Searching Strong's Numbers in the NASB

Page 1 of 2 (27 items) 1 2 Next >
This post has 26 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 40
Travis Arnold | Forum Activity | Posted: Thu, Dec 31 2009 3:01 PM

Problem: From the NASB95, when I search for every occurrence of a particular Strong's number, it gives me an accurate list of all the verses in which that number appears, but the results counter at the top is always double what it should be. For example, searching Strong's number G200 (locust), gives me 4 verses (and each of these verses only has ONE occurrence of G200), but at the top of the search window it says "8 results in 4 verses". I wonder, "Where are the other 4 results?" When I switch my view to "Aligned", it lists each of those 4 verses TWICE IN A ROW--each repeated verse highlighting the exact same word to which the Strong's number has been assigned. NASB is the only interlinear with this problem; the others report accurately as far as I can tell. To quote Seinfeld, "What is the deal with that?" :-)

Posts 596
LaRosa Johnson | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Dec 31 2009 3:08 PM

i'm guessing that it's somehow grabbing the Strong's # in the Bible, as well as the Strong's # in the reverse interlinear data... i noticed this the other day when doing a study

Urban Scholar - http://urban-scholar.com 
Christ-centered Hip-Hop - http://www.sphereofhiphop.com

Posts 25103
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Dec 31 2009 3:13 PM

There is no obvious reason for that.

Dave
===

Windows 10 & Android 8

Posts 2694
DominicM | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Dec 31 2009 3:23 PM

congratulations, I think you found a bug... I can replicate it

Never Deprive Anyone of Hope.. It Might Be ALL They Have

Posts 25103
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Dec 31 2009 3:30 PM

I'll create a bug report in the wiki.

Dave
===

Windows 10 & Android 8

Posts 40
Travis Arnold | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Dec 31 2009 3:33 PM

Thanks Dave.

Posts 66
Gerard Lim | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 29 2010 4:56 AM

This bug is still present in Logos 4.0c SR-1. Is Logos doing anything about this?

Posts 18759
Rosie Perera | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 29 2010 9:13 PM

gerardlim:

This bug is still present in Logos 4.0c SR-1. Is Logos doing anything about this?

 

This bug was confirmed by Bradley Grainger on Jan 5, and it was entered into their internal bug database. However they have ways of setting the priority on bugs to fix which don't necessarily include how long ago they were found. Since this is at least give you an accurate list of all the verses, and nothing is crashing, I'm guessing they've assigned it a lower priority for fixing, and they simply haven't gotten around to it yet. I personally wish that for each new beta cycle they would fix a lot more of the outstanding lower priority bugs than they've been doing, but I guess they feel it's more important to get the rest of the missing features implemented and then worry about the low priority bugs after that. And all the folks who have been waiting for those features would probably agree.

By the way, you might want to change your forum display name to something other than your email address so that spam bots don't pick it up. Here are the instructions for how to do that (it's important to follow all the steps): http://wiki.logos.com/Changing_Forum_Display_Name

Posts 352
Mike & Rachel Aubrey | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 29 2010 9:50 PM

why do people continue to use strong's numbers?

Posts 4508
Robert Pavich | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 30 2010 1:39 AM

Mike Aubrey:
why do people continue to use strong's numbers?

I always wonder that. I usually ask people to see if they realize that it's a methodology that's not necessary in Logos. I think it's just two things..habit mixed with not realizing that Logos will do the same thing sans numbers.

Robert Pavich

For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__

Posts 2706
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 30 2010 4:45 AM

Robert remember this ( your post) from the beta days of Logos 4?Big Smile. ( it is a joke, down memory lane during last year beta testing for Logos 4)

Ted

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Robert Pavich:

,Helllpp,Helllpp,Helllpp...George


 

And so the "Somsel signal" goes out in hopes that George will rescue the poor Logos user from the Evil of Strongs  Number.

 

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Posts 4508
Robert Pavich | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 30 2010 7:29 AM

Lol...now that's funny...

I haven't thought about that in a long time....thanks for breaking it out of the archives... Big Smile

Robert Pavich

For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__

Posts 40
Travis Arnold | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jun 5 2010 3:47 PM

I continue to use Strong's numbers for several reasons: (1)  There are more resources linked to Stron'g numbers in Logos, so getting definitions is far easier if you're starting from a Strong's number. (2) I teach new Bible students who find a number system less confusing than Hebrew or Greek characters or transliterations. (3) In some cases, searching for every occurrence of a Strong's number gives different results than searching for every occurrence of a lemma and neither search method is necessarily "more accurate" than the other... You may get 10 results from searching for a lemma and 11 from searching the Strong's number. My understanding is that Mr. Strong has grouped various forms of a particular word under one heading (or Strong's number) whereas Logos interlinear bibles have these various word forms divided up into different headings or "lemmas". Neither division is better--it just depends on what you're after. If I am interested in a particular word form I'll search the manuscript rendering. But if I want a more exhaustive search for every time the base word occurs, I'll search the lemma--or better yet, I'll search the more inclusive Strong's number. Am I wrong or misinformed in this? I've come to this conculsion from comparing the differences between search results for lemmas and their corresponding Strong's numbers.

Posts 40
Travis Arnold | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jun 5 2010 3:52 PM

Here is an explanation that I have written previously for students who were interested:

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

“The Lemma Dilemma”. It is not always accurate to search the “Lemma” behind the English word in the ESV Reverse Interlinear. A lemma is a word in its most basic lexical form. (In English, the lemma for ‘walking’ and ‘walked’ would both be ‘walk’.) Strong’s Numbers each correspond to a lemma/dictionary entry—therefore, all the variant forms of that word are grouped together into one entry. (If it were in English, ‘walking’, ‘walked’ and ‘walker’ might all be under the entry for ‘walk’.) But the ESV sometimes treats a single lemma as several different lemmas. (If in English, ‘walker’ might be designated as a separate lemma from ‘walk’.) So searching a Strong’s number will give you the basic word in its various forms, but searching the lemma can sometimes leave out important occurrences that the ESV has separated into different lemmas. (In our English example, searching the lemma for ‘walk’ would also give you occurrences of ‘walking’ and ‘walked’, but not ‘walker’, which is treated as its own separate lemma.) However, most of the time, searching a lemma will produce the same exact results as searching a Strong’s Number.

Posts 40
Travis Arnold | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jun 5 2010 4:13 PM

Of course, I realize that there are valuable resources in Logos that don't correspond to Strong's numbers, and, of course, I access those as well! But the pop-up/key-linking feature very much depends on Strong's numbers.

Posts 25103
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jun 5 2010 5:19 PM

Travis Arnold:
Am I wrong or misinformed in this?

There are some 'weaknesses' of Strong's but not conclusive enough to say it should not be used, especially when I've just searched 9 words in ESV and gotten the same results with Strong's and lemmas! You can formulate a Strong's search more easily when all you need to type is <G2344> instead of somehow deriving <Lemma = lbs/el/θησαυρός> for a Bible Search.

Lemmas are not universally agreed upon so you will find that Greek texts with different morphology can give quite different results!

But I would use lexicons other than Strong's for meanings.

Dave
===

Windows 10 & Android 8

Posts 40
Travis Arnold | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jun 5 2010 5:32 PM

I wasn't trying to say that Strong's lemmas are better than Logos interlinear lemmas... I realize that they are simply different and I understand the the designation of lemmas employed in the Logos interlinears may be better. But I've observed that, in general, Strong's lemmas are more inclusive, which is what I'm after when performing a search for every occurrence of a particular word. (Of course, if I want to get a broader view, I'll search for all the Strong's numbers or lemmas in that word family.)

Yes, I use other lexicons than Strong's for sure! Although, I mainly use the Enhanced Strong's Lexicon because it gives a good quick definition and it is easy to click on links to discover root words, etc. It's a good starting place to click on the TWOT links, etc. It's perfect for my students because it is neither too brief nor is it too detailed and it is similar to what the students in the "book" version of the class get.

Thanks for your thoughts Dave!

Posts 222
LogosEmployee
Mike Aubrey | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jun 17 2010 3:34 PM

Travis Arnold:
“The Lemma Dilemma”. It is not always accurate to search the “Lemma” behind the English word in the ESV Reverse Interlinear. A lemma is a word in its most basic lexical form. (In English, the lemma for ‘walking’ and ‘walked’ would both be ‘walk’.) Strong’s Numbers each correspond to a lemma/dictionary entry—therefore, all the variant forms of that word are grouped together into one entry. (If it were in English, ‘walking’, ‘walked’ and ‘walker’ might all be under the entry for ‘walk’.) But the ESV sometimes treats a single lemma as several different lemmas. (If in English, ‘walker’ might be designated as a separate lemma from ‘walk’.) So searching a Strong’s number will give you the basic word in its various forms, but searching the lemma can sometimes leave out important occurrences that the ESV has separated into different lemmas. (In our English example, searching the lemma for ‘walk’ would also give you occurrences of ‘walking’ and ‘walked’, but not ‘walker’, which is treated as its own separate lemma.) However, most of the time, searching a lemma will produce the same exact results as searching a Strong’s Number.

It would probably be more accurate to say that Strong's tends to combine multiple lemmas under a single number.

At a basic level, what you're doing is accepting the arbitrary decision of a systematic theology (Augustus Hopkins Strongs) from more than 100 years ago over the arbitrary decision of a leading Greek scholar (John Schwandt). The question isn't 

Posts 1228
Ron | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 18 2010 7:02 AM

Michael Aubrey:
At a basic level, what you're doing is accepting the arbitrary decision of a systematic theology (Augustus Hopkins Strongs) from more than 100 years ago over the arbitrary decision of a leading Greek scholar (John Schwandt). The question isn't 

Hi Michael, I think you forgot to finish your response.  You left us with a cliffhanger Smile

Posts 518
Bobby Terhune | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 18 2010 7:40 AM

The Strong's Exhaustive Dictionary was produced by James Strong in 1890, here is an excerpt from Wikipedia.

James Strong (August 14, 1822 – August 7, 1894) was an American Methodist biblical scholar and educator, and the creator of Strong's Concordance. He was born in New York City; was Professor of Biblical Literature at Troy University (New York) in 1858-61, became Professor of Exegetical Theology at Drew Theological Seminary in 1868 and died at Round Lake, New York.

His best known work is Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, first published in 1890, of which new editions are still in print as of 2006[update]. Adaptations (e.g. Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: 21st Century Edition) are also now available.

For the concordance, Strong numbered every Hebrew or Greek root word which was found, for ease of reference. This numbering system (8674 Hebrew roots and 5523 Greek roots) is now used in works by many other writers and is widely available on the web[1] where it is used in conjunction with Wigram's Englishman's Concordances and Thayer's Lexicon. Some criticize the use of Strong's concordance today due to the fact that he was never fluent in either Greek or Hebrew.

Page 1 of 2 (27 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS