Steven Lo Vullo doulos at
Sun Oct 21 03:03:16 EDT 2001

on 10/20/01 5:46 PM, Alex / Ali at alexali at wrote:

> Computer-generated lists can be a wonderful aid in the analysis of NTGreek,
> but there are traps.  Having the computer's search function look for PISTEUW
> and EIS within the same sentence would have captured all the relevant
> verses, along with others which would need to be weeded out, and is probably
> the most efficient method in terms of time.  Yet the old-fashioned hand
> count still has its benefits, too. It is possible for us to chase up more
> than one thing at a time (unlike the computers, perhaps), and it is more
> likely to familiarise us with any complexities involved (which the computer
> can't anticipate); and for one like myself who regards the NT as God-given, it
> is valuable in giving greater facility in reading and understanding God's
> word.

Your point is well-taken. But in all fairness, most programs that contain
tagged Hebrew and Greek texts warn the user that, for academic studies, any
results should be checked with printed reference materials (such as Hebrew
or Greek concordances). And really, you have put your finger on the solution
to avoiding many search mistakes: Sometimes, the more accurate one wants to
be in search results, the broader he should be in the search parameters. If
one just wanted to get a *feel* for a certain construction (such as PISTEUW
EIS), one could do a search where EIS follows PISTEUW directly. But, in
order to gather in one's net all the possible instances where EIS is
construed with PISTEUW, a search for PISTEUW <AND> EIS would turn up what is
desired, whether EIS precedes PISTEUW, is construed with an implied PISTEUW
used earlier in the sentence with another instance of EIS, or is separated
by a word or words from PISTEUW. It all comes down to how precise you want
to be. As it turns out, in many cases, the more precise you want to be, the
broader your search parameters will be, which will require more "weeding
out" of irrelevant hits. And your search can cover clauses, sentences,
verses, or chapters.

As for your point about giving greater facility in reading and understanding
God's word, I'm not sure what you mean. If someone is *only* engaged in
running searches, that is not the same as becoming familiar with the text.
Speaking for myself, I read through the text and perform searches as I am
prompted by questions that arise in my mind from the text. I don't do one to
the exclusion of the other. It all comes down to being well-rounded and not
leaning too much on a good thing. One may become just as over-dependent on
printed materials as on computer resources.

Steven Lo Vullo
Madison, WI

As for your contention that 

More information about the B-Greek mailing list