Gedalya Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Is there a possibility to have the NET Bible with Strongs numbers? I find the NET Bible one of the most interesting and accurate translations and the Net notes are simply superb. Having the NET translation with Strongs would make it an even better module. Adding Strongs would also allow the ability to compare and contrast its translation with JPSS and NRSVS and others that are tagged with Strongs. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorinda H. M. Hoover Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 I've requested this in the past, but it hasn't happened yet. When I requested it, I don't think anyone--not even the NET Bible folks--had done a Strong's version. Looking at the NET Bible site, it looks like they now do. I agree, it would be wonderful to have in Accordance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Bennett Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 This is something we've discussed in the past, but as of now there is not a complete tagged version available (what's on their site is not). And we're not prepared to invest in this ourselves, at least as of now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Hall Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Understandable, but a bummer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julia Falling Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 (edited) If it ever happens, I'll buy it. EDIT: I'd prefer G/K numbers. Seems to be more accurate. Strong's bundles words together. The NAS Greek and Hebrew add a's and b's to distinguish between the bundled words, but that can cause problems when searching more than one version. I would love to see everything standardized — unlikely, but I can still dream. Edited November 17, 2014 by Julie Falling 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 EDIT: I'd prefer G/K numbers. Seems to be more accurate. Strong's bundles words together. The NAS Greek and Hebrew add a's and b's to distinguish between the bundled words, but that can cause problems when searching more than one version. I would love to see everything standardized — unlikely, but I can still dream. Same here. Strong's seem especially outdated in the light of G&K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlesman Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 +1 for either Strong's or G/K. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorinda H. M. Hoover Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 I'd be happy with either Strong's or G/K, although good arguments have been made for G/K. And yes, I'd definitely purchase it if and when it's available. I do understand, though, that preparing it would be a tremendous amount of work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel R Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Perhaps the request should go to the NET folks to tag their own text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Bennett Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Perhaps the request should go to the NET folks to tag their own text. There's no need to request. They have already started on it, the question is if/when they will finish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now