
Right.

According to Bibleworks, the Englishman's is another version of Strong's....they use the Strong's numbering system
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It is not a Strong's Concordance. There are various resources that use Strong's numbering system, for study purposes, but that does not make them a Strong's Concordance. It is a convenient way of cross-referencing definitions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

Here's something interesting...

The talk of different editions of the Strong's Concordance caused me to get my wife's Strong's (Hendrickson Publishers) off the bookshelf and look for any changes.

Proverbs 18:24 (KJV) A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.

The Strong's on the bookshelf, and also the Strongs in my SwordSearcher Software, record "friendly" thusly"


Strong's Hebrew Dictionary
7489. ra`a`
Search for H7489 in KJVSL eer ra`a` raw-ah'
a primitive root; properly, to spoil (literally, by breaking to pieces); figuratively, to make (or be) good for nothing, i.e. bad (physically, socially or morally):--afflict, associate selves (by mistake for 7462), break (down, in pieces), + displease, (be, bring, do) evil (doer, entreat, man), show self friendly (by mistake for 7462), do harm, (do) hurt, (behave self, deal) ill, X indeed, do mischief, punish, still, vex, (do) wicked (doer, -ly), be (deal, do) worse.
See Hebrew 7462
See Hebrew 7462

Where is the word "friendly" in that definition?

Can someone explain who "ra'a" means friendly?

*edited to add: I know the KJV is not wrong. It would make no sense to say "A man that hath friends must shew himself spoiled." Nor does it make sense to say show friendly by mistake. Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I think the King James Translators knew what they were doing - including understanding the context of the surrounding words in Hebrew and knew it was best to translate that word as "friendly" there and even "associate themselves" in another passage (as the definition states). Perhaps there is a negative prefix or suffix to one of the words (all his definitions shows is the root forms of the words) or a negative pronoun (or something - don't remember all the terms) in the surrounding passage. I know for a fact that Greek does this, so it is very possible the Hebrew language does too.

So I would disagree with Strong's in the few places where he says a word was mistaken for something else - BUT he is right on the basic definition of his words (including when it may be a negative form of the word), and he lists all the ways that Hebrew or Greek word or phrase is translated into English.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

We have the old Strong's and like it. I've heard from a lot of people that don't, though. My mom's pastor actually prefers Young's, saying that he believes it is more accurate. We don't have Young's, but I wouldn't mind having it for comparison sake.


Strong's is not KJB keyed, Young's Analytical Concordance is in my opinion the best Concordance available. It has a great lexicon in the back that allows you to find cross refs that otherwise you wouldn't have found. By listing the verses in the KJB that a Greek or Hebrew word is found, you can find verses that shed light on other verses although they do not carry the exact English word. The Young's is keyed to the KJB. The Young's does not carry every article, therefore it is not a concise Concordance as is Strong's, but Young's Concordance was designed to be a pastor's Concordance who is using the Concordance for BIBLE study, NOT WORD studies. I have always thought that Vincent's Word Studies was about the most boring work I ever had the displeasure of using. Word studies bore down, down and then down until there is no where to go. Young's was designed for the pastor, not the layman.

God bless,
calvary
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Strong's is not KJV keyed - what is that supposed to mean? It is a tool made for studying the KJV.


It's like this:
"New editions of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible are still in print (in 2007). Additionally, other authors have used Strong's numbers in concordances of other Bible translations, such as the New International Version and American Standard Version. These are often also referred to as Strong's Concordances.
New editions of Strong's may exclude the comparative section (1611 KJV to 1614) and the asterisks that denote differential definitions of the same Hebrew or Greek words; due perhaps to denominational considerations, definitions may also be altered."

"Not every distinct word is assigned a number, but only the root words."

I am referring to the apparatus, not the listing.

God bless,
calvary
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 years later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I remember the first time I saw and took a look at a Strong’s (or whatever it’s specific name was) Concordance for the NIV. I was dismayed to find that it actually gave other numbers and underlying words for English words that differed in modern versions (ie. they give definitions based on other texts - Westcott/Hort, Nestle, etc.) - no surprise there, but definitely a tool to sow confusion. At least when I was initially researching the Bible version issue and comparing passages in different versions I could see how the underlying text of the King James Bible matched the words that were being defined (in other words, my Strong’s Concordance strengthened my faith in the preserved Word of God), and the modern versions were shown to be entirely different in many places (not just using different modern words to teach the same things).

Things that are different are not the same - as they saying goes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎9‎/‎16‎/‎2010 at 8:29 AM, nucreature said:

I have been noticing the new "Strongest Strong's Concordance" for the 21st Century. I looked to see that Zondervan published it. .

As I understand it, the Strongest Strong's Concordance uses as its KJV text the 1873 Cambridge edition edited by Scrivener while most other Strong's Concordance editions use a late 1880's to 1900 edition of the KJV (I forget the exact year of that edition).  Thus, there are a few differences in the KJV text since the 1873 Cambridge went back to several renderings in the 1611 edition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎9‎/‎16‎/‎2010 at 8:29 AM, nucreature said:

I have been noticing the new "Strongest Strong's Concordance" for the 21st Century.

Perhaps one difference between Strongest Strong's Concordance for the KJV and other Strong's Concordances for the KJV may be in cases where words are added for which there was no original-language word of Scripture.   The Strongest Strong's Concordance will identify those added words with NIH [Not in Hebrew] or NIG [Not in Greek] in place of giving a Strong's number for an original-language word instead of leaving a blank.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 43 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...