Strong's Concordance is incomplete

Have you found a bug or you think that the program does not function as expected? Report it here
Swedenborg
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2024 5:12 am

Strong's Concordance is incomplete

Post by Swedenborg »

I am noticing that Strong's concordance is incomplete, as given with the KJV version of the Bible. It tends to happen with some of the minor words that are sometimes ignored in translation. For example for Strong's #3644, an instance of that word is missed in Gen. 36:15. Prior to this I noticed many instances for word #518 are completely absent.

I am using an online website that is more accurate now for this purpose, for example for #3544 see https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

Is there a way to fix this? Is there a more up to date module that is more accurate?
User avatar
jonathangkoehn
Posts: 1261
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 11:04 pm
Location: Colorado, United States
Contact:

Re: Strong's Concordance is incomplete

Post by jonathangkoehn »

Greetings Swedenborg,
So clarification are needed.
Are you talking about the KJV Bible or the concordance(lexicon)? These are two separate resources.

Also Genesis 36:15 does not have H3644 at all because perhaps you are referencing a different verse? Even on Blue letter Bible it does not have H3644.

Please clarify these first and then in reposting. Please post the verse reference in theWord better yet paste the verse with Strongs from KJV here. And also the link to Blue letter
Similar please give one example of H518.
Jonathan Koehn @ https://www.thewordbooks.com
TotheWord make resources for theWord
2 Timothy 2:15 “Make every effort to present yourself before God as a proven worker who does not need to be ashamed, teaching the message of truth accurately.” NET2
Swedenborg
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2024 5:12 am

Re: Strong's Concordance is incomplete

Post by Swedenborg »

In theWord, I can only search Strong's concordance with the word indexes when searching the KJV Bible. If I switch to another Bible, nothing shows up. I assumed Strong's Concordance only works with the KJV Bible. I am using the Bible search window.

Had a typo in the previous post. Blue Letter Bible shows that Gen. 34:15 (not 36:15) has H3644. It is one of many misses. The complete list is here: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

For H518 the complete list is here: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

The first miss is in Gen. 13:9, and its the first miss among many. I can verify that these instances are correct by checking a Hebrew interlinear
User avatar
jonathangkoehn
Posts: 1261
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 11:04 pm
Location: Colorado, United States
Contact:

Re: Strong's Concordance is incomplete

Post by jonathangkoehn »

There are many other Bibles that have Strongs.
KJV, NET 2.1, NASB, LSB, Berean study Bible Interlinears, THGNT interlinear and reverse interlinear there are more but this is a few in the English realm
Jonathan Koehn @ https://www.thewordbooks.com
TotheWord make resources for theWord
2 Timothy 2:15 “Make every effort to present yourself before God as a proven worker who does not need to be ashamed, teaching the message of truth accurately.” NET2
NorrinRadd
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:12 am

Re: Strong's Concordance is incomplete

Post by NorrinRadd »

Interesting.

When I search for h518, I get the following results for Genesis:

KJV -- 8 occurrences

NASB2020 -- 57 occurrences

NET -- 67 occurrences

A few other translations also link to Strong's numbers, but this sampling is enough to make you go, "Hmm..."
Swedenborg
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2024 5:12 am

Re: Strong's Concordance is incomplete

Post by Swedenborg »

Ok thanks for that Bible list. Looks like from one reply above the NET Bible may be the most comprehensive. Although they have good research notes, their translation is awful, and they take many liberties in amending the original Hebrew. NASB would be preferable but it may not be as complete. It would be better to have something comprehensive with the KJV as that is used as a foundation for most modern English translations, and I like to see how the KJV translated each instance.
Jeff
Posts: 434
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:56 pm
Location: Wind River Range, WY

Re: Strong's Concordance is incomplete

Post by Jeff »

I have a KJV in theWord that counts 44 verses that contain H518. Not sure how many occurrences that is offhand as some verses may have more than one occurrence.

I believe I got the module from here: http://www.wordmodules.com/the-word-mod ... s-updated/

Although having more complete Strong's Numbers it doesn't have all the formatting (Red Letter, paragraphs and such) the official theWord KJV has.
Jeff


Using theWord Beta on MX Linux via Wine.
NorrinRadd
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:12 am

Re: Strong's Concordance is incomplete

Post by NorrinRadd »

Swedenborg wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2024 9:36 pm Ok thanks for that Bible list. Looks like from one reply above the NET Bible may be the most comprehensive. Although they have good research notes, their translation is awful, and they take many liberties in amending the original Hebrew. NASB would be preferable but it may not be as complete. It would be better to have something comprehensive with the KJV as that is used as a foundation for most modern English translations, and I like to see how the KJV translated each instance.
I love the NET, but be aware that I've noticed occasional glitches with their Strong's numbers. Not a ton, and I haven't kept a specific list, but it's been mentioned here on the forum a few times.
Post Reply