Goodrick-Kohlenberger numbers?
I grew up learning how to use Strong's. In fact, going out over the net, I find the the Strong's is still in quite a lot of use for the purpose it had -- identifying the word behind a Bible word so that it is easy to look up for those who don't know Hebrew, Greek (And Aramaic).
However, in my bible study class, the teacher keeps using Goodrick-Kohlenberger (GK) numbers. In fact, there is evidently a conversion chart between these numbers and the Strong's, so if you know one you can find the other.
However, he hasn't explained (and I can't seem to find online) why we have the GK system? Did the person who create it not know that Strong's already existed? Does it have some advantage that the Strong's does not?
Does anyone know?
However, in my bible study class, the teacher keeps using Goodrick-Kohlenberger (GK) numbers. In fact, there is evidently a conversion chart between these numbers and the Strong's, so if you know one you can find the other.
However, he hasn't explained (and I can't seem to find online) why we have the GK system? Did the person who create it not know that Strong's already existed? Does it have some advantage that the Strong's does not?
Does anyone know?
posted by MommyLydia | 10/13/2005 11:21:00 PM
8 Comments:
Not a clue, Magoo.
Seeing that Strong completed his work in the 1890's, I have always thought that Goodrick/Kohlenberger numbers are modern than Strong's. I have always seen that Goodrick/Kohlenberger #'s are limited to the NIV as Strong's is limited to the KJV. I wish someone would come up with a way to key the Bible to the Heb/Gk that works with all the versions...
Actually, I've seen Strong's numbers keyed to the NASB as well.
I have recently seen the GK numbering system, and although it organizes the words of the Bible perhaps even more precisely than Strong's, the Strong's numbers is the only system that appears to contain a Divine design that connects Verse #, Gematria, Verse Reference, into hidden substructure in the Bible.
Example: Jam 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
Jam 1:6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
James 1:6 has a Verse Gematria of 8010 if you add all the letters of the Greek alphabet contained in that verse.
The Hebrew Strong's Number H8010 = Soloman.
What are the chances that a New Testament verse have a gematria that is relavant to a Hebrew Strong's number? I have found 100's of examples of a hidden substructure in the Bible.
Everybody always mentions that the GK numbers are based on more recent, hopefully better, editions of the New Testament, whereas Strong was working from fewer manuscripts and less analysis and blah blah blah. But the only reason you couldn't number a present-day Testament with Strong's, or an older one with GK, is if it had a word that simply wasn't numbered in that system. (In which case you could extend the system with a decimal point, as the Apostolic Bible does for Septuagint words.)
In the end, I suspect a certain publisher is pushing GK less because it aids scholarship, and more because they hold the copyright. Maybe I'll go to Hell for judging them uncharitably. But if I ever manage to publish a Bible study aid before then, you can bet your sweet life I will key it to Strong's.
There are more GK numbers than there are Strong's numbers, because in GK's analysis of the biblical text they came up with more dictionary entries than Dr. Strong's team did. No analysis can come up with the same number of entries because grouping printed words into dictionary entries requires subjective decision making. How different do two meaning senses of the same word have to be before they are split into two separate dictionary entries and how similar do two printed forms of a word have to be before they are subsumed under one dictionary entry are difficult decsions. For example, in English is the 'speed' you go on the highway different enough from the number of 'speeds' your bicycle has for them to be listed separately in the dictionary, or do 'function' and 'functionality' look similar enough to be grouped together in one dictionary entry.
The decisions that one makes are subjective and they will be heavily influenced by one's overall approach to lexicography. Suffice it to say that the lexicographical school of thought in which Dr. Strong's research project opperated was sufficiently different from the lexicographical school of thought in which Goodrick and Kohlenberger's research project operated for them to analyze the printed words of the biblical texts into a diffent number of dictionary entries. Many Strong's entries are split in two in the GK numbering system. Additionally, Strong only put stand alone words in his dictionary, but GK include words which only occur prefixed and suffixed to other words (e.g., the three Hebrew prepostions generally meaning 'for', 'in', and 'like'). In short the GK dictionary is bigger than the Strong's dictionary.
http://morechrist.blogspot.com/2012/11/strong-numbers.html
Logos Bible Software (logos.com) synchronizes Strong's. G-K, TWOT, and all concordances. Terrific resources!
Dav!d
Post a Comment
<< Home