"<NOT>" Search Not Working

[Brett K.]

I wanted to find all of the translation that did not use the word "Azazel" in Lev 16:8. I opened a Research window and used the following search (on all texts using the "English" research type):

 [RANGE Lev 16.8] <NOT> Azazel*

Several translations do not use the word Azazel in this verse (like the KJV, NKJV, NIV11, etc.), but Accordance returns zero results. I think this may have something to do with the issue I mentioned in this post. So tried another search using the following:

 [RANGE Lev 16.88] <NOT> foobar

Of course no Bible translation uses "foobar" in Lev 16.8, but Accordance returns zero results. I'm guessing if a word does not appear anywhere in a text, Accordance cannot determine that it does not appear anywhere in the text. Is that correct? If so, how would one do the search I am describing?

Thanks
--

Brett

[Joel Brown]

I was able to do the search via the HITS command.  I set up a tab with a search for Azazel*, then did a Research for [RANGE Lev16.8] [HITS HCSB].  This seemed to work well, just has the caveat that only terms found in your source tab will be excluded from other results.

[Brett K.]

Thanks for the info. Now how do you do that for all translations simultaneously?

Thanks

[Joel Brown]

I'm not sure what you mean.  By doing the steps I outlined, I searched all translations for the absence of "Azazel".  Only the HCSB was specified, and this was effectively only to help define the term.

[Brett K.]

 

I set up a tab with a search for Azazel*, then did a Research for [RANGE Lev16.8] <NOT> [HITS HCSB]

 

When you set up a "tab with a search for Azazel*", which translation did you use . . . or was it a research tab? When you performed the search in the Research tab, it found every translation that did not include the word Azazel?

 

Thanks

[Joel Brown]

Yes, did you try it?

 

[Brett K.]

So you have to find a term before you can "not" find the term? What if the term does not exist in any of the translation but you don't know that?

I'm used the CONTENTS search but never the HITS search.

Thanks

[Joel Brown]

Searching for negatives is always a difficult concept.  Consider looking for a brush in a room vs. ensuring that a brush isn't in a room.  Or perhaps finding a piece of bread vs. eliminating all yeast from a house.  So, in this case, with the HITS command we can work around it, but yes you need to find the term to start.  If you aren't sure which translations have the term, you just run a quick Research of the term. If none have it, then you are done regardless, because your specified search becomes redundant.