Concordances

[JHM]

Bye Now

 

[GuardianShua]

I Have 2 full fledged concordances, (Strong's - KJV & Eerdman's - RSV), and a couple of mini concordances that come included in some versions of the Bible, and have seen and used a "Nelson's" concordance; and I view Strong's as being by far the best of the ones I have seen.

The reasons for this, are :

1) To use Eerdmans it really helps to be fluent in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramiac, which I am not. It does not have numeric keys for its dictionarys; but rather just puts the words of the original languages in alphabetical order in the original script.

That makes it very hard to find the various possible alternate translations of any given word, as one has to first look up the word given by the translators then examine carefully the set of hieroglyphics from the original language that they have translated, then pore over enormous lists of hieroglyphicly sequenced hieroglyphics looking for a perfect match in order to find all possible meanings of the word.

2) Eerdman's like Nelson's has proper names listed separately from the remainder of the words.

There ARE HIDDEN MESSAGES in the Bible. I have found 3 of them. One employs an etymological code. If you do a root trace on most words it will not go very far. Usually 3 or 4 levels at most. But there is one word in the Bible, where the root trace goes on and on; and in doing so, if you look at the meaning of the words that the trace passes through it becomes apparent, (to me at least), that there is a hidden message pertaining to the original word.

Additionally there is an alphabetical code in there too. Normally when you read a dictionary, passing from one word to the next, one does not expect the words in alphabetical sequence to form coherant thoughts. But there is one case in there where they do. And it too goes on and on.

Since many Hebrew proper names have secondary meanings, taking the proper names out of the sequence to list them separately breaks up the message.

That is why I like Strong's..

The reason I use the NIV and the old KJV Exhaustive Concordances is because they are opposing scholars with different views. Or in other words, I dont have a bunch of yes men, but sholars with opposing views.

 

[marke]

I Have 2 full fledged concordances, (Strong's - KJV & Eerdman's - RSV), and a couple of mini concordances that come included in some versions of the Bible, and have seen and used a "Nelson's" concordance; and I view Strong's as being by far the best of the ones I have seen.

The reasons for this, are :

1) To use Eerdmans it really helps to be fluent in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramiac, which I am not. It does not have numeric keys for its dictionarys; but rather just puts the words of the original languages in alphabetical order in the original script.

That makes it very hard to find the various possible alternate translations of any given word, as one has to first look up the word given by the translators then examine carefully the set of hieroglyphics from the original language that they have translated, then pore over enormous lists of hieroglyphicly sequenced hieroglyphics looking for a perfect match in order to find all possible meanings of the word.

2) Eerdman's like Nelson's has proper names listed separately from the remainder of the words.

There ARE HIDDEN MESSAGES in the Bible. I have found 3 of them. One employs an etymological code. If you do a root trace on most words it will not go very far. Usually 3 or 4 levels at most. But there is one word in the Bible, where the root trace goes on and on; and in doing so, if you look at the meaning of the words that the trace passes through it becomes apparent, (to me at least), that there is a hidden message pertaining to the original word.

Additionally there is an alphabetical code in there too. Normally when you read a dictionary, passing from one word to the next, one does not expect the words in alphabetical sequence to form coherant thoughts. But there is one case in there where they do. And it too goes on and on.

Since many Hebrew proper names have secondary meanings, taking the proper names out of the sequence to list them separately breaks up the message.

That is why I like Strong's..

So what does Strongs say regarding Exo. 20:13?

Jesus doesn't give permission to kill either. Why are we being told it's ok by preachers?

Love to hear what you discover in Exo. 20:13.

God bless

 

[JolieHeart]

This is great information about the different concordances. Thank you for sharing.

 

[GuardianShua]

The KJV says kill and the NIV says murder. The difference being if the taking of a life was rightous or not.

 

[christianmomof3]

I like the blue letter bible online concordance because the ones in books have print that is soooo tiny and it is easier to use the online one. Here is blue letter bible http://www.blueletterbible.org/
are there any other good online concordances?

 

[GuardianShua]

I like the blue letter bible online concordance because the ones in books have print that is soooo tiny and it is easier to use the online one. Here is blue letter bible http://www.blueletterbible.org/
are there any other good online concordances?

A concordance is good to have, but there is a difference. We are talking about different (EXHAUSTIVE) cordances. They are much more through than a plain concordance.

 

[christianmomof3]

A concordance is good to have, but there is a difference. We are talking about different (EXHAUSTIVE) cordances. They are much more through than a plain concordance.

Oh, we have: Cruden's Concordance; The Word Study Concordance by Tyndale - a two volume set thing; another two volume set called Word Studies in the New Testament by M. R. Vincent; a 3 volume set by Wuest called Word Studies in the Greek New Testament; and Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible.
They are all my husband's and he had them since before we got married and they all - even the Young's, which is a very large book, have teeny tiny print and even with my new glasses, which I got last week and may not be working right, I can't read them well.

Are any of those the kind you are talking about?

 

[JHM]

Bye Now

 

[GuardianShua]

Oh, we have: Cruden's Concordance; The Word Study Concordance by Tyndale - a two volume set thing; another two volume set called Word Studies in the New Testament by M. R. Vincent; a 3 volume set by Wuest called Word Studies in the Greek New Testament; and Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible.
They are all my husband's and he had them since before we got married and they all - even the Young's, which is a very large book, have teeny tiny print and even with my new glasses, which I got last week and may not be working right, I can't read them well.

Are any of those the kind you are talking about?

The young's is a good one.

 

[GuardianShua]

I have been calling my Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, the old KJV Concordance. Sorry about that.

 

[JHM]

Bye Now

 

[GuardianShua]

That is unfortunate. As far as I know, those Bibles which prefix their name with "New" are "unisex" Bibles, wherein the gender distinctions inherant in ancient Hebrew, have been ommitted.

I presume your speaking of the NIV. Even so, that does not mean that they are in error about other things. I also find errors in strong's and the KJV. But that dose not keep me from believing that scripture is devinely inspired. Men are falable in translation, but God's word is true. It's good to have diverse Exhaustive Concordances. In that way I don't have a bunch of yes men speaking of what their itching ears want hear. Or in other words, I get to see both sides of the coin.

 

[JHM]

Bye Now

 

[JHM]

Bye Now

 

[GuardianShua]

No, I have never seen the Zondervan's concordance for the New International Version. I was referring to the New Revised Standard Version, the New Jerusalem Bible and, (I thought), the New King James Version. I know the New Revised Standard omits gender distinctions, and I believe that is also true of the New Jerusalem, (for which I have also never seen a concordance), and I assumed the same was true of the New King James.

Question @ Michael does the concordance for your New King James Give a Hebrew Dictionary entry for 5119 as :
"5119. Nowchah. no-khaw' : fem. of 5118; quietude; Nochah, an Isr.:--Nohah"

If it retains the "fem" then it has the gender distinctions inherant in ancient Hebrew. If not it doesn't. This word is also an example of the importance of retaining propper names in the main sequence.

It is part of the "Fallen Angels Code" and the secondary meaning of "Quietude" forms part of the message.

I use the old King James bible and the NIV bible together, and I use the Strong's and NIV Exhaustive Concordances. I also have most all of the other bibles too. I also use all of the different bible dictionarys, mainly the Holman bible dictionary. Im well aware that there are hidden messages in our bibles, because I have found many of them. But as for the "Fallen Angels Code" or the "Quietude" you lost me. Perhaps a better explanation will do.

 

[JHM]

Bye Now

 

[JHM]

Bye Now

 

[JHM]

Bye Now

 

[JHM]

Bye Now