Frustrations with Hebrew software and seeking answers

[JTB.SDG]

Hi,
I'm not a Hebrew scholar by any means so I rely heavily on software for my biblical study and research. One of the main and most simple things I need to do in studying a passage is locate the Hebrew word being used and find every other OT occurance where the same word is used. Sounds simple, right? I had been using biblehub but had recently switched to another tool and started noticing that there are often differences of opinion between different tools on how many times a Hebrew word is used and where. The app Literal word uses Brown Driver Briggs. So for instance, if you look up Psalm 139:5, biblehub says the Hebrew word for "enclosed" is used 36 times, Strong's says its used 38 times, and literal word says it's used 31 times. Same thing in the same verse with "laid" your hand; biblehub says 83 occurances, Strong's says 85 occurances and literal word says 80 occurances. Can anyone help me understand what is going on and which tool is most reliable?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

BDB is strictly a lexicon, rather than a concordance. Sometimes the BDB is indexed with Strongs #s, making them a useful pairing. But already in those two lexical/concordant resources, created/modifed in two different eras, one sees that some work is done to correlate the results of scholarship.

These free data-entry creations also do not worry much about quality control. Resources that are "good enough" for the average person don't get frequent updates that fix omissions or errors. Also, there can be questions or doubts about where to classify certain Hebrew word-combos. Does the "mem" prefixed to a certain word represent an expression of a new word, a word that "came into its own" over centuries of using the preposition-plus-word formula, in the course of composing the Hebrew Bible? Or is it the older usage (root plus a prefix) more proper? The decision will affect the number of times the root word gets a reference.

That (along with data entry failures) is just one way you can find varying numbers, when you think you (surely!) have an exhaustive resource at your command. One way to examine such distinctions is to examine the differences (in your example, a total of probably less than 10 variants). Try to figure out why one has been dropped or added.

 

[JTB.SDG]

Thanks Bruce; this is helpful. Any easier ways you know of to figure out why one or two have been dropped/added? Are there any tools you personally prefer over others? When you talk about errors and omissions are you talking about Strongs?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

At this technical level, I personally don't know whether it is possible to have an exhaustive resource that explains, in essence, the details of why scholars are (forever) disagreeing with each other. In our studies, we rely on the works of linguists and commentators. Then we mix those conclusions with our own efforts.

I use whatever I have at hand. I prefer to use the computer, but occasionally go back to the paper resources. I like Accordance software, but long since lost the use of my purchase when my aged Apple product died. I use the freeware E-Sword a lot. I have a Logos engine (for my Hendriksen/Kistemaker set), but no Bible products on it other than the basic English Bible.

If I happen to mention how often a word is used in the Bible, I generally go with either a round figure, or I say that "one count is given as X."

My reference to errors and omissions are more related to the data-entry situations in the freeware. Strongs has been in the public domain for a long time, and is just an old "standard," and has been edited and reedited for accuracy (in printed versions).

 

[JTB.SDG]

Thanks Bruce.