The Strong's Deception

[HARK!]

Use​

Strong's Concordance provides an index to the Bible. This allows the reader to find words where they appear in the Bible. It also lets the reader directly compare how the same word may be used elsewhere in the Bible.

Strong's numbers​

Each original-language word (Hebrew or Greek) is given an entry number in the dictionary of those original language words listed in the back of the concordance. These have become known as the "Strong's numbers". The main concordance lists each word that appears in the KJV Bible in alphabetical order with each verse in which it appears listed in order of its appearance in the Bible, with a snippet of the surrounding text (including the word in italics). Appearing to the right of the scripture reference is the Strong's number. This allows the user of the concordance to look up the meaning of the original language word in the associated dictionary in the back, thereby showing how the original language word was translated into the English word in the KJV Bible.

Strong's Concordance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Oh really?

For years now, I have been using Strong's numbers to find the most accurate definition of the Hebrew word. The way that I do this is to look at the otiot of the word I'm researching. Then look at all of the various English translations of that word. I choose one definition that most closely conforms to the symbology of the otiot. Then I get the Strong's number for that word. Then I plug the definition that I'm testing into every verse that contains that Strong's number. If that definition doesn't work with every verse that I have tested it against; then I continue to try to understand what that word must mean.

Recently I did a similar study. I have forgotten which word I was researching; but initially I was satisfied with my understanding of the meaning of the word. Maybe a dozen or so verses were connected to that Strong's number. This did seem a bit odd for this word that is commonly found in the Bible. It didn't take long before I stumbled onto the reality that this word is used widely throughout scripture. It didn't take me long before I realized that there were at least three Strong's numbers for this same word. Within days I stumbled onto another word that had multiple numbers assigned to it.

I recently brought this up at a Bible study; and one of the well studied members within our group was as astonished as I was. He asked me what words; but I couldn't remember either of them. I told him that I would look into it; and get back to him next week.

This evening I began to reconstruct my discoveries; when I noticed that those are not rare cases.

The Strong's Deception

I'm now determined to search out every Hebrew word that has multiple Strong's numbers assigned to it.

 

[HARK!]

אב

H1, H2, H3, H4

אבד

H6, H7, H8, H9


,
Notice that in Ex 10:7 that H6 is assigned to אבדה. This word is built on אבד. Adding the ה suffix renders this word in the feminine singular. Strong's H9 is אבדה. I can see that this study is quickly turning into a tangled mess.

H10

It's more tangled than I thought just a moment ago.

H10 - 'ăḇēḏâ - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)

H10 - אֲבַדֹּה ʼăbaddôh, ab-ad-do'; the same as , miswritten for ; a perishing:—destruction.

www.blueletterbible.org

אבדון

H11


I can see right now that this study is going to consume quite a bit of time.

 

[HARK!]

אבדן

H12, H13

אבה

H14, H16

אביר

H46, H47

אבל

H57, H58, H60, H61

אבן

H68, H69, H70

אגם

H98, H99

אדם

H119, H120, H121, H122, H123

 

[Matt5]

I'm trying to understand what you wrote.

There are 8,679 unique words in the Hebrew old testament. So we should see things like H4,561 or H7,231.

Apparently, the different forms of the same word are counted as separate words. It would be like conjugating a verb and counting the various forms as separate words. Not so bad in English, but definitely bad in many other languages.

My first reaction is to bail out and look for another source for this information. Is there another source?

 

[HARK!]

I'm trying to understand what you wrote.

There are 8,679 unique words in the Hebrew old testament. So we should see things like H4,561 or H7,231.

Apparently, the different forms of the same word are counted as separate words. It would be like conjugating a verb and counting the various forms as separate words. Not so bad in English, but definitely bad in many other languages.

אב is not a conjugated verb. אב is a root. We have four Strong's numbers for the root אב.

My first reaction is to bail out and look for another source for this information. Is there another source?

I'm creating it, here and now.

 

[HARK!]

אהיל

H166, H167

אולי

H194, H196

און

H202, H205

 

[daq]

Perhaps an English word example might help for some.
I could probably make this example worse, but I suppose it is bad enough already.

The Red Sox right fielder, John Doe Fielder, caused a panic when he collided with his brother, the center fielder, and collapsed on the field. Luckily he was okay, and even fielded a few questions for the sports reporters after the game. One joker asked him what his primary field of study was in college: he jokingly replied, magnetic field anomalies between right and center fielders named Fielder.

Essentially we have a noun, (and a proper noun), an adjective, and a verb. Should we give them each their own number classification? Can we get away with slightly altering the meaning of one of the classifications because it appears on the surface to be a different word by way of its different number classification? Not likely if everyone who reads our lexicon already reads and understands English: but what if someone is learning English, and that is why they are using our lexicon?

 

[HARK!]

אור

H216, H217

 

[HARK!]

אזל

H235, H236

אזן

H238, H239

אחיו

H251, H252

איל

H352, H353, H354

אין

H369, H370, H371

איש

H376, H377

Eesh! Man!

 

[HARK!]

אכל

H398, H399

אל

H408, H409 (See note) H410, H411, H412, H413

Note: It seems that H408, and H409 should be rendered as לא, the opposite of אל. Could there be some sort of mistake?

 

[I's2C]

Use​

Strong's Concordance provides an index to the Bible. This allows the reader to find words where they appear in the Bible. It also lets the reader directly compare how the same word may be used elsewhere in the Bible.

Strong's numbers​

Each original-language word (Hebrew or Greek) is given an entry number in the dictionary of those original language words listed in the back of the concordance. These have become known as the "Strong's numbers". The main concordance lists each word that appears in the KJV Bible in alphabetical order with each verse in which it appears listed in order of its appearance in the Bible, with a snippet of the surrounding text (including the word in italics). Appearing to the right of the scripture reference is the Strong's number. This allows the user of the concordance to look up the meaning of the original language word in the associated dictionary in the back, thereby showing how the original language word was translated into the English word in the KJV Bible.

Strong's Concordance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Oh really?

For years now, I have been using Strong's numbers to find the most accurate definition of the Hebrew word. The way that I do this is to look at the otiot of the word I'm researching. Then look at all of the various English translations of that word. I choose one definition that most closely conforms to the symbology of the otiot. Then I get the Strong's number for that word. Then I plug the definition that I'm testing into every verse that contains that Strong's number. If that definition doesn't work with every verse that I have tested it against; then I continue to try to understand what that word must mean.

Recently I did a similar study. I have forgotten which word I was researching; but initially I was satisfied with my understanding of the meaning of the word. Maybe a dozen or so verses were connected to that Strong's number. This did seem a bit odd for this word that is commonly found in the Bible. It didn't take long before I stumbled onto the reality that this word is used widely throughout scripture. It didn't take me long before I realized that there were at least three Strong's numbers for this same word. Within days I stumbled onto another word that had multiple numbers assigned to it.

I recently brought this up at a Bible study; and one of the well studied members within our group was as astonished as I was. He asked me what words; but I couldn't remember either of them. I told him that I would look into it; and get back to him next week.

This evening I began to reconstruct my discoveries; when I noticed that those are not rare cases.

I'm now determined to search out every Hebrew word that has multiple Strong's numbers assigned to it.

I don't know witch edition of Strong's you are using but it makes a difference. The newer additions are totally corrupted; just like anything else the great work of perhaps the greatest scholar for century's has been corrupted by not very good entity's. The newer versions have been changed to fit the newer versions of Bibles to fit their narratives that change whole meanings and words whereby totally throwing everything out of phase with what it was intended to be used for- AKJV Bible. If you or anyone have bought any before the '90's you can burn in the back yard, they are not trustworthy. unless you get with one and I only know of 1 place that I trust, that has kept the scholarly work of Dr. Strong in place and has reprint of the Dr. Strong's original work.
While I am at it some of the newer translations of the Bible can be burned in your back yard too, for they have totally changed the Truth of the WORD of GOD that has confused and even put in jeopardy the souls who read them.

 

[HARK!]

I don't know witch edition of Strong's you are using but it makes a difference. The newer additions are totally corrupted; just like anything else the great work of perhaps the greatest scholar for century's has been corrupted by not very good entity's. The newer versions have been changed to fit the newer versions of Bibles to fit their narratives that change whole meanings and words whereby totally throwing everything out of phase with what it was intended to be used for- AKJV Bible. If you or anyone have bought any before the '90's you can burn in the back yard, they are not trustworthy. unless you get with one and I only know of 1 place that I trust, that has kept the scholarly work of Dr. Strong in place and has reprint of the Dr. Strong's original work.
While I am at it some of the newer translations of the Bible can be burned in your back yard too, for they have totally changed the Truth of the WORD of GOD that has confused and even put in jeopardy the souls who read them.

Is there any edition in which your look up H1, H2, H3, H4, to correspond to anything other than אב?

 

[I's2C]

Is there any edition in which your look up H1, H2, H3, H4, to correspond to anything other than אב?

was working on something else; Yes mine says to see 178 owb,obe- אב

 

[Yahudim]

Perhaps an English word example might help for some.
I could probably make this example worse, but I suppose it is bad enough already.

The Red Sox right fielder, John Doe Fielder, caused a panic when he collided with his brother, the center fielder, and collapsed on the field. Luckily he was okay, and even fielded a few questions for the sports reporters after the game. One joker asked him what his primary field of study was in college: he jokingly replied, magnetic field anomalies between right and center fielders named Fielder.

Essentially we have a noun, (and a proper noun), an adjective, and a verb. Should we give them each their own number classification? Can we get away with slightly altering the meaning of one of the classifications because it appears on the surface to be a different word by way of its different number classification? Not likely if everyone who reads our lexicon already reads and understands English: but what if someone is learning English, and that is why they are using our lexicon?

Hi daq,

I almost spit my herbal tea onto my poor beaten and battered keyboard trying not to laugh out loud! While yours is a GREAT analogy, it even so, still falls dramatically short of portraying the complexities of accurately pigeonholing words by different usages, conjugations and 'accepted' variants. Besides, we all know the motivations of academia seldom stray far from accolades, authorship and acceptance of one's peers.

When we consider that it isn't only different languages we are attempting correlate and rectify; languages such as Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Each language involved is attempting to convey a portion of the immensity of the scriptural message. Yes, each portion is translatable, but with difficulty. Each portion of scripture has evolved differently over thousands of years within various and very unique philosophical frameworks and often changing theological, political, sociological and cultural contexts.

Personally, I believe Concordances to be a flawed concept anyway and not worthy of this level of attention. They represent an attempt to oversimplify the complexity of language usage over an immense time frame through the rose-colored glasses of peer-reviewed study and guesswork. This is like adjusting the handlebars on a bicycle with a flat tire. I just don't see that the juice is worth the squeeze. And that is my two shekels worth.

 

[HARK!]

Is there any edition in which your look up H1, H2, H3, H4, to correspond to anything other than אב?

was working on something else; Yes mine says to see 178 owb,obe- אב

Neither H1, nor H2, nor H3, nor H4 are H178.

Maybe you didn't understand the question?

 

[Derf]

Use​

Strong's Concordance provides an index to the Bible. This allows the reader to find words where they appear in the Bible. It also lets the reader directly compare how the same word may be used elsewhere in the Bible.

Strong's numbers​

Each original-language word (Hebrew or Greek) is given an entry number in the dictionary of those original language words listed in the back of the concordance. These have become known as the "Strong's numbers". The main concordance lists each word that appears in the KJV Bible in alphabetical order with each verse in which it appears listed in order of its appearance in the Bible, with a snippet of the surrounding text (including the word in italics). Appearing to the right of the scripture reference is the Strong's number. This allows the user of the concordance to look up the meaning of the original language word in the associated dictionary in the back, thereby showing how the original language word was translated into the English word in the KJV Bible.

Strong's Concordance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Oh really?

For years now, I have been using Strong's numbers to find the most accurate definition of the Hebrew word. The way that I do this is to look at the otiot of the word I'm researching. Then look at all of the various English translations of that word. I choose one definition that most closely conforms to the symbology of the otiot. Then I get the Strong's number for that word. Then I plug the definition that I'm testing into every verse that contains that Strong's number. If that definition doesn't work with every verse that I have tested it against; then I continue to try to understand what that word must mean.

Recently I did a similar study. I have forgotten which word I was researching; but initially I was satisfied with my understanding of the meaning of the word. Maybe a dozen or so verses were connected to that Strong's number. This did seem a bit odd for this word that is commonly found in the Bible. It didn't take long before I stumbled onto the reality that this word is used widely throughout scripture. It didn't take me long before I realized that there were at least three Strong's numbers for this same word. Within days I stumbled onto another word that had multiple numbers assigned to it.

I recently brought this up at a Bible study; and one of the well studied members within our group was as astonished as I was. He asked me what words; but I couldn't remember either of them. I told him that I would look into it; and get back to him next week.

This evening I began to reconstruct my discoveries; when I noticed that those are not rare cases.

I'm now determined to search out every Hebrew word that has multiple Strong's numbers assigned to it.

The Strong's numbers are assigned to individual Hebrew (or Greek, if New Testament) words, but those may be translated to the same English word.

 

[HARK!]

The Strong's numbers are assigned to individual Hebrew (or Greek, if New Testament) words, but those may be translated to the same English word.

From the OP:

It also lets the reader directly compare how the same word may be used elsewhere in the Bible.

Each original-language word (Hebrew or Greek) is given an entry number in the dictionary

The point is that multiple Strong's numbers are assigned to the same Hebrew words. This can be deceiving.

 

[daq]

Hi daq,

I almost spit my herbal tea onto my poor beaten and battered keyboard trying not to laugh out loud! While yours is a GREAT analogy, it even so, still falls dramatically short of portraying the complexities of accurately pigeonholing words by different usages, conjugations and 'accepted' variants. Besides, we all know the motivations of academia seldom stray far from accolades, authorship and acceptance of one's peers.

When we consider that it isn't only different languages we are attempting correlate and rectify; languages such as Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Each language involved is attempting to convey a portion of the immensity of the scriptural message. Yes, each portion is translatable, but with difficulty. Each portion of scripture has evolved differently over thousands of years within various and very unique philosophical frameworks and often changing theological, political, sociological and cultural contexts.

Personally, I believe Concordances to be a flawed concept anyway and not worthy of this level of attention. They represent an attempt to oversimplify the complexity of language usage over an immense time frame through the rose-colored glasses of peer-reviewed study and guesswork. This is like adjusting the handlebars on a bicycle with a flat tire. I just don't see that the juice is worth the squeeze. And that is my two shekels worth.

Yeah, I can agree with that, but also, seeing your second to last statement, I cannot resist posting the following.

Genesis 40:9-11 KJV
9 And the chief butler told his dream to Joseph, and said to him, In my dream, behold, a vine was before me;
10 And in the vine were three branches: and it was as though it budded, and her blossoms shot forth; and the clusters thereof brought forth ripe grapes:
11 And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand: and I took the grapes, and pressed [H7818] them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand.

How many times is this verb found? Uh, only once, and the above is it.

H7818 שָׂחַט śâchaṭ
BDB Definition:
1) (Qal) to squeeze, press out
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 2248
Total KJV Occurrences: 1
pressed, 1
Gen 40:11

Bummer, if only it was the same as the following verb, then we would not only have the mere second occurrence in the above passage, but perhaps also a deeper understanding of the following word and perhaps a better reason for why the LXX keeps rendering a word that literally means "to rush" when it comes to sacrifices, (G2380 θύω, thuo).

H7819 שָׁחַט shâchaṭ
BDB Definition:
1) to kill, slaughter, beat (verb)
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to slaughter
1a1a) beast for food
1a1b) sacrifice
1a1c) person in human sacrifice
1a1d) beaten, hammered (of shekels)
1b) (Niphal) to be slaughtered, be slain (of food or sacrifice)
2) (BDB) slaughtering (noun feminine)
2a) word doubtful
Part of Speech: see above in Definition
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 2362
Total KJV Occurrences: 81

But of course that isn't really Strong's fault: it's the single shin/sin point on the right or left top of the shin that changes the word. I guess the difference ultimately comes down to whether we are talking about the blood of the grape or the blood of an animal.

 

[HARK!]

But of course that isn't really Strong's fault: it's the single shin/sin point on the right or left top of the shin that changes the word.

That would be the fault of the Masoretes, in this evolving language of multiple dialects; but the Strong's claim is...

Strong's numbers​

Each original-language word

There were no niqqud in the original language.

It would seem that the Strong's claim is deceptive.

 

[HARK!]

perhaps also a deeper understanding of the following word

Beautiful words. It was striving for a deeper understanding of the original Hebrew language which lead to the revelation presented in the OP.

I would encourage all believers to seek out a deeper understanding of his word. Striving to understand how the Ancient Hebrew mind worked, gives me a truer picture of what Yah's word means, as he conveyed it to them.