Then they attacked En Mishpat (that is, Kadesh) again, 1 and they conquered all the territory of the Amalekites, as well as the Amorites who were living in Hazazon Tamar.
Then they turned back and went to En Mishpat (that is, Kadesh), and they conquered the whole territory of the Amalekites, as well as the Amorites who were living in Hazezon Tamar.
Then they turned back and came to En-mishpat (that is, Kadesh), and conquered all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites, who lived in Hazazon-tamar.
Then they swung around to En–mishpat (now called Kadesh) and destroyed the Amalekites, and also the Amorites living in Hazazon–tamar.
On their way back they stopped at En Mishpat, that is, Kadesh, and conquered the whole region of the Amalekites as well as that of the Amorites who lived in Hazazon Tamar.
Then they came back to En-mishpat (which is Kadesh), making waste all the country of the Amalekites and of the Amorites living in Hazazon-tamar.
then they turned back and came to En-mishpat (that is, Kadesh), and subdued all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites who lived in Hazazon-tamar.
Then they turned back and came to En Mishpat (that is , Kadesh), and attacked all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites who dwelt in Hazezon Tamar.
And they returned
which [is] Kadesh
all the country
of the Amalekites
and also the Amorites
|NET © [draft] ITL|
) again, and they conquered
of the Amalekites
, as well
as the Amorites
who were living
in Hazazon Tamar.
|NET © Notes||
1 tn Heb “they returned and came to En Mishpat (that is, Kadesh).” The two verbs together form a verbal hendiadys, the first serving as the adverb: “they returned and came” means “they came again.” Most English translations do not treat this as a hendiadys, but translate “they turned back” or something similar. Since in the context, however, “came again to” does not simply refer to travel but an assault against the place, the present translation expresses this as “attacked…again.”