SILEX Revision Notes

The SIBI gloss corrects the etymology by stating the root is uncertain, whereas Strong claims a primitive root. Definitionally, SIBI narrows the meaning to acting as guarantor or surety, noting that 'to traffic,' 'to occupy,' and some other senses in Strong's list are interpretive translation, not the core lexical meaning. There is also correction of translation tradition since Strong's reflects broad KJV-influenced senses not supported by lexical analysis.

The revised gloss corrects the original on etymology (the root derivation is uncertain, not securely tied to 'sterility'), on definition (removes unrelated meanings like 'evening' and 'heaven', and focuses the meaning on the steppe/arid plain, specifically the geographic Arabah), and removes conflation with other similarly spelled words. This represents correction in both etymology and definition, and rejection of conflation stemming from translation tradition.

The revised gloss corrects both the etymology (noting the traditional root connection to עָרַג is debated and etymology is uncertain) and the definition (removing the figurative notion of 'raised by mental aspiration'). It focuses on the concrete meaning of a garden bed or plot, and explicitly discounts the unsupported figurative/aspirational interpretation found in the original.

The revised gloss corrects the etymology by rejecting the root meaning of 'to accumulate' in favor of a denominative origin from 'ten'. It also narrows the definition, removing idiomatic meanings like 'surely' or 'truly' which are not attested in Biblical usage, focusing instead on the specific ceremonial act of tithing.

The revised gloss corrects the original in several ways: it narrows and clarifies the definition, indicating the primary meaning is 'ready' or 'imminent,' and that 'future' or 'treasures' are contextual or secondary meanings. It also rejects the connection to 'skilful' and provides updated etymological understanding, distancing from overextended or unsupported meanings given in the original.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's by disputing both the etymology (labeling the root as uncertain, not 'primitive') and the definition (removing 'to glow' and 'to be desolated', neither of which are supported by usage). The updated gloss focuses the meaning on darkness or dimness, especially regarding perception, correcting the broader or incorrect senses in Strong's.

The revised gloss corrects the original in two ways: (1) etymology—the original claims a derivation from עֶתֶר, whereas the revised says this connection is debated and likely irrelevant; (2) definition—the original assigns the meaning 'to burn incense in worship,' but the revised gloss explicitly states this sense is not attested for this verb, correcting a KJV-influenced mistranslation and offering a more accurate definitional focus on prayer and entreaty.

The revised gloss corrects the original by rejecting its claimed etymology and meaning: (1) The original's 'abundant,' 'multiply,' and 'deceitful' are etymologically and definitionally incorrect according to modern scholarship; (2) The revised gloss notes that 'entreat,' 'intercede,' and 'pray earnestly' are the actual senses, and that the etymological root is uncertain.

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymological claim (the root is uncertain rather than denominative from פְּאֹרָה) and removes the definitions 'to explain' and 'to shake a tree' as interpretive expansions not supported by current scholarship. Thus, it corrects both etymology and definition.

The revised gloss corrects both the definition—showing the word refers to a cooking vessel rather than an emotional or visual state—and the etymology, noting the root is uncertain rather than definitely linked to 'to glow' or 'to flush.' It also notes that the prior gloss's association with 'flush (of anxiety)' and 'blackness' is not supported by current evidence.

The revised gloss corrects both the etymology, removing the mistaken reference to קֵדְמָה and properly deriving it from פדה (padah), and the definition, clarifying that פְּדוּת means ransom or release and does not imply distinction or division. It eliminates errors in root derivation and narrows the semantic range to the concept of freeing or deliverance.

The revised gloss corrects the etymology, noting the root is uncertain and the connection to פּוּק or Aramaic נפק is comparative but not equivalent, while Strong's asserts a concrete derivation. It also refines the definition, clarifying that 'to succeed' is not an inherent meaning and that the figurative nuance depends on context rather than the root itself. Additionally, it removes translation tradition/theological implications tied to the KJV rendering of 'succeed' or 'afford.'

The revised gloss corrects the etymology by noting the root is uncertain and that the original's 'bubble up' or 'froth' is metaphorical, not literal. The definition is also narrowed: the term does not inherently mean 'unimportant' or 'light,' but rather refers to reckless, wanton, or rash behavior. Thus, both etymology and definition are materially corrected.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's etymological claim that the verb is a 'primitive root' and instead notes the root is uncertain, with debated connections in Semitic languages (etymology). It also removes the sense 'calve,' stating this likely results from confusion with a similar root (definition).

The revised gloss corrects the original on etymology (noting the derivation from פָּלַשׁ is uncertain), the definition (clarifying that פְּלֶשֶׁת refers to the territory, not the Philistines themselves), and removes the anachronistic association with 'Palestina/Palestine' (cultural anachronism), explaining that this term is not equivalent to the later region known as 'Palestine.'

The revised gloss corrects the etymology, stating the origin is uncertain rather than a clear primitive root. It also narrows the definition, removing the meanings of 'peck at,' 'stun,' 'dull,' and 'stubbornness,' clarifying the word denotes persistent urging or insistence rather than physical or character meanings.

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymology, rejecting the root connection to פָּרַר, and also narrows the definition by clarifying that פַּר does not inherently imply wildness, youth, or hoof division. The original introduces these via etymology and translation tradition, which the revised gloss corrects.

The revised SIBI gloss corrects the original on etymology, stating the root is uncertain rather than definitely from אָסַף, and it narrows the definition by specifying the core meaning relates to physical channels for water. It removes or questions the older gloss's suggestions that 'hero' or 'strong thing' are valid meanings, which contemporary scholarship does not support.

The revised gloss corrects the original in two major ways: (1) etymology—the supposed root meaning 'to separate, decide' is declared uncertain in the revised gloss, and (2) definition—the original's meaning of 'chieftain' is rejected as interpretive and not inherent to the word. The revised gloss instead focuses on the sense of an unwalled settlement or rural village.

The revised gloss corrects the Strong's etymology by stating the root is uncertain and not a 'primitive root.' It also corrects the definition, specifically rejecting 'avenge' and 'perish' as proper lexical meanings, identifying these as interpretive or context-driven. The revised gloss narrows the meaning to 'loosen,' 'let go,' 'become unkempt or disordered,' or 'uncover,' especially with regard to hair, clarifying and restricting the semantic range from Strong's broader and partly context-inferred definitions.

The revised gloss corrects the original's proposed etymology, stating it is uncertain rather than derived from specific roots. It also corrects the definition by clarifying that 'dirt' is a euphemistic interpretation, not the primary lexical meaning.

The revised gloss corrects the original on both etymology (rejecting the 'unused root' claim) and definition (removing 'extremity' and clarifying the meaning as 'stupidity' or 'folly').

The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's on both definition and etymology. Strong's links the root to literal physical movement ('to stride'), but the revised gloss clarifies that the main meaning is 'to rebel' or 'to transgress,' focusing on covenant breach rather than physical action. Additionally, the revised gloss notes the root etymology is uncertain, contradicting Strong's proposed derivation from leg movement.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim of an etymological root meaning 'to migrate', noting the etymology is uncertain with no verb attested in Hebrew (etymology). It also clarifies the definition: it only refers to small livestock like sheep and goats, not to larger cattle (definition), while the original ambiguously includes '(small) cattle' which could be misunderstood as bovines.

The revised gloss corrects the original on three points: (1) It challenges the claimed etymology, stating the root connection is uncertain; (2) it corrects the definition, removing 'palanquin' or 'canopy' as unsupported by primary biblical usage and focusing on the reptile meaning; (3) it reflects updated lexical, not traditional KJV-based, definitions.

The revised gloss corrects both the etymology and the definition in Strong's: it notes that the etymology is uncertain and not from a known Hebrew verbal root (contra Strong’s claim), and it disputes the definition 'adversary' as intrinsic meaning—clarifying that 'adversary' arises only from context, not from the base sense of the word. Thus, both Strong’s etymology and definition are materially corrected.

The revised gloss corrects two main issues: (1) etymology—Strong's asserts 'a primitive root,' but the revised gloss emphasizes that the derivation is uncertain; (2) definition—Strong's includes 'to desolate; destroy,' while the revised gloss notes these senses are not inherent to the root, cautioning that such implications are contextual rather than lexical. The revised gloss also warns against conflation with similar roots, which Strong's does not mention.

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymology, stating the root is of uncertain origin rather than clearly 'primitive.' It also narrows the definition, specifying the verb relates to giving authoritative instructions or commands, and notes it does not inherently include 'send a messenger' or 'appoint' as the original implies. The original includes meanings influenced by translation tradition that do not match the lexical evidence.

The revised gloss corrects the original's inclusion of 'be good' as a meaning, clarifying this is not a primary lexical sense. It also notes that the exact etymology is debated and uncertain, rather than simply calling it a 'primitive root.'

The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's on both etymology and definition. It notes that the root is uncertain and no active root is attested, correcting Strong's assertion of an unused root meaning 'to shade.' For definition, the SIBI gloss removes Strong's implication of 'illusion, vain shew,' clarifies that the base meaning is physical or visual representation, and indicates any negative nuance (illusion, vanity) is context-dependent rather than inherent.

The revised gloss corrects the original on two main points: (1) Etymology: The original calls it a 'primitive root,' while the revised notes the origin is uncertain and without clear cognates. (2) Definition: The original includes senses like 'to serve' and 'contrive,' which the revised criticizes as interpretative rather than lexically inherent. Therefore, the disagreement is both in etymology and in definition.

The revised gloss corrects both the etymology (stating the root is uncertain and disputing a direct link to 'joining') and the definition (removing meanings like 'to join', 'refuse', 'contract', 'keep', and 'reserve', which lack lexical support). It also points out that the original gloss extrapolated meanings not attested in usage.

The revised gloss corrects the original on both definition and etymology. It clarifies that the original meaning 'to humiliate' is inaccurate, specifying that the root means to act with humility or modesty, not to cause humiliation. Additionally, the revised gloss notes that the etymology is uncertain and that it is not a well-attested Semitic root, correcting the original implication of a known primitive root.

The revised gloss corrects the original on etymology (original claims specific primitive sense and ties to 'pouring/spilling,' which is now considered uncertain and poorly supported) and definition (removes figurative uses like 'imprison,' 'conquer,' and sexual sense, focusing on wandering and exile, as these other meanings lack strong linguistic evidence).

The revised gloss corrects the original on both etymology and definition. The original claims a definite etymology from צָפַר, which the revised gloss says is uncertain and debated. The original also narrows the meaning to 'little bird,' 'sparrow,' and 'fowl,' while the revised gloss states the term is generic for birds and not limited by size or species.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claimed root derivation, stating that the etymology is uncertain and there is no securely attested root in Biblical Hebrew (etymology). It also corrects the translation tradition by noting that the identification with 'cockatrice' in older translations is not supported by current linguistic or zoological evidence (translation_tradition).

The revised gloss corrects the definition by restricting usage to the city of Tyre rather than a generic 'rock' or place, and also corrects translation tradition by advising against anachronistic translations like 'Tyrus.' The original Strong's gloss conflates the proper noun for the city with the common noun 'rock' and follows older translation conventions.

The revised gloss corrects the original's implied certainty about the etymology (clarifying the relationship is cognate but precise roots are uncertain) and removes theological or interpretive implications about the sense of 'perishing,' explicitly noting the word does not inherently refer to eternal or spiritual loss. It also clarifies the semantic range and usage more neutrally, addressing both definition and etymology issues.

The revised gloss corrects the etymological certainty implied in the original, clarifying that the derivation from קוּר is uncertain and debated. It also rejects several definitions given by Strong's ('mason,' 'side,' 'very,' and 'town') as unsupported outside figurative or contextually extended usage, thus correcting both the lexical definition and etymological claim.

The revised gloss (1) corrects the original etymology, removing the suggestion of a root derived from 'shrinkage by heat' and noting that the origin is uncertain; and (2) removes the possibly theological or interpretive bias of 'loathsome,' clarifying that the verb does not itself carry a negative connotation. The Strong's gloss also reflects a translation tradition by including 'dried, loathsome' without strong lexical support, which the revised gloss corrects.

The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's on both etymology (rejects the speculative root 'to wrench') and definition (removes 'perversion' and clarifies that the term only means 'end, extremity, limit').

The revised gloss disagrees with the original on two points: (1) etymology—the original states 'a primitive root' without nuance, while the revised specifically notes the root is uncertain; (2) definition—the original includes 'to destroy', but the revised cautions that 'destroy' is an overtranslation, only warranted in limited metaphorical contexts. Thus, the revised both corrects the root's certainty and narrows the semantic range.

The revised gloss corrects both etymology and definition: (1) It disputes the original's assertion of a root meaning 'to chill,' stating instead that the etymology is uncertain with no securely attested root. (2) It narrows the definition by rejecting figurative meanings like 'quiet' or 'excellent' that Strong's proposed, restricting the meaning to literal temperature or sensation.

The revised gloss corrects the etymology by noting the root is uncertain and not attested elsewhere, differing from Strong's claim of an unused root meaning 'to balance.' It also narrows the definition, specifying the word means 'truth' or 'reality' and not 'equity' in the sense of fairness or justice, as the original gloss suggested. Thus, both etymology and definition are materially corrected.

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymology, indicating the origin is uncertain rather than likely from רוּד, and it challenges the definition by stating Arvad is not in Palestine but north of Israel in modern Syria, and is Phoenician, not a city of 'Palestine.'

The revised gloss corrects the original's translation tradition and cultural anachronism by explicitly cautioning against perpetuating KJV rendering ('Ebenezer') and modern religious associations. It also slightly narrows the definition from a generic place name to a commemorative site, clarifies etymology, and specifies the historical context.

The SIBI gloss corrects the etymology by stating it is uncertain and rejects the Strong's root derivation as unestablished. It also corrects the definition by identifying the animal as a large wild bovine, not a 'unicorn.' Additionally, it addresses translation tradition by rejecting the mythological interpretation based on later translation practices.

The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's etymology by stating that the root is uncertain and not clearly related to the forms Strong listed. It also corrects the definition, clarifying that the verb does not idiomatically mean 'certainly' and that this is an error. Additionally, the definition is updated to reflect historical context: it restricts the sense of 'stoning' to judicial execution, rather than just throwing stones.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's on both etymology and definition. It rejects Strong's claim of a clear primitive root and says the origin is uncertain. It also refines the definition: Strong's links the verb to violent tossing, winking, and a broad range of meanings, while the revised gloss narrows the focus to calming or subsiding and clarifies that associations with winking or violent tossing are interpretative or contextually limited, not primary.

The revised gloss corrects the etymology by stating the root derivation is uncertain, unlike Strong's claim it is a primitive root. It also corrects the definition: Strong's links the term to both sleep and death, whereas the revised gloss restricts the meaning to a profound, overwhelming sleep, not death. The revised gloss removes Strong's implication of direct connection to death.