Since the forums are quiet...I'll ask: Why do people continue to use Strongs numbers in Logos?

Good question. They belong to the pre-computer age, and have outlived their usefulness now we have reverse interlinears.

Why DO people use Strong's numbers when they have Logos?

They make great mental place markers when Greek or Hebrew
are second languages, or even unknown languages.

For example, researching G5324, lends itself to immediate short term memory
easier than ἐφρουρούμεθα.

There is also the added benefit of transferability among (dare I say it...)
different versions of Bible software, not to mention printed references as
well.

Ted Hans

Remember this Bob(yours) from Beta days?

Robert Pavich:

,Helllpp,Helllpp,Helllpp...George

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133437#Comment_133437

Some resources are not tagged by the Lexical form but only strong's numbers. One example is Vines which list 7 Greek words under the head term TRUE, TRULY, TRUTH. In John 14:6 Jesus speaks of himself as the truth but neither the exegetical guide or the interlinear will go directly to this resource by the lemma. If you don't know Greek how will you make use of this other than comparing the strong's number with the interlinear strong's number? Another example is the MOUNCE’S COMPLETE EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY of OLD & NEW TESTAMENT WORDS which is only tagged by the English and not by strong's or the lemma. When logos corrects these other dictionaries then we can drop strong's. A third example is in some cases when you right click on a greek word and you have both the definate article and the main noun; if you don't know Greek which one do you choose?

Also in the Exegtical guide under each word not all the forms of all the lexicons or Word Study Dictionaries are listed.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133439#Comment_133439

In Romans 1:25 try clicking on the greek word for truth and navigate to Vines Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. You will find that you only jump to the head term True, Truly, Truth and not the Greek word. Vine does list the Greek term in the drop down list but you can't navigate directly to it.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133444#Comment_133444

Sorry, for the spelling mistakes in the last two posts I am typing too fast.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133439#Comment_133439

Some resources are not tagged by the Lexical form but only strong's numbers. One example is Vines which list 7 Greek words under the head term TRUE, TRULY, TRUTH.

Since this is a Strong's thread....and you just brought up Vines...I'll let George Somsel take it from here. [;)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133437#Comment_133437

They make great mental place markers when Greek or Hebrew
are second languages, or even unknown languages.

For example, researching G5324, lends itself to immediate short term memory
easier than ἐφρουρούμεθα.

Paul...still not quite getting it...walk me through it...if you wouldn't mind....

there you are...reading/studying....and....

Matthew C Jones

Why DO people use Strong's numbers when they have Logos?

Alas, Not everyone has Logos. [:'(]

If your work is disseminated to a broad readership, the Strong's numbers may be very useful to some.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133455#Comment_133455

Alas, Not everyone has Logos.

If your work is disseminated to a broad readership, the Strong's numbers may be very useful to some.

I guess I should have said "Why DO those who have access to the original languages in Logos....use Strong's numbers"..

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133444#Comment_133444

Vines Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words

But what does Vine's offer that you can't get elsewhere? Even the cheapest Logos base package includes NAS (Greek-Hebrew), and the Bible Study library adds DBL. Whilst neither are adequate for academic user or for experienced preachers, you don't need Strong's to use them.

Jim VanSchoonhoven

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133457#Comment_133457

How many other bible software programs use reverse interlinears? How many others use Strong's numbers?

How many people that study the scriptures with paper books use Interlinears? How many use Strong's numbers?

What advantage does a person with a reverse interlinear have over a person with an interlinear linked to Strong's numbers in other programs? Isn't the main advantage just the ease of reading the English text?

If you interact with other folks about doing word studies, most people speak Strong's numbers very few speak reverse interlinear! One is the everyday language and the other is an unknown tongue.

I teach many people how to use all kinds of different software, and Strong's is the standard in most software, and it is easy to translate from one software to another or even into paper back books in most cases.

In Christ,

Jim

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133454#Comment_133454

They make great mental place markers when Greek or Hebrew
are second languages, or even unknown languages.

For example, researching G5324, lends itself to immediate short term memory
easier than ἐφρουρούμεθα.

Paul...still not quite getting it...walk me through it...if you wouldn't mind....

there you are...reading/studying....and....

Bob, I must say you have me here. I tried working through my own example, to no avail. I don't know if I'm just too use to "thinking Greek", or that Logos is just so good at being intuitive when working with the original languages. I would guess the latter: Bob-1, Paul-0 [Y]

As to my other point:

There is also the
added benefit of transferability among...not to mention printed references
as
well.

This seems to hold true within Logos resources as well:

Why DO people use Strong's numbers when they have Logos?

I've never figured out why anyone ever used them. I can't imagine use numbers instead of words in the OED.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133437#Comment_133437

They make great mental place markers when Greek or Hebrew
are second languages, or even unknown languages.

This brings up my other major question ... if they are unknown languages why "play" at knowing them?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133477#Comment_133477

This brings up my other major question ... if they are unknown languages why "play" at knowing them?

Hi MJ, question with a question:

Would a sincere Bible student be better at correctly handling the word of truth by limiting said student to their native tongue, or would being able to "play" with the Greek and Hebrew tools in Logos be to the student's advantage?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133479#Comment_133479

Would a sincere Bible student be better at correctly handling the word of truth by limiting said student to their native tongue, or would being able to "play" with the Greek and Hebrew tools in Logos be to the student's advantage?

Given some of the misconceptions out there as to how languages work, some sincere Bible students would be better off never allowed to even see the Greek or Hebrew. Some sincere Bible students know the limits of their knowledge and know enough about how languages work to be able to utilize language tools to their advantage even when they don't know the language. Most sincere Bible students who don't know the languages fall somewhere in between which is why Logos invested resources in making a resource just for them - the learn to use Biblical Greek & Hebrew in Logos videos.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133480#Comment_133480

Given some of the misconceptions out there as to how languages work, some sincere Bible students would be better off never allowed to even see the Greek or Hebrew..

Case in point:

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpCQaELg7Jo:550:0]

I know it's just a parody, but if you watch it along with the original video in the link, your point is very well reinforced.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133471#Comment_133471

I teach many people how to use all kinds of different software, and Strong's is the standard in most software, and it is easy to translate from one software to another or even into paper back books in most cases.

My question was badly phrased...I meant:

Now that we all have access to the original languages as Logos users...why do we want strongs numbers?

My question was in the context of our own studies and being Logos users.

Jacob Hantla

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133482#Comment_133482

Given some of the misconceptions out there as to how languages work, some sincere Bible students would be better off never allowed to even see the Greek or Hebrew..

Case in point:

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpCQaELg7Jo:550:0]

I know it's just a parody, but if you watch it along with the original video in the link, your point is very well reinforced.

That's hilarious. Be a man: Pee standing up.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133477#Comment_133477

This brings up my other major question ... if they are unknown languages why "play" at knowing them?

I'm sorry, Martha, but I can't agree with you here. I fully accept that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. But surely you don't mean to suggest that unless we have full knowledge of a subject then we should pretend we are entirely ignorant? Instead, the best way to proceed is to recognise your limitations, work within them, and to use the knowledge you have with the skills you've developed.

If we know a small amount of Greek, we should use that to aid our understanding, whilst recognising we'd be pretty stupid to start a fight with Dan Wallace, Stanley Porter, or Bill Mounce.

Otto S. Carroll

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133479#Comment_133479

Would a sincere Bible student be better at correctly handling the word of truth by limiting said student to their native tongue, or would being able to "play" with the Greek and Hebrew tools in Logos be to the student's advantage?

Of course it is to the advantage of the sincere Bible student to "play" with the Greek and Hebrew tools in Logos. If he plays correctly long enough, he just might put himself in a position to know whether the Hebrew and Greek "scholars" he listens to are correctly handling the word of truth in that language!!! [:)]

Friedrich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133482#Comment_133482

if you watch it along with the original video in the link,

wow. i mean . . . wow--it's just tha--- wow. I am speechless.

Anthony H

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133491#Comment_133491

This brings up my other major question ... if they are unknown languages why "play" at knowing them?

I'm sorry, Martha, but I can't agree with you here. I fully accept that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. But surely you don't mean to suggest that unless we have full knowledge of a subject then we should pretend we are entirely ignorant? Instead, the best way to proceed is to recognise your limitations, work within them, and to use the knowledge you have with the skills you've developed.

If we know a small amount of Greek, we should use that to aid our understanding, whilst recognising we'd be pretty stupid to start a fight with Dan Wallace, Stanley Porter, or Bill Mounce.

...unknown languages?

If that is a qualifying factor, I'm not entirely sure I agree that the knowing is "play". Though we do lack a lot of information on Biblical languages they are not unknown.

In fact quite a bit is known in comparison to some other ancient languages (though I generalize the comparison).

I would have to agree more with Mark that, though there is danger in a "little knowing", a respectful understanding of limitations can go along way in exercising what is known.

More to the point though I see the humor.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133496#Comment_133496

I can see the point of view where MJ is coming from, the video link speaks to the folly of a "little knowledge". Most (if not all) heretical and cult-like 'christian' sects seem to stem from a poor handling of Scripture, and a very good argument could be made for the necessity of a required thorough education before teaching.

But limiting access to the original languages, in any form, will in no way prevent all misconceptions on the part of mankind. The folly of man comes within, and even with the most limited resources, we as a species show great aptitude in the deviation from truth and accuracy.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133496#Comment_133496

unknown languages?

Unknown to the individual not unknown to everyone

But limiting access to the original languages,
in any form, will in no way prevent all misconceptions on the part of
mankind.

No, I wouldn't actually try to limit access, but life would sure be alot easier if no one encouraged some of the misconceptions.[:D]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133501#Comment_133501

The folly of man comes within, and even with the most limited resources, we as a species show great aptitude in the deviation from truth and accuracy.

True, very true. (at least Jeremiah said so...)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133520#Comment_133520

The folly of man comes within, and even with the most limited resources, we as a species show great aptitude in the deviation from truth and accuracy.

True, very true. (at least Jeremiah said so...)

OK, OK, it may be a slight bit of plagiarism, but look at the fine academic grammar that I used...[;)]

Ward Walker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133482#Comment_133482

Given some of the misconceptions out there as to how languages work, some sincere Bible students would be better off never allowed to even see the Greek or Hebrew..

Case in point:

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpCQaELg7Jo:550:0]

I know it's just a parody, but if you watch it along with the original video in the link, your point is very well reinforced.

Suddenly, everything is clear to me...

...and there just went 30 minutes of my life watching related videos... [:|]

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133457#Comment_133457

But what does Vine's offer that you can't get elsewhere? Even the cheapest Logos base package includes NAS (Greek-Hebrew), and the Bible Study library adds DBL.

Enhanced Strong's Lexicon also offers access via language headwords! But Vine's offers more insight to the meaning & derivation of a word than NAS or Enhanced Strong's, and even DBL. I find Vine's especially useful for Hebrew/Aramaic.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133486#Comment_133486

Now that we all have access to the original languages as Logos users...why do we want strongs numbers?

My question was in the context of our own studies and being Logos users.

I don't know that I want them but they are useful. The other number that is useful is Louw-Nida domains but it is restricted to the NT. Both are used in the Interlinears, both give access to useful resources eg. Vine's and LN Greek-English Lexicon.

Especially in the OT with homonyms I can only get to Vine's via Strong's! It's not a matter of preferring Vine's to lexicons, but it is more readable than BDB!

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133477#Comment_133477

if they are unknown languages why "play" at knowing them?

The "play" factor is where a lot of learning takes place. You already know small kids handle language aquisition much better than schooled adults.

As far as OED using numbers (that is funny [:P] ), the memorization techniques of the Dale Carnegie course use totally random and rdiculous mental pictures to peg facts to. What could be more random than a non-descript number to replace a specific Greek NT word?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133559#Comment_133559

the memorization techniques of the Dale Carnegie course

I've not heard of the Dale Carnegie classes for years. My folks parked me in the theater to watch multiple showings of "My Sister Eileen" for their last class - my brother was otherwise occupied.[:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133486#Comment_133486

Here is a reason why I still like to use strong's numbers:

In my New Kings James Interlinear I have direct access to 3 different lexicons. If I want to look at BDAG directly I double click on lemma line in the interlinear. If I want to access directly The Complete Word Study Dictionary I click directly on the Strong's Number. Since BDAG is not coded to Strongs the next defalt lexicon that it advance to is The Complete Word Study Dictionary. If a want to access directly Lowe Nida I click on the Lowe Nida number. Another advange is I can simply scroll my mouse over the strong's number in the interlinear and The Complete Word Study Dictionary pops up. Here is a example from Philippians 2:6.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133586#Comment_133586

Here is a reason why I still like to use strong's numbers:

That's a useful way of saving a click. (It's only a click, because you could do all this from the right-click context menu, which gives links to your five top lexicons when you click on a lemma).

But it doesn't resolve the problem that Strong's numbers are not always accurate. Here's some quotes from my Logos library:

"Although the original Strong’s system is still quite useful, the most up-to-date research has shed new light on the biblical languages and allows for more precision than is found in the original Strong’s system." Cornerstone Commentary on Matthew,Mark, Page xiv

"Those that rely on Strong’s numbers to assist them in the Hebrew vocabulary should note that at many points that system does not correspond to more recent analysis. Thus, for example, when a term is listed according to Strong’s number but is out of alphabetical order, the transliteration will be in brackets. When a term is in alphabetical order but out of numerical order, the Strong’s number will be in brackets. Furthermore, Strong’s numerical order does not distinguish between words beginning with the letters Û and š. This index, however, separates these words. Therefore, anyone using Strong’s numbers to find the correct Hebrew word must examine the numerical sequence within both letters." TLOT, Page 1469

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133600#Comment_133600

"Those that rely on Strong’s numbers to assist them in the Hebrew vocabulary should note that at many points that system does not correspond to more recent analysis

Question: If one were using dated reference works that use the "not always accurate" Strong's numbers would there be a value in the continuity of the numbers however inaccurate they may be? It is eerily similar to Logos indexing but 150 years older.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133611#Comment_133611

Strong's numbers are still useful. But the are not more useful than either G/K numbers. Neither are they more useful that using Logos' reverse-interlinears to look up whatever word you want in whatever lexicon you want. The point is not that Strong's are awful, but that other tools are better.

Floyd Johnson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133559#Comment_133559

if they are unknown languages why "play" at knowing them?

The "play" factor is where a lot of learning takes place.

When do we move from playing to knowing? Some 35+ years ago I had three quarters of Greek and three quarters of Greek Exegesis. I also had two quarters of Hebrew and three quarters of Hebrew Exegesis. Did I know the Greek then - barely. Did I know the Hebrew then - barely. I worked with the text, I passed the courses. But did I know Greek and Hebrew? No way!

In the meantime I spent 24+ years with other languages - things like BASIC, COBOL, FORTRAN, Pascal, SQL, Java, and .Net. My ministry took me away from Greek and Hebrew to the college campus. Seven years ago I returned to the pulpit ministry - having forgotten most (all?) my Greek and Hebrew. I still have the skills - just not the knowledge. LOGOS fills in some of those gaps - but I am not sure where where my "playing" moves over to "using" the Greek and Hebrew. Since both ancient Greek and ancient Hebrew are no longer living languages, I expect each of us has a point somewhere we move between playing and knowing the languages - though we will have a different point.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133619#Comment_133619

[Y]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133627#Comment_133627

Try this: In Acts 16:22 right click on the word rose in the NKJV interlinear choose lemma and then chose vine's. This will only take you to the head word. Then right click and choose strong's number 4911. This will take you directly to the word in the list. 7. sunephistemi (συνεφίστημι, 4911). If you want to elimate strong's numbers in vine's then you should be able to go directly to that word in the list by the lemma and not simply the head term. For those who don't know Greek they can't easily navigate to the proper word by the lemma. This should be fixed.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133619#Comment_133619

When do we move from playing to knowing?

Several of my friends and I have used the same criteria for 30+ years - when the language becomes bathroom reading material. [;)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133652#Comment_133652

Try this: In Acts 16:22 right click on the word rose in the NKJV interlinear choose lemma and then chose vine's.

John, quick Q: do you have BDAG?

I'm still trying to get my head around the idea of using numbers that represent words because I don't know the words...hmmm

I guess where I'm stuck on this concept is this: I don't know Greek. I do know that συνεφίστημι has a number representing it....how does that help the situation?

My main goal is to find out things about συνεφίστημι and I can do that without attaching an artificial number to it....right? Where it's used how it's used....

The main beef seems to be Vine's....is there some reason that BDAG isn't your first choice? Do you not have it?

I'm probably just dense....sorry

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133699#Comment_133699

Robert, Yes I do have BDAG see my earlier comments on this thread. I have all the major lexicons that logos has to offer in Hebrew and in Greek. When I do a word study I like to compare multiple definations in many lexicons. The point is, in Vine's which has useful information; I can't access directly the Word meaning from right clicking on the lexical form from the interlinear. Vine's was really tagged to be used with strong's numbers. If we do away with strong's numbers then we lost the functionality in Vines. I am not stuck on having strong's numbers but simply pointing out that all the lexicons should be tagged to work efficiently with the lemma. Do you have vine's? If so try what I said above and you will see what I mean.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133706#Comment_133706

If we do away with strong's numbers then we lost the functionality in Vines. I am not stuck on having strong's numbers but simply pointing out that all the lexicons should be tagged to work efficiently with the lemma.

John,

thanks, I think I understand why now...

Yes, technically I do have vines, but I don't really use it....it's WAAAAYYY down on the list for Greek resources....

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133706#Comment_133706

Here is one example where I think vine's is clearer than BDAG. Granted BDAG is really the best lexicon in the world but vine's is also helpful. What is the difference between Wrath and Anger in Ephesians 4:31?

BDAG says for Wrath "a state of intense displeasure, anger, wrath, rage, indignation"

BDAG says for Anger "state of relatively strong displeasure, w. focus on the emotional aspect, anger"

Here is what Vine says in comparing the two:

Thumos, "wrath" (not translated "anger"), is to be distinguished from orge, in this respect, that thumos indicates a more agitated condition of the feelings, an outburst of wrath from inward indignation, while orge suggests a more settled or abiding condition of mind, frequently with a view to taking revenge. Orge is less sudden in its rise than thumos, but more lasting in its nature. Thumos expresses more the inward feeling, orge the more active emotion. Thumos may issue in revenge, though it does not necessarily include it. It is characteristic that it quickly blazes up and quickly subsides, though that is not necessarily implied in each case.

So wrath is someone who explods in an angry outbursts vs. Anger can describe someone who is constantly boiling with an mental attitude of anger. I can be wrathful because someone cut me off in traffic but I can also have lasting anger toward my boss who refused to give me the promotion that I deserve.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133718#Comment_133718

John,

Actually, BDAG has a lot more information than you've shown here....a lot more....

I won't cut/paste it, but what you've shown is not a good representation of the situation on BDAG's side.

As I said, I don't have vines showing (it's hidden) but I do have a question (after looking at the vines entries you've provided)

Does Vine's justify their definition via passages or is it a coincidence that there are no passages cited in what you cut/pasted?

Edited to add: I unhid Vines and my Q has been answered...

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133719#Comment_133719

John,

You're right..Vines seems useful...I'll keep it unhid.

PS: I right clicked and chose BDAG, then I just hit the parallel resource drop down to go to Vines....no Strong's numbers necessary [:O]

NOTE: This did work but it went to the headword, not the exact spot....

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133721#Comment_133721

PS: I right clicked and chose BDAG, then I just hit the parallel resource drop down to go to Vines....no Strong's numbers necessary

Does this mean that BDAG has hidden numbers so it can parallel to resources that are keyed this way? [:^)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/133724#Comment_133724

Does this mean that BDAG has hidden numbers so it can parallel to resources that are keyed this way?

Paul,

All I know is that I hit the button and one of my choices was Vine's, and it went right to the word...

EDITED TO ADD: MY MISTAKE! It actually went to the headword, but the section was so short, I didn't notice....sorry