Talk:Strong's Concordance

message: Wouldn't Alexander Cruden's concordance be at least as widely used as Strong's? It has been around in various forms since 1737, and was a solo effort --scruss 20:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest merging the page on Cruden's Concordance & Strong's Concordanceintoone that is simply called "Biblical COncordances". Then add a paragraph about Young's concordance. 
I doubt that the current page on Cruden's Conrdance will ever be more than a stub. Likewise, an article on Young's concordance will neverbemorethan a stub. In a page "Biblical COncordances", one could discuss each of the major concordances in a couple ofparagraphs, then have a sub-section that contrasts them. Cruden's is used by laity, Strong's by clergy.I'm not sure who uses Young's.
Another datapoint is that other numbering schemes could also be discussed,or at least referred to.  [Or would it be out of place to point to alternatives to Strong's Numbers, in this article?]
67.136.137.125 19:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cruden's concordance

message: So... The article states that there are 5624 Greek words in the new testament, but I do not believe that this is accurate. Indeed there are 5624 Strong's numbers for the Greek, however, only words with the same root were numbered, so αγαπησεις appears the same as αγαπατε, for example--both are listed as Strong's #25 "αγαπαω". Even disregarding different stems for these words, however, there are not even 5624 root words, as numbers 3203-3302 are simply not used. See http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebiblecom/kjvstrongs/STRINDEX.htm. I would love to change this to the proper number, but I'm not sure what it is. Raymondofrish 19:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbering

message: Should we have a little something about the Goodrick-Kohlenberger numbers? These numbers are like Strong's but are more modern. They were thought up by Edward W. Goodrick and John R. Kohlenberger for the NIV 20 years ago. - Hoshie | 15:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goodrick-Kohlenberger numbers? 

message: For what it's worth, I hadn't heard of Cruden's concordance either. Anyway, is it worth moving the Strong's Concordance page to redirect to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible?
I have never moved a page before, so I would like to know what other people think.
Michael2 10:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move? 

message: It could be useful to give information of how Strong's numbers are used in modern computer software. Concordances have become useless (with computers) because computers can do searches, but the numbers are still in use in almost all Bible software. And Strong's dictionaries may be more familiar to new users than concordances.
:Concordances are not useless.  *If* you have the text of Bible in computer readable form then you can scan for text strings but a concordance will also list variations on a work, e.g. under 'burn' a concordance would also list 'burning', 'burnt', etc.  You could scan for 'burn' rather than ' burn ' but that would also turn up 'auburn', 'coburn', 'tyburn', etc.
:A computer program, rather than a simple text search, could look for all those variants but that is in essence a concordance.
:Also you may well not have the Bible text in computer readable form.  The older translations (e.g. Authorized or King James, Revised Version) are sufficiently old as to be in the public domain but the more modern translations(e.g. Living 1971, Good News 1976, New International 1978) are all copyright.
:FerdinandFrog (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In modern software 

message: As a curiosity, there is a character, "Dr. Strong", in Dickens, I think it was in David Copperfield, who is compiling a dictionary of "Greek roots".  I had always supposed it was an older contemporary that Dickens actually knew, but the timing seems wrong (Dickens died in 1870 or so I think).  Does anyone know anything about this, is it just pure coincidence?  Thanks — Wwheaton (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles Dickens? 

message: Some clarity as to the dates of publication, and editions, etc., would be nice.
Some later additions claimed that they corrected mistakes.
Speaking of mistakes, the concordance might not actually include every word of the Bible in it with references and numbers for every one....
Misty MH (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates and edition corrections