Your search for "In" did not find any bible verses that matched.
Discovery Box| (0.18) | (Pro 30:1) | 5 tn There have been numerous attempts to reinterpret the first two verses of the chapter. The Greek version translated the names “Ithiel” and “Ukal,” resulting in “I am weary, O God, I am weary and faint” (C. C. Torrey, “Proverbs Chapter 30,” JBL 73 [1954]: 93-96). The LXX’s approach is followed by some English versions (e.g., NRSV, NLT). The Midrash tried through a clever etymologizing translation to attribute the works to Solomon (explained by W. G. Plaut, Proverbs, 299). It is most likely that someone other than Solomon wrote these sayings; they have a different, almost non-proverbial, tone to them. See P. Franklyn, “The Sayings of Agur in Proverbs 30: Piety or Skepticism,” ZAW 95 (1983): 239-52. |
| (0.18) | (Pro 29:24) | 3 tn Heb “oath” or “imprecation”; ASV “adjuration.” This amounted to an “oath” or “curse” (cf. NAB “he hears himself put under a curse”; NRSV “one hears the victim’s curse”) either by or on behalf of the victim, that any witness to the crime must testify (cf. Lev 5:1). However, in this legal setting referring to “a victim’s curse” could be misleading (cf. also KJV “he heareth cursing”), since it could be understood to refer to profanity directed against those guilty of the crime rather than an imprecation called down on a witness who refused to testify (as in the present proverb). The present translation specifies this as an “oath to testify.” |
| (0.18) | (Pro 29:24) | 3 sn The oath to testify was not an oath to tell the truth before a court of law in the modern sense. Instead it was a “curse” or “imprecation” expressed by the victim of the theft, or by the legal authorities, called down on any witness of the crime who kept silent or refused to testify (as here). According to Lev 5:1, if a witness does not speak up he is accountable for the crime. This person hears the adjuration, but if he speaks up he is condemned, and if he does not speak up he is guilty under the law. The proverb is an unusual one; it seems to be warning against getting mixed up in any way with the thief, for it will create a serious ethical dilemma. |
| (0.18) | (Pro 28:3) | 1 tc The MT reads “a poor man,” גֶּבֶר רָשׁ (gever rash); cf. KJV, NASB, NLT. The problem is that the poor in the book of Proverbs is not an oppressor and does not have the power to be such. So commentators assume the word is incorrect. By a slight change to רָשָׁע (rashaʿ) the reading becomes “a wicked ruler” [Heb “a wicked mighty man”]. There is no textual support for this change. The LXX, however, reads, “A courageous man oppresses the poor with impieties.” If “a poor man” is retained, then the oppression would include betrayal—one would expect a poor man to have sympathy for others who are impoverished, but in fact that is not the case. It is a sad commentary on human nature that the truly oppressed people can also be oppressed by other poor people. |
| (0.18) | (Pro 26:19) | 2 sn The subject of this proverb is not simply a deceiver, but one who does so out of jest, or at least who claims he was joking afterward. (The LXX adds that he says this “whenever he is discovered.”) The participle מְשַׂחֵק (mesakheq) has the idea of “laughing, mocking”; in this context it might convey the idea of “kidding” or “joking.” The point is that such practical joking is immature and often dangerous. To the foolish deceiver it might all seem like fun, like sport, but it can destroy people. One cannot trifle with dangerous weapons, or put them in irresponsible hands; likewise one cannot trifle with human relationships. W. G. Plaut notes, “The only worthwhile humor is that which laughs with, not at others” (Proverbs, 270). |
| (0.18) | (Pro 26:7) | 2 tn Heb “thighs dangle from the lame.” The verb is דַּלְיוּ (dalyu), from דָּלָה (dalah) or דָּלַל (dalal) biforms which mean “to hang down” and possibly by extension “to let down/lower/be low” and “to draw [water]” i.e., lowering a bucket into a well and drawing it up. We might imagine paralyzed legs either as “dangling” or “pulled up” to a stable position where a person sits, both indicating the uselessness of the legs—they are there but cannot be used. Since the verb must function in both halves of the verse, “dangling” is the most likely picture. Luther gave the verse a fanciful but memorable rendering: “Like dancing to a cripple, so is a proverb in the mouth of the fool.” |
| (0.18) | (Pro 25:4) | 1 tn The Hebrew כֶּלִי (keli) means “vessel; utensil” (cf. KJV, ASV, NASB). But purging dross from silver does not produce a “vessel” for the silversmith. Some versions therefore render it “material” (e.g., NIV, NRSV). The LXX says “that it will be entirely pure.” So D. W. Thomas reads כָּלִיל (kalil) and translates it “purified completely” (“Notes on Some Passages in the Book of Proverbs,” VT 15 [1965]: 271-79; cf. NAB). W. McKane simply rearranges the line to say that the smith can produce a work of art (Proverbs [OTL], 580; cf. TEV “a thing of beauty”). The easiest explanation is that “vessel” is a metonymy of effect, “vessel” put for the material that goes into making it (such metonymies occur fairly often in Psalms and Proverbs). |
| (0.18) | (Pro 25:2) | 2 sn The two infinitives form the heart of the contrast—“to conceal a matter” and “to search out a matter.” God’s government of the universe is beyond human understanding—humans cannot begin to fathom the intentions and operations of it. But it is the glory of kings to search out matters and make them intelligible to the people. Human government cannot claim divine secrecy; kings have to study and investigate everything before making a decision, even divine government as far as possible. But kings who rule as God’s representatives must also try to represent his will in human affairs—they must even inquire after God to find his will. This is their glorious nature and responsibility. For more general information on vv. 2-27, see G. E. Bryce, “Another Wisdom ‘Book’ in Proverbs,” JBL 91 (1972): 145-57. |
| (0.18) | (Pro 24:21) | 3 tn The form rendered “rebels” is difficult; it appears to be the Qal active participle, plural, from שָׁנָה (shanah), “to change”—“those who change.” The RV might have thought of the idea of “change” when they rendered it “political agitators.” The Syriac and Tg. Prov 24:21 have “fools,” the Latin has “detractors,” and the LXX reads, “do not disobey either of them,” referring to God and the king in the first line. Accordingly the ruin predicted in the next line would be the ruin that God and the king can inflict. If the idea of “changers” is retained, it would have to mean people who at one time feared God and the king but no longer do. |
| (0.18) | (Pro 22:8) | 2 tc There is a variant reading in the LXX; instead of “the rod of his wrath” it reads “the punishment of his deeds.” C. H. Toy wishes to emend שֵׁבֶט (shevet) to שֶׁבֶר (shever), “the produce of his work” (Proverbs [ICC], 416). But the Hebrew text is not obscure, and שֶׁבֶר does not exactly mean “produce.” The expression “rod of his wrath” may not follow the imagery of 8a very closely, but it is nonetheless understandable. The “rod” is a symbol of power; “wrath” is a metonymy of cause indicating what wrath will do, and an objective genitive. The expression signifies that in reaping trouble for his sins this person will no longer be able to unleash his fury on others. The LXX adds: “A man who is cheerful and a giver God blesses” (e.g., 2 Cor 9:7). |
| (0.18) | (Pro 20:19) | 3 tn The verb פֹּתֶה (poteh) is a homonym, related to I פָּתָה (patah, “to be naive; to be foolish”; HALOT 984-85 s.v. I פתה) or II פָּתָה (“to open [the lips]; to chatter”; HALOT 985 s.v. II פתה). So the phrase וּלְפֹתֶה שְׂפָתָיו may be understood either (1) as HALOT 985 s.v. II פתה suggests, “one opens his lips” = he is always talking/gossiping, or (2) as BDB suggests, “one who is foolish as to his lips” (he lacks wisdom in what he says; see BDB 834 s.v. II פָּתָה, noted in HALOT 984 s.v. I פתה 1). The term “lips” is a metonymy of cause for what is said: gossip. If such a person is willing to talk about others, he will be willing to talk about you, so it is best to avoid him altogether. |
| (0.18) | (Pro 20:9) | 4 sn The Hebrew verb (טָהֵר, taher) means to “be clean; pure” and may refer to physical cleanliness or the absence of disease, mildew, infectants, or blemishes. As a Levitical term it normally refers to cleanness from infectants or religious ceremonial cleanness (though often the two are related). The term is applied morally (specifically “clean from sin” as in this verse) in Lev 16:30 as part of the Day of Atonement. After the High Priest confesses the sins of the people and makes the sacrifice on their behalf, the people are considered “clean.” So on the one hand, the question sounds rhetorical—no one can claim to be pure on their own merit. On the other hand, the cultic answer would be those who have confessed sin and offered a sacrifice are cleansed. |
| (0.18) | (Pro 19:18) | 2 tc The word הֲמִיתוֹ (hamito) is the Hiphil infinitive construct of מוּת (mut, “to die”) plus third masculine singular suffix, “to cause/allow his death.” The LXX gives “do not lift up your soul to excess,” perhaps having read חֵמוֹת (khemot, “anger, rage”) with a ח (het) instead of a ה (he) and without the suffix. The KJV rendered as “let not thy soul spare for his crying.” Perhaps they read as if from the similar sounding root מוּט (mut, “to shudder,” as in “at making him shudder”) or from the verb הָמָה (hamah, “to murmur, be in commotion”), whose Qal infinitive construct with suffix would be הֲמוֹתוֹ (hamoto). It is not clear that either of these latter roots should be associated with crying. |
| (0.18) | (Pro 18:24) | 3 tn The text lacks a main verb and simply has an infinitive construct, לְהִתְרֹעֵעַ (lehitroʿeaʿ), a hitpolel of the verb רעע (raʿaʿ). Based on the noun רֵעַ (reaʿ, “companion, associate, friend, neighbor”), the KJV had postulated a cognate, an otherwise unattested root רעע meaning “show oneself friendly” in the Hitpolel. This would be reasonable if there was a root רעע that means “to be a friend” in the Qal, but the noun רֵעַ (reaʿ) is actually associated with a root רעה (raʿah). Instead the infinitive points toward a result and the Hitpolel of רעע (raʿaʿ) means “to smash one another” (HALOT 1269 s.v. II רעע). If the first word of the verse is maintained to be אִישׁ (ʾish, “man”), it might mean “a man of companions may be crushed by them.” |
| (0.18) | (Pro 17:8) | 2 tn Heb “a stone of favors”; NAB, NRSV “a magic stone.” The term שֹׁחַד (shokhad, “bribe”) could be simply translated as “a gift,” but the second half of the verse says that the one who offers it is successful. At best it could be a gift that opens doors; at worst it is a bribe. The word שֹׁחַד is never used of a disinterested gift, so there is always something of the bribe in it (e.g., Ps 15:5; Isa 1:23). Here it is “a stone that brings favor,” the genitive being the effect or the result of the gift. In other words, it has magical properties and “works like a charm.” |
| (0.18) | (Pro 16:7) | 3 tn The referent of the verb in the second colon is unclear. The straightforward answer is that it refers to the person whose ways please the Lord—it is his lifestyle that disarms his enemies. W. McKane comments that the righteous have the power to mend relationships (Proverbs [OTL], 491); see, e.g., 10:13; 14:9; 15:1; 25:21-22). The life that is pleasing to God will be above reproach and find favor with others. Some would interpret this to mean that God makes his enemies to be at peace with him (cf. KJV, NAB, NASB, NIV, NLT). This is workable, but in this passage it would seem God would do this through the pleasing life of the believer (cf. NCV, TEV, CEV). |
| (0.18) | (Pro 15:14) | 2 tc The idea expressed in the second colon does not make a strong parallelism with the first with its emphasis on seeking knowledge. Its poetic image of feeding (a hypocatastasis) would signify the acquisition of folly—the fool has an appetite for it. D. W. Thomas suggests the change of one letter, ר (resh) to ד (dalet), to obtain a reading יִדְעֶה (yidʿeh); this he then connects to an Arabic root daʿa with the meaning “sought, demanded” to form what he thinks is a better parallel (“Textual and Philological Notes on Some Passages in the Book of Proverbs,” VTSup 3 [1955]: 285). But even though the parallelism is not as precise as some would prefer, there is insufficient warrant for such a change. |
| (0.18) | (Pro 14:7) | 1 tn The general meaning of the proverb is clear, to avoid association with a fool who is not a source of wisdom. But the precise way that the proverb says it is unclear. The Hebrew in the first colon has the imperative לֵךְ (lekh) “walk” followed by the compound preposition מִנֶּגֶד (minneged) “across from,” “opposite of,” or rarely “[away] from in front of [someone’s eyes].” The most common use of the preposition yields, “Walk across/abreast from a foolish person and you do not [come to] know knowledgeable lips.” Many translations interpret it to say “go/stay away from…” (e.g. NIV, ESV, NAS, KJV) while others say “enter into the presence of…” (ASV, ERV). |
| (0.18) | (Pro 13:23) | 2 tc The MT reads “there is what is swept away without justice” (וְיֵשׁ נִסְפֶּה בְּלֹא מִשְׁפָּט, veyesh nispeh beloʾ mishpat). The LXX reads “the great enjoy wealth many years, but some men perish little by little.” The Syriac reads “those who have no habitation waste wealth many years, and some waste it completely.” Tg. Prov 13:23 reads “the great man devours the land of the poor, and some men are taken away unjustly.” The Vulgate has “there is much food in the fresh land of the fathers, and for others it is collected without judgment.” C. H. Toy says that the text is corrupt (Proverbs [ICC], 277). Nevertheless, the MT makes sense: The ground could produce enough food for people if there were no injustice in the land. |
| (0.18) | (Pro 12:24) | 4 tn The term מַס (mas) refers to forced or conscripted labor and is sometimes translated as “slave labor” (NIV, cf. NLT “slave”) but it is far from clear that it means slavery (see NIDOTTE 984 s.v.). The term certainly describes imposed work requirements. For Israelites within Israel it is elsewhere used only in connection to conscription to work on royal building projects making it like a form of taxation (forced labor has often been used in world history as taxation instead of money). The precise use of the term here is unclear because of general lack of information, but perhaps the lazy person will not earn enough money to meet obligations and be required to pay via forced labor. |
