Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament
Vo 4 (four)
pp244-247
Definitions are very very complicated and dont lend themselves to simple solutions.
The definitions take a life of their own from one language to another.Almost every Hebrew word means about 1000 different things in different dialects and related languages.
The best way to figure a biblical definition is to be able to see how it is used in the rest of the Bible.Often that takes a pretty good scholar (once you see the scholars at work, you will see how advanced the field is)
Then they match it to related uses for the time (if the period can be isolated and it actually can in this case) in other ancient Near Eastern regions.
Then they see how the word was used in other related contexts.
The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament is the best work for this.
The scholar was particularly sharp in the case of this word used.
Somehwat subjective (as would be expected in this type of case) but not too bad.
(The only truely pathetic example of extreme-subjectivity was the scholar who did the definition for 'yr (city), which ended up being a polemic against the Conquest (lol I feared such).I plan on exposing his flawed work if I can find a thread to continue my Conquest postings in-old one is closed)
Anyway, the scholar showed a pretty interesting way of (among other things) disagreeing with the type of definition Arach gave.
Does anybody else have access to the volumes aside from me, so I dont need to select quotations from it?