Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: A Bug on BDB in Hos 11:4

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    10

    Unhappy A Bug on BDB in Hos 11:4

    I note one bug in BW8.
    In Hos 11:4 the analisis of the Strong's Abridged BDB is not correctly sync. (i.e. red marked). My current version is 8.0.16f.1



    4בְּחַבְלֵ֨י אָדָ֤ם אֶמְשְׁכֵם֙ בַּעֲבֹתֹ֣ות אַהֲבָ֔ה וָאֶהְיֶ֥ה לָהֶ֛ם כִּמְרִ֥ימֵי עֹ֖ל עַ֣ל לְחֵיהֶ֑ם וְאַ֥ט אֵלָ֖יו אֹוכִֽיל׃

    (WTTHos 11,4)

    ex)
    Last edited by Raffi LEE; 03-07-2010 at 07:22 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    923

    Default

    This is not the place to report database errors. However, I cannot find the "bug" you are reporting. In order to produce the lexicon window in your screen shot, what Bible version and which specific word is under your cursor. When I place the cursor over the NAU word "bonds" or the NKJ word "bands" I see the proper entry:
    <05688> tbo[] aboth or tAb[] aboth or ht'bo[] abothah (721c)
    Meaning:
    cord, rope, cordage

    Origin:
    from 5686
    Usage: bonds(1), clouds(1), cordage(3), corded(1), cords(8), ropes(8).
    Mark Eddy

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    10

    Default I have refered to the analysis of BDB in WTT

    Sorry for post in this cgi... OTL.
    though... I upload the screenshot of my PC.

    Name:  Hos11-4_BDB..jpg
Views: 100
Size:  475.0 KB
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by Raffi LEE; 03-07-2010 at 07:29 PM. Reason: for the extent (rate) of the JPG.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    923

    Default

    I was using the full BDB for my lexicon. There is no problem with it. Apparently the Strongs BDB considers the WTT word BaaBoTHoTH to consist of three lemmas (the preposition B, the definite article Ha, and the lemma aBoTH) instead of the two lemmas which WTM gives it. (For some reason I can't find a Hebrew font to post any more, sorry.) Thus when you put your cursor over this word only the first two lemmas display in the Analysis window (for the definite article and for the preposition). That is why the rest of the verse displays definitions one word away from where they should be. If you write to techinal support, they might have an idea of what BW can do about this, and they might not. If this is a case of scholarly disagreement about whether the definite article is present or not, BW is not set up to handle all the possibilities. Apparently BW assigns each lemma a position number in the verse and displays corresponding information to go with that position number. If one database thinks that there should be more positions, the program is not set up to handle it.
    Sorry I can't be any more helpful.
    Mark Eddy

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •