View Full Version : Auto-Info Lexicons (Greek)

08-06-2009, 05:33 PM
Hi. I'm using Bibleworks 5. In the NT, when I mouseover a word in the KJV or NAU, it displays the greek word and definition in the auto-info window. In both cases, the title bar of the auto-info window begins with "Strong's data for...".

My question is, can you tell me which, if either of these auto-info lexicons are using Strong's (it doesn't look like either one to me), and/or which are the lexicons actually being used. I have been unable to match the data from the auto-info window up with any of the other installed Lexicons, and I want to correctly cite the definitions.

Thanks for any help you can give!

Mark Eddy
08-06-2009, 11:56 PM
If the auto-info window says that it is displaying Strongs data, then it is displaying Strongs data. Why do you think it is not Strongs? Both KJV and NAU are tagged to Strongs numbers. The glosses which are listed should be all the English words which translate the given word in the version you have placed under your cursor. I.e. if your cursor is over a word in KJV, then all the KJV translations for the given Strongs number will be listed. If your cursor is over a word in NAU, then all the NAU translations for the given Strongs number will be listed.
I haven't had 5.0 for a long time, but if my memory serves me correctly, BibleWorks 5 may also have display abridged BDB glosses together with the Strongs numbers in the auto-info window for Old Testament books.
Mark Eddy

08-07-2009, 01:20 AM
Thanks Mark. Yes, I believe it's abridged BDB for the OT.

My confusion is that the definition and notes when one mouses over KJV and NAS are different. If they're different, how can they both be Strong's? I am also suspicious because neither definitions look like what I have in the Strong's on my bookshelf.

I know one of them shows notes for the Geneva Bible.

Here's an example from Matthew 1:1, the Auto-info window mouseover for "David"


AI Title: Strong's data for "of David" <1138>

1138 Dabi,d Dabid {dab-eed'}
Meaning: 1) second king of Israel, and ancestor of Jesus Christ
Origin: of Hebrew origin 01732; TDNT - 8:478,*; n pr m
Usage: AV - David 59; 59

Geneva Bible Notes:
Mat 1:1 The (1) (2) book of the (3) generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the (4) son of Abraham.

(1) Jesus Christ came of Abraham of the tribe of Judah, and of the family of David as God promised.
(2) Rehearsal: as the Hebrews used to speak; see <Ge 5:1>, the book of the generations.
(3) Of the ancestors from whom Christ came.
(4) Christ is also the son of Abraham.


AI Title: Strong's data for "of David <1160b>

<1160b> Daui,d Dauid
Meaning: David, king of Isr.
Origin: of Heb. or. 1732
Usage: David(58), David's(1).

1 Lit book
2 Heb Yeshua (Joshua), meaning The LORD saves
3 Gr Christos (Christ), Gr for Messiah, which means Anointed One
a 2Sa 7:12-16; Psa 89:3f; Psa 132:11; Isa 9:6f; Isa 11:1; Mat 9:27; Luk 1:32, Luk 1:69; Joh 7:42; Act 13:23; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16
b Mat 1:1-6: Luk 3:32-34; Gen 22:18; Gal 3:16

Thanks again for any insight on this!

Mark Eddy
08-07-2009, 08:31 AM
The difference at the bottom of the auto-info (analysis) window is due to the fact that you have the version notes turned on. NAU has its own footnotes, and KJV comes with optional Geneva Bible notes. If you turn off the notes (click on the button which looks like a musical quarter note), then you will see only the Strongs information. I do not know why there would be a different Strongs number for "David" in the two different versions. Someone else might have some insight into this.
Mark Eddy

Glenn Weaver
08-07-2009, 08:56 AM
There are different editions of Strong's, esp. in the electronic world. The KJV Strong's in BW is licensed from Online Bible. It has enhanced dictionary entries. I do not believe that there is a print counterpart.

The NAS Strong's is from the NAS Exhaustive Concordance. The dictionary entries are different than the traditional Strong's dictionary entries.

Both systems use Strong's numbers. But neither use the original Strong's dictionary entries. Both have been updated in one way or another with new information.

08-07-2009, 10:26 AM
Thank you! That clears it up for me.

08-07-2009, 10:44 AM
Do you know, then, how one would properly cite both of these dictionary entries?