Hi All,

I am doing a comparison of the Strongs dict from (e-Sword) vs Mickelson dict (The Word)
I would like to know if they are the same but slightly reformatted?

Here is an image of the comparison:

 Strongs vs Mickelson.JPG   139.99K   67 downloads

From what I can see it is the same.
If you be so kind to let me know if there is a difference (text)?

thanks
Patchworkid

Edited by patchworkid, 16 November 2012 - 01:02 PM.

Sounds like you have both dictionaries installed and side by side in e-Sword.

You tell us: are they basically the same? Randomly sample 30 definitions and see if they are largely the same?

assumed they were different, but I've never compared them. Should be interesting!

Let me quote from the emails I had with the Mickelson author a year or two ago.

I can appreciate your interest in the Mickelson dictionaries, however this is an ongoing work in progress. It is not intended to serve this present generation, but rather the ones that follow. It would be a breach and violation of this stewardship before the Lord to release this work before its due time, or in a manner that hinders its effectiveness for whom it is being prepared. If it was for our generation, the work would have begun in a prior season.

The dictionaries I am working are so very powerful, that the abuse of them or deliberate modification of them could easily harm millions of souls for generations. This is why I have labored so hard for so long continuously, so that I might fully and properly establish in print the official Mickelson Hilkiah Editions for publication and proper distribution, so that the souls of men could distinguish between this actual work and the fraudulent modifications and "mashups" that would follow by the hands of untrustworthy and deceptive men.

Men have no concern about God's Word and the actual Truths preserved therein. This is not another dictionary among dictionaries. This is not another translation alongside other translations. This is a verifiable stepping stone that bridges the gap. It is not a translation of convenience, but of utter necessity. And it does not belong in a pick list of optional software packages to be installed or overlooked. It is foundational. It needs to stand alone, but not apart. It is a translation work like none that have preceded it in any language, at any time. Never has so much effort for verifiable clarity been placed into a New Testament translation and its New Testament dictionary.

Not one of the existing Bible software packages can properly display and communicate the distinct typography used to express in English the subtle and important distinctions communicated in the Hebraic use of KoineGreek and Hebrew. English is a most foreign language to the Scriptures, and Western ideology excludes a number of vital concepts preserved therein.

Do you not know that people have put their total trust in such incomplete and scripturally foreign English translations as we have today, and yet to uproot that "darnel weed" would uproot some the "wheat" that Christ himself has planted? This work must dawn gently, but resolutely, in His timing so as not to harm our Brothers who share in our common eternal inheritance through Christ Jesus.

Have I labored so hard, so carefully, so quietly (without support, without fanfare, and at times just simply doing without), just to have "men of God" come and steal away the good fruit that God intended for a generation just now being born? A generation who will face such trials and tribulations, for whom a stylized translation, a paraphrase or a poetic adaptation of Scripture such as King James will not suffice! And such do not suffice today.

And to that I thought: huh? The dictionary looked like a paraphrase of Strong's to me, at a glance, but I never did a substantial comparison.

hi

what I did was copy Mickelson from the Word to e-Sword editors Topic. No I have not done a serious test of comparison. I would like (only if some are wiling) to help with the comparison since a few of us use both software.

(Now Jonathon would like this type of comparison {just my thought})

thanks
Patchworkid

He did tell me he put 19,000 hours into this dictionary. So, I would guess there are substantial differences somewhere.

Didn't I convert this to e-Sword for you at one point? You could compare easier that way.

hi Josh,

No you did not. but is it possible to post it on this site?

thanks

hi Josh,

No you did not. but is it possible to post it on this site?

thanks

Not without Mickelson's permission--it's a derivative copyright of the Strong's dictionary.

hi

are you saying that the Mickelson is copyright? and is it exactly like the Strongs? tht is same text?

thanks

Here's the website for the home of the Mickelson Strong's dictionary. Yes, it is under copyright. It is not just a Strong's Concordance. It is not just a few spelling changes or formatting tweaks. It is a new, updated, and very different work (much like Unger's Bible Dictionary -- very different works if you compare 1933 and 2012, even though the core concept [and even some of the info] is the same) than the original, public domain Strong's.

The anti-King James statements and the for a "future generation" talk ended my interest a year or two ago when I discussed it with him, honestly.