Subject: All Strong's numbers for the King James |
Bible Note: Hi there, brother Ed! I appreciate your post! Very informative. In retrospect I suspect that "ditty" does, indeed, have the roots that you suggest. I've used both Young's concordence and even his "literal transalation." I've used Cruden's, too. I found Strong's the most useful, though, but that is probably because I tend to use KJV quite a bit of the time. By the way, my wife got me a fine (very large print) ESV for my birthday. I'm finding that they seem to have a good balance between formal and functional translation. I'm also kind of leaning toward the ESV because they don't seem to have a monetary motive... although that reveals, perhaps, more of a personal bias on my part more than on anyone else. Thank you, again, for your post. In Him, Doc |