SILEX Revision Notes
Strong's Concordance was first published in 1890. While it remains an invaluable reference, advances in linguistics, archaeology, and textual studies over the past 130 years have revealed areas where its glosses can be improved. These revision notes document where the Scattered Israelites Lexicon (SILEX) corrects or clarifies Strong's entries based on modern Biblical scholarship.
בְּכִית H1068 (bᵉkîyth)
The revised gloss corrects the original by clarifying that בְּכִית refers specifically to the emotional act of weeping or expressing sorrow through tears, rather than 'mourning' more generally. The original gloss combines 'weeping' and 'mourning' without distinguishing between emotional displays and formal mourning, while the revised gloss specifies it is not primarily about ritual mourning.
בָּכַר H1069 (bâkar)
The original claims a specific meaning ('to burst the womb') as the proper etymology. The revised gloss states the root is primitive but the exact origin is uncertain—correcting the over-specific and likely erroneous etymology in the original.
אִגֶּרֶת H107 (ʼiggereth)
The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's implicit claim that אִגֶּרֶת is simply the feminine of אִגְּרָא, stating that the etymology is uncertain and noting possible connections to Akkadian. This challenges the oversimplified or possibly incorrect root derivation given by Strong's.
בֶּכֶר H1070 (beker)
The revised gloss clarifies that the term refers specifically to a young male camel, whereas the original gloss is more general ('a young camel; dromedary') and does not specify sex. The revised gloss also notes that 'dromedary' reflects later usage and should not override the primary sense, correcting an overextension in the original.
בֶכֶר H1071 (Vekher)
The original gloss asserts the name is 'the same as בֶּכֶר' (implying a direct equivalence with the Hebrew noun for 'firstborn'), whereas the revised gloss clarifies that while the name Beker is likely derived from the root for 'firstborn,' the etymology is uncertain and the connection is not direct. The revised gloss also cautions against conflating the proper name with the noun meaning.
בִּכְרָה H1072 (bikrâh)
The revised gloss corrects the original by clarifying that 'dromedary' is not a linguistically precise rendering of the Hebrew term and that the biblical term refers simply to a young female camel without specifying species or number of humps. The original's inclusion of 'dromedary' reflects a translation tradition rather than accurate lexical meaning.
בֹּכְרוּ H1074 (Bokheru)
The original gloss suggests that the name Bocheru means 'first-born' as a direct definition, whereas the revised gloss clarifies that while the name is derived from the root meaning 'firstborn,' it is only used as a personal name in genealogical contexts and does not imply the person was literally a firstborn. The revised gloss corrects the implication that the meaning should be carried over as a direct description of the individual.
בִּכְרִי H1075 (Bikheri)
The revised gloss corrects the original's definition of 'youthful,' clarifying that בִּכְרִי is a personal name and not an adjective or descriptor. It also specifies that its etymological connection is to 'firstborn,' not 'youthful.'
בֵּל H1078 (Bel)
The original gloss states 'by contraction for בַּעַל,' implying 'Bel' is a Hebrew contraction of 'baʿal.' The revised gloss corrects this, specifying 'Bel' is borrowed from the Akkadian 'Bēlu' and not simply contracted from 'baʿal;' it is cognate, not directly derived. Thus, the etymological link in Strong's is oversimplified or incorrect.
בָּל H1079 (bâl)
The revised gloss clarifies that the term refers primarily to 'anxiety' or an 'inner emotional state,' and that references to the 'heart' are metaphorical, whereas the original gloss names 'heart' as a direct meaning. The revised gloss corrects the Strong's sense that the term denotes the anatomical heart, narrowing it to emotional or metaphorical usage.
אֵד H108 (ʼêd)
The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's by noting that the etymology (derivation from אוּד) is uncertain and debated, whereas Strong's asserted a specific root origin. The revised gloss de-emphasizes this etymological connection, regarding it as likely uncertain or incorrect.
בְּלָא H1080 (bᵉlâʼ)
The revised gloss clarifies that in Aramaic usage, the verb is applied to psychological or emotional exhaustion, not physical decay. The original gloss simply says 'to afflict; wear out,' which could suggest a broader range, including physical deterioration. The revised corrects this by excluding physical decay and focusing on mental or emotional contexts.
בַּלְאֲדָן H1081 (Baleadan)
The revised gloss corrects the original by stating that the etymology (derivation from 'Bel' and 'Adon') is not secure, whereas the original asserts this derivation. The revised gloss notes that the linguistic components do not align with Babylonian or Hebrew patterns, removing the confident etymological claim of the original.
בָּלַג H1082 (bâlag)
The revised gloss corrects the etymology by noting that the root is uncertain and not securely connected to other Semitic cognates, refuting Strong's claim of it being a 'primitive root.' It also narrows the definition, rejecting Strong's inclusion of 'comfort' and 'invade' as linguistically unsupported meanings, and limits the sense to regaining or retaining strength/vitality. This addresses both etymology and definition.
בִּלְגַה H1083 (Bilegah)
The original gloss asserts that the name Bilgah derives from the root בָּלַג with the meaning 'desistance.' The revised gloss rejects this certainty, stating that the etymology is uncertain and the connection to the root is possible but obscure. This corrects an unfounded etymological claim in the original.
בִּלְגַּי H1084 (Bilegay)
The original gloss asserts derivation from בָּלַג and gives a meaning 'desistant', whereas the revised gloss states the etymology is uncertain and disputes any confident derivation or meaning. The revised gloss corrects speculative etymology and definitions found in the original.
בָּלָה H1086 (bâlâh)
The original gloss calls it a 'primitive root' and does not mention any uncertainty in the derivation, while the revised gloss states that the etymology is uncertain and the precise root connection is debated.
בָּלָה H1088 (Balah)
The revised gloss highlights that the connection between the root meaning ('to wear out' or 'use up') and the place name Balah is uncertain, whereas the original implies a direct derivation and meaning ('failure'). This corrects an etymological assumption in the original.
בָּלַהּ H1089 (bâlahh)
The revised gloss corrects both the definition and etymology. The original erroneously connects the root to 'to terrify' (בָּהַל) and assigns meanings like 'to palpitate' and 'to trouble,' whereas the revised gloss asserts the root is uncertain but not related to 'to terrify.' The real meaning is 'to wear out' or 'to become old and decayed.' Thus, both the root origin and definition in the original are materially corrected.
אָדַב H109 (ʼâdab)
The revised gloss corrects the original gloss's assertion that אָדַב is a 'primitive root', noting instead that the root is uncertain and not clearly connected to other Semitic roots.
בִּלְהָה H1090 (Bilehah)
The revised gloss corrects the original's assertion that Bilhah derives from a root meaning 'timid.' It points out that this connection to the root is uncertain and not linguistically assured, warning against confidently assigning this meaning.
בַּלָּהָה H1091 (ballâhâh)
The revised gloss clarifies that בַּלָּהָה primarily denotes sudden terror or intense fear, and while it can refer to disaster, this is specifically as a consequence of terror. The original Strong's gloss equates it more broadly with 'destruction' and 'trouble,' which the revised gloss argues is an overextension of its meaning, cautioning against conflating it with generic destruction. Thus, the SIBI gloss corrects the definition by restricting it to terror and its direct effects, not generic calamity.
בִּלְהָן H1092 (Bilehan)
The revised gloss corrects the original's claim that the name is from בָּלַהּ with the meaning 'timid.' Modern scholarship considers this derivation uncertain and the suggested meaning speculative, indicating there is no confirmed etymology or definition for the name Bilhan.
בְּלוֹ H1093 (bᵉlôw)
The revised gloss notes that the precise etymology is uncertain, correcting the original's stronger claim that the word derives from a root corresponding to בָּלָה. The original presents the etymology as definitive, whereas the revised gloss expresses uncertainty.
בֵּלְטְשַׁאצַּר H1095 (Beleteshatsar)
The revised gloss corrects the original's label of 'foreign derivation' by specifying Akkadian origin and explaining possible elements of the name. It also highlights that the exact meaning and formation are debated and not fully certain, which corrects the oversimplification of the original.
בֵּלְטְשַׁאצַּר H1096 (Beleteshatsar)
The SIBI gloss corrects the original by providing an etymological explanation derived from Akkadian elements and noting the uncertain formation, whereas the original does not address the origin beyond simply stating it is an Aramaic equivalent. The revised gloss reflects more cautious and nuanced modern scholarship.
בְּלִי H1097 (bᵉlîy)
The revised gloss notes that some etymological aspects are uncertain, correcting the original's assertion of derivation from בָּלָה (balah) while still mentioning its possible connection. The correction indicates that the original overstates the certainty of its etymology.
בְּלִיל H1098 (bᵉlîyl)
The revised gloss clarifies that the term means 'mixture' or a 'composite substance,' not specifically 'corn' or any particular component, correcting the original Strong's gloss which implies 'corn' as a specific example. The revised gloss emphasizes avoiding specificity about constituent elements unless contextually warranted, thus narrowing the original's broader and potentially misleading application of specific terms.
אֲבַדּוֹן H11 (Avadon)
The SIBI gloss corrects the original's identification of אֲבַדּוֹן as 'Hades,' which introduces a concept from Greek tradition not present in the Hebrew lexicon. The revised gloss clarifies that it denotes a state or place of destruction and should not be equated with 'Hades' or 'hell,' reflecting a more accurate lexical understanding and correcting a translation tradition error.
אַדְבְּאֵל H110 (Adebeel)
The SIBI gloss corrects the original's confident etymology ('disciplined of God') by stating that the root is uncertain and that such meanings are speculative, making the definition in Strong's unsupported by current scholarship.
בְּלִיַּעַל H1100 (bᵉlîyaʻal)
The revised gloss omits the use of 'Belial' as a proper name or as an independent entity, correcting the original's inclusion of it as a translation. The revised clarifies the term never refers to a personal being in Biblical Hebrew, addressing a definition issue tied to translation tradition and later theological development. Additionally, the revised narrows the meaning to 'worthlessness' and 'moral corruption,' avoiding broader glosses like 'destruction' or 'naughty.'
בָּלַל H1101 (bâlal)
The SIBI gloss corrects the original by clarifying that the core meaning is 'to mix' or 'to mingle,' and the senses of 'to fodder,' 'to give provender,' and 'to anoint' are not primary and can be misleading; those derive from later or specialized contexts. The original gloss overemphasizes these secondary meanings, potentially confusing the main semantic field.
בָּלַם H1102 (bâlam)
The revised gloss corrects Strong's claim that the root is 'primitive' by stating that the etymology is uncertain, with only possible but unclear cognates in related languages.
בָּלַס H1103 (bâlaç)
The original gloss asserts that 'balas' is a primitive root, whereas the revised gloss states its etymology is uncertain and that the root appears only in the specific context of sycamore figs. The revised also clarifies the meaning, excluding the broader sense of 'gatherer,' but the main material correction is regarding the unclear root derivation.
בָּלַע H1104 (bâlaʻ)
The revised gloss clarifies that the root does not inherently mean total destruction, but rather the act of swallowing or engulfing, sometimes with destruction as a result. The original gloss over-extends the meaning by making 'to destroy' a primary sense, which the modern gloss narrows.
בֶּלַע H1106 (Bela)
The original gloss asserts that the name Bela is 'the same as בלע', implying a definitive etymological connection. The revised gloss corrects this by noting the etymology is uncertain and that any relation to the root meaning 'to swallow' or 'to consume' is not definitive. This materially corrects the original's claim of etymological identity.
בִּלְעֲדֵי H1107 (bilʻădêy)
The revised gloss notes that the exact morphological development is debated, correcting the original which presents the etymology (from בַּל and עַד) as certain. The revised gloss highlights modern scholarly hesitation to state the derivation as definite.
בִּלְעָם H1109 (Bileam)
The SIBI gloss explicitly rejects the etymology provided by Strong's ('not of the people, i.e. foreigner'), stating that current scholarship finds this derivation doubtful and unsupported, and that the true origin of the name is uncertain.
אֲדַד H111 (Adad)
The original gloss states with probability that 'Adad' is an orthographical variation for Hadad, whereas the revised gloss points out the etymology is uncertain and that the association with Hadad or a storm deity is not definitively established for the personal name. This corrects an unfounded assumption in the original gloss.
בָּלַק H1110 (bâlaq)
The revised gloss disagrees with the original's claim that the root is primitive and means 'to annihilate.' It corrects this to say the root is of uncertain origin, possibly archaic, and that 'annihilate' overstates the verb's meaning, which is better rendered as 'to lay waste' or 'devastate.'
בָּלָק H1111 (Balaq)
The original gloss states the meaning 'waster' as deriving from the root, while the revised gloss clarifies that the etymology is uncertain and that the meaning 'to lay waste' is only a possibility, not a definite definition for the name. The revised gloss corrects the assertion of a clear derivational meaning.
בֵּלְשַׁאצַּר H1112 (Beleshatsar)
The original gloss calls Belshazzar a Babylonian king, but the revised gloss corrects this to 'Babylonian prince.' This is a correction of the historical role; Belshazzar was not a king but the son (or co-regent) of Nabonidus.
בֵּלְשַׁאצַּר H1113 (Beleshatsar)
The revised gloss corrects the original by specifying that Belshazzar was a crown prince and regent rather than a king. The original Strong's gloss aligns with older translation tradition and historical assumptions but is not accurate based on contemporary historical research.
בִּלְתִּי H1115 (biltîy)
The revised gloss corrects the original's claim about the etymology: the original asserts a specific origin from 'בָּלָה' and equivalence to 'בְּלִי,' while the revised gloss states the precise origin is uncertain, possibly only related to the negative base. This challenges the assertiveness and specificity of Strong's original etymological statement.
בָּמָה H1116 (bâmâh)
The original gloss claims the term derives from 'an unused root (meaning to be high),' while the revised gloss states the etymology is uncertain with no clearly attested root in Biblical Hebrew. This corrects Strong's confident assertion of a root derivation.
בָּמָה H1117 (Bamah)
The revised gloss corrects the original by providing the actual semantic meaning of 'bamah' as 'high place' or 'elevated site,' frequently associated with religious or cultic activity, whereas the original gloss only provides a transliteration and identifies 'Bamah' as a location in Palestine. The original omits the broader lexical and religious significance of the term in the Hebrew Bible.
בִּמְהָל H1118 (Bimehal)
The revised gloss corrects the original by clarifying that בִּמְהָל (Bimhal) is only a personal name in a genealogical context and does not have the meaning 'with pruning,' nor any broader lexical significance as a concrete noun. The original gloss suggests a possible descriptive meaning, which the revised gloss refutes as uncertain and unsupported.
בְּמוֹ H1119 (bᵉmôw)
The revised gloss clarifies that בְּמוֹ is not interchangeable with prepositions indicating motion toward (e.g., לְ or אֶל), narrowing the original's broader list of glosses ('for, in into, through') and removing potential ambiguity about its use to indicate motion into. The revised gloss restricts the meaning to accompaniment, means, or circumstance, correcting the original's broader KJV-influenced glossing.
בָּמוֹת H1120 (Bamot)
The revised gloss corrects the definition, clarifying that 'bamoth' are elevated sites used for religious rituals, not just referring to literal 'heights.' It removes the exclusive association in Strong's gloss with specific locations (e.g. 'Bamoth-Baal' as a place name), instead broadening the scope to cover both physical locations and their function as cultic sites, including intercultural and non-Israelite practices.
בֵּן H1121 (Ben)
The SIBI gloss clarifies that the core meaning is 'son' or 'descendant' and that figurative or extended senses relate specifically to membership or association, correcting Strong's overly broad list of translation glosses (e.g., arrow, spark, soldier, etc.) that more accurately reflect KJV translation idioms rather than lexical meaning. The revised gloss also notes that the English 'son' does not always capture the range of Hebrew usage, providing a corrective to the original's presentation of a vast range of English glosses without context.