[philman_36]

I didn't make any reference at all to either "1289" or "1288," since I wasn't looking at Strong's.
Then what are you looking at?

I am referring to the root "B-R-K" in the Hebrew, which has many, many occurrences.
"B-R-K" isn't a root. It comes from a root word!
As I've shown there are only five occurrences of b-r-k. If there are more than that then you shouldn't have any problem giving reference to them.

So I'm not sure what your point is.
I'm not sure you have one other than obfuscation.

[Charles Henrickson]

Then what are you looking at?

Any one of the many standard Hebrew and Aramaic reference tools I have on my bookshelves right beside me. For instance, Holladay, pp. 49-50, or Harris-Archer-Waltke, pp. 132-133 (entries 285, 287).

"B-R-K" isn't a root. It comes from a root word!

The term "root," as I used it, is standard terminology for the root consonants: "Most words in Hebrew include a root, a sequence of consonants associated with a meaning or group of meanings. Most roots are triconsonantal. . ." (Waltke-O'Connor, p. 83).

As I've shown there are only five occurrences of b-r-k.

In the ARAMAIC, which is only a very small portion of the Old Testament. But the same root, with the same meaning, in the HEBREW, occurs hundreds of times: "The root and its derivatives occur 415 times" (Harris-Archer-Waltke, p. 132).