Something occurred to me some time back, but I'm just getting around to writing a post about it.
Is Strong's Concordance the same thing as Strong's Lexicon? I have a comprehensive Strong's Concordance in hardback (in storage) that I haven't looked at in over a decade. I don't recall it having a lexicon in it...just a breakdown of word usage--in context--by frequency of occurance.
Reason I ask is that I've noticed that every time I copy from Strong's Lexicon (ESL) the footnote that is created (an absurdly long footnote) insists that I have just culled from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. Is this the flagrant error that I think it is? If so, how has this gone unnoticed and uncorrected for so long...as in 15 years or more? Has no one else ever noticed this?
Of course, maybe I just never took notice of the lexicon before...since I wasn't fluent enough in Hebrew or Greek back then to be benefitted by it. If they are one and the same, then why call it ESL instead of SEC? Just wondering.