>>13808103 pb/lb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong%27s_Concordance
The purpose of Strong's Concordance is not to provide content or commentary about the Bible, but to provide an index to the Bible. This allows the reader to find words where they appear in the Bible. This index allows a student of the Bible to re-find a phrase or passage previously studied. It also lets the reader directly compare how the same word may be used elsewhere in the Bible.
Each original-language word is given an entry number in the dictionary of those original language words listed in the back of the concordance. These have become known as the "Strong's numbers". The main concordance lists each word that appears in the KJV Bible in alphabetical order with each verse in which it appears listed in order of its appearance in the Bible, with a snippet of the surrounding text (including the word in italics). Appearing to the right of the scripture reference is the Strong's number. This allows the user of the concordance to look up the meaning of the original language word in the associated dictionary in the back, thereby showing how the original language word was translated into the English word in the KJV Bible.
Strong's Concordance includes:
The 8,674 Hebrew root words used in the Old Testament. (Example: אֱנוֹשׁ (H582))
The 5,624 Greek root words used in the New Testament. (Example: λόγος (G3056))
New editions of Strong's may exclude the comparative section (1611 KJV to 1614) and the asterisks that denote differential definitions of the same Hebrew or Greek words; due perhaps to denominational considerations, definitions may also be altered.[citation needed]
Although the Greek words in Strong's Concordance are numbered 1–5624, the numbers 2717 and 3203–3302 are unassigned due to "changes in the enumeration while in progress". Not every distinct word is assigned a number, but rather only the root words. For example, αγαπησεις is assigned the same number as αγαπατε – both are listed as Greek word #25 in Strong's Concordance (αγαπαω).
Other authors have used Strong's numbers in concordances of other Bible translations, such as the New International Version and American Standard Version.
Due to Strong's numbers it became possible to translate concordances from one language into another. Thus, the Russian concordance of 30,000 words from the Russian Thompson Study Bible ("Новая учебная Библия Томпсона", La Buona Novella Inc, 2010, edition made by the Christian society "The Bible for everyone" in St.Petersburg, Russia) is a translation of the English concordance from Thompson Chain-Reference Bible (The New Thompson Study Bible, La Buona Novella Inc. & B.B. Kirkbride Bible Company, Inc., 2006). In the process of compiling the Russian concordance, the Hebrew/Greek word corresponding to the English concordance word was found, and then its Russian equivalent in the Russian Synodal translation of the Bible was added to the resulting Russian concordance text.
New editions of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible remain in print as of 2016.
con·cord·ance
/kənˈkôrdns/
Learn to pronounce
See definitions in:
All
Linguistics
Computing
Medicine
Genetics
noun
1.
an alphabetical list of the words (especially the important ones) present in a text, usually with citations of the passages in which they are found.
"a concordance to the Bible"
2.
FORMAL
agreement or consistency.
"the concordance between the teams' research results"
verb
make a concordance of (a text).
"his works are extremely well-known and have been concordanced"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Strong_(theologian)
Strong was born in New York City and graduated, in 1844, as valedictorian from Wesleyan University. Subsequently, he was mayor of his hometown on Long Island. Later, having settled in Flushing, New York, he pursued biblical studies, held various local offices, and organized, built, and was the president of the Flushing railroad. In 1856 the Wesleyan University granted him the degree of Doctor of Divinity (D.D.). From 1858 until 1861, Strong was both Acting President and Professor of Biblical Literature at Troy University. In 1868 he became Professor of Exegetical Theology at Drew Theological Seminary, where he remained for twenty-seven years. In 1881 the Wesleyan University honored Strong with the degree of Doctor of Laws (LL.D.). He died at Round Lake, New York in 1894.[1][2][3]
His best known work is the Bible concordance named after him, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, first published in 1890, of which new editions are still in print. Numerous revisions, such as The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible[4] and The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible,[5] along with adaptations of the concordance to translations other than the Authorized King James Version while retaining the "Strong's" or similar branding, such as the Strongest NIV Exhaustive Concordance[6] are also available. "Strong's numbering" of Greek and Hebrew words, have dominated the enumeration of such words in Bible study helps to the present day, only recently being supplemented by Goodrick–Kohlenberger numbering.
For the concordance, Strong numbered every Hebrew or Greek root word which was found, for ease of reference. This numbering system (8674 Hebrew roots and 5523 Greek roots) is now widely used in the English-speaking world and also widely available on the web,[7] where it can be used with many translations, often in conjunction with other hermeneutic tools. In spite of the Greek roots being numbered up to 5624, there are 5523 actual entries, since 101 numbers were jumped over. At the end of the "Greek Dictionary of the New Testament" section of the first edition of Strong's Concordance is the following Note: "Owing to changes in the enumeration while in progress, there were no words left for Nos. 2717 and 3203–3302, which were therefore silently dropped out of the vocabulary and references as redundant. This will occasion no practical mistake or inconvenience."[8]
Further, note that modern Old Testament lexical systems often separate out entries on Aramaic words from those on Hebrew words, a practice initiated by A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (an English work based on Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar in German), which is commonly called "Brown–Driver–Briggs" or "BDB" after its three primary authors.[9]
Pharmakon, in philosophy and critical theory, is a composite of three meanings: remedy, poison, and scapegoat.[1] The first and second senses refer to the everyday meaning of pharmacology (and to its sub-field, toxicology), deriving from the Greek source term φάρμακον (phármakon), denoting any drug, while the third sense refers to the pharmakos ritual of human sacrifice. A further sub-sense of pharmakon as remedy which is of interest to some current authors is given by the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek–English Lexicon as "a means of producing something".[2]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmakon_(philosophy)#:~:text=Pharmakon%2C%20in%20philosophy%20and%20critical,remedy%2C%20poison%2C%20and%20scapegoat.&text=A%20further%20sub-sense%20of,a%20means%20of%20producing%20something".
In recent philosophical work, the term centers on Jacques Derrida's "Plato's Pharmacy",[3] and the notion that writing is a pharmakon. Whereas a straightforward view on Plato's treatment of writing (in Phaedrus) suggests that writing is to be rejected as strictly poisonous to the ability to think for oneself in dialogue with others (i.e. to anamnesis), Bernard Stiegler argues that "the hypomnesic appears as that which constitutes the condition of the anamnesic"[4]—in other words, externalised time-bound communication is necessary for original creative thought, in part because it is the primordial support of culture.[5]
Michael Rinella has written a book-length review of the pharmakon within a historical context, with an emphasis on the relationship between pharmakoi in the standard drug sense and the philosophical understanding of the term.[6]
Adrian Mróz, a Polish-American philosopher and musician, analyses its application to art and argues that pharmakon is any physical, mental, or behavioral object[7] which can cut (techne). In other words, pharmaka are agential and responsible for changes in consciousness. [8]
Derrida uses pharmakon to highlight the connection between its traditional meaning and the philosophical notion of indeterminacy:
"[T]ranslational or philosophical efforts to favor or purge a particular signification of pharmakon [and to identify it as either "cure" or "poison"] actually do interpretive violence to what would otherwise remain undecidable."[9]
However, with reference to the fourth "productive" sense of pharmakon, Kakoliris argues (in contrast to the rendition given by Derrida) that the contention between Theuth and the king in Plato's Phaedrus is not about whether the pharmakon of writing is a remedy or a poison, but rather, the less binary question: whether it is productive of memory or remembrance.[10][fn 1] Indeterminacy and ambiguity are not, on this view, fundamental features of the pharmakon, but rather, of Derrida's deconstructive reading.
In certain cases it may be appropriate to see a pharmakon as an example of anthropotechnics in Sloterdijk's sense of the term – part a "project of treating human nature as an object of deliberate manipulation."[12] This is consistent with the way in which Plato's "noble lie" is understood by Carl Page – namely, as a pharmakon, with the philosopher in the role of moral physician.[13][14] Relatedly, pharmakon has been theorised in connection with a broader philosophy of technology, biotechnology, immunology, enhancement, and addiction.[15][16][17][18]
In political theory
Emphasizing the third sense of pharmakon as scapegoat, but touching on the other senses, Boucher and Roussel treat Quebec as a pharmakon in light of the discourse surrounding the Barbara Kay controversy and the Quebec sovereignty movement:
"Pharmakon was usually a symbolic scapegoat invested with the sum of the corruption of a community. Seen as a poison, it was subsequently excluded from a community in times of crisis as a form of social catharsis, thus becoming a remedy for the city. We argue that, in many ways, Quebec can be both a poison and a remedy in terms of Canadian foreign policy."[21]
In medical philosophy
Persson uses the several senses of pharmakon to "pursue a kind of phenomenology of drugs as embodied processes, an approach that foregrounds the productive potential of medicines; their capacity to reconfigure bodies and diseases in multiple, unpredictable ways."[22] Highlighting the notion (from Derrida) that the effect of the pharmakon is contextual rather than causal, Persson's basic claim – with reference to the body-shape-changing lipodystrophy experienced by some HIV patients taking anti-retroviral therapy – is that:
"the ambivalent quality of pharmakon is more than purely a matter of ‘wrong drug, wrong dose, wrong route of administration, wrong patient’. Drugs, as is the case with anti-retroviral therapy, have the capacity to be beneficial and detrimental to the same person at the same time."[22]
In media philosophy
It may be necessary to distinguish between "pharmacology" that operates in the multiple senses in which that term is understood here, and a further therapeutic response to the (effect of) the pharmakon in question. Referring to the hypothesis that the use of digital technology – understood as a pharmakon of attention – is correlated with "Attention Deficit Disorder", Stiegler wonders to what degree digital relational technologies can "give birth to new attentional forms".[5] David Foster Wallace alludes to the idea of a pharmakon in televised celebrity:
The self-conscious appearance of unself-consciousness is the grand illusion behind TV's mirror-hall of illusions; and, for us, the Audience, it is both medicine and poison.[23]
In post-metaphysical philosophy
The following quote from Gianni Vattimo serves as an epigraph for Santiago Zabla's remarks on the "pharmakons of onto-theology". To continue the theme above on a therapeutic response: Viattimo compares interpretation to a virus; in his essay responding to this quote, Zabala says that the virus is onto-theology, and that interpretation is the "most appropriate pharmakon of onto-theology."[24]
[O]ne cannot talk with impunity of interpretation; interpretation is like a virus or even a pharmakon that affects everything it comes into contact with. On the one hand, it reduces all reality to message – erasing the distinction between Natur and Geisteswissenschaften, since even the so-called "hard" sciences verify and falsify their statements only within paradigms or pre-understandings. If "facts" thus appear to be nothing but interpretations, interpretation, on the other hand, presents itself as (the) fact: hermeneutics is not a philosophy but the enunciation of historical existence itself in the age of the end of metaphysics[.][25]
Zabala further remarks: "I believe that finding a pharmakon can be functionally understood as the goal that many post-metaphysical philosophers have given themselves since Heidegger, after whom philosophy has become a matter of therapy rather than discovery[.]"
https://genius.com/Gavin-friday-angel-lyrics
Angel
Hold on to me
Love is all around me
Angel
Hold on to me
Oooh
Come closer to me
Don't go
Don't leave me
Angel
Hold on to me
Love is all around me
So sad that you love her
Like the stars above
So sad that you love her
Hold on, hold on
Huh huh
Huh huh
Hold on to me
Huh huh
Huh huh
Hold on to me
Angel
Hold on to me
I'll call
Call out to you
It's paradise you take me to
Huh huh
Huh huh, oooh
Cause I love your love
Always free
Huh huh huh
Huh huh huh
Huh huh huh
Huh huh huh
The only thing that sets you apart from the other NPC anons is the fact that you post anime pictures… but if you really want me to take it there, I can just identify you and your posts by your ID, which tells me that you've posted 18 times.
None of these questions apply to me, as my love triangle with Henry Cavill and Sam Heughan place me in a league of my own (non-NPC)!
typo *places
Who is the "he" you are referring to, shillbot?
Why would I need to recall any information besides your ID and the fact that you've shilled THIS MANY times?
And Henry Cavill hasn't been Superman for a while now. He graciously gave that role up to Michael B. Jordan on his birthday since Henry Cavill and Sam Heughan are now in a love triangle with me!
"The Queen Mary, an iconic ship with a long history, in danger of sinking after years of neglect" https://twitter.com/i/events/1399785674245427205?s=09