1. After a search: I got 69 results. I was interested in Ps 95:11, but it was missing.
2. I checked with BibleWorks and I received 186 hits for the verb "shava". It seems that not only Ps 95:11 is missing, but a lot more.
I could be wrong, but it appears your search is limited to the Torah. Try all passages and you should get a similar result with BW:
You don't actually need to do a clause search. I just right-clicked on the verb in LHB, chose the lemma in the context menu, and selected "Search this resource". It gave me the following as a Bible search:
EDIT: But you're right the reason the OP got the reduced number of hist was because he's restricted it to Torah.
Thank you! That's right! Now, in the new search there is Ps 95:11 included, but there is still a difference between BibleWorks and Logos - 6 hits.
???
Yes, you are right, but first I was interested in the Clause Search: subject:God verb-lemma:שׁבע.
Logos has 185 results in 174 verses, BibleWorks 186 results (43 forms) in 175 verses.
Since I don't have the BW program I can't do what you can: compare the hits and find the missing verse.
My guess: you are searching a homonyme, where the same Hebrew characters stand for (sometimes largely) different meanings. Your Logos search looks for the first meaning of the lemma. Your BW screenshot doesn't show a differentiation, thus I assume BW finds a hit where Logos assigned another meaning of the lemma.
The difference comes from the fact that BibleWorks considers שְׁבֻעֵ֥י in Ezekiel 21:28 as the verb, but Logos as the noun שְׁבוּעָה ,
According to BibleWorks: verb qal pass participle masculine plural construct
According to Logos: noun, common, masculine, plural, construct
I'm not really good enough at Hebrew to argue which is correct, but it's also worth making the point that if you're using LHB in Logos, you must be using a different Hebrew text in BW, as Lexham is (I think) unique to Logos. If you want to do that kind of cross-check you'd probably need to use something like BHS so that you're comparing like with like.
Below is a lemma search on BHW 4.18 and AFAT. The morph tagging varies as well.
No, there is no difference in the text itself. The difference is only in description of the word שְׁבֻעֵ֥י (that is in both the same).
I've looked it up in several Hebrew bibles (BHS WIVU, BHS SESB 2.0, AFAT, LHB) they all read noun masculine there. Actually the text seems to read something like "oaths of oaths" with the same lemma used twice (Strongs hebrew #7621 for those not strong in Hebrew ;-) .
Which bible and morphology do you use in the BW program?
WTM
WTM, JDP - Groves-Wheeler Westminster Morphology and Lemma Database (WTM).
Copyright © 1991-1992 (Release 1), 1994 (Release 2), 1996-2000 (Release 3), 2001 (release 3.5), 2003 (release 4.0), 2005 (release 4.4), 2008 (release 4.10) by the Westminster Theological Seminary, and used by arrangement with Westminster Theological Seminary, Chestnut Hill (Philadelphia), Pennsylvania.
BibleWorks includes the 2010 WTM Release 4.14.
I assume the Westminster 4.18 version that John referred to above (I don't own it) is an updated version of what you have in BW, so he should be able to look up the lemmas in Ez 21:28 (or 23, as some English bibles seem to have it)
BibleWorks includes the 2010 WTM Release 4.14. I assume the Westminster 4.18 version that John referred to above (I don't own it) is an updated version of what you have in BW, so he should be able to look up the lemmas in Ez 21:28 (or 23, as some English bibles seem to have it)
It is a noun in all 3 Logos versions using different morphology.as well as the HMT-W4 in Accordance. Looks like BW is the odd software out.
One more thing to consider:
—Qal (according to Thes Rob Ges) Pt. pass. שְׁבֻעֵי שְׁבֻעוֹת Ez 21:28 those sworn with ( = who have sworn) oaths; both from שְׁבוּעָה, according to Krae, oaths of oaths (the most sacred); (Brown, F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. (1977). Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (p. 989). Oxford: Clarendon Press.)
Here is the Word by Word on the ESV from the Exegetical Guide:
Note the additional tagging. Placyd it is yours to take from here...
Here is the Word by Word on the ESV from the Exegetical Guide: Note the additional tagging. Placyd it is yours to take from here...
On Windows you can hover your mouse over the +/-. and it will tell you which morphologies use which coding. Unfortunately I can't do it on my Windows PC because I don't have the morphology with the alternative coding in my library, so I don't see what you see. (And I think that functionality is broken on a mac). But if someone can see this on Windows, a screenshot of the popup when you hover over the +/- might be useful.
On Windows you can hover your mouse over the +/-. and it will tell you which morphologies use which coding.
Seems to be something in that Westminster morphology coding - I don't see that in what's in my library:
Actually it is Logos Hebrew Morphology used in the LHB and RI's.
How so? They show NCMPC and NCFPC for the two instances of the Lemma (LHB; LH-EIB, RI for NIV2011, NRSV, NRSVCE, ESV, LU84)
Westminster 4.18 does indeed say feminine. (I had to change my version to see it, I'm not sure why.)
Mick,
Perhaps we are not communicating clearly. My screenshot was from the ESV using the Logos Hebrew Morphology that showed the additional morphology for verb etc.
Sorry if I am adding more confusion than answers.
Mick, Perhaps we are not communicating clearly. My screenshot was from the ESV using the Logos Hebrew Morphology that showed the additional morphology for verb etc.
The point is that the Exegetical guide shows different variants from the morphologies of the resources in the library, not the one selected. If you ran on a PC, you could hover the plus sign and we'd see (maybe the old, long-superseded Westminster 4.2 morphology?)
Seems to be something in that Westminster morphology coding - I don't see that in what's in my library: Westminster 4.18 does indeed say feminine.
Westminster 4.18 does indeed say feminine.
which is a new variation - but still it says it's a noun.
Curious: how come your Hebrew transliteration looks so different, is this priorization of Westminster 4:18?
On a Mac, so that is not functional as of this date.
I didn't change my prioritisation, just chose the Westminster in the settings for the Word by Word section. But transliteration is set in Program Settings. Mine's set to "Simplified", which is about right for my level of Hebrew!
Off Topic: This thread gave me the idea to put together a Reading List of Hebrew Bible Texts in Logos and their respective morphological tagging. I found no link for the old Westminster 4.2 - feel free to update the list if you own/know of more Hebrew bibles
the Exegetical guide shows different variants from the morphologies of the resources in the library, not the one selected. If you ran on a PC, you could hover the plus sign and we'd see (maybe the old, long-superseded Westminster 4.2 morphology?)
seems to be confirmed by a screenshot in a post in another thread: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/120224/789478.aspx#789478
The new or most updated version of the Westminster that Logos has is the 4.18 Biblia Hebraica Westmonasteriensis
https://www.logos.com/product/36749/biblia-hebraica-westmonasteriensis-with-westminster-hebrew-morphology-418
Seems to be something in that Westminster morphology coding - I don't see that in what's in my library: The new or most updated version of the Westminster that Logos has is the 4.18 Biblia Hebraica Westmonasteriensis https://www.logos.com/product/36749/biblia-hebraica-westmonasteriensis-with-westminster-hebrew-morphology-418
I know that, but for one who doesn't read Hebrew at all, I own much too many Hebrew bibles already....
