{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0314787701317716, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005856515373352855, 'mean_word_length': 4.672199170124482, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Use of Miskan and Ohel Moed in Exodus 25-40

The previous study in this series on miskan and 'ohel mo'ed in Exod 25-40 concluded that miskan means "dwelling place," that it concerns a "place" or "site" (similar to the modem noun "camp"), and that it carries connotations of transience. It should not be limited to a specific form or kind of "dwelling" (particularly not what is implied by the English word "tent" and by the Latin tabernaculum), since such a usage leads to confusion with 'ohel. Regarding the phrase 'ohel mo'ed we found that it is a genitival construct which means "tent of assembly" or "tent of encounter," that this was the name of the structure in which the Divine and the human met, and that the term emphasizes the event rather than the structure. The previous study further revealed that Ugaritic parallels to these two Hebrew terms provide no additional helpful information beyond what is already known from the Hebrew itself, except possibly that the Hebrew differentiation between nonsedentary and sedentary connotations of the words seems to be lost in the Ugaritic. I suggested that the reason for this difference in usage could be the fact that Ugarit was sedentary and urban at the time the literature we examined was written (MB III [II C) to LB I), whereas Israel was nonsedentary during the period depicted in the book of Exodus.