LN numbers prioritized over Strongs?

Hi Everyone,

First of all, I am sorry for the delay. We had a huge storm last night and I had to shut down my computer, and then I had a few classes this morning.

Thank you for the screenshot, @Aaron Hamilton. :) That fixed the issue. Just out of curiosity, why does it say "copy" to copy the inflected, and "text" to copy the lemma?

It is really interesting that your perspective is that Louw Nida is for theologians and not people who are interested in the words themselves, since Louw Nida was specifically designed for translators. You might enjoy reading the preface and introduction to their lexicon to find their justification for their approach, which will explain why many prefer them.

Hi @Justin Gatlin,

Thank you for your comment, and I know they were designed for translators. It is just a philosophical / theological issue I have with them. Think about a translator translating a word because of the def they give for a specific key, then translating the SAME word a totally different way because it has a different number and a different definition according to the theology of Louw and Nida. Then some poor soul is reading the translation and thinks that they are reading two different words, because the translator translated it as such.

I would like to state the obvious that I am familiar with the concept of a semantic range, and I don't deny that it exists. My issue is that if I am doing research on a word, I want to do research on the "word" which includes all the definitions within that semantic range. What Louw and Nida have done is basically built a commentary into their lexicon, telling you when they think a word means one thing or another, based on the key it was given. I can completely understand that has its place, and I can see that as being very beneficial in certain situations. However I don't always agree with how they divided the words. I often do, but there are several times where I don't agree with their semantic divisions of a word. So I would for sure not find their numbering system trustworthy for organizing word counts. Thank you for the idea of reading their intro. I have done that before, but it was awhile ago, so I can see it as helpful to do again.

Strong's is a concordance not a lexicon. It tells you where you can find the word, or where it occurs, then how the KJV translates is, which is not always the correct way it should be translated, though or comprehensive.

Hi @James Johnson, thank you for your response to my question. I appreciate it. Regarding the above, I agree 100%.

The strong's is very outdated, published in 1890, and based from lexicons published over 50 years prior to that. The lexicographical advancement in the last 100 years has been astronomical in comparison to what it offers. To use a 19th century work, is not adequate for study in todays day and age.

I would agree it is "outdated" for definitions, but it still does a great job providing a number to each unique word, without inserting personal theology. By contrast, LN may be more modern, but they literally insert their theology into their numbering system. So if my goal is to provide a number for each unique lemma (not each unique meaning!), Strongs is still far superior.

Methodological issues within the Strongs. - The root fallacy, etymological fallacies, appeals to cognates in Arabic, Akkadian, and other languages that are not accurate.

Regarding this, I do agree this happens. Strongs is not perfect, and in my own records there are certain modifications I have made as a result. HOWEVER, although Strongs had his issues, he at least gave a genuine effort to have a unique number for each unique lemma, while LN doesn't even have that as a goal. So the LN numbers are fine if someone has a similar theology to Louw and Nida, but if you don't, their subjective numbering system is a hindrance.

For these reasons, when studying you want up to date lexicons such as HALOT/BDAG, Brills Lexicon on the NT, or the LN of Greek semantic domains. People use the BDB, but as well as strongs, this is outdated as well and not ideal for study.

I for sure agree here.

With the detailed and developed workflows you have, all you need do is understand how this Swiss Army knife can be configured and experiment until it fits your needs. Keep experimenting and exploring!

Hi @Donovan R. Palmer, Thank you for the screenshots. I am noticing that too, that the more I work with it, the better it gets as I am able to customize it. Pinning things to the left was huge, and I think the favorites will be too. I am going to need to take a closer look at your screenshots, but a few times you mentioned "advanced prioritization." Do you mean just being mindful about how I prioritize? Or is that something separate? I agree with you that how they have us prioritize books is sort of outdated.

Your posts always encourage me to explore the software myself! Every day is a school day!

Thank you for letting me know. :)

As to @Kristin wanting Strong's numbers for Hebrew, maybe I am missing something … but doesn't every Interlinear have that already? My ESV interlinear does.

Hi @John,

You are correct that every interlinear has that, but it only works with texts tagged as such. So if I have the Hebrew on the left and the ESV on the right and turn the interlinear on, what the Strongs is tagged to is the ESV, but not the Hebrew. The problem is that when English texts are tagged to match the Hebrew (or Greek), they try to do a good job, but it is not always perfect. Sometimes from mistakes, but often since the two languages are so different that they can't be matched up exactly. So if I am finding keys from the English, it might be wrong or miss something from the Hebrew.

While I was out last night I got to thinking about your use case with Strongs Numbers and @DMB hit the nail on the head. I would probably try to use the Lexham Greek-English Interlinear New Testament: …You can turn off all the interlinear stuff, then be mindful of any differences that matter to your research between that and the NA27 and NA28. Or you could run it as a supplement to NA28.

Hi @Donovan R. Palmer, ya, I was messing with it last night, and I think I found a good solution with a layout with the Lexham on the right. Then when I hover over a word I can quickly confirm that the Lexham word and the NA28 are identical. So I think it will work ok. I appreciated @DMB's idea.

I am not sure what to suggest for the Old Testament. I am pushing more and more into Hebrew and just last week I was feeling the constraint of some of my resources, hence I love the debate about what we need and what Logos might consider in the future with development.

Ya, I was so busy with the NT that when I went to the Hebrew I was actually pretty shocked. I know some denominations are so focused on the NT that they almost forget the OT is still part of the Bible, and that was the impression I got.

This is not probably that helpful, but DBL is prioritised, it will give you the strongs number for an active word in the Information Window.

Would you mind clarifying how you prioritized DBL? I don't see it in the info pane.

OK, thanks again everyone, and I am sorry again about the delay.

Hi @Aaron Hamilton ,

I see, thanks for clarifying, and I think I understand the distinction now.

@Kristin When I refer to prioritization, or advanced prioritization in my descriptions and screenshots this is what I mean: https://support.logos.com/hc/en-us/articles/360019683652-Prioritize-Books



Thank you for the video, and yes that is how I have been prioritizing books. I think I need to redo it though since I had tried to prioritize too many books and the system cut me off. I appreciated how the video mentioned how to put the library in a new tab! That was super helpful since I really disliked how the library sort of floated over everything.

Accordance I think has a similar concept if I recall.

Ya it does. I think the primary difference is that Logos has people choose only some resources, while Accordance gives the ability to organize the entire library according to priority.

Never having used Accordance I'm not sure what exactly you are doing there. However, of course you could prioritize all the books in your library but it would be pointless because of two things:…

Hi @NB.Mick,

Thanks for clarifying how there is an auto-prioritization in Logos, that is helpful to know. Given what you wrote, I would like to clarify something I wrote above. When I had said the difference between Logos and Accordance regarding prioritization, my intention was actually just to clarify that this is in fact a difference. I wasn't intending to say that how Accordance or Logos does it is better or worse, it is just a different method.

In Accordance I had focused on a certain percentage of my books, to make sure they are in a specific order, and then I didn't really care about the rest, which in my mind were just sort of a box of low priority books. I sort of think Logos will let me prioritize about 95% of what I would have in Accordance. So I think that while Logos and Accordance have different methods, they both sort of arrive at similar library organizations, with Accordance letting you prioritize everything, and Logos letting you prioritize some and then helps with a sort of auto prioritization.