Deut 24:1 When takes a man a woman...

[Quartus]

It was recently pointed out to me that the literal Hebrew of
Deut 24:1 was “when takes a man a woman”,
and that was exactly the same as the Hebrew of the passage about the question of a new wife’s virginity (Deut 22:13 to v21).
The Hebrew certainly starts in the same way:



However that still leaves some questions. The ones that I can see are:

1) Deut 24:1 has the apparent duplication of “taken a wife” and “married her” which in our common usage would be the same thing. However the Hebrew words are different. “Married” is “baal-ed” (lordship) not “taken”. So that might be the difference between betrothal and consummation?
AND/OR may equate to the “and go in unto her” of Deut 22:13? in which case, any difference depends on the next point:

2) Then we have the “and it come to pass” (Deut 24:1). E-sword gives 3502 occurrences of H1951 and even if I looked them all up I still wouldn’t know if there was a grammatical point to be taken from this particular reference.
Does its usage here allow any amount of time, or is it to be read only as a possible consequence of Deut 22:13?

3) Deut 24:5 has the same common construction but here the woman “taken” is qualified by “new”. Does this modify the meaning of common phrase from the other two?

4) If it is correct to split the betrothal from the marriage, it would seem that the year when the man should not go out to war would run from betrothal rather than marriage. Is there any tradition concerning this please? If so, the basis of such a teaching might be useful to this discussion.

As far as I can see there are no other occurrences of the exact common phrase. I haven't found any similar phrase that I thought would change anything from the three references above.


What is more interesting is Gen 2:23: she shall be called Woman,H802 becauseH3588 she was takenH3947 out of Man.H4480 H376
“Building” the woman was the science of taking the woman out of the side of man.
Marrying her, then, is the art of putting her back.

 

[frederick]

As far as I understand, the Old Testament has no single word for marriage. For example, in Numbers 12:1 we read; Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married; for he had married (Strong’s number: #3947, law-kakh; to take, lay hold of, acquire for one’s self) an Ethiopian woman. The same Hebrew word is used in Deuteronomy 24:1, and is translated takes, but a completely different Hebrew word is used for marries. Deuteronomy 24:1 says, "When a man takes (Strong’s number: #3947, law-kakh; to take, lay hold of, acquire for one’s self) a wife and marries (Strong’s number: #1166, baw-al; to have dominion, rule over; to possess; hence own, possess as a wife) her... . This concept of the husband taking a wife as a possession to himself is carried over into the New Testament. We see this with the use of the reflexive pronoun denoting possession in a passage such as 1 Cor. 7:2, where the English words his own are used by translators to indicate this idea. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.

 

[Quartus]

Thank you, this is certainly useful background to understanding NT passages. In view of the aspects of heirarchy, H1166 (lord,dominion,ownership) probably deserves its own thread.

Maybe I do need to explain a bit more of the background to my question. The point that was made to me was because Deut 24:1 starts the same as 22:13 and 24:5, and those two references are about NEW wives, then the only time Deut 24:1 allows a man to issue a bill of divorcement was that envisaged by Deut 22:13.

That would be an interesting observation UNLESS the Hebrew context of 24:1 qualifies the yellow quote in some way.

I'm really trying to find out what if anything the Hebrew context allows or requires before I fit any ideas around it. In other words - when? (rather than what?) the morning after the night before, or as the gospel context discusses, a few years after the marriage when a replacement has come along?

 

[andrew]

@IshChayil? Any thoughts?...

 

[rockfox]

I don't see anything in the English or Hebrew in the first two instances that implies that it is dependent on time. But I am no expert at Hebrew. The third instance is intimately related to time; i.e. not going to war for a year after taking a woman.

Deut 24:1 has the apparent duplication of “taken a wife” and “married her” which in our common usage would be the same thing. However the Hebrew words are different. “Married” is “baal-ed” (lordship) not “taken”. So that might be the difference between betrothal and consummation?
AND/OR may equate to the “and go in unto her” of Deut 22:13? in which case, any difference depends on the next point:

There are three Hebrew words translated betrothed and that isn't one of them. But should this be the forth? For me to accept that I'd need an explanation why they translate those three different words all as betrothed and why this one should be as well.

I'm not sure what's going on in 24:1 regarding the seeming duplication. I don't know Hebrew grammar enough to say but I've noticed other weirdness with the word marry in the OT translations.

I will point out the Hebrew had no word for marriage. Nor for wife. And there was no one word meaning 'marry' either (it means 'enter into marriage' and they had no word-concept for that). Instead you took/seize/purchase/lord over a female; which is close to marry in meaning, but with very different connotations than we modern's give it. You were master over your females the same as you were over slaves, subjects, etc.

Two other words translated marry include the word normally translated 'husband' and 'wife' (which was translating a noun as a verb). Honestly, I'm not sure if that is translators playing fast and loose or if the Ancient Hebrews were wont to say he 'master a woman' or she 'became woman to him' (or something like that).

 

[IshChayil]

Hey @Quartus, not 100% sure I'm understanding your questions so just reign me in if I'm off but here's answers to what I think you're asking.

It was recently pointed out to me that the literal Hebrew of
Deut 24:1 was “when takes a man a woman" and that was exactly the same as the Hebrew of the passage about the question of a new wife’s virginity (Deut 22:13 to v21).
The Hebrew certainly starts in the same way:

This is the normal word order in Biblical Hebrew: Verb+Subject+Object (unless object is suffixed to the object or to the verb directly). So when we see a different order: Subject+Verb for example, it implies special emphasis. The word order listed here, however, is unremarkable as it's the norm.

Regarding your #1 about taking a wife using the word bāʿal "to take possession of a woman as a bride or wife" versus betrothal or some other arrangement the Hebrew generally does not differentiate. There is a specific word for "to betroth", ʾāras / ʾāraś.
lāqaḥ as you mentioned "take" implies the full gambit of actions ending in consummation. yādaʿ "know" in relations is always sex with or without marriage.
We also have the term gālah ʿebrātah (uncover nakedness) along with it's synonymous rāʾah ʿebrātah (see nakedness) both imply a sex act. ʿānāh is "to humiliate by an enforced marriage" (usually) but can also mean "to rape" as well as a myriad of other meanings unrelated to sex/marriage.
So the biblical text can be vague about the marital/concubine status of the woman at the time of intercourse, it can be vague about the betrothal period (if there is one), and it can be vague about the marital status. It can also be specific (more rare) about all of those items.
bāʿal is more frequently seen in it's noun form (master, lord, husband).
There the range of meaning is quite wide from being a master of a skill (meaning to know a thing) to being a master of a slave, or a lord of a land, or finally a husband. A ba'al teshūvāh "master of repentance" is someone who has returned to the L-rd from rebellion; then of course there is the false deity by the same name, bāʿal. This makes more sense when fallen Israel is accused of playing the harlot especially when it was with the god named "hubby".
Syntactically, the first word in your sentences, kī, can be a bit of headache. Yes, it can mean "when", but it also means "if", "indeed", "surely", "though", and can add an emphatic sense to the sentence as well as many other shades of meaning. gam kī ēlekh begē ṣalmāwet ... "even though I walk through the valley of dead darkness..."
"when" works in the verses you listed but I just wanted to make you aware of the other possibilities (there are more; many depend on other words in proximity to kī).

2) Then we have the “and it come to pass” (Deut 24:1). E-sword gives 3502 occurrences of H1951 and even if I looked them all up I still wouldn’t know if there was a grammatical point to be taken from this particular reference.
Does its usage here allow any amount of time, or is it to be read only as a possible consequence of Deut 22:13?

I didn't understand which word H1951 is supposed to reference. If it's a strongs number it's the word hūn which doesn't appear in these verses.

3) Deut 24:5 has the same common construction but here the woman “taken” is qualified by “new”. Does this modify the meaning of common phrase from the other two?

"new" only applies to the woman. The adjective can only modify one noun or composite construct chain. Suffixes in poetry can do "double duty" referring back to other nouns / verbs but not adjectives. So this could be wife #2, 3, 4, etc. "no war for you!"
I think the qualifier is probably there to differentiate from a situation where a man divorces one of his wives and then later remarries her (if she hasn't slept with another man this is permitted otherwise forbidden). In this case, since she's not ḥādešāh (new) he can serve.
Strangely enough the LXX clouds my assessment by choosing to translate the Hebrew adjective as an adverb προσφάτως prosfātōs"recently" so the ancient translators viewed the "newness" of the taking rather than the "newness" of the bride here.

4) If it is correct to split the betrothal from the marriage, it would seem that the year when the man should not go out to war would run from betrothal rather than marriage. Is there any tradition concerning this please? If so, the basis of such a teaching might be useful to this discussion.

I'll try to check talmudic references on this later. No time for it right now.
Practically speaking it seems more likely to be from the time of consummation since a man may not get to know his fiance' in the ancient betrothal time but I'm just making an assumption here.

As far as I can see there are no other occurrences of the exact common phrase. I haven't found any similar phrase that I thought would change anything from the three references above.

do you mean the phrase "to take a woman"? It's unfortunate that it is so vague but I feel it implies sexual activity.

Let me know if I misunderstood any of your questions. I had the feeling I wasn't quite following your train of thought there.
šālom
שלום

 

[Quartus]

@IshChayil, thank you very much. I appreciate your time to answer. I will look through everything properly tonight.

Sorry this was the wrong number:
and it come to passH1961
הָיָה
hâyâh
haw-yaw'
A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use.
Total KJV occurrences: 3502

I'll take another look later. thanks again

 

[IshChayil]

@IshChayil, thank you very much. I appreciate your time to answer. I will look through everything properly tonight. Sorry this was the wrong number:
and it come to passH1961 הָיָה hâyâh haw-yaw'

Ah, ok. I don't think hāyāh will help you much here. It's most common usage is as an auxiliary verb or "to come to pass" or "to become". In Biblical syntax it does confuse people because it's often paired with vav consecutive aka waw conversive which in effect flip flops the time on us. So if we say hāyāh he/it was and we add the conjunction vav (waw) "and" to it:
והיה wªhāyāh (little 'a' should be little 'e' I only have Arabic transliteration fonts) instead of meaning "and it was" or "and it came to pass" it becomes "and it will be" or "and it will come to pass". Same happens in the opposite direction: yihyēh (it will be) + waw =
ויהיה wayiyhēh becomes "and it was", or "and it came to pass".

In general, English speakers can become frustrated with the way time is handled in Biblical Hebrew. It's just not as precise as English time and in some cases it's more malleable.
Most actions are thought of as perfect or imperfect (complete or incomplete) [these terms mean something else in Greek grammar so don't confuse that]. A verb in the perfect can either be past tense, or future if we are dealing with unchangeable prophecy. It's complete, it's perfect.

Looks like you have your hands on some decent tools. If you have access to Septuagint stuff that can sometimes shed light if you are searching deep to see if there was an extra nuance to the Hebrew that the ancients understood which we have lost; though sometimes (especially psalms and wisdom literature) the ancient translators get lost because they were unaware of certain extinct Hebraic forms by their time (preserved in Ugaritic and other Canaanite dialects for us today). The Greek translations can be helpful for seeing how the ancients viewed time issues differently...
Hope that helps,

שלום
šālōm

 

[Quartus]

Looks like you have your hands on some decent tools.

I'm rubbish at languages, so any compliment is due to e-sword. Here is a quick summary of how far we can get even if we only have English:

http://www.e-sword.net/downloads.html
"You need this to get started. This basic installation includes the King James Bible and the King James with Strong's numbers study Bible..."

The KJV+ that comes as standard has the Strong's numbers.
A whole lot of other English and foreign versions can be downloaded and opened in the parallel window, as well as a variety of Greek and Hebrew OT and NT again linked to with Strong's numbers.

If I click on any number, Strong's definition comes up to remind me of which word the number relates to.

The power of e-sword lies in the search function:
In KJV+ I can search for more for more than one English word, but for serious stuff it's better to use the Strong's Hebrew and Greek numbers because that looks behind the whim of the translators
or I can use a mixture of English and Hebrew.

As an example, here is
Deu 22:23 IfH3588 a damselH5291 that is a virginH1330 beH1961 betrothedH781 unto an husband,H376 and a manH376 findH4672 her in the city,H5892 and lieH7901 withH5973 her;

That talks about betrothal to a manH376 (ish) rather than a H1166/H1167 Lord or master (ba-al).

Can a man be Lord of a virgin? well if I search on "H1166 virgin" it pulls up
Isa_62:5 ForH3588 as a young manH970 marriethH1166 a virgin,H1330 so shall thy sonsH1121 marryH1166 thee: and as the bridegroomH2860 rejoicethH4885 overH5921 the bride,H3618 so shall thy GodH430 rejoiceH7797 overH5921 thee.

If I look at the definition of H1166, Strong's tells me it's from H1167 and now a search on "H1167 H1330" gives me a different reference to consider
Joe 1:8 LamentH421 like a virginH1330 girdedH2296 with sackclothH8242 forH5921 the husbandH1167 of her youth.H5271

E-sword also lets us click on the listed single verse references in the concordance window, and opens the whole chapter in the Bible window, so we can examine the context of the verses that interest us.

I'm feeling very lazy already as looking back I can see that I could have got a bit farther myself!

However, once we start linking two words together like that to get some answers there are so many possible ways to combine words to search that it really helps to have with some sense of direction, and what is particularly useful is to have some of the underlying grammar explained, so thank you all very much for your comments so far. I have had a lot to think about.

 

[IshChayil]

If I click on any number, Strong's definition comes up to remind me of which word the number relates to.

it's good you are only tracking the words on the strong's numbers and NOT using any strong's definitions for original language words. Please be sure you never ever trust strongs's definitions. His lasting contribution has been indexing words so software can use that behind the scenes but his definitions are often just way off or weird. So I hope you have an underlying lexicon linking to the strong's numbers. If you don't, you can check out blueletterbible.com they have some decent, albeit dated, lexicons you can drill down in to. I don't know if they offer search by strong's number but you can view the Hebrew and greek texts directly, then click "tools" and then click on the original words you want (they'll gloss them with strong's [again don't trust that]). When you click the links to go deeper they'll take you to a page with "Gesenius Hebrew Lexicon" (an old German Lexicon which was fantastic for the 1800s. For Greek they drill down into Thayer's lexicon; also respectable in the realm of public domain material.
Just please everyone, I've mentioned this in other posts, *do not trust strong's definitions*. You gotta go deeper into an actual lexicon.
esword is a decent tool for the realm of free software.
If you want to up your game and have a nice GUI and lots of bells and whistles I recommend BibleWorks (Windows only) Accordance (Mac/ios) or Logos (Windows,Mac,ios,Android). Olive tree is also OK on ios/android.

Bibleworks will set you back a few hundred bucks US and it won't have the premier lexicons yet (HALOT for Hebrew and BDAG for Greek); they have a great flash card system for original languages; you can build lists for whatever book you are working on and print it off on lists or test yourself in flash card mode. Also they are a 'not-for-profit' set up. So even though the pricetag seems high, they are just paying their programmers.

Logos is cheaper to start up but you can invest thousands in the long run and it is super tempting as they are always adding new things. One great series available on logos is the "Anchor Yale Bible" series. That'll set you back a couple grand though. I was interested in just a couple of the books from that series but decided to buy them used in hard copy form instead of paying logos $40 a pop.

The Logos guys also have support forums where users help each other. I've used all of those programs over the years and they are all really good. GUI is best in Logos, but the scholarly materials are available for all those programs. Logos seems to have the largest customer base and available scholarly materials/journals available. You can get Ugaritic materials at logos. Accordance is expanding ever more in these areas but they really can't keep up with the sheer momentum Logos has. Back in the day Accordance was top dog for Greek morphological database stuff (clicking on a word to instantly see it's grammatical information). That was their original drive; Greek only. Since then they've adapted since everyone else can do this too now. I think they are also not-for-profit at least they once were a university product not sure now.

The nice thing about Logos is they offer payment plans with no interest; $5 / month admin fee. If you decide to spend, go for those lexicons. I've got HALOT in printed form and electronic and it's really fantastic often times listing the very verse I'm grappling with as one of their examples for a nuanced meaning to the word.
BDAG is also great for Greek stuff (New Test. and early Christian lit.) it's also wonderful with scripture examples per word.
Anyway those programs are all very expensive but truly worth it in my opinion if you travel a lot and don't want to lug around printed books. I have yet to find a decent talmud in any of the software though...

That talks about betrothal to a manH376 (ish) rather than a H1166/H1167 Lord or master (ba-al).

Can a man be Lord of a virgin?

Yes he can. In that nuanced context it means something like he's her fiance' but a bit stronger than that; usually we see a man as bāʿal to a woman meaning he's her husband.

 

[Shibboleth]

it's good you are only tracking the words on the strong's numbers and NOT using any strong's definitions for original language words. Please be sure you never ever trust strongs's definitions.

I was sorely tempted to post something like "In before Ish warns you not to use Strong's definitions."

Really glad you added some alternatives here, though... Even if they are pricey.

 

[rockfox]

I used BlueLetterBible for a long time but I recently started using BibleHub; which was more useful for difficult study. BH's interlinear has more detail and gives much more clear information about the word form being used, rather than just it's root like BLB.

I looked and BH is using BDB for the OT and Thayers for the NT.

 

[Quartus]

it's good you are only tracking the words on the strong's numbers and NOT using any strong's definitions for original language words. Please be sure you never ever trust strongs's definitions.

Very happy to agree with that!

In my formative years I was encouraged to do word studies and go back to the Scriptures to see how they use a word. It was put to me that (generally speaking) if we had to go to commentaries and such like then we would not be in any position to evaluate their accuracy. So I use Strong’s to sort out which word I am looking at not what he thought it meant.

Just dusted off Gesenius and it passed one of my favourite tests: H7585. Sheol. I tried BlueletterBible and I will certainly remember that for a quick reference on Gesenius, thank you.

Sheol is translated Hell 31 times, Grave 31 times and Pit 3x (KJV).
So that rings an alarm bell, why is it that translators who believed in hell felt it necessary to translate “Sheol” as grave/pit on so many occasions?
How do we find out which it is? just the silent grave, or the much noisier place of popular theology ?

As far as definitions of Sheol are concerned, Strong rushes in where Gesenius fears to tread. Gesenius may have realised the difficulty in trying to substitute “hell” for “grave” in passages like these:

Did Jacob really believe he was going to hell? or just to the grave as we would understand it?. I don't think the substitution works here: Gen 37:35 (Jacob) said, For I will go down into hell H7585 unto my son mourning.

and Jacob still believed the same thing many years later Gen 42:38, 44:29.
That is what his sons believed as well: Gen 44:31

Also

Psa 49:14 Like sheep they are laid in hell H7585;

Psa 89:48 What man is he that liveth, and shall not see death? shall he deliver his soul from the hand of hell? H7585

Ecc 9:10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in hell H7585, whither thou goest.

If the Bible Sheol is simply the grave, all those references work much better.

 

[IshChayil]

I was sorely tempted to post something like "In before Ish warns you not to use Strong's definitions."
Really glad you added some alternatives here, though... Even if they are pricey.

Haha, yes I'm a bit of an evangelist against the evils of strongs... it preempts having to have discussions based on a false premise later.

 

[IshChayil]

Very happy to agree with that!
In my formative years I was encouraged to do word studies and go back to the Scriptures to see how they use a word. It was put to me that (generally speaking) if we had to go to commentaries and such like then we would not be in any position to evaluate their accuracy. So I use Strong’s to sort out which word I am looking at not what he thought it meant.

Just dusted off Gesenius and it passed one of my favourite tests: H7585. Sheol. I tried BlueletterBible and I will certainly remember that for a quick reference on Gesenius, thank you.

Sheol is translated Hell 31 times, Grave 31 times and Pit 3x (KJV).
So that rings an alarm bell, why is it that translators who believed in hell felt it necessary to translate “Sheol” as grave/pit on so many occasions?
How do we find out which it is? just the silent grave, or the much noisier place of popular theology ?

As far as definitions of Sheol are concerned, Strong rushes in where Gesenius fears to tread. Gesenius may have realised the difficulty in trying to substitute “hell” for “grave” in passages like these:

Did Jacob really believe he was going to hell? or just to the grave as we would understand it?. I don't think the substitution works here: Gen 37:35 (Jacob) said, For I will go down into hell H7585 unto my son mourning.

and Jacob still believed the same thing many years later Gen 42:38, 44:29.
That is what his sons believed as well: Gen 44:31

Also

Psa 49:14 Like sheep they are laid in hell H7585;

Psa 89:48 What man is he that liveth, and shall not see death? shall he deliver his soul from the hand of hell? H7585

Ecc 9:10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in hell H7585, whither thou goest.

If the Bible Sheol is simply the grave, all those references work much better.

About sh'eol aka š'ʾōl you are correct sir.
There are a collection of words for the "netherworld"
שְׁאוֹל š'ʾōl (pronounced 'sh'ōl') - plainly: wasteland, void, underworld
As you noticed the Hebrew bible is quite silent regarding the full nature of this location. David in psalms pleads with Hashem about the impossibility to praise Him from this place. Extra biblical literature paints the picture that everyone went there and the hope was that G-d in His mercy would take us out. Proverbs has a bit to say about Him going down and coming up again from Sh'eol. Often translated "grave" though the listings above capture the more spiritual concept. This is the word which later translators applied Hellinistic "Hades" to. Septuagint translates often as ᾅδης Hādys (Hádes) and Vulgate as infernum so we can see where/when the concept of fire and torment, Greek underworld is being applied to the biblical "underworld". I do not take it to mean "HELL" in the Hebrew bible.
קֶבֶר qeber (pronounced 'kéver') - grave most often literally a grave where a body went, though also used in poetry and wisdom literature as underworld.
אֲבַדּוֹן ʾªbaddōn (pronounced 'avadon')
more abstractly
• place of destruction, underworld Pr 1511 2720 Jb 266 (|| שְׁאוֹל) Ps 8812 (|| קֶבֶר) Jb 2822 (|| מָוֶת) 3112 (alt. destruction);
(from HALOT lexicon)

There are some other expressions like תחתיות ארץ taḥtīyōt ʾāreṣ in the psalms, literally "underneaths of earth" which is taken in later rabbinical literature to be a name of some plane of hell. There are more not coming to mind right now but these are the big ones.

Regarding Gesenius Lexicon: fantastic resource and what a brilliant "orientalist" He was in his day.
Some meanings are out of date as the lost city-state of Ugarit had not yet been discovered in Wilhelm Gesinius' day.
So his etymologies are often missing some precision. This is where HALOT really shines as it incorporates many of the discoveries from Ugaritic (a dialect of Canaanite closely related to Biblical Hebrew). OK I gotta run, I feel I may have repeated something, sorry if I'm rambling.

 

[IshChayil]

I used BlueLetterBible for a long time but I recently started using BibleHub; which was more useful for difficult study. BH's interlinear has more detail and gives much more clear information about the word form being used, rather than just it's root like BLB.

I looked and BH is using BDB for the OT and Thayers for the NT.

I think @Verifyveritas76 has mentioned that resource.
Regarding BlueLetter only showing the root meanings of the Hebrew verb; that's not accurate.
They show you Gesenius full etymological definitions when you drill down complete with Classical Arabic, Phoenician, Aramaic, etc. influences.

 

[rockfox]

I will clarify, also admitting I may not understand the interface entirely. When you view the interlinear for a verse in BLB, the word for word verse breakdown only lists the root words with no indication which word variation of that root it is. If you click the root word link they give you the full etymological definition you can search through. But its not immediately obvious which word the verse used. Maybe Gesenius is different but such dictionaries tend not to list every occurrence.

 

[IshChayil]

I will clarify, also admitting I may not understand the interface entirely. When you view the interlinear for a verse in BLB, the word for word verse breakdown only lists the root words with no indication which word variation of that root it is. If you click the root word link they give you the full etymological definition you can search through. But its not immediately obvious which word the verse used. Maybe Gesenius is different but such dictionaries tend not to list every occurrence.

Ah my bad, I haven't used the interlinear, I didn't even know they had one!
I was referring to when you select WLC (Westminster Leningrad Codes aka Hebrew Bible) or mGNT (morphological Greek New Testament) for your version, then click <tools> next to the verse in question. Though even those initial glosses are not good and you have to drill down clicking on the links of the words you want to know about.
I agree that would be bizarre to just be showing verbal roots as the actual derived word meanings can vary wildly. Root meaning doesn't tell you too much. From the same root דבר dbr we get dābar (word, thing, affair [hints of Messiah i.e. the word]) and deber (pestilence)!
Sounds like BibleHub wins then for interlinear presentation thanks @rockfox

 

[Quartus]

I had a look at a few HALOT pages on Amazon but I don't know Hebrew letters.

Do any of the web sites or programs you have mentioned allow for HALOT to be referenced with Strong's numbers?

 

[Quartus]

Just wanted to say thank you to everyone for their comments - I just bought an old HALOT off ebay which won't turn up for about five weeks (surface mail). With my prowess at languages, that may just about be enough time for me to learn the Hebrew alphabet...