lpetrich

Any opinions on it?

I ask that because Strong's Concordance is the limit of some people's knowledge of Hebrew. And also because it lists "firmament" (raqiya`) as:

1) extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
a) expanse (flat as base, support)
b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
1) considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above

The trouble here is that "expanse" by itself suggests a volume and not necessarily an area.

Sandslice

Actually, expanse does refer to an area.

>great extent of something spread out

My personal opinion of Strong's is that it's fairly reliable... when it doesn't go into apologetic mode, as it does (for example) with Behemoth, Leviathan, and 'almah.

(Their Behemoth is automatically a sauropod, with a clear disclaimer that hippos are "patently absurd;" Leviathan's definition leans toward plesiosaur, and uses the EXACT "bombardier beetles can fart explosive chemicals, therefore fire-breathing is possible" arguments the YECs apply... and with the same "patently absurd" handed to crocodiles; and they make damn sure that 'almah is disclaimed as definitely meaning what we understand to be virgin.)

CX

By and large Strong's (at least in the case of Koine) is motivated by confessional considerations. Consequently it's pretty hit or miss. I use Strong's for quick lookups but I take them with a grain of salt. For more reliable lexical work I use Liddell. Regardless, a person cannot go very far relying only on an English concordance and/or an interlinear bible. I became so frustrated doing precisely that that I took a couple courses in Koine, purchased a copy of Nestle-Aland 27 and a few grammars (Mounce is my favorite). I am by no means anything more than an moderately informed layman with respect to Koine Greek, but I have much easier time than I did using only a concordance and an interlinear.

Madkins007

I believe you are refering to the on-line edition, which I use for convenience, but do not trust quite as much as the paper edition. In my 1989 World Bible Publishers edition (the biggest single book I own, whew!), the entry for Behemoth (#930) reads like this:

"in form a plural of 929, but really a sing. of Eg. der.: a 'water ox', ie- the hippopotomus or Nile-horse:- Behemoth" (Note, #929 refers to large quadraped, often clooectively, beast, cattle.)

I think that the real Strong's Exhaustive Concordence is a decent enough reference book. I've used it for discussions on-line for years and never had a real scholar (of the Bible or languages) seriously challenge it- just my interpretations of it!

Sandslice

The online Strong's, I will admit, has most of its apologetic elements because it also features TWOT. I might need to check into the book form.