No, Modern Hebrew, the contemporary spoken and written language, is not identical with Biblical Hebrew, the version[s] of the language in which Tanach was written. Hebrew, like all natural languages, has evolved over time from the times of Tanach until today, and on top of that, Modern Hebrew is the result of an intentional revival and modernization of the language, including a great deal of adaptations of words from other languages and re-appropriations of words that meant something slightly or drastically different in earlier forms of Hebrew.

Some examples of re-appropriations:


The word חשמל (chashmal), which means "electricity" in Modern Hebrew, refers to some esoteric property of angels in Tanach (Yechezkeil).
A more subtle example is the word דג (dag). In Modern Hebrew, it refers to the same biological class of animals that the most common sense of the English word "fish" does: "A cold-blooded vertebrate animal that lives in water, moving with the help of fins and breathing with gills." However, there's no good reason to assume that when used in Tanach, for example - famously - in Yonah, the intent of the word accorded with contemporary biological taxonomy, so it could very well have meant "whale" or some other aquatic creature that we wouldn't call a "fish." I have heard people unaware of the difference between Modern and Biblical Hebrew assuming that commentators interpreting the Bible were expressing ignorance of the true meaning of "fish" when including "whale" in the possible interpretations of an instance of "דג."
The verb "גָּר," in Modern Hebrew, means, simply "to dwell somewhere." However, in Biblical Hebrew, it means specifically "to sojourn through a strange land." A reader who is familiar with the Modern sense of the word but unaware of this nunance in the Biblical sense could miss important meaning in the text, as in Ruth 1:1: "&rlm;... &rlm;וַיֵּלֶךְ אִישׁ מִבֵּ֧ית לֶ֣חֶם  יְהוּדָה לָגוּר בִּשְׂדֵי מוֹאָב&rlm; ...&rlm;" - "... And a certain man of Beth-lehem in Judah went to sojourn in the field of Moab ..." If this verb is read as "to dwell," then the reader misinterprets the subject's intended temporary evacuation as an intended permanent relocation.1 Thus, the dramatic change of intent hinted in the next verse's "&rlm;... &rlm;וַיִּֽהְיוּ־שָֽׁם" - "... and they continued there," is also lost.


I don't know if any comprehensive dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew, consistent with Jewish tradition, exist. To be fully accurate, such a dictionary would have to deal explicitly with the fact that the same word can have different meanings in different contexts, depending on the time period the book came from as well as the actual context.

Not the same as a dictionary, but one way to read Tanach in English translation, consistent with Jewish tradition, would be to use a complete Jewish translation of Tanach. One well-regarded trandition-adherent version is that of Judaica Press, which is available in convenient form online on Chabad's website.



1. This example is at the top of my mind thanks to R' Yitzchak Etshalom having pointed it out in an excellent lecture I was fortunate to recently attend.

Is the Hebrew vocabulary used in the Tanakh/(other recognized Hebrew books) the same as the what is considered Hebrew today?
What filter should I use to avoid whitened images (blown highlights) caused by intense daylight? At the moment I am only using an UV Filter, but it doesn't solve the whole problem.

I am a newbie in photography, and I've recently bought a Nikon DSLR.
