The word "God" in "God and mankind" in 1 Tim 2:5 is tagged with the persons of both God and Jesus. Shouldn't it just be tagged as God?
Thanks, Graham
Hi Graham,
The referent data sometimes has multiple references within an expression, so in the right-click menu you only see the one word annotated instead of the whole expression. In this verse there is a higher level reference to Jesus as the one mediator, and then within that is a reference to God. Below is a screen shot of an inline referent search for Jesus. Had we not included these more complex expressions we would have excluded some of the coolest references. However, we have yet to find an elegant means of displaying these more complex expressions in a full-text environment like your case in the NIV. But this is why you have multiple references. If you click on "man" you will also find two: "Man" referring to what can be known from that word alone, and "Jesus based on the larger phrase "the man Jesus Christ." I wish there was a better way, but hope this gives some insight into what we have done and why.
It looks like the error is in not including "and human beings" in the label with "one mediator between God" since the former modifies the latter. I have reported that, so thanks for raising the question.
Hi Steve
Thanks for that - and the explanation.
For context, I came across this when searching for occurences in Paul's writings of Jesus being spoken of as God and found the 1 Tim reference slightly out of place!
I see. The search parameters make the results find the specific thing you are looking for, but the entire "referred to as" expression is not highlighted, only the intersecting lemma. The result does show up in Factbook under the "Referred to as" section, but based on the Greek syntax of the expression you would need to scroll down to "one" instead of "God" to find this instance. "God" is simply a modifier qualifying the nature of Jesus' mediation.
.
The search parameters make the results look skewed since the entire "referred to as" expression is not highlighted, but only the intersecting lemma.
Yes - but I don't know how easy it would be to address this!
