Your search for "To" did not find any bible verses that matched.
Discovery Box| (0.18) | (Lam 2:1) | 5 tn The common gloss for זָכַר (zakhar) is “remember.” זָכַר (zakhar) entails “bearing something in mind” in a broader sense than the English gloss “remember.” When God “bears someone in mind,” the consequences are beneficial for them. The implication of not regarding his footstool is to not esteem and so not care for or protect it. |
| (0.18) | (Lam 1:20) | 2 tn Heb “my bowels burn,” or “my bowels are in a ferment.” The verb חֳמַרְמָרוּ (khamarmaru) is an unusual form and derived from a debated root: Poalal perfect third person common plural from III חָמַר (khamar, “to be red,” HALOT 330 s.v. III חמר) or Peʿalʿal perfect third person common plural from I חָמַר (khamar, “to ferment, boil up,” BDB 330 s.v. I חָמַר). The Poalal stem of this verb occurs only three times in the OT: with פָּנִים (panim, “face,” Job 16:16) and מֵעִים (meʿim, “bowels,” Lam 1:20; 2:11). The phrase מֵעַי חֳמַרְמָרוּ (meʿay khamarmaru) means “my bowels burned” (HALOT 330 s.v.) or “my bowels are in a ferment,” as a euphemism for lower-intestinal bowel problems (BDB 330 s.v.). This phrase also occurs in later rabbinic literature (m. Sanhedrin 7:2). The present translation, “my stomach is in knots,” is not a literal equivalent to this Hebrew idiom; however, it is an attempt to approximate the equivalent English idiom. |
| (0.18) | (Lam 1:15) | 2 tn Heb “bulls.” Metaphorically, bulls may refer to mighty ones, leaders, or warriors. F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp (Lamentations [IBC], 69) insightfully suggests that the Samek stanza presents an overarching dissonance by using terms associated with a celebratory feast (bulls, assembly, and a winepress) in sentences where God is abusing the normally expected celebrants, i.e., the “leaders” are the sacrifice. |
| (0.18) | (Lam 1:17) | 3 tc The MT reads בֵּינֵיהֶם (benehem, “in them” = “in their midst”). The BHS editors suggest that this is a textual variation from an original text of בְּעֵינֵיהֶם (beʿenehem, “in their eyes” = “in their view”). The ע (ʿayin) might have dropped out due to orthographic confusion. |
| (0.18) | (Lam 1:14) | 2 tc The MT reads עָלוּ (ʿalu, “they went up”), Qal perfect third person common plural from עָלָה (ʿalah, “to go up”). However, several important recensions of the LXX reflect an alternate vocalization tradition: Lucian and Symmachus both reflect a Vorlage of עֻלּוֹ (ʿullo, “his yoke”), the noun עֹל (ʿol, “yoke”) + third person masculine singular suffix. The Lucianic recension was aimed at bringing the LXX into closer conformity to the Hebrew; therefore, this is an important textual witness. Internal evidence favors the readings of Lucian and Symmachus as well: the entire stanza focuses on the repeated theme of the “yoke” of the Lord. The MT reading is obscure in meaning, and the third person common plural form violates the syntactical flow: “[my sins] are lashed together by his hand; they have gone up upon my neck. He has weakened my strength; the Lord has handed me over….” On the other hand, the Lucian/Symmachus reading reflects contextual congruence: “My sins are bound around my neck like a yoke; they are lashed together by his hand. His yoke is upon my neck; he has weakened my strength. He has handed me over to those whom I am powerless to resist.” |
| (0.18) | (Lam 1:10) | 1 tn Heb “stretched out his hand.” The war imagery is of seizure of property; the anthropomorphic element pictures rape. This is an idiom that describes greedy actions (BDB 831 s.v. פָרַשׂ), meaning “to seize” (HALOT 976 s.v. 2). |
| (0.18) | (Lam 1:8) | 4 tn The verb הִזִּילוּהָ (hizziluha) is generally understood as a rare form of Hiphil perfect third person common plural + third person feminine singular suffix from I זָלַל (zalal, “to despise”): “they despise her.” This follows the I nun (ן) pattern with daghesh (dot) in zayin (ז) rather than the expected geminate pattern הִזִילּוּהָ (hizilluha) with daghesh in lamed (ל) (GKC 178-79 §67.l). |
| (0.18) | (Lam 1:8) | 5 sn The expression have seen her nakedness is a common metaphor to describe the plunder and looting of a city by a conquering army, probably drawn on the ignominious and heinous custom of raping the women of a conquered city as well. |
| (0.18) | (Lam 1:6) | 1 tn Heb “the daughter of Zion.” This phrase is used as an epithet for the city. “Daughter” may seem extraneous in English but consciously joins the various epithets and metaphors of Jerusalem as a woman, a device used to evoke sympathy from the reader. |
| (0.18) | (Lam 1:4) | 5 tc The MT reads שְׁעָרֶיהָ (sheʿareha, “her gates”). The BHS editors suggest revocalizing the text to the participle שֹׁעֲרֶיהָ (shoʿareha, “her gatekeepers”) from שֹׁעֵר (shoʿer, “porter”; BDB 1045 s.v. שֹׁעֵר). The revocalization creates tight parallelism: “her gatekeepers”//“her priests,” but ruins the chiasm: (A) her gatekeepers, (B) her priests, (B’) her virgins, (A’) the city itself. |
| (0.18) | (Lam 1:4) | 1 sn The noun דַּרְכֵי (darkhe, “roads”) is normally masculine in gender, but here it is feminine (e.g., Exod 18:20) (BDB 202 s.v.), as indicated by the following feminine adjective אֲבֵּלּוֹת (ʾavelot, “mourning”). This rare feminine usage is probably due to the personification of Jerusalem as a bereaved woman throughout chap. 1. |
| (0.18) | (Lam 1:1) | 7 tn The kaf (כ) prefixed to אַלְמָנָה (ʾalmanah, “widow”) expresses identity (“has become a widow”) rather than comparison (“has become like a widow”) (see HALOT 453 s.v. 1; BDB 454 s.v. כְּ 1.d). The construction emphasizes the class of widowhood. |
| (0.18) | (Lam 1:1) | 8 sn Judah was organized into administrative districts or provinces under the rule of provincial governors (שָׂרִים, sarim) (1 Kgs 20:14, 17, 19). The feminine term שָׂרָה (sarah, “princess, provincial governess”) is a wordplay alluding to this political background: personified Jerusalem had ruled over the Judean provinces. |
| (0.18) | (Lam 1:1) | 9 tn Heb “princess among the provinces.” The noun מְדִינָה (medinah) is an Aramaic loanword which refers to an administrative district or province in the empire (e.g., Ezek 19:8; Dan 8:2) (BDB 193 s.v. 2; HALOT 549 s.v.). |
| (0.18) | (Jer 51:52) | 1 tn Heb “that being so, look, days are approaching.” Here לָכֵן (lakhen) introduces the Lord’s response to the people’s lament (v. 51). It has the force of “yes, but” or “that may be true.” See Judg 11:8 and BDB 486-87 s.v. כֵּן 3.d. |
| (0.18) | (Jer 51:36) | 2 tn Heb “I will dry up her [Babylon’s] sea and make her fountain dry.” “Their” has been substituted for “her” because the word “Babylonians” has been inserted in the previous clause and is easier to understand than “her” as a personification of Babylon. |
| (0.18) | (Jer 51:30) | 1 tn Heb “Their strength is dry.” This is a figurative nuance of the word “dry” that BDB 677 s.v. נָשַׁת Qal.1 explains as meaning “fails.” The idea of “strength to do battle” is implicit from the context and is supplied in the translation here for clarity. |
| (0.18) | (Jer 51:19) | 1 tn Heb “For he is the former of all [things] and the tribe of his inheritance.” This is the major exception to the verbatim repetition of 10:12-16 in 51:15-19. The word “Israel” appears before “the tribe of his inheritance” in 10:16. It is also found in a number of Hebrew mss, in the Lucianic recension of the LXX (the Greek version), the Aramaic Targums, and the Latin Vulgate. Most English versions and many commentaries assume it here. However, it is easier to explain why the word is added in a few of the versions and some Hebrew than to explain why it was left out. It is probable that the word is not original here because the addressees are different and the function of this hymnic piece is slightly different (see the study note on the next line for details). Here it makes good sense to understand that the Lord is being called the creator of the special tribe of people he claims as his own property (see the study note on the first line of 10:16). |
| (0.18) | (Jer 51:12) | 5 tn Heb “For the Lord has both planned and done what he said concerning the people living in Babylon,” i.e., “he has carried out what he planned.” Here is an obvious case where the perfects are to be interpreted as prophetic; the commands imply that the attack is still future. |
| (0.18) | (Jer 51:11) | 5 tn Heb “For it is the vengeance of the Lord, vengeance for his temple.” As in the parallel passage in 50:28, the genitival construction has been expanded in the translation to clarify for the English reader what the commentaries in general agree is involved. |
